Sitting of 7 June 1995

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

Cycling
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10.4 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of bicycling and the Government's policy towards it. It is a particularly apt time to do so, because National Bike Week starts on Saturday. I would like to highlight that event, and I welcome its sponsorship by Hovis. I hope that as many people as possible—both in the House and in the country—take note of an event designed to highlight bicycling and to make bicycling a more acceptable means of transport. The Cycling Public Affairs Group is holding a reception this afternoon in the House of Commons to highlight the question of bicycling to the representatives of the nation.
I bicycle around London, and while I should say that I also drive from time to time, bicycling is the quickest way of getting around London. We should realise that bicycling is no longer a fringe pursuit—if, indeed, it ever was—and I do not see myself as a fringe person. I bicycle in a suit, and I do not own a pair of lycra shorts.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Shame!
Mr. Robathan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to see me in a pair of lycra shorts—I hope not.
I am the chairman of the all-party cycling group because I believe that cycling is a part, but only a part, of improving the quality of life and of our urban environment. Cycling can play a part in solving the real problems with transport and traffic in this country. In the three years that I have been a Member, there has been a shift in attitudes towards transport, roads, general traffic policy and cycling. I hope this morning to help that shift of attitudes, because attitudes are the key.
From the age of 13 to 17, I bicycled to school every day. Many people did that, and it was an acceptable way of getting to school. I read in the Leicester Mercury on Friday one man's opinion of bicycling. He said:
"I make my personal choice—a car—as it is comfortable and keeps me dry and I don't arrive all sweating and smelly … I have to expend less energy too and arrive fresh at my destination without the pains I would suffer cycling…you keep your bike and I'll keep my car."
That is entirely up to him, and I have no grudge against car owners—indeed, I am a car user myself. But there has been a change from believing that cyclists are a bit loony towards believing that cycling is a sensible way of getting about.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for obtaining this debate, and
128
for the positive way in which he is suggesting that we ought to promote cycling and walking as positive choices for those who have access to cars. Does my hon. Friend welcome the way in which the RAC and the AA have started to take the interests of cyclists into account, as well as representing other road users?
Mr. Robathan: I welcome my hon. Friend's point. As a member of the AA, I found it distressing that the AA seemed to think that cyclists and motorists cannot get on. Cycling is a part of transport, not a way-out activity for people in lycra shorts.
Cycling is viewed by some—such as the correspondent of the Leicester Mercury—as a fringe activity for the poor, but just because someone is on a bicycle does not mean that he is to be pitied because he cannot afford a car. It must be understood that cycling is an excellent and cheap way of getting around, and it is particularly suitable if one does not have a car. It is also a good way for a car owner who wishes not to use his car in order to save money. It must be got across that having a car does not mean that a person has to use it. Cycling is now coming in from the cold, but it has a long way to go.
At a reception yesterday, somebody told me that his child's school had just knocked down the bicycle sheds. Although bicycle sheds have many uses besides sheltering bicycles, it is essential that schools take the view that cycling is a sensible way for their pupils to get to school. When I was a young boy, I cycled to school. They may not have been halcyon days, but there was certainly much less traffic and less danger of being knocked down, the air was cleaner, there was much less noise, and traffic was slower, so those days had something to recommend them.
I welcome the policy statement issued by the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), last June, which was a step in the right direction. It contained much talk of perception, which is the key. I hope that this debate will assist in changing people's perception of cycling. I also welcome the fact that a number of hon. Members are present this morning. It is a good turnout for an Adjournment debate, especially so early in the morning. It shows the rising interest in cycling in this place.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my very fit and young hon. Friend for giving way. As a rather timid and exhausted cyclist, I find that London is full of mountains. What really puts me off cycling are the dangers. Is my hon. Friend aware that, every year, some 25,000 cyclists are injured on the roads and, of that number, 200 are killed? That is a considerable risk factor. Does he agree that much more effort must go into teaching other road users how to respect cyclists?
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. I shall come to the dangers of cycling in a minute. My hon. Friend is not unfit and London is not entirely full of mountains, although the Haymarket and St. James's seem mountainous as one ascends on a bicycle.
My great aunt used to live outside Hereford, which is pretty hilly. She used to cycle into Hereford—a distance of five miles each way—every day until she was well into her sixties.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that Lower Regent street goes uphill, whereas Haymarket goes downhill. They are one-way streets.
Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for his geography lesson. I certainly do not go the wrong way down one-way streets.
Why should cycling be such an important part of our transport policy? The first, and perhaps most important, reason is to reduce congestion. Outside this place even now, the traffic is stopped in Parliament square, and all the way along the Embankment, cars are bumper to bumper as people try to get to work. Some 70 per cent. of journeys made in urban areas are less than five miles. Cycling is a practical way to get around, because, instead of sitting in a traffic jam, one can move as fast as the traffic in central London, or even central Leicester just outside my constituency, and arrive at one's destination relatively quickly and, hopefully, safely.
The second reason is to reduce environmental pollution, which is closely linked to congestion. Among its many other recommendations, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended that a target should be set to increase cycle use to 10 per cent. of urban journeys in the next 10 years—a fourfold increase. I welcome that ambitious start.
Lady Olga Maitland: I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way so generously. On environmental pollution, has he noticed that many cyclists in London wear face masks to protect themselves from gassy fumes? It is impossible to remove all the fumes in the city right away. Does he agree that cyclists are in danger of exposing themselves to the very fumes that they should be protected from?
Mr. Robathan: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. It can be extremely unpleasant to breathe in the particles that have been coughed out by dirty taxis and buses, and the carbon monoxide from motor cars. However, notwithstanding what cyclists may taste, they are in a much better position than those who sit in a small box on four wheels where the air circulates less quickly. Doctors confirm that people are better off on bicycles than in cars if they want to avoid pollution.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is an important point. We all know that car drivers and cyclists breathe the same air. If car drivers want to exclude the fumes they generate, they should wear the same masks as cyclists.
Mr. Robathan: People should take that fact on board. Although cyclists wear masks, they are in less danger than people in cars.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that it wants to reduce all urban journeys by car by 10 per cent. by the year 2020. We should all try to achieve that. Cycling can be only part of the solution. It is alleged that environmental pollution is causing a great increase in asthma. That must concern us all, especially those with young children who have asthma. Cycling can bring health benefits in that respect. We are in danger of becoming a nation of couch potatoes who watch television and sit in those boxes on four wheels getting fat eating crisps or chocolate. Cycling has a role to play in the health and fitness of the nation.
The fourth benefit of cycling is recreation. Cycling has come a long way in that respect, too. Bicycles can now be hired around Rutland Water. One can cycle around my constituency along the rolling lanes of Leicestershire on any weekend and find people cycling for recreation either
130
on their own or with their families. An excellent scheme, SUSTRANS, which the Minister supports, aims to set up a safe, segregated cycle way all the way from Inverness to Dover—and beyond in the future. We would all wish to support that.
Following this debate, I hope to see further Government progress. I hope that the Minister will talk about a national cycling strategy. Should he be thinking of devising such a strategy, I should like to make a few suggestions.
My first suggestion is on safety, which was mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). The greatest deterrent to people cycling in an urban environment and to parents allowing their children to cycle to school is the danger. A young cousin of mine was killed by a lorry on Clapham common some five years ago at 7 am; my brother has been knocked off his bicycle on several occasions; and I have had many close squeezes. I was hit by a car outside my office in Westminster.
The Cycling Safety Bill, which I introduced two years ago, would have led to a charge of dangerous driving being brought against a motorist who, through his or her own fault, struck a cyclist. I commend such a legislative measure to my hon. Friend the Minister. Last year, Camden and Islington health authority issued an interesting report on lorries, which showed that, in inner London, a heavy goods vehicle is 30 times more likely to kill a cyclist than a car in relation to traffic volume. That is an amazing statistic. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the question of heavy goods vehicles in the urban environment.
Some of the best measures would be traffic restraint, segregation, traffic calming and reducing speed in the urban environment. As someone who is always late for everything and always trying to reach my destination five minutes ago, I accept that we cannot use our cars as fast as we are able where there are cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users.
My second suggestion to my hon. Friend is that of security. The risk of returning to one's bicycle and finding that it is no longer there is another major deterrent to cycling. We need better facilities. This problem was noted in the policy statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury ( Mr. Key) last year but I urge the Minister to work towards encouraging local government to provide better facilities.
I also urge him to speak to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, as I have twice returned to my bicycle, which was legally left in London, to find it moved because the Metropolitan Police Commissioner believes that bicycles will explode. It is possible to get Semtex down the crossbar of a bicycle—in Crossmaglen, a bicycle was found with its crossbar packed full of high explosives—but a bicycle can be effectively used as a bomb only if it is carrying a package. That is the same as with any package sitting in the street or anywhere else.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to stop the Metropolitan Police Commissioner moving everyone's bicycles on, so that the left hand and the right hand of local government policy each knows what the other doing.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Not only do the police move bicycles; there is a problem in parking bicycles. Is my hon. Friend aware that the staff of Government buildings are hostile towards Members of

131
Parliament who ride bicycles, considering that it lowers the tone of the building? Does he agree that all Government Departments should have cycle bays so that visitors can arrive as well as staff? I am sure that the Minister will say something helpful, but does my hon. Friend agree that such bays are needed?
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is absolutely right. When I visit Government Departments, sometimes people look at me aghast, and sometimes, if I telephone in advance, they will kindly allow me to put my bicycle behind a desk. At the Department of Health, I regret to say, I was consigned down a lift with my bicycle into a back room miles from anywhere. I might just as well have walked from the House; it would have been quicker.
Mr. Bottomley: You should have done.
Mr. Robathan: Well, I thought that the bicycle was helpful at the time.
I tabled a series of questions last year to encourage Government Departments to set an example. If they talk about encouraging bicycling, they must set an example and provide space for bicycles. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
That brings me to my next recommendation, which is that we should have more user-friendly employers. Parking for cyclists is important, but—as was recognised in a policy statement in June 1994—so are showers. If one has bicycled five or six miles into work, one may have worked up a slight amount of perspiration—if my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will excuse me.
Mr. Denis MacShane: She merely glows.
Mr. Robathan: Indeed, she merely glows.
Mr. MacShane: All the time.
Mr. Robathan: However, it is important that there is the facility for employees to wash and get changed when they reach work. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go further to encourage such facilities.
My fourth argument relates to a subject that I have mentioned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss with the Department for Education encouraging children to bicycle to school, as they did once. It is ludicrous that, at 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning, our roads are jammed with people driving one or two miles, taking their children to school. I know that there is another safety factor, regrettable as it may be, concerning the possibility of children being abducted, but, statistically, that is very much more in people's perception than it is in reality. If more children bicycled, there would be a much smaller chance of their being abducted, and they would be safer on the roads.
Bike sheds, schools' attitudes and local education authorities' attitudes are important, but so are the mobility, independence and health of a child. Too many children are becoming dependent on being driven to school. That is surely not the way to develop independent and healthy minds.
Mr. David Nicholson: Encouraging schoolchildren to cycle to school is the key, because it is at that stage in life that one gets into the habit of cycling, if one is ever going to. An all-party study in Taunton
132
Deane in my constituency brought up the issues of safety on the roads. Abduction was mentioned, and other factors. At a time when traffic is becoming more and more congested, my hon. Friend makes a vital argument.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, because I think that is a way in which we can make a real difference by means of Government policy, not any great legislation.
Mentioning children and bicycling and the health of children leads me to my further recommendation. I understand—I hope that the Minister will discuss this—that a physical activity task force is being set up. Bicycling can play a major part in health. It is aerobic, therapeutic and non-polluting. We must make strides to encourage people to consider cycling as a sensible, good way of taking exercise—something which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would encourage.
Mr. Heald: I do not think that my hon. Friend has discussed the leisure aspects of bicycling.
Mr. Robathan indicated dissent.
Mr. Heald: Well, I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about a specific matter. In many parts of the country now, there are cycle routes, such as at Grafham water and Rutland water. In Sussex, there is a cycleway between Polegate and Hailsham, which is being expanded. Does my hon. Friend envisage a role for the Millenium Commission in providing funding to organisations that want to set up routes of that type, and does he feel that that might improve the leisure aspect of bicycling?
Mr. Robathan: That is an excellent idea, which I hope the Millennium Commission will consider carefully. As recently as last week, in the recess before rushing back for the debate last Wednesday, I walked along something called the Tarka trail in west Devon, which is, similarly, set up on an old railway line—I would rather that it was still a railway line, to be honest—where people walk and bicycle and hire bicycles. That is a growing leisure activity.
Finally, I recommend to the Minister that targets be introduced. I suggest that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is being over-ambitious. I recommend that we consider doubling the number of cycle journeys in the next 10 years by involving local authorities, which are the local transport managers, and applying Government policy seriously.
All those recommendations help to change attitudes. Cyclists continue to be deprived. I read continually, in my local Leicester Mercury, of people saying, "I saw a cyclist on the pavement, and he nearly knocked me down." I have, as a boy of about 16, hit a pedestrian when the pedestrian ran out into the street at school, chasing another boy. Let me assure the House that the pedestrian was fine, although he was half my size. I bounced heavily on the ground, ruined my suit and received several big grazes. Any cyclist has similar tales to tell.
I decry those cyclists who break the law by not using lights, by bicycling on the pavements and so on. They may feel that they have good reason, but I do not accept it. Of course it is wrong to break the law, but that does not invalidate the need for more bicycling. We must change the perception against bicycling.

133
Two years ago, when I made my cycling safety speech, an hon. Friend said—albeit in jest—"I would get all cyclists off the road." I am afraid that that is an underlying feeling among many motorists who are held up by a couple of cyclists. They think, "Why are those two riding two abreast? Get them out of the road." We must change that perception, so that bicycling is accepted as the best way, in the urban environment, to go swiftly for two or three miles.
As well as hitting the targets, we need further joint action by the Minister, with the Department for Education, the Department of Employment—for employer-friendly attitudes—the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment. We may even need further joint action with the Lord Chancellor's Department, because I notice that Sir Richard Scott is a bit of a cyclist, to introduce a topical note; with the Department of Trade and Industry, where Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry is a bit of a cyclist; and with the Cabinet Office, because Sir Robin Butler is also a bit of a cyclist.
Mr. Heald: And the House of Lords—Lord Tebbit.
Mr. Robathan: Indeed, in the House of Lords; Lord Tebbit has made some very apt comments about bicycles.
In Denmark, nine times more cycle journeys are made, and it is 10 times safer to bicycle, than in this country. More cycling will make for cleaner, clearer roads, and it will mean that motorists are used to cyclists and their attention is gained by cyclists, so that they do not come round a corner and not expect to see one. If there is more cycling, it will become safer. It will become self-fulfilling.
I call for no legislation, except perhaps introducing a cyclists safety measure, such as I have suggested, in the next Road Traffic Act. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.
I recently noticed my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary walking to his office in Marsham street. I note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently taken to walking to Parliament for Prime Minister's questions. That is common sense and should not be remarked on, because it is quicker than taking a car.
Cycling is only part of the process. At the moment, traffic jams Parliament square. I look forward to Parliament square being semi-pedestrianised, when there are few cars, cleaner buses, perhaps horses, a lot of pedestrians—
Lady Olga Maitland: Horses?
Mr. Robathan: Indeed; horses are very clean, and an attractive means of transport. There will also be more cyclists. I believe that that will happen in about 20 years; the sooner the better, because the quality of life of the nation will be improved if there is more cycling.
10.28 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to be able to support the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), not only in the Chamber, but as vice-chairman of the all-party cycling group.
This is an all-party occasion up to a point, and if I bring other matters into the debate, I am sure that no parliamentarians will blame me for doing so. Although
134
there has been plenty of support for cycling from Conservative Members, the Government have done certain things, and they might do certain things that might make things rather better.
My contribution could be described as a little more plebian than that of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), whose remarks I support. I have been cycling in London continually for 50 years. I have had the privilege of being able to cycle to work in London for the past 40 years—for probably 80 to 90 per cent. of my journeys.
I decided to reveal today that, for the past 25 years, as a Member of the House I have cycled not much less than 100,000 miles, most of which have been in London, with a proportion in rural areas in the holidays. I try to match precept with practice, and the practical with the legal. The work of organisations such as the Cyclists Touring Club, of which I have been a member for many years, the Youth Hostels Association and the London Cycling Campaign, which has official support, has been helpful.
As I was travelling in this morning, I took a count—in the course of about five miles, I saw 55 cyclists awheel, apart from several hundred cycles at the side of the road. Cycling is an increasingly important mode of transport in the capital, even on a dull day. I am not convinced by some of the statistics that suggest that there has been a reduction in cycling nationally. In London, particularly in the past 10 or 12 years, the numbers awheel seem to have been increasing.
Mr. Steen: I think that the hon. Gentleman's work for cycling should be recognised by the House. As long as I have been a cyclist—20 years—the hon. Gentleman has always been on two wheels, whatever the weather, and has made a great contribution to the cycling debate.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of cyclists coming into London alone has reached about 130,000 a day? In view of that, does he not believe that a much more serious contribution should be made by the Government to provide for those 130,000 cyclists who come in and out of the capital?
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right, but cyclists do not just come in and out of London: they travel around it. Short journeys by bicycle can easily be undertaken, even in central London, if certain routes are used. The subject should be taken up by the boroughs. I am glad to see that one inter-borough organisation, the Association of London Government, has been established. It may be able to get the London cycle network going faster.
Road surfaces in London are dangerous; the number of holes is distinctly unpleasant. That safety problem should be looked at as a priority. I also commend some of the individual initiatives that have been taken. There is talk of advanced stop lines for cyclists. One of the hazardous places for cyclists is when they turn left at crossroads—where vehicles and cyclists turn left together. We do not necessarily need to change the lights or make expensive electrical changes, but we could try pushing the white stop line back a few feet and ensuring that there is an advanced stop line for cyclists on the near side.
There is an active cycling policy, with a full-time cycling officer, in the borough of Newham. With me, Friends of the Earth have undertaken pioneering rides. The Department of Transport was asked to send a

135
representative along one day. He emerged from a car with a portable cycle, and promptly skidded and fell on the A13. It turned out that the borough was not directly responsible for the maintenance and road sweeping of the A13; the borough was paid to sweep the road twice a year by the Department of Transport. The Department's official suffered from his own departmental policy.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way, as many people wish to speak and the hon. Lady has already contributed. I must press on.
Lady Olga Maitland: rose—
Mr. Spearing: I shall give way for the last time.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that time is precious. He has made an important point about the difficulties faced by cyclists turning left. Does he agree that further studies should also be made into the problems involved in cyclists approaching junctions, roundabouts and crossroads, as three quarters of all accidents happen at those very places?
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for endorsing precisely what I was saying.
I shall now hasten on to a less pleasing subject, to which the Opposition and the Government may take slightly different approaches: precept and practice. Earlier in the week, I became aware that, if someone wished to leave a bicycle in Whitehall outside any Government office, he would encounter notices stating that the bicycle would be taken away. That matter was given some publicity.
I hope that Westminster city council or the Government will ensure that visitors to this place—those who may not officially be present in the Chamber—who wish to come by cycle can, with relative ease, find a place to leave their bicycle. Perhaps there could be signposts showing the places for leaving bicycles instead of the prohibitive signs.
Cyclists should be able to leave their bicycle and walk the last 100 yards, perhaps under supervision. It is an anomaly that we should be discussing this important topic for an hour and a half, but that, if someone wants to come to the debate, he or she is virtually prohibited from leaving their cycle outside. I am glad to see that the Minister for Transport in London takes that point.
An even bigger anomaly is the Government's failure to provide adequate facilities for taking cycles on trains. I do not think that cycles, particularly modern ones, are much heavier than a normal suitcase, and they cannot add to the cost of train travel. The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), whose selection to contest the seat was not entirely unconnected with his cycling activities—the previous occupant of that seat also indulged in that mode of transport—
Mr. MacShane: Name him.
Mr. Spearing: The seat disappeared through boundary changes.
In co-operation with the Cyclists Touring Club, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton introduced a wonderful arrangement on British Rail, whereby virtually any train on any day could take a cycle if there was room. In those days, the luggage compartments were larger than they are now. Network SouthEast still continues with that policy, except
136
in the rush hour. It is a useful policy, but elsewhere things are getting worse. Matters are even worse as a result of the recent policies of Her Majesty's Government in respect of different parts of the railway network.
Different routes have different rules and different times, most of which are ridiculous. Cross-country trains, which were designed by British Rail, can officially carry just one bicycle on a first come, first served basis. Passengers do not take their bicycles, because they know that someone further up the line may have placed a bicycle on the train already. That is a terrible disincentive, particularly for those in rural areas, to use trains and bicycles—the combination of which is an economical form of transport and a viable alternative to motoring. It is the sort of thing that I am sure those in rural Leicestershire would welcome.
Such a policy must be considered. Present legislation and the regulator clearly do not require such facilities at present, so perhaps the hon. Member for Blaby, the Opposition or someone with cross-party support will introduce an appropriate private Member's Bill. I will not say that it would be successful—it might be objected to at 2.30 pm one Friday—but, as A. P. Herbert found, the threat of legislation sometimes moves Governments to action before legislation is drafted and laid. I hope that I am being sufficiently constructive and not too controversial.
The subject involves more than simply the trains themselves; we must consider the terminals. One used to be able to leave a bicycle at a London terminal, go off and return later. I went to Paris on an official duty not long ago. I thought that I should get to Waterloo quickly from here, and did so in just four minutes.
When I arrived, I found that the left luggage facilities had not only been let out to a contractor and were closed at 9 pm, after the train from Paris returned, but there was a £3 charge. If one does not return before 9 pm, which I did not, the charge is £6—the cycle is removed. I understand from the London Cycling Campaign that one can leave a bicycle there and lock it up if one knows where to leave it.
Such facilities should exist, but they are not as accessible as they should be in many terminals. The fee of £3 a day for leaving a bicycle can mount up if one is taking a two-day journey, and it seems excessive to have to pay £3 to take it on the train. There should be some places, as there are at King's Cross, to leave bicycles in relative security, locked up to a Sheffield bar or a cycle rank. I commend that thought to British Rail. If more cyclists travelled by train, British Rail would collect more money, as the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said when he introduced the successful scheme.
That excellent magazine The Big Issue addressed the question of cyclist safety recently when one of the people associated with the publication, Miss Kate De Pulford, died while riding a cycle on London roads. Its edition of 22 May pointed out the problems, to which the hon. Member for Blaby has alluded, of heavy goods vehicles, and the difficulties for cyclists who wish to turn left at intersections. The magazine stated that 60 per cent. of cycle accidents in inner London were related to those two factors.
The number of cyclists who died as a result of accidents involving cars and heavy goods vehicles were about the same—although, as the hon. Gentleman said, the ratio of cars to heavy goods vehicles is 30:1. The British Medical Journal of 11 June 1994 contains a paper written by Dr. Mark McCarthy, who is from the health authority mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It points to the awkward figure of 58 per cent. for that type of accident.

137
I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to debate these matters today. I look forward to further constructive debate on the subject, and I hope that we will see common-sense, across-the-board, pro bono publico, pro-cyclist legislation and administrative action from Her Majesty's Government.
10.41 am
Mr. Piers Merchant: I am somewhat humbled by the fact that I am surrounded by right hon. and hon. Members who are clearly much fitter than I, and much more practically dedicated to cycling. However, I suspect that my experience is likely to be more typical of that of most of the population.
As a child, I was a very keen cyclist. I found it an exhilarating form of exercise, as well as the only means of travelling swiftly over considerable distances. However, as an adult, I found myself in a situation that is the reverse of the smoker's dilemma: although I wished to continue, I virtually gave it up.
I gave up cycling, firstly, because of the risk of accident; secondly, because of the unpleasant experience of cycling amidst thick traffic, with the fumes, noise and hassle of motor cars; and, finally, because, although I was attracted to cycling, it clearly was not always the swiftest or the most convenient way of travelling moderate distances.
Nevertheless, I endorse very strongly all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in introducing the debate today, and by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We should not be too starry-eyed about the cycle replacing other means of transport. I cannot see the 15,000 commuters in my constituency of Beckenham revving up their cycles and racing into London—although I would love to see it—particularly when they are dressed in their business clothes. However, the cycle is an important mode of transport.
There is no doubt that there is public pressure to improve cycling facilities. I received a letter a few weeks ago from a constituent, Patricia Ewing, who is living temporarily in the Netherlands. She writes:
"Although this is one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, our suburban area feels far less congested than Bromley. Our quality of life is enormously enhanced by the extensive use of bicycles, made possible by excellent cycle tracks and widespread traffic-slowing mechanisms. My heart truly sinks at the thought of returning to the fume-laden scrum of cars around our local school in Bromley".
She is quite right, and she reflects the views that have been expressed to me by many people who have not lived elsewhere where more cycling facilities are available. I strongly endorse the views that Ms Ewing expresses in her letter.
I turn to the problems faced by children who ride bicycles. My children are keen to cycle. My 11-year-old daughter would dearly love to have a bicycle, and I have been put in the very difficult position of having to refuse her request, simply because I cannot risk allowing my daughter to cycle around the streets of Beckenham. I live on a main road where the traffic situation is extremely dangerous, and I must deprive my daughter of an experience that I enjoyed as a child and which she would
138
desperately like to try. I would like to see measures introduced to make cycling safer and more readily accessible to children like my daughter.
The borough of Bromley does a great deal of work in the road safety area. Last year, it taught cycle proficiency to 2,000 children, which is more than any other London borough. Another borough instructed the second largest group, of 1,200 children, in the same period. Bromley is dedicated to heightening safety consciousness among cyclists. According to the latest figures, 122 accidents per year involve cycles. I regret that our road safety officer, Scott Pickering, has decided to emigrate to Australia, and is leaving the country on Friday. No doubt he will find that cycling is much safer in Australia, although I suspect that that is not his prime reason for moving there.
It is important to try to overcome the risk of cycle accidents in urban areas. Bromley has taken steps in this area, but I should like to see its work expand. At present, three cycle routes traverse the borough, but clearly many more are needed. They are usually arrangements that mix cycles and other traffic.
Although that is helpful, it is a second-best arrangement, as, ideally, one should have dedicated cycle routes. Bicycles and motor vehicles, particularly lorries, do not mix well on our roads, especially when lorries and cars are speeding. Although it is important to explore the use of more cycle routes, I should like to see dedicated cycle routes constructed wherever possible.
I have mentioned speed: it is extremely important for road safety generally, but particularly for cyclists, that further action be taken to control the speed of motor vehicles. Speed causes many vehicle accidents and puts cyclists and pedestrians at risk. Firm action must be taken in that area.
As has already been said, it may be possible to introduce other traffic management schemes that will help cyclists at road junctions, crossings and so on. I know of three road junctions in Bromley where separate measures are in place which give cyclists preferential and protected treatment. I would like to see those schemes extended. One set of traffic lights has a specific cycle phase, and I would like that arrangement to be made more widely available.
The borough is now looking at taking specific action to try to deal with the risk that lorries pose for cyclists. Because of their sheer size, lorries which are crammed on narrow roads must drive very close to the pavement, and they pose particular problems for cyclists. I hope that action will be taken to deal with that problem.
Some steps have been taken to allow cyclists to share routes with pedestrians. I welcome the introduction of those dedicated routes, and I think that we can make considerable progress by mixing cycles and pedestrians. However, it is an extremely sensitive issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby talked about pavements. A dispute is presently going on in my borough as to whether certain pavements should be made available to cyclists, particularly young cyclists. Reasonable arguments are advanced on both sides. Some say that it is much safer for children to ride their bicycles on pavements than on the roads, but pedestrians—especially elderly pedestrians—believe that young cyclists pose an immediate safety risk to pedestrians.
Cyclists cannot win: if they ride on the pavement, they are accused of presenting a risk to pedestrians; if they ride on the road, they are at risk from cars and lorries.

139
I should like to see more studies on the mix of cycles and pedestrians. It is possible that means could be devised to enable that mix to be extended in some areas by the possibility either of cordoning off part of a pavement, if it is particularly wide, or the use of some pavements for mixed purposes—perhaps pavements that do not run alongside drives and houses. That is worth examining. Although I would not want to prejudge the result of such examination, it could provide a possible way forward.
Mr. Robathan: One of the problems with cycle lanes that cyclists identify very quickly is that people park in them. They then become worse than useless, as one has to pull out of the cycle lane into the main stream. Perhaps the Government should consider that.
Mr. Merchant: I quite agree. That is one reason why I am suggesting that we should examine the possibility of cycle lanes being included on wide pavements, or an extension of the mix to which I referred, with shared facilities, as cycle lanes on the side of roads pose a risk, particularly if the roads are busy. There is no simple solution to the problem, particularly in heavily built-up urban areas with high levels of traffic.
All those different measures are producing benefit. If they are extended, more thought is given to them and further studies are carried out, we shall find a way forward to encourage cycling by making it safer and by raising the importance of the issue in the public consciousness and taking steps to control the overwhelming priority that at present seems to be given to cars and lorries on our urban roads, which often were once quiet enough to enable cyclists to use them safely, but now regrettably are not.
10.51 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), not just on achieving this morning's debate, which is of great value, but for the persistent and consistent way in which he has advanced the cause of cyclists. I know that hon. Members present on both sides of the House share that objective, and have done great work.
I was tempted to say that a funny thing happened to me on the way to the House this morning, and in a sense it did. I walked along the embankment, my usual way to work. I do not cycle, as it is a relatively short journey and I find it easier to walk, although I have cycled in the past and found the facilities as daunting as other hon. Members clearly do.
As I walked along, I saw a new RAC traffic sign saying:
"London at War until 7 January 1996".
What surprised me was not that London was at war, but that the RAC knew that the war would end on 7 January 1996. We are discussing a permanent and difficult conflict between different types of transport usage. Sadly, the cyclist is all too often squeezed between other much more powerful interests.
It is symbolic when, all too often, we see the public transport vehicle and the car, and the poor old cyclist in between. That is a symbol of precisely what has happened as the volume of traffic has increased, not just in London, but in all our major cities since the war.
There have also been several different conflicting political pressures. There was a period when transport planning was dominated by the municipal bus barons. I
140
worked with the bus industry, and I respect the talents and achievements of those big men who dominated public transport for many years. However, their interests were primarily in trying to make the public transport system work.
Then we had a new era, and a new breed of public transport planners, who were obsessed with making the car move from A to B much faster.
In my planning and architectural days, I recall reading that monumental and extremely important seminal work, "Traffic in Towns" by Colin Buchanan. He warned what would happen if London and major cities were simply rebuilt to accommodate all the private vehicles that wished to use their streets. His report was intended to be an awful warning, but some of those who were then responsible for transport planning in our cities took it at as a blueprint of what was needed to accommodate cars in our cities—precisely what Professor Buchanan was trying to avoid. Between those two strong and powerful interests came the poor old cyclist, and to some extent the pedestrian.
The pedestrian, however, has survived better than the cyclist in the past few decades, because pedestrianisation took off in the 1960s and 1970s and to some extent the momentum has been maintained under successive Governments since. Yet the cyclist is still squeezed between public and private transport interests.
I have two quotations. The first is from John Grimshaw, the director of SUSTRANS. He said recently:
"Although the bicycle is perhaps the ideal vehicle for today's small, crowded and polluted planet, it is dangerous and unpleasant to cycle on today's heavily trafficked roads."
That is a good summary from someone who obviously knows precisely what he is talking about.
The Minister for Transport in London, who is in his place, said on 3 April in answer to the hon. Member for Blaby:
"Cycling is environmentally sound and healthy and is a thoroughly desirable form of transport, but most people do not exactly relish the prospect of challenge a 40 ft articulated lorry for priority on the road."—[Official Report, 3 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1380.]
That is exactly right.
Let us not fool ourselves that other countries all over the world suffer the same problem and have not found solutions. Some of them have. We have much to learn from Freiberg on the edge of the Black Forest, where, according to an excellent assessment of the problem by the Glasgow Herald recently:
"a combination of cyclepaths and new trams have swept the city centre almost free of traffic in little more than a decade."
I was recently in Amsterdam, where, outside the central station, there is a vast array of cycle racks—all safe, properly supervised and secure. Of course, as a result, the mix of effective longer-distance public transport by rail and short-distance cycle journeys is working extremely well.
We all expect London to be the crux of the problem, and it is significant that so many right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in and outside London are here today, and that the debate is likely to concentrate on London.

141
I raise two points about London. First, the Minister announced that the £3 million will be made available for the 1,000-mile cycle track that is intended for greater London. That sounds fine, but how much will that buy?
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): So that we can all save time, I should explain that the £3 million is not strictly for the 1,000-mile cycleway, as that is already in existence. It has been allocated to a much broader project, and is merely the money to finance the planning stage. In order that we can get on, as I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, I say now that, frankly, the eventual cost is likely to be many times more than that. I am quite well aware of that, and have made it clear that we want to fund it.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister, and accept what he says. I wanted to use the £3 million as a litmus test of how much was available.
According to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the current cost of a two-way 3 m wide cycle lane on one side of an average road is £400,000 per mile. That is a huge sum. Perhaps the noughts are wrong, or maybe Hansard got it wrong—perhaps the Minister will tell us later—but if it is really £400,000, are we putting the money in the right place?
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) that, for a whole series of reasons—parking was mentioned, and conflicts with other traffic and turning will always be difficult—the cycle lane beside the main road will never be as satisfactory as the dedicated route, whether or not it is in conjunction with a pedestrian route.
Most continental cities have moved away from the cycle lane to the dedicated track. If we are talking about such huge sums—perhaps in London we are—we have to think more seriously about getting good value for money. I re-emphasise the sum of £3 million buying only 7.5 miles towards the 1,000 mile cycleway. I am only using that £3 million as a test of what can be bought for a comparatively modest sum.
Who will take the initiative and co-ordinate? There seems to be some conflict. Some London boroughs have been much more imaginative and innovative than others. Will they be allowed to get on with it and have the resources, or will they find that they are increasingly constrained by Ministry policy or funding restrictions?
The Minister recently referred to the
"power for the Secretary of State to designate a coherent network across London and to ensure co-ordinated implementation of effective measures."—[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 610.]
There is no use having such commitment without money. The Minister told the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) that it is up to local authorities to co-ordinate implementation.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say where in London he expects initiatives to originate. Who will make the push? Will it be his Department or London boroughs? Who will decide how to set initiatives in motion? We do not want initiatives always to follow new road schemes, because the prime need may be in areas where no road improvements are intended.
142
In other parts of the country, exceptions are much more evident than the rule. There is an exceptional situation in Wadebridge in my constituency, which is fortunate enough to be halfway along the Camel Trail between Bodmin and Padstow—an old railway line used to run right through Wadebridge.
As a result of a bypass and an enhancement scheme, Wadebridge has incorporated facilities for cyclists, but no other town in Cornwall or Devon has anything like that provision—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are well aware. That is true of most counties in England, Scotland and Wales. In those circumstances, we must find new mechanisms, and they must get financial backing. We are grateful for the work of the cyclists public affairs group and its identification of the need to incorporate public passenger transport provision for cyclists, which is of critical importance.
In the current year, only £6 million is being used specifically to promote cycling and cyclists' activities, which is a tiny percentage of the total transport budget. For the reasons that hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have advanced this morning, it is extremely important to address the problem. Before the right formula and the right amount of money are found, a change of attitude must be achieved. We must not send out a signal that the Government and Parliament are only paying lip service to the need for increased resources, priority and attention. We should be determined to achieve a real change of gear.
11.3 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: One understands why the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke with such feeling. His party identifies with cyclists squashed between the public sector that is the Labour party and the private sector that is the Conservative party.
Every speech in the House must have a preface in which one declares one's interests. I declare first an interest in cycling and that I am vice-president of the Cyclists Touring Club—and receive a 10 per cent. discount on bed and breakfast as a result. I also have a British-built bicycle. I used to have one that was made in eastern Europe, but the pedals fell off and the brakes did not work in wet weather. I was a founder member of the House of Commons all-party cycling club in the mid-70s, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his skill in securing this debate.
I am a cycling addict. For 12 years, I was a 10-mile-a-day man—cycling to and from the House until it became too dangerous. Cycling in London has become dangerous. The road is like a battlefield, with every inch contested. The cyclist feels under ever-increasing pressure to be seen off the road. Constant attacks by lorries, buses and cars to see cyclists away has resulted in the new breed of the cyclist terrorist, who thinks that he owns the road. Such cyclists gesticulate, shout and kick one's car, believing that they have priority. The new cyclist terrorist believes that he has the moral high ground. In many ways, he is right.
While a free-for-all on the roads is the easiest option for public authorities, it is short-sighted and leads nowhere. If a cyclist can reach a city—and that is difficult enough by train because so few services now carry bicycles, such is

143
British Rails's hostility—the policy in cities should be public transport, pedestrians and cycling. There should be priorities, but there is none, which is why cyclists are on the rampage.
They used to be the most courteous and considerate road users and the least dangerous—one rarely hears of pedestrians being killed by cyclists. However, cyclists in cities are under such pressure that they cycle on pavements and through parks, and their terrorism is displayed by hostility to authority—cycling without lights at night and with no audible means of announcing their presence.
There is a huge criminal underworld in cycle theft. I had three bikes stolen near the Palace of Westminster in the past 10 years—cut from their chains. I am told that one of the most lucrative forms of theft requires only a van and a pair of cutters. One can earn £1,000 a morning cramming bicycles at £100 a piece into the back of a van.
Main roads should be cleared of parked cars. Every morning, too many cars flashing hazard lights obstruct bus, taxi and cycle lanes. I want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister will personally do about that. It is no use saying that it is enough to paint lines indicating red routes. The army of traffic wardens should concentrate on the main arterial routes in and out of London in the morning.
Although I would not impose a compulsory cycling proficiency test—more rules and regulations, which I am dead against—if cyclists are to be given more road space, they must be better behaved and more responsible. Paul Newman's book "Defensible Space" explains that human beings need so much space, and the problem on the roads today is that people have less and less space.
The cycling epidemic, and the mobility of the population, have led to environmental erosion on Dartmoor, and perhaps on Bodmin moor as well. More and more mountain bike riders are using the innermost parts of Dartmoor's wilderness. That national park authority is facing a serious problem between balancing the need to offer the park for leisure pursuits and preventing the irretrievable scarring of the landscape. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider that aspect.
As to dumping, Britain builds the best bicycles in the world, yet, with many other countries, it is giving vast sums of money through the World bank to the Chinese to build bicycles in the most modern factories at a knockdown price because of the subsidies that China enjoys, and its low labour costs. Those bicycles are then imported in bits, which means that there is no problem with tax or limit on the volume. They are subsequently assembled in this country and sold at one tenth the price of a British-built bike. We must be crazy. What other nation would fund a third world nation to undercut and reduce the profitability of its own industry?
I said that I would make a short speech, and it is rare for me to do that. I promised to complete my speech in seven minutes, and I have now been speaking for six. I have one more minute. I shall use part of that time to talk about the millenium-led bid by SUSTRANS—in other words, sustainable transport. I am told that I should declare an interest because I am the vice-president of that charity.
It is an imaginative and enterprising vision. A bid for £37 million has been made to the Millenium Fund to set up a cycle network from Plymouth to Inverness, to be
144
completed by the year 2005 if the project is given the go-ahead. It would be possible to cycle from the west country to London. It is a good idea. West country Members could all cycle to this place. It would be possible to cycle from London to Dover, Holyhead, Glasgow or Aberdeen. We would be pedalling for the millenium. What a magnificent vision. I hope that the Government will back the idea.
Finally, we should have bells back on bicycles. This place knows about bells. Once we hear a bell, we start running. People should have bells on bicycles. There should be an audible warning when a cyclist is coming up behind someone. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points that I have made at such lightning speed.
11.11 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on obtaining the debate. I only wish that it were longer, because there is more to say. Would-be contributors to the debate may be able to make their speeches on another occasion.
I think that the Government are helping cyclists. An old friend of mine, Walter Reuther, went to the Nissan factory in Japan in 1960. He saw cars being made, but he saw also that the parking lot was full of bicycles. He said to his hosts, "You will never build an auto-economy on bicycle wages." Thanks to current Government policy, we are moving to bicycle wages in the United Kingdom. As a result, more and more people are moving to the bike.
I agree that it is important to get bikes off mountains and away from natural wildernesses, and on to our streets. I am an urban cyclist. I tuck my trousers into my socks. I do not wear one of those silly gas masks. However, cycling through the slow-motion gas chamber that is Tory London is an extremely worrying health prospect. It is extremely dangerous. I was knocked off my bike soon after becoming a Member. I was knocked down by a car opposite the St. Stephen's entrance. The driver did not stop. I understand that that is now the official practice of Conservative Members in SW postal districts.
Various policies have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We await the Minister's reply with interest.
Mr. Steen: Then give him a chance.
Mr. MacShane: I shall give him a chance. I promise the House that I shall make the shortest speech in this debate.
In addition to the various policies that have been advanced, we need more symbolic acts that would not necessarily cost a great deal of money. First, we need to increase parking places for bicycles in London generally and here in this place. In Palace Yard, there are only six places for Members' bicycles. That provision is deplorably insufficient.
We need to instruct those engaged in all new road-building projects to incorporate either bicycle lanes or the dedicated tracks to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. When we visit other European countries, we see evidence that these schemes are workable if the orders are given.

145
It would be of great symbolic importance to the nation if Ministers were to decide that there could be a car-free day. "On your bike," said Lord Tebbit to the unemployed of the nation several years ago. I suggest that we should say, "On your bike," to Ministers, thereby encouraging them to set a good example.
I was impressed by those who talked about the problem of their children going to school on bikes. Living in Pimlico, I would not dare allow my girls to go to their school on their bikes. A car-free 20 minutes at about 9 am or 3.30 pm would be a symbolic gesture that would show our commitment to reducing pollution, reducing the number of cars on the roads—I accept that cars are important—and encouraging the use of bikes.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about importing bikes from China. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that bicycles are quite expensive. They seem to have many gears and to incorporate much technology. It is difficult to buy a simple, boring, old-fashioned bike with only one gear and with no high technology. To equip a large family with bikes is a major cost.
There are lessons to be learned from Europe and symbolic acts that Ministers could undertake. There is much improvement that we can offer from this place. The message should be: citizens of Britain and the world unite, you have nothing to gain but your bicycle chains.
11.14 am
Ms Joan Walley: The success of the debate is plain for everyone to see. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on ensuring that it took place. Our Wednesday morning sittings are currently up for review; they may not continue in their present form. Many Members have been squeezed out of this debate because of lack of time. They wanted to contribute to it. Let us ensure that these morning debates continue. I am sorry that so little time is left when so many Members want to speak.
We have the opportunity now to draw attention to the Hovis National Bike Week, which will start next week. Let us highlight that and ensure through this debate that everyone throughout the country is involved in the debate about cycling, not necessarily by talking about cycling but by doing something about it. Perhaps we can set an example here and ensure that it is taken up throughout the country. In that way, we would make some real progress. By adopting that approach, we could ensure that the perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House, who cycle frequently, achieves results.
I put on record our thanks to the cyclists' public affairs group, the Cyclists Touring Club, the cycling campaign network and the London cycling campaign. I have not forgotten SUSTRANS, of course. I hope that all the organisations which are now lobbying us will continue to do so after the debate, which will help us to ensure that cycling is examined closely.
We have heard much this morning about how we can promote cycling. It is not that easy. We must make cycling safer, which means turning our attention to enforcement. I am concerned that traffic regulation work is no longer the priority that it once was to our police
146
force. The Department of Transport must work closely with the Home Office to ensure that action is taken to make cycling safer in London and throughout the country.
We have heard a great deal about the health advantages that come from cycling, and they are indeed tremendous. By encouraging cycling, we could reduce the risk of asthma. We could deal with urban congestion by a better promotion of cycling. We must work closely with the Department of Health.
Children should be encouraged to start as they mean to go on, through the provision of safer cycle routes to school. As I have said, we must reduce urban congestion.
I should declare an interest, because I have a bike. I tend to use it only for excursions on cycle routes. I want to feel safe about cycling, and I want all the children in my constituency similarly to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he proposes to work alongside his colleagues at the Department of Education.
Money must be made available for pilot projects to introduce safe cycle routes to school. The guidance issued by the Department of Transport must take account of transport policy programme submissions. Local authorities should not regard cycling and provision for it as appendages to traffic proposals. Cycling must be integrated within those proposals.
I want Minister to say how he proposes to do that. As I have stressed, there must be safe cycling routes to school. Local authorities should work in conjunction with education departments throughout the country. There must be a switch to cycling. That will lead to a lessening of congestion in inner urban areas. Public transport is not the only answer. In addition, we must promote cycling and walking.
I would like to mention briefly the work of SUSTRANS. Reference has already been made to this wonderful visionary project: a national cycle network that will go the length and breadth of the country. I do not want it to go just up the east coast. I want it to go up the west coast as well. I want it to go through the various constituencies near the one that I represent. I want it to go from the west side to the east side, and that must be reflected in the bids that are made by local authorities.
We must have an undertaking from the Minister that, rather than the balance towards the roads programme, to which his Department has given money, he will be prepared to fund, with the SUSTRANS proposals, the cycling proposals that could give us a national network, which would then offer wonderful opportunities for tourism as well.
Reference has been made to the railways. In the short time that the Minister has to reply, we really must hear how much further his Department is prepared to take forward the whole issue about bikes and trains.
We are already looking at the investment that is needed in the railways. The Labour party is absolutely opposed to the privatisation of the railways, but the Minister must tell us how far the Department of Transport will go to see what can be done to get the new train operating units prepared to introduce facilities for cyclists.
Is it the case that the regulator, John Swift, will be prepared to go further on this issue? If we cannot get bicycles carried on trains, if we cannot get a truly integrated transport system, people will continue to be cyclists—like myself—who just go out on special excursions and do not make the journeys in inner-city areas and rural communities that we want to see.

147
My message is that we must all go out and do what we can to ensure that we have a truly integrated transport system, and that cycling takes its place in that.
11.21 am
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I agree with the hon. Member for (Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) about one thing: it is a great shame that these debates are not longer. It is one of the best that I have listened to in many years.
There is often a temptation for people who gather for a debate like this to translate the particular esoteric subject under discussion into the most important item on the national agenda, and it is perfectly natural that they should. I think that this is an occasion on which a group of hon. Members have recognised that this subject is treated as a poor cousin, and that it simply ought not to be. That was a theme that ran through all of the speeches today.
For me, it has been a very enjoyable debate in the sense that I believe that there has been agreement—on both sides of the House, with remarkably little exception—about what the agenda should be, about the challenges, about the dangers and the hazards, and about how we get there.
I start, as others have done, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I wonder whether I am the only Member of the House who has drawn, with some amusement and no little affection, a contrast between the present hon. Member for Blaby and his predecessor, Lord Lawson, of whom Commissioner Kinnock once said, "Lawson and energy—now there's a contradiction in terms." How much our former right hon. Friend would have enjoyed this debate, I cannot for a moment imagine.
Then I come, of course, to the figure of my good self, probably the most unlikely convert to cycling that the House can contemplate, a man who has been—somewhat, erroneously, I may say—identified as an advocate of a car economy. It has indeed fed the Norris children for a few years, but I have no more interest in that than in any other part of the extraordinarily interesting portfolio that transport is.
I say to the House, in all seriousness, that, as I have looked at the problem of how one deals with urban congestion in a modern city centre, over the past three years, with huge interest and enthusiasm, I have become convinced that this country has hugely undervalued cycling.
Let me put the figures into context. It came to me, as often happens, after one had spent a long time debating how we could get the best out of public transport. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke from the Liberal Benches, was quite right when he said that all our great energy went into improving public transport, and rightly so; that is where the mega money gets spent. No doubt that will continue in many ways to be the case.
We have all been overlooking something that is staring us in the face. It came to me, I may say, in a statistical table that SUSTRANS itself deployed: in this country, about 2.5 per cent. of journeys are made by cycle, that the European average is 15 per cent., and in other cases it is higher.
148
Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who I know enjoyed the earlier part of the debate, when cycling in this country was discussed and after somebody had mentioned Holland, said, "It's flatter." He is right, of course; it is indeed flatter. But the great mistake that we have made in this country is to say, "Of course they cycle in Holland, because it's flat."
The hon. Gentleman should have been with me in Birmingham, at the SUSTRANS conference, where we had an extremely interesting exposition from a Swiss delegate. Whatever one likes to say about Switzerland, it is not flat. The reality is that Switzerland has a cycle strategy, and there is a huge difference between the proportion of cycle journeys made there and in this country.
I believe that the crucial link has been mentioned already. If one really wants to know the difference between this country and others, it is the fact that, in Denmark, one is 10 times saferas a cyclist. That is why the Danes make 10 times more journeys by cycle than we do in this country. I do not think that it has anything to do with the weather or the terrain. After all, the terrain in this country differs hugely from town to town. Yet we see massive variations in cycling as a proportion of the total number of trips, depending on the community we are in.
Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—
Mr. Norris: I did say to the hon. Gentleman that I would let him intervene, and as he is about as likely a cyclist as I am, I shall let him in.
Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he quite rightly points out, Scotland is very hilly. A week on Saturday, I am launching a Bobath cycle race for nearly 2,000 people in Scotland. For the Minister's interest, I have given up smoking. In the past 12 weeks, I have not had a smoke. I am hoping to go a least a couple of hundred yards, and perhaps the following year to do a hundred miles. I invite everyone in the House to come along and take part in that cycle race, which is a good healthy pursuit, an environmental pursuit, and at the end of the day is for a good cause.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman makes a shameless advertisement, which I applaud him for. I am delighted to say that I thought that he was looking rather well. I am glad that he has given up the evil weed. All I will say to him is, for goodness' sake, do not wear lycra. I can see him doing more damage to the lycra industry in one fell swoop than a mountain of urban terrorists have done in 10 years.
My dubious contribution to the Hovis National Bike Week—now there is a shameless advertisement on national television—will be to join a gentleman who I believe is called "Mr. Motivator". I had assumed that that referred to Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, but I am told that this gentleman is a televisual performer. He and I, and a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, will be cycling to the Palace during this week.
Let me get down, if I may, in the last couple of minutes to some serious points that we must put on the record. It is about safety. It is about separating cyclists from other road users. It is therefore about priority. It is about pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, the private car and

149
so on. It is about recognising that in all our planning. It is about ensuring that our transport supplementary grant recognises cycling right at the centre of the strategy. That is why our transport policy programme advice stresses cycling in a very new and specific way.
In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), our transport supplementary grant expenditure, through the package approach, which she should be up to date with, will have cycling right at its centre. That means working with education authorities. It means taking on a great many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby made, in an excellent speech, about the way in which we treat the cyclist in urban traffic. It simply is not good enough to have cyclists competing with 40 ft trucks. We have to give them their own discrete road space.
In answer to hon. Members who mentioned parking, I have become convinced that it will not be enough simply to give the cyclist a white-lined area as part of the main carriageway. In many cases, the continental experience teaches us that we can look to offering a discrete part of the whole road area to the cyclist—to pedestrians, cyclists and then other traffic. Nothing irritates elderly pedestrians more than cyclists who say, "Well, I'd sooner be a threat to them then have the truck be the threat to me." There was a lot of that in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) called "cycling terrorism". There is no doubt that that is the direction in which we must move.
Ms Walley: Targets.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, says, "Targets." She knows that I have only 30 seconds left.
There is an excellent amount of mileage to be got from the idea of defining for ourselves in the national cycling strategy a way in which to take all the issues forward. I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss that with interested Members at length. Targets certainly have their place in that, and, to the extent that we want to build them in, recognising the difference between Bradford and York in terms of terrain, history, tradition and so on, I am sure that it is right that we should do so.
I am delighted that the debate has taken place, and only sorry to have had such an inadequate amount of time in which to reply to it. I blame none of those who have contributed, because their contributions have been superb.

Mine Shafts
11.30 am
Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful for the opportunity to put before the House an extremely serious situation which is affecting many hundreds of my constituents and which has the potential to affect many thousands more. Although the subject of the debate is described by a single word on the Order Paper, I am particularly concerned with the events that led up to that situation which arises as a result of the reaction of the Coal Authority to mining searches, particularly with reference to abandoned mine shafts.
Therefore, I begin by giving a brief history of how we have arrived at the present position. In the early 1980s, the Waddilove committee, appointed by the Department of Energy, recommended that there should be a standardised response in mining searches by the then British Coal, particularly with regard to identifying abandoned mine shafts, when property is being bought and sold. No one argues that that was not a sensible approach.
That resulted in a working group being established between the Law Society and British Coal to examine ways in which it could be done. My inquiries show clearly that that is when the trouble began. Presumably, the working group was set up with the full knowledge of the Government. Its brief was to examine the situation and establish a standardised response to mining searches. The group beavered away for three or four years, or perhaps a little longer, on this important issue.
The first important point is that, as far as I can detect, there was no consultation at all in the process and the examination was clouded in secrecy. Nevertheless, in 1989 an agreement was reached between British Coal and the Law Society on a standardised response which, as I understand it, was implemented in 1991. Those decisions, taken in secrecy, have tremendous significance and serious implications because hundreds of my constituents, and potentially many thousands more throughout the country, at the stroke of someone's pen, found themselves facing a financial and social tragedy because the value of their properties was, at a stroke, to use that famous phrase, destroyed.
Coal exists in every part of Stoke-on-Trent, in Staffordshire and in many other parts of the country. Mine workings date back to the middle ages. There was a rapid expansion in the middle of the 18th century. Pits were worked out and abandoned and mine shafts were abandoned. In recent years, surveys have identified no fewer than some 4,000 disused mine shafts in particular areas. Those mining operations were unplanned and random. No precautions were taken to protect the public from them or from the abandoned mine shafts.
Since nationalisation in 1946–47, the costs of repairing damaged properties and making safe disused shafts were met by the industry or the taxpayer. But those costs must be viewed in a wider context—the social and human costs—which implies direct Government intervention and finance.
The Waddilove committee report was then examined by the working group, but despite that, between the working group being established and the decision being taken in 1989, I can find no evidence of any co-ordinated response towards mining searches. The only evidence that

151
I have been able to establish is that, during that critical period, when solicitors obtained responses from British Coal to searches involving mine shafts, they were told whether there was or was not a mine shaft within the vicinity of the property—within the vicinity. That was the response that they were given during the period up to 1989 by British Coal.
British Coal knew what that meant, the Law Society knew what that meant and solicitors knew what that meant. It meant within 5 m of the property. The only people who did not know what it meant were the poor souls who were purchasing and selling the properties. They were kept in the dark, and the consequences of that were horrendous.
There is certainly no evidence that I can detect of any guidelines being issued in the period between the working group being set up and the agreement being reached between the Law Society and British Coal—that is, before 1989. That is a significant issue which I shall be asking the Minister to consider.
The results of the working group in 1989 have been accepted by British Coal, the Law Society and solicitors and recognised by Government. The 5 m rule of thumb distance that was used by those organisations was never recorded or identified but, nevertheless, was accepted and used. Of that there can be no doubt. I have had that confirmed by British Coal and solicitors and I have had it recognised by the Law Society. However, the clients, the people who were buying and selling the properties, were blissfully unaware of the trap into which they were entering.
I understand that, before 1989, British Coal offered no advice on mine shafts unless it was specifically asked. In other words, if a solicitor who was doing the conveyancing did not specifically ask about mine shafts, British Coal did not believe that it was its responsibility to make any reference to them at all.
What has happened since 1989, when the Law Society and British Coal agreed on a new definition of responses to mining searches? In 1989, the year in which the Government recognised that an agreement had been reached on changing the definition, and when British Coal and the Law Society agreed on changing the definition, guidelines were issued by the Law Society—the very year in which it had been agreed to change the rules. I have the guidelines here and there is no reference whatever to the fact that the 5 m rule of thumb, which had been accepted for the previous 10 years, had been changed to 20 m by agreement in that year in the full knowledge of the Government. The guidelines from the Law Society are here and they contain no reference whatever to 20 m.
I also have a copy of guidelines that were issued in 1991 by the Law Society some two years later when, for the first time, 20 m appeared. They state:
"The presence of a disused shaft within or about 20 metres of the boundary of the property should be a matter of particular concern."
Therefore, my constituents, and many other people, having bought and sold properties in the mid-1980s on the basis of a mine search stating that there was no mine shaft in the vicinity which, unknown to them, meant within 5 m, when they come to sell their properties in the early 1990s, are then told, after a mine search, that there is a mine shaft because the 5 m distance has been extended, by secret agreement—apart from what the Government know about it—to 20 m. As a result, the value of those people's properties has been devastated.
152
In December 1993, I wrote to the Minister for Energy, who was good enough to reply reassuringly, expressing the hope that my concern would be allayed by a press release issued earlier in the month. The press release was interesting, in that it showed that the Government knew what was going on, and revealed British Coal's attitude to the detection of mine shafts. Apparently:
"It may be that in certain circumstances the present owner may be entitled to some remedy which might extend to the cost of locating and if necessary making safe the shaft."
That was agreed in December 1993 by the Government, the Law Society and British Coal.
Reports following mining searches conducted on 8 August 1994 and 17 May 1995 make no reference to 20 m. Even after the agreement reached in 1989 and its implementation in 1991—of which the Government were fully aware—houses were still being bought and sold, and reports of mining searches made no reference to the changed rules. I consider that that makes the authorities involved culpable.
I have yet to find any evidence that suggests that, before 1991, the Law Society or solicitors were offering any advice about the implications for people's properties of responses to mine searches from what was British Coal and is now the Coal Authority. Even after the Minister for Energy had assured me in his letter that everything was okay, that new guidelines had been agreed and that there was nothing to worry about, British Coal, solicitors and, presumably, the Law Society were accepting mining search responses that contained no reference to the 20 m rule. That presents the Government with some serious questions.
The issue is vital to many hundreds, potentially thousands, of families. After two years of campaigning, led by constituents of mine who are affected by this disaster, writs have been issued against the Coal Authority in three cases. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I suspect that the Coal Authority's strategy is to fight every case in court. I believe that it recognises that, if it is prepared to fight every one of those hundreds of cases in court, it will grind down those who seek justice simply because they cannot afford to take their cases to court, even with legal aid. Even if they could afford it, so many cases are involved that it would take many years for justice to be done and be seen to be done. In the meantime, families' homes and life savings are being blighted and the value of their properties reduced by at least two thirds. That is negative equity with a vengeance.
This is a chronic injustice, and cannot be acceptable. The whole process was conducted secretively in the 1980s and subsequently, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Government. First, the Government should ensure that the Coal Authority investigates the mine shafts to establish their status, as is indicated by the press release sent to me by the Minister for Energy in 1993. The Coal Authority is currently refusing to do that; it is merely sending out a plan setting out its responses, bearing a little black dot.
Secondly, the Government should inquire into the activities of the Law Society and solicitors. I am extremely concerned about the fact that I have been able to identify no advice given to clients who were purchasing properties about the meaning of the words "in the vicinity" and the change in the rules.

153
Thirdly—here I offer the example of the Personal Investment Authority—a compensation fund should be set up, financed by the Government, the Coal Authority and the Law Society. If such a fund is appropriate for those whose pensions have been destroyed as a result of bad advice or no advice, why is it not appropriate for those whose homes have been devalued because of bad advice or no advice?
Families have seen the largest purchase that they are likely to make destroyed at a stroke through no fault of their own. If the Government respond positively to this chronically serious situation, a massive injustice can be speedily resolved.
11.46 am
Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate and on setting out the problem so clearly. As he said, a number of different problems are involved. He is one of, sadly, only a small Number of hon.Members—perhaps only a small number of people in the country—who have grappled with the legal and geological complexities of the mine shaft issue and, indeed, the wider issue of subsidence. He is right to say that a major injustice has been perpetrated: homes and their prices are being blighted by the new guidelines and the ignorance that surrounded them.
Subsidence often causes disastrous damage to properties. Both problems—the effect on house prices and the effect on the fabric of people's homes—have a huge impact: not just a financial impact, but an impact on people's personal and emotional lives and their security. Now that increasing emphasis is placed on the value of a person's major or sole capital asset—which is often the source of that person's long-term security, providing the wherewithal for care in later life—the strain caused by a threat to, or the loss of, that asset is especially severe for those who are struggling to gain compensation and justice in unhappy and unnecessary circumstances. It is corroding their lives.
A week after I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, a constituent visited my very first advice surgery. He had already been battling with my predecessor for many years over subsidence and its effect on his life. That young man—he was in his mid-thirties—was angry, baffled and confused; but he was determined that his future, and that of his young children, should not be destroyed.
That case has been going on for all the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. That man has been struggling with those problems for over 14 years. He is now disabled; he is broken; his whole life has been destroyed. Some people would say that he has become obsessed by the issue, but if the value of one's house and one's potential to move and to care for—and create a good home for—one's children and wife are threatened, hon. Members will understand that it is easy to become obsessed and continue to battle for justice; and very easy, as with that man, to be broken.
In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that this is a monumental injustice. It is a whole variety of different injustices that
154
are taking place all over the country and destroying people's lives. My hon. Friend illustrated the second problem, of the inequality of the legal battle to get justice and compensation. The truth is that British Coal, now the Coal Authority, has—somewhat to its credit—a huge legal department. It has great geological expertise. It has a power and ability to sustain legal confrontation and wrangling far beyond that of the ordinary individual.
Many cases have come to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) who are fortunate enough to represent the city of Stoke. The city is built on coal and honeycombed by mine shafts and mine workings. Subsidence and the specific problems associated with mine shafts are an everyday event in Stoke-on-Trent. It happens all over the city and in many other cities in this country.
People are grappling with the problem. They come to our advice surgeries month after month with new cases, especially since 1989 and the confusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South outlined over mine shafts. When people engage with first British Coal, and now the Coal Authority, the battle is always totally unequal.
In the literally dozens and dozens of cases that I have assisted my constituents to tackle over the past 12 years, I have never won a single one. I do not think that that is inefficiency on my part or that of the solicitors who have assisted my constituents; it is almost impossible to win a case against British Coal, now the Coal Authority, because it has much greater expertise. It has power, expert advice and lawyers, and the ability to sustain battles far beyond the patience or pocket of most people. I doubt whether many hon. Members have won a mine shaft or mining subsidence case. Very few have been won.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, the situation is totally unacceptable and unfair in a society that believes in common justice for people when problems arise through no fault of their own. They cannot be left to the vagaries of the system or in the grip of a legal battle with an authority that is far more powerful and expert than they are. I am glad that the Minister is listening to the debate, because the Government are responsible for the matter. I do not think that anyone would claim that the Government caused the problem, but they have responsibility for the urban environment and for the conduct of the legal aid system and the Coal Authority. If they are concerned about the people who elected them, they should and must have some responsibility for and concern about relieving those completely unnecessary problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, there are a number of things that can be done. The Government have to rethink the guidelines—or get the Law Society and all those involved to rethink them—and establish a fairer and better way of operating. They have to reconsider the question of legal advice and create a level playing field in respect of legal advice between the experts and individual members of the public.
At the very least, the Government should inquire into the conduct of the Law Society and British Coal to establish the facts and give a national picture in terms of what my hon. Friend and I have said. Our evidence is mainly anecdotal from our constituency casework, but a large number of people are being broken on the wheel

155
of this problem totally unnecessarily. It is a monumental injustice. The Government must surely be concerned and act on the matter now.
11.54 am
Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on raising this issue. I intend to tackle the problem from another angle, but it is an important one which affects us all.
In 1946, the then new National Coal Board decided to decentralise the plans that had been lodged in London of all the coalfield workings up to that date. The areas to which the plans were sent were designated by the National Coal Board, because the common sense that prevailed was that that was where they were needed. To get any idea of how to win coal, one must look at old workings, because one can then see the danger of encroaching into them. They are full of water and gas and a host of other problems. The decentralisation was a technical change, but it meant that the people who needed the plans—the mineral surveyors in those areas—could get ready access to them.
In 1994, the plans that were lodged in Scotland for the Scottish area were sent to Bretby. They have been decentralised and centralised again. The Coal Authority is turning history on its head. If we are to continue to develop old mining areas, then before we even start laying the foundations of anything, whether it be a factory or a road or whatever, a mineral surveyor has to examine the plans. I do not know where Bretby is. I do not know what county it is in, but it is certainly south of the border, in England, and miles away. If a mining surveyor had to visit it, it would mean an overnight stay and a cost to the individual or development concerned.
I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is an important facet of the matter. I ask the Government to reconsider their whole attitude to the lodging of plans. I should like to change it back to what it was. I have a vested interest because it happens that the plans were lodged in my constituency at Newbattle, although they did not have to be kept there and many other places were willing to take them under their umbrella. The privatisation of the plans is a worry to us because they may be handed to over to Group 4 or some other company to look after, with all the consequential horrors that may follow. That may be costly and not as efficient as we would like.
The plans are important because, when we talk about shafts, we are talking about a multitude of different things. The shafts can be very deep and very large, and they can be aslant. They may be old bell pits, which have a small hole in the top. Many moons ago, mining was done using the bell system. Such pits collapsed regularly and are not recorded in the plans.
People say that the plans can be wired down or faxed up. Sometimes, survey maps show a multitude of seams with varied colours, perhaps not so drastic as hard blues or hard reds, but with shades of different colours. With age, the colours fade into insignificance and all look the same. One can spot things that one was not looking for on such a plan. In other words, the mineral surveyor has to see the original plan before he can approve any development move afoot. I plead with the Government to reverse what has been done. It is so important.
156
Abandoned workings are important. In one disaster—I think that it was the Lofthouse disaster—we found that the workings which tapped into the pit were full of water; the shafts had been filled in, but not capped. Old railway lines or girders, or whatever was to hand, had been sunk into the side of the shaft 30 ft or 40 ft down—or even less—battens had been put on top and the shaft was only partly filled in. The rest of the shaft was empty and over the years it filled with water from the workings below. Such shafts become a sort of underground reservoir, like an artesian well in reverse. If tapped into, the huge column of water in the shaft gets into the workings.
After the Lofthouse disaster, or whatever disaster it was, the National Coal Board sought to find out where the shafts were. It had to call on local knowledge because the records were not absolutely spot on. The ordnance surveys of the geology were not accurate. In other words, faults were discovered in the plans.
If we are to bring prosperity back to the mining areas which have been decimated by the closure of the mines, we must ensure that accurate information about the plans is given. We have heard horrendous stories about houses being undermined by old workings. Many of the old privately owned coal companies had what were called "marches"—lines defining where they could or could not work a seam of coal—but many companies encroached on those lines through greed and the barriers between one seam of coal and another were removed. In some cases, they even broke through a march to steal machinery and plant; it was common knowledge that such things happened, but the breaches were not recorded on the plans. Many people therefore think that they are sitting on a solid piece of ground that was not worked because there had been a march, but I have news for them: the seams were worked, but not systematically.
The modern method is total extraction by the long wall system, but the old system was the stoop and room system. In other words, barriers or squares of coal were left in place, which caused undulation on the surface. Many workings were near the surface, so the subsidence became even worse. Some may even have been at an angle, because some seams of coal do not lie on a horizontal plane but undulate. Some are practically vertical in some parts of the country.
All those complications have to be borne in mind. When added to the other problems of mining subsidence caused by industries involving the extraction of lime and clay and the working of gravel pits, the seriousness of the matter becomes even clearer. Many clay pits in and around Stoke-on-Trent were worked under the old system but then open-casted and done away with. If one multiplies all those problems in an industrial urban area, and in some of the rural areas that are now being developed, the potential for disaster is clear.
I plead with the Minister to understand that it is nonsense to centralise the plans and to impose further costs on an individual who is building a house or on a company or developer. I am playing the Scottish card but it sticks in the craw, as people say in Scotland, that we should have to hand over our plans to an English organisation way down south, wherever it is, which means that we have to get on a plane or train to find out about our plans. They should be lodged in Scotland, in Wales and in the regions where people want to look at them.

157
I do not want to go down south to look at the north-east plans or the Welsh or Stoke-on-Trent plans. The people of Scotland are not interested in them. The plans should be lodged where the relevant people can have access to them. Bretby might be nearer to Stoke-on-Trent than to Scotland—I do not know—but I want our plans brought back to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will see common sense. I guarantee that we can fix up a company or organisation that will look after the plans properly and at reasonable cost and ensure that the people of Scotland and the mineral surveyors have easier and cheaper access to them than would be the case if the plans went to Bretby.
12.14 pm
Ms Joan Walley: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak about mine shafts and adits, which are very important to my constituents. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on bringing the issue to the House's attention. It is important to put it on record that in Stoke-on-Trent especially, but also in other parts of the country, there is a particular problem because our coal mining industry developed haphazardly. It was not simply a matter of sinking a deep shaft in one or two places; as my hon. Friend said, the way in which the industry developed means that we have a large number of abandoned mine shafts and adits which are causing huge problems for so many of our constituents.
The purpose of the debate is to express to the Minister how important it is that he tells us what action he is prepared to take in the Department of Trade and Industry and what action he is prepared to take with other organisations—I am thinking especially of the Law Society and the Department of the Environment—to try to find a real and lasting solution to the problems being experienced in Stoke-on-Trent.
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about the problem of water pollution caused by abandoned mines, something that has been the subject of much discussion in debates on the Environment Bill which is currently in Committee. The problem in Stoke-on-Trent is like a time bomb ticking away and has been hugely underestimated. For the purpose of social justice, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred, the Government must make it clear that they are prepared to deal with the problem.
I said that the basic problem is the legacy of mining and the way in which it developed over the centuries. I have had extensive discussions with officers of the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment, who seem to deny that there is an environmental problem. It is true that there is a problem with derelict land contaminated as a result of extensive mining operations, but there is also an environmental problem. Important research and evidence recently produced by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers have confirmed once and for all that there is not only a problem of contamination and dereliction but an environmental problem. As we have heard, the way in which the air is affected by the old shafts could lead to further contamination. I want to hear the Minister accept for the record that there is an environmental problem.
158
The problem came to light in Stoke-on-Trent only about three years ago, largely because of the decision by the Law Society and the Coal Authority. As far as I can work out, the decision has no legal status and was entirely voluntary. It may have been publicised at the time, but it was certainly not well publicised.
Mr. Stevenson: Does not the fact that the Minister wrote to me in the most reassuring terms in December 1993 enclosing a copy of the Law Society's press release prove that the Government accepted de facto what British Coal and the Law Society had done?
Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have accepted what has been done. I was attempting to make the point that there does not seem to be any basis in statute for action, but the Government must none the less take responsibility for the decisions.
The practice of building societies and insurers stems from the decisions, too. It is quite clear that people who were deemed fit to be granted a mortgage on a particular property and who now wish to extend their mortgage, perhaps to extend their property, having found that they cannot sell it, are being refused permission. A letter sent to a constituent of mine from the Britannia building society makes it clear that such practice is a result of the agreement between the Coal Authority and the Law Society. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I do not think that the Minister can escape responsibility for such decisions. It is important that he understands exactly how that decision affects people in our constituencies.
We only realised that there was a problem about three years ago when it began to come to light that the 20 m decision was preventing people from obtaining mortgages on properties that they wished to purchase. Previously, the housing market was not really moving and houses were not selling. It is only since there has been some movement, although very little, in the housing market that huge problems have come to light. That is why so many people now find themselves living in a home that is blighted, yet to all intents and purposes it is absolutely fine and is in one sense in no risk of subsidence.
It is a question not only of whether the Coal Authority will take responsibility if a house is swallowed by a huge hole as a result of some subsidence or disturbance but of whether the Government will take responsibility for the blight which stretches right across north Staffordshire and affects areas of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme. We want to know how the Government propose to deal with that important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) commented at length on another problem: the way in which the records of the Coal Authority have been centralised and stored. My constituents have another problem. When it is put to them that there is a mine shaft or an adit within 20 m of their property within their curtilage, some dispute the decision and spend huge sums of money on independent mining searches to prove that the shaft is not where the Coal Authority located it, but somewhere else, perhaps within 20 m of somebody else's home.
Even when constituents have gone to considerable expense to commission an independent mining report, the Coal Authority has not been prepared to accept that a shaft has been located in a different place, despite what the report said. Therefore, even having gone to such lengths

159
to try to remove blight from their properties, individual home owners are stuck with a report from the Coal Authority that suggests that, because there is some doubt, it perceives that a mine shaft is within 20 m of their property. Despite so much effort, constituents still cannot sell their properties.
There is an environmental problem to be considered. Given that the Government have accepted responsibility, the problem is what they are to do about it. There is also a problem with the collation of records and how we can prove them right or wrong. But the real crux of the issue is that, like my hon. Friend, I cannot conceive of individuals having to spend five or 10 years of their life taking legal action to try to resolve the issue in some way or another. The Government must do something about that. What will it be? That is what we want the Minister to tell us.
The problem could be solved properly by establishing an open register of information. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Stoke-on-Trent, South has done an enormous amount of work on getting access to information. Given the derelict land and the legacy of coal mining, people are entitled to know about the Coal Authority's records. They are entitled to know that those records are correct and they are entitled to seek from the Coal Authority some statement of whether a particular shaft, having been correctly identified, does or does not threaten a property. If the shaft does not threaten a property, some plain legal statement of that fact should be made by the Coal Authority and the Law Society to enable people wishing to sell or purchase properties to obtain insurance and mortgages without any problems. Such a statement would instantly remove the blight.
When the Coal Authority and the proposed environment agency—it is also an environmental issue—are not prepared to say that there is no threat whatever to a particular dwelling because of the accurately located mine shaft or adit, we would need to explore the possibility raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South of considering some compensation scheme, so that the cost of putting right the problems of the mine shafts is met by those responsible for that legacy and not picked up as an individual item of expense by an unsuspecting person who bought their property not knowing of the blight affecting it.
The Government must address those issues. I cannot begin to tell the Minister—I hope that he will visit Stoke-on-Trent to see the problems for himself and speak to our constituents—the extent of sheer desperation felt by local people because they cannot resolve the issue. It is not enough for the Minister to say that the problem is the responsibility of another Department or of the Coal Authority. Concerted action must be taken across the Departments with the DTI taking the lead. We have seen the cavalier way in which British Coal has been sold off. It is all well and good to sell off parts of British Coal that make profits for the likes of Mr. Budge and others, but responsibility must also be taken for the various liabilities in the ground. We want the Government to take responsibility and find a way to deal with the injustices faced by our constituents.
12.17 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing this Adjournment debate and apologise to him for missing the early part; I was held up
160
in traffic coming back from another meeting. I had the opportunity, however, to speak to him and to those in his office earlier in the week. We were able to go over a number of the points which he has raised today and which our hon. Friends who represent Stoke have reinforced this morning.
The problem which has emerged in north Staffordshire may be of a broader national significance because it stems in some respects at least as a consequence of the agreement to redefine the acceptable distance between mine shafts and households from 20 m to 5 m, which obviously affects a far greater number of properties. That has, of course, resulted in blight and difficulties in valuing properties.
In correspondence between the House of Commons Library and British Coal and the Law Society, the Law Society suggested that the solution for vendors or people who find themselves in difficulty relating to blight would be to instruct an engineer or a mining surveyor to report the most likely location and condition of the mining shaftt for a reasonable fee. It is unreasonable to expect that of people who are already living in a house, who have been making their payments and who have carried out surveys in the past, simply because of a change in procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, there is no legislation. There is simply a recommendation, a stroke-of-the-pen job—and the difficulties arising from that are facing people with limited resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) was banging an old drum that he and I have been beating for many years when he talked about the problems caused by the removal of mining records from the mining areas. It is expensive to send people to other places, so the "reasonable fee" concept is stretched at every turn. It costs more and more for surveyors to do the job, because they may have to travel long distances and carry out considerable research.
My hon. Friend's knowledge of the Newbattle archive is second to none in the House and, as he said, mining plans operate on a layer-on-layer principle, so it is difficult for them to be faxed across the country. That is why it is essential for people to have easy access to them.
That would be difficult enough, even if it were the only problem, but we know that not only are about 150,000 mine shafts in the United Kingdom recorded on maps of varying qualities but it is estimated that there are no records at all for a further 150 mine shafts, whose location it would take different forms of research to establish. So, if I may try to anticipate what he may say in his summing up, we must not allow the Minister to hide behind the proposition that once a reasonable fee has been paid to a surveyor everything will be all right and the building societies, the banks and the other mortgage providers will be satisfied.
What has happened is not the result of malign intent on the part of the Law Society, British Coal or the Coal Authority. Nevertheless, the consequences of their action have created considerable difficulties for many people in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire—largely because of the thoughtlessness of the two authorities in failing to make proper provision for the results that would flow from their decision.
We need an inquiry into the role of the Law Society and we need to know what the status of mine shafts is, because we know that they are not all necessarily the

161
source of environmental damage and safety risks. We must have a far clearer picture so that the people in the affected households and, perhaps even more important, potential lenders of funds to new buyers of the properties, know exactly what the position is.
I get the impression that the Law Society paid insufficient attention to the legal consequences, so it should be answerable for that. In the deathbed throes of its dying days, British Coal has become an irresponsible organisation, passing jobs on to other people, and the Coal Authority, not unnaturally, is stepping back and saying, "We are a new authority and we have limited resources. Why should we have to pick up the tab?"
Of course, the Coal Authority is funded by the Government, and if it finds that the problems are as serious as my hon. Friends suggest—I have no reason to doubt that they are—and that it will be required to help to remedy them, it will need additional funding to take the job on.
In recent years, there has been an enhanced appreciation of the problems of subsidence. In a way, the difficulties now arising are almost a by-product of the greater awareness of those problems. I hope that the Government will show a commitment to the problems arising from the discovery of mine shafts and the compensation now required or, alternatively, change the system of definition to make the position clearer. They have a choice, but the one choice that they do not have is to sit on their hands and do nothing.
I welcome the debate, because it provides the ideal opportunity for the Government to announce a series of steps in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South suggested. The Law Society, the Coal Authority and British Coal should get together and make clear the exact character and status of mine shafts, the dangers that they pose and their effects on the value of property when potential blight affects development and sale. After the inquiry, there should be some recognition that there are responsibilities that should be shared among those three bodies.
We shall have to consider the different ways in which the compensation fund could operate. In some instances, the question will be whether compensation is required at all. But legal aid must be provided so that until such time as the Government introduce some umbrella arrangement—
Mr. Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in the three cases in our area in which writs have been issued against the Coal Authority, all of which are legally aided, people have been required to pay contributions of up to £150 per month? My hon. Friend will realise that that effectively debars from the legal system people with a strong case who have been the victims of injustice.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that. I have here a note from the Coal Authority that says that there are currently 23 court cases and that three writs have been received in legally aided cases alleging negligence or breach of contract. Even if people have not quite been economical with the truth, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record the fact that the level of legal aid available does not make going to law attractive
162
for the owners of small properties who want to move on because of the size of their families, but who have only limited resources. When such people try to bring court cases, they are hampered by the legal aid system. It offers a glimpse of the carrot but does not go anything like as far as would be necessary to deliver the goods.
The Government should act quickly and recognise that there is a serious problem, which will increase as more households become aware of difficulties that they had never realised existed. The longer it all takes and the further we get away from the reasons why the problem was created in the first place, the more difficult it will be to remedy it.
The Coal Authority is a fledgling authority with limited resources; it has nothing like the back-up that the old British Coal had. As has been explained, there are also increasing problems with the records. Action is needed as a matter of urgency, so I hope that the Minister will go some way towards meeting the three requests made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. We need an investigation, an inquiry into the role of the Law Society and some compensation arrangements, and we need them quickly. That is why I am happy to support my hon. Friend.
12.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on having been fortunate enough to secure the debate. As I have said before, in my 20 years in the House I have never succeeded in securing even one such debate, although I put in for almost every one. I am going for the sympathy vote at an early stage.
The hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are of serious concern to his constituents, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to them. The fact that he has been supported by his two colleagues, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), shows that there is widespread concern about the matters.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the relevant measures which have been implemented by the Government, and to suggest what those people who are affected can do for themselves. I hope to show that there is generally much less cause for concern on the issues than might appear at first sight, and I hope to conclude by making some suggestions as to how those concerns might be best allayed.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) started with a highly partisan tirade against the English to which I shall not respond. The Health and Safety Commission advised that it was appropriate for the Coal Authority to take over British Coal's role as the custodian of the abandoned mine plans. There are good reasons why British Coal should centralise the records, and the cost of doing so includes the costs of duplication and providing the facilities needed to maintain the plans in proper condition.
The plans will be supervised by a qualified surveyor and, provided there is adequate access to and proper supervision of the plans, the Health and Safety Commission is content that safety will not be compromised. I understand the hon. Gentleman's

163
reluctance to travel across the border to Bretby, but he will find that he will be made most welcome if he wishes to inspect the plans.
I can give the hon. Gentleman a small piece of encouragement. In light of the concerns expressed about the removal of the plans from local mining consultants and surveyors in Newtongrange in Scotland, British Coal has removed to Bretby only those plans that are unique. The remainder of duplicate plans—some 87 per cent. of the original total—are to remain in Scotland. Where plans have been removed, British Coal has taken the helpful step of arranging for copies to be held on slides in Scotland, as well as a catalogue of plans.
Mr. Eric Clarke: I am aware that some plans will be left in Scotland, but we will need the up-to-date plans. There are historical plans which have not been verified, but the plans that are needed are not in Scotland but in Bretby. Mining engineers and representatives of mining surveyors have made representations on this matter. Someone who wants to see those plans must either go to Bretby or get copies sent by post. In the latter case, he or she will be unable to see from the copies what is happening in other parts of the surrounding area and will have to examine the original plans. The idea that the plans are all packaged and can be sent by post is not acceptable.
Mr. Page: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will not be able to give him any more comfort. I am sure that the post containing the appropriate plans for mining engineers to examine will get to Scotland from Bretby.
There are a number of different concerns in relation to mine shafts, and I shall try to respond to those that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall focus briefly on the potential risks of subsidence or shaft collapses relating to abandoned coal mines, and also on the mining report system now operated by the Coal Authority as it affects people trying to sell their homes. Those have been the central concerns of the debate.
As has been pointed out by all hon. Members who have spoken during the debate, there are a large number of mine entrances, shafts and adits throughout the country. The Coal Authority has records of about 150,000, and estimates that there may be many more which are unrecorded. Going on the experience of British Coal—this helps to put the matter into some perspective—the Coal Authority expects some 400 call-outs a year related to surface hazards, half of which may be related to both shafts and adits.
That may seem to be a large number, but I am given to understand that, in most cases, shafts are found in open fields rather than in someone's back garden. Very often, what is found is not a gaping hole but a dip in the ground similar to a shallow crater. I mention the numbers so that the House can see the matter on a proper scale.
We must keep in perspective the real incidence of serious problems relating to shafts, which is very low. There have been historic incidents in which people have fallen down mine shafts, but I understand that none of the Coal Authority staff concerned with subsidence can recall an incident within the past 10 or 20 years. Equally, where shafts are discovered it is relatively uncommon for them
164
to cause damage to property. I understand that the Coal Authority has been called out to 300 incidents or problems since it took over responsibility for the matters last year.
Mr. Stevenson: A press release issued by the Minister for Industry and Energy in December 1993 clearly said that home owners would be entitled to investigations to establish the status of the mine shafts and, in some circumstances, the cost of making them safe. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will happen, because the Coal Authority is refusing to do anything of the sort?
Mr. Page: I was going to come to that matter later, but I shall deal with it now. I have not seen the release to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I would like to have an opportunity to respond to him separately on that point once I have seen the document. He makes a valid point, but he will understand my natural scepticism until I have seen the release. I shall also take advice on the matter.
There have been about 300 incidents and problems since the Coal Authority took over responsibility last year. Some 180 were related to shafts or collapses of old workings, while damage was done to buildings in only four cases, none of which was structural damage. That should help to make everyone realise the size of the problems we are facing.
Ms Walley: We do not fear that there will be damage to properties as a result of the existence of mine shafts or adits. We are concerned about the blight on properties, and I hope that the Minister will come to that matter. Will he give a commitment on the blight that people are facing?
Mr. Page: I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, and I shall come to that in a few minutes. I felt that it was important to give to the House the realities, rather than the perceptions. I mention those facts not to belittle the problems which have occurred but to put them in perspective. We should recognise that they are, in fact, relatively rare.
We should note that the problems are relatively rare in relation to the 150,000 or so coal mining entrances or shafts that are known. The disclosure that a shaft exists near a property should not realistically be a major cause for concern if the discovery is merely a result of a mining search. If a shaft has not given any trouble for 20, 50 or 100 years, it will not necessarily give any trouble in the future.
Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister not understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made? We are concerned not with the physical danger caused by a mine shaft but with the effect that the shaft has on mortgage and insurance companies, who do not take as relaxed a view as the Minister. As soon as those companies are aware of the location of a mine shaft, they freeze any financial activity on a property. Will the Minister address that point?
Mr. Page: I do understand that point. If the hon. Gentleman could have contained his natural enthusiasm, for which he is well known in the House, he would have seen that I shall deal with that point. I am relaxed about it. I understand those concerns, which we all have in various shapes and forms, whether they are about a blight next to a motorway or about previously unknown underground workings. In most cases, the presence of an old mine shaft, even if not previously known, should pose no problems. The fact that a shaft has remained unknown shows that it has caused no problems.

165
Law Society guidance gives the most practical course to be taken by property owners who are worried about a shaft that has been identified in a mining report. Subject to obtaining permission for any surface access needed, they can arrange for an engineer or mining service to access the shaft. In most cases, that results in a certificate showing that there is no risk of subsidence to the property.
Mr. Stevenson rose—
Mr. Page: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, I should like to say that he has already referred to the notice that he received from my hon. Friend in the DTI, and I shall deal with that matter.
Mr. Stevenson: I apologise for interjecting like this but, with respect to the Minister, my concern is increasing. He said that he would try to help us and our constituents, but so far he has not done so. He talks about possible responses and how the Law Society's 1991 guidelines are being adhered to. For the first time, those guidelines mention 20 m. He will recall that I gave two instances of responses to mining searches, one in 1994 and another in 1995, which made no reference whatever to the 20 m. What is the point in having guidelines, which the Minister says are being implemented, when they are simply ignored?
Mr. Page: This will sound like a record, but I shall discuss some aspects of the legal responsibilities of those who conduct searches.
I was referring to the certificate that confirms that there is no risk. Even if an assessment is less reassuring, it should be remembered that the mining company responsible for the shaft or the Coal Authority, as appropriate, is obliged under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to rectify any subsidence damage that the shaft has caused, no matter how extensive or minor the subsequent damage. I emphasise that clear statutory remedies are available, whatever the actual damage sustained by a property as a result of subsidence.
I have already mentioned the Coal Authority's responsibilities for safety. Any household with substantive grounds for concern about the safety of an old shaft should contact the authority.
The Coal Mining Subsidence Act shows what extensive and expensive remedies are available for subsidence damage. The provisions reflect the recommendations of the independent committee chaired by Mr. Lewis Waddilove, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred. That committee carried out a thorough examination of the arrangements in place at the time and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, were right, although some significant gaps remained to be filled. It recommended that the previous legislation be consolidated and extended, and that British Coal's voluntary code be enacted.
The Government accepted those recommendations in the 1987 White Paper entitled "The Repair and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage" and issued a consultative paper on the content of new legislation in 1988. The 1991 Act took into account comments received in response to that consultation
166
exercise. It repealed most of the previous existing legislation and replaced it with a new statutory framework incorporating British Coal's voluntary undertakings and other recommendations made in the Waddilove report. It was the result of long and careful consultation and brought together several Acts of Parliament and codes of practice into a single Act, giving a wide definition of subsidence damage and introducing important improvements.
The practical effect of the legislation is to provide people affected by coal mining subsidence damage with a simple and straightforward claims procedure and a comprehensive set of remedies. It confers on the claimant a clear right to compensation, and places on the mining company or the Coal Authority a clear duty either to rectify the damage or to provide appropriate financial compensation to the claimant.
Ms Walley: We are discussing not damage that has occurred but people who cannot get adequate mortgages or insurance cover on their properties because of anticipated damage. To what extent do the existing regulations on subsidence embrace the aspect of blight relating to mine shafts and adits? Before the debate finishes at 1 o'clock, will the Minister deal with the problem that arises because building societies in our area tell our constituents that mortgage facilities will not be granted as a result of a decision made by the Coal Authority?
Mr. Page: Believe it or not, I shall deal with that point in a moment or two. It is important that I put on record the fact that a number of extensive arrangements and support measures are in place for people whose properties suffer subsidence. I hope that that will give some form of comfort to people who may be worried about buying a property, because those support measures can be used if they are unfortunate enough to suffer that damage.
It might be helpful at this point if I explain briefly how the claims procedure works. Under the 1991 Act, mining companies are obliged to notify all owners and occupiers who may be affected by subsidence damage as a result of the coming 12 months' mining. That notification includes a guidance booklet about claimants' rights, together with a form for making claims entitled "Damage Notice". Not everyone so notified suffers damage. For those who do, however, the next stage is to make a claim by completing the damage notice and sending it to the mine owner.
The Coal Authority, which handles all claims for the time being, has set itself specific targets for reducing waiting times at all stages of the claims process. Targets are being put in place to ensure that people are given notice within a certain period. During that time, the authority is busy compiling the mining report and claims history to ensure that its assessors are fully briefed. Its target for communicating a decision to the claimant on how to proceed after the inspection is a maximum of four weeks for 90 per cent. of cases. The target period for commencing remedial work after acceptance by the claimant of the authority's decision is a maximum of six weeks in 80 per cent. of cases.
Opposition Members will be fully aware of the arbitration system that is in place if a dispute arises. Two arbitration systems have been set up; both are run independently by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and are specifically designed to deal with disputes about

167
subsidence damage. Naturally, claimants also have the normal right to pursue any dispute through the court—in this case, the Lands Tribunal.
May I return to the problems raised by Opposition Members? In addition to their rights under the 1991 Act and dependent on circumstances, property owners may be entitled to financial remedies from one of the parties to earlier mining searches. That is from their solicitor or conveyancer or from British Coal. It would not be appropriate to discuss those legal possibilities in detail, but we should note their potential relevance.
During the debate, as I believe Opposition Members appreciate, I have been struck by the existence of an information gap. It is the object of the Opposition to make life difficult for the Government and to argue strongly on behalf of their constituents the cases that they consider appropriate, regarding which action should be taken. However, I believe that they have succumbed to the temptation to paint a picture that is slightly gloomier than reality.
Making due allowance for that, it appears that many people, especially in the Stoke-on-Trent region, are unaware of important aspects of the coal mining subsidence remediation regime, of the responsibilities of the Coal Authority for safety and of the helpful guidance that the Law Society has issued for tackling cases in which mining reports appear to show unexpected problems.
Mr. O'Neill: I gained the impression that the Minister was about to conclude. Will he tell us to what extent the Law Society, his officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and the banks and mortgage lenders generally have been in concert in discussing those problems? That is the key. With respect, we are worried, not about damage to property but about the consequences of blight on the value of property as a result of a change in planning arrangements—not even planning law.
What has happened in respect of the Law Society and the DTI officials and Coal Authority officials? Have they been able to communicate to the mortgage lenders the fact that the problems are not as great as the mortgage lenders would appear to believe? That is the problem that confronts us.
Mr. Page: I am unaware of any such discussions taking place to draw those anxieties to the attention of mortgage lenders, but I hope that what has been said in the debate will give some comfort and reassurance to mortgage lenders. However, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am aware of no reason why I should not return to the Coal Authority and ask it to undertake a liaison operation with the mortgage lenders in the Stoke-on-Trent region to reassure them—exactly as I have endeavoured to reassure them today—about the general conditions and general supports that are available through the various Coal Acts, especially the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.
Mr. Stevenson: On the Minister's proposed liaison, as I think he called it, with the Coal Authority, the mind boggles. However, when that happens, will he mention the Law Society guidelines of 1991, which for the first time mentioned a radius of 20 m, and the fact—I shall provide the Minister with copies—that I have in my hand two searches from the Coal Authority dated 1995 that make no mention of the 20 m? When he meets the Coal
168
Authority, will he mention the fact that the guidelines that were issued by the Law Society in 1991 and in 1989 are not being implemented in 1995?
Mr. Page: I return to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Yes, I will arrange that liaison and I will more than willingly draw attention to what appears to be a failure to mention that matter in the searches. The Coal Authority is perfectly aware of the Law Society recommendations, and it is the Law Society that decided to review the advice to its members from the start.
I hope that this morning's debate has helped to shed more light on what has happened.
Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Page: May I make a little progress, because I hope that we can shed more light on matters?
I hope that the Coal Authority can undertake that liaison, which will reassure many of those people in Stoke-on-Trent who are worried about the blight notice.
I would not want to make any specific suggestions today because I am sure that those who best know the local circumstances can advise on what the steps should be. I do know that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Stoke-on-Trent, South will meet the chief executive of the Coal Authority shortly to explore the authority's role in more depth. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will join them to make it a triumvirate.
Mrs. Llin Golding: And the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Mr. Page: And the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Perhaps I may leave them with the suggestion that further steps to give wider currency to those matters locally would be worth while. Naturally, the authority already has contacts with the building societies and has offered to meet and discuss the issues with interested parties. I emphasise that. Although those contacts exist, I have not been involved in those contacts and shall adopt the approach that I have already agreed. If that can contribute to some local initiatives that would improve understanding of their roles, I have no doubt that those organisations would wish to do so, and I would wish them to do so.
Ms Walley: I have one eye on the clock. I want to establish, before the Minister concludes, that he is able to confirm to the House that, whatever debate he has with the Coal Authority, he will subsequently meet my hon. Friends and me, with whomever else from the Law Society we feel will be necessary to make it possible to have a meaningful discussion, so that we can find a way of tackling the problems—in other words, that he will continue the dialogue, and that we can find a way to proceed following his further discussions with the Coal Authority.
Mr. Page: I always look forward to meeting the hon. Lady; I remember a private Member's Bill in which we made progress in helping merchant shipping. If, after that meeting with the Coal Authority, the hon. Lady and her colleagues feel that they have not made any ground and want to visit me to discuss the matter further, I shall be perfectly happy and more than prepared to do so.

169
Before I say my last few words, I shall mention the current legal action against the authority, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. It would obviously be inappropriate to debate any particulars of the case, which is, or may be, the subject of court proceedings. However, I understand from the Coal Authority that there are many cases relating to Stoke-on-Trent in connection with which it has received a letter before action or writ, and reference has been made to the numbers. In general, those cases relate to the disclosure of a disused mine shaft or mine shafts in a coal mining search report that were not disclosed in a previous report where the criteria were different. The authority is defending those actions; I strongly suspect that the two cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers are typical of those cases.
I understand that, as far as the Coal Authority is aware, none of the properties shows any sign of coal mining subsidence and, as I have explained, if they should suffer any such damage at any time there is a clear right to repair under the 1991 Act.
I shall now summarise. First, any old coal mine shafts can give rise to safety problems. They can also cause subsidence damage. Both types of problem are relatively unknown, not in absolute terms in relation to numbers of incidents but in relation to the large numbers of coal mining shafts that are known to exist. The mere presence of a shaft, where the shaft has not previously been identified on the ground and gives no practical problems, should not be a major concern or a cause of anxiety. That is a key matter. However, Opposition Members have made the understandable case regarding worries about blight.
Secondly, in the exceptional cases—exceptional in relation to the total number of shafts that are known—where old shafts give rise to safety or subsidence problems, there are clear statutory duties on the Coal Authority or, where relevant, on its lessees to act and to remedy any safety problem or subsidence damage.
Because of the low incidence of problems and the statutory right of householders where problems are encountered, there should be no widespread concern among mortgage lenders, conveyancers or house buyers in cases where a recent mining search discloses a shaft that was not recorded on earlier mining searches. In all cases, it will be necessary for an extension of the mining search process, in line with the Law Society's guidance, to include an assessment of the materiality of the shaft.
I am left with the feeling that there is an information gap on some issues. There may be further steps that could usefully be taken at a local level to improve awareness of the facts and the relevant statutory framework. I would welcome any moves in that direction.

University Funding (Luton)
1 pm
Sir Graham Bright: I welcome the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House an issue that effects my constituency and highlights one of the Government's most striking successes: the increase in participation rates in higher education. I welcome my two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), who support the case that I shall put.
Recognising the importance of ensuring that the people of Britain are equipped with the highest level of education necessary to meet the challenges of the future, the Government made a manifesto commitment in 1992 to have one in three young people in higher education by the year 2000. To put that target in perspective, it should be remembered that, in 1979, the figure was only one in eight. In order to assist in achieving that target, huge sums of money were allocated to both revenue and capital funding for higher education establishments.
I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that the success of the Government's policy was such that the target levels of participation in higher education were achieved much sooner than originally envisaged, in 1993—seven years ahead of target. One third of young people now enter higher education and the participation rate for mature students has risen by 50 per cent. since 1979. We have the second highest graduation rate in the European Union, and our universities are internationally highly respected.
The achievement of the Government's aims ahead of target was possible only through the commitment of our universities which, as well as increasing student numbers, have also increased efficiency so that costs per student have substantially reduced. All universities have played their part in the success and all must be congratulated. However, as the hon. Member for Luton, South, I must say that some universities have played a greater part than others.
That is particularly true of the new universities, a group to which the university of Luton is the most recent English member, having been granted university status in 1993. Luton increased its full-time student numbers from 1,000 to 8,000 in four years, and has about 9,000 this year. Full-time students represent 65 per cent. of the total, and 28 per cent. of the total is made up of part-time higher education students. A further 7 per cent. are in-company or short-course students.
The strategic importance of Luton within the south-east cannot seriously be questioned. It was therefore right for the former Luton college of higher education fully to take on board Government policies and expand in order to reach university status.
Not only did the university of Luton increase the total number of full-time students, it expanded most in the subject areas that are job orientated—the so-called band 2 or workshop-based subjects. The band 1 to band 2 ratio at Luton is 49.8:50.2 per cent.—much lower than other higher education institutions. That means that Luton is educating more people in the subjects directly related to jobs than any other university. That is of particular importance when one considers that the unemployment rate in Luton is nearly 10 per cent. and, although decreasing, is still higher than the average in the south-east.

171
The university of Luton is also a teaching-oriented institution and believes that its expertise in the development of teaching skills, and a variety of teaching environments should be valued as such. In time, it will develop a research base, but its mission involves a strong commitment to creating opportunities for access to higher education for under-represented groups such as women and for those who do not have the traditional entry requirements for higher education.
Some 55.6 per cent. of the university of Luton's students are over the age of 21, and female students outnumber male students. That is perhaps not surprising when it is noted that 40 per cent. of the total are local students; many young mothers take the opportunity to educate themselves at the university while bringing up a family. The student profile at the university of Luton accords exactly with the groups of people to which the Government's policy to expand participation in higher education was, and continues to be, targeted.
The university of Luton's unique role in educating people to a high level for work is also recognised by the many world-class companies that operate from Luton. The university receives industrial support from, among others, Vauxhall Motors, Whitbread, Willmott Dixon, Barclays bank and National Westminster bank. Paid work placements are provided by 125 companies, and more than 100 companies support the university through the advisory, validation and quality assurance committees. Those companies would only part with their hard-earned cash and expertise to support an institution that was providing what they needed to help their businesses succeed.
On the basis of all that information, I contend that the university of Luton has more than played its part in ensuring the success of Government policy. Unfortunately, Luton, along with many of the so-called new universities—those that have come into existence in the past two years—are victims of their own success. I hasten to add that I do not believe that to be a result of Government policy, but because of the detailed workings of that policy that are dealt with outside the political arena.
As I am sure we are all aware, English universities receive funding from two main sources: course fees, and grants from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the HEFCE. Course fees are administered by local education authorities and are the same for different types of courses, regardless of where they are studied. A band 2 student brings with him or her the same amount of funding whichever university he or she attends.
Until 1993, the fee income per student was high, and there was no capping limit. It was mainly through that mechanism that the increase in student numbers was achieved, because universities and colleges of higher education could afford to grow by taking on students on a fees-only basis. Luton college of higher education took full advantage of that opportunity and, by growing, was able to attain university status. When the Government's targets had been reached, the fees per student were reduced by more than a half, which had the effect of consolidating student numbers and increasing the importance of HEFCE funding.
Funding is allocated separately for research and teaching. There was much publicity not long ago when several well-known, traditionally research-based universities won their case to maintain their element of
172
research funding. It is claimed that research funding and teaching funding are mutually exclusive. That contention should be challenged as, especially with band 2 subjects, there is no doubt that some so-called research facilities are used by both undergraduate and postgraduate students. I will not say more about that subject, as I wish to concentrate on the teaching element of HEFCE funding.
The funding for teaching is allocated according to a formula which should be fair and transparent—unfortunately, it is neither. Comparative analysis of HEFCE funding for teaching from one university to another is not easy, because different types of courses are funded differently, with band 1, humanities, funded at the lowest level and band 3, medical studies, funded at the highest level, with band 2 in between.
The use of the raw data of average unit council funding—where the total allocation for teaching is divided by the total number of students—is indicative of inequity in the system, and shows that something is not right. For example, in 1994, the amount of HEFCE funding allocated for teaching per full-time equivalent student in Luton was £1,532, compared with £2,336 for the university of Hertfordshire, and £2,850 for the university of York.
I am sure that the Minister will note that I have deliberately not included universities with medical schools in my figures in an attempt to compare like with like. In light of those figures, the question must be asked: why are students at the university of Luton each allocated £800 less than those at the university of Hertfordshire, which is located in the neighbouring county, and more than £1,300 less than in York, where costs are much lower?
As I have said, I accept that analysis of the raw data has its limitations, because of the differences in course mix from university to university. Therefore, I shall cite some figures calculated by Dr. Peter Knight, vice-chancellor of the university of Central England, which were published in The Times Higher Educational Supplement in January this year. Dr. Knight's figures take into account different course types by comparing the allocations over all subjects in all universities and analysing the funding for each subject at each university compared with the average.
Two features of Dr. Knight's analysis are particularly striking. First, the new universities that have rapidly increased their student numbers in recent years—such as Luton, Bournemouth, Anglia, Humberside and Derby—have exceptionally low allocations of HEFCE funding for teaching compared with other universities. Secondly, the new universities fare worse than the old universities in funding terms.
I could make conjecture about why that is the case; suffice it to say that a formula that can lead to Imperial college receiving £998 more per student than the university of Luton, even after allowing for subject mix, when the average funding for full-time students is £1,600, represents a huge variation. If the allocation for research is added to that for teaching, the variation becomes almost obscene. I believe that those variations are indefensible. They are a strong indication that the formula for allocating money to universities needs to be reviewed, with special reference to the proportion of the total funding allocated according to student numbers.

173
It is a credit to the new universities, such as Luton, that they are able to reach the required quality standards despite their relative underfunding, but that could lead to problems in the longer term. It will certainly not allow on-going investment in and further development of the new universities. In that context, it must be remembered that the new universities to which I am principally referring were colleges of higher education until very recently, and, as such, have historically been the poor relations of higher education compared with the old universities and with those colleges that became polytechnics in the 1970s.
Therefore, they start off at a low base with regard to equipment, facilities and spare cash for investment. They are, quite correctly, putting all their resources into maintaining the quality of their teaching and the teaching environment. However, it is essential that they receive a fairer slice of the cake if they are to maintain and develop their standards.
The HEFCE recognises that there are inequities in the formula, by applying harsher efficiency gains to the more generously funded universities. However, it is estimated that that method will take between 15 and 20 years to narrow the current range of funding for teaching to within 5 per cent. of the average. As an aside, I add that it is just as well the new universities did not take 15 to 20 years to respond to the Government's initiatives to increase student numbers, or we would still be a long way short of our target.
To add insult to injury, the recent allocations to universities incorporated a sum of £26.6 million across the whole higher education sector, under the heading "Non-Consolidated Core Funding". Those funds were originally allocated to fund growth, but as student numbers are now consolidating rather than expanding, the HEFCE decided to distribute the sum pro rata to core funds for teaching.
Therefore, there was money in the budget to allow the HEFCE to address the current inequity of funding, but it chose instead to reinforce that inequity. I simply cannot believe that that was in any way an informed decision, especially when one considers that the money was originally allocated for growth. Surely it would have been fairer to allocate the extra funds according to past growth, as the high-growth universities are the ones currently adversely affected by the funding formula.
The HEFCE was set up as an independent body to allocate funds to universities, and it is right that the Minister should be legally precluded from interfering in HEFCE allocations to individual universities. However, I believe that it is the Government's duty to ensure that all their policies are fair. Therefore, they would be within their rights to question the formula used by the HEFCE to allocate teaching funds, which obviously does not give enough weight to student numbers.
Modifying the formula for teaching in higher education to ensure that it is driven by student numbers would be entirely consistent with the Government's policies in other areas. The local management of schools formula for allocating budgets to schools must, by law, be at least 80 per cent. based on pupil numbers—and quite rightly so. The amount of money that a school requires is dependent mainly on the number of pupils who attend that school.
174
The health reforms have also ensured that money follows the patient, and thus have led to major improvements in the health care offered in areas such as Bedfordshire. It is simply wrong that the same principle does not apply to allocating teaching funds in the higher education sector, as the costs for teaching relate mainly to the number of students.
The Minister has already announced that he intends to review the HEFCE formula this summer in order to ensure that it is appropriate for the current period of consolidation. I trust that he will ensure that the review removes the current inequities in teaching funding—especially to those new universities which have more than played their part in increasing student numbers to the level required by the Government.
In conclusion, the expansion of participation rates in higher education must be considered one of the Government's greatest successes and a great achievement of which we should all be proud. Having increased student numbers to such unprecedented levels, we are now in a period of consolidation. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity presented by the review of the HEFCE formula to ensure that we have a formula that is fair, transparent and student driven and which thus allows all our universities—particularly the university of Luton—to go from strength to strength in the future.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) for securing this opportunity to draw attention to the achievements of the university of Luton. I know that he and other hon. Members from Bedfordshire have taken a keen personal interest in the university's development.
I had the honour of speaking at the lunch to celebrate its inauguration as England's newest university in November 1993. I was pleased then, as I am now, to congratulate Luton on its remarkable progress from college to university in a relatively short period. I know that it is the result of a great deal of hard work. I recognise the university's academic achievements and its success in providing greater access to higher education along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend.
He raises important questions about funding for the university of Luton and for universities and colleges in general. He correctly acknowledges that they are also connected to wider questions about the nature of the relationships between Ministers, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the universities and colleges. I shall refer to those relationships before talking about funding specifically.
At the heart of the relationship between Ministers, the funding council and the universities and colleges are the principles of institutional independence and academic freedom. University autonomy is a central feature of our higher education system. It is protected in law. Ministers are barred by statute from interfering in funding allocations to individual institutions and from setting criteria for the admission of students, the selection of staff or the content of courses.
The Government set the overall level of public funding for higher education in light of what the country can afford, the higher education funding councils throughout

175
the United Kingdom distribute grants to institutions within the context of Government policy, and the institutions decide how those funds should be spent according to their own priorities. The system protects the independence of universities and colleges. It gives them the freedom to experiment and innovate, and to gear their provision to changing needs.
Therefore, the Government do not direct the higher education system; they provide a framework within which the providers of higher education can respond to the needs of users, and they also ensure that the sector receives a fair share of public funds, as my hon. Friend graciously acknowledged.
I am also grateful to him for highlighting the success of our higher education system and acknowledging the part played by public funds in helping to secure it. Higher education has been one of the fastest growing public expenditure programmes in recent years. Nearly £5 billion will be available to English universities and colleges in 1995–96 through funding council grant and tuition fees. Student support will add another £1.5 billion. That follows successive real-terms increases in funding.
The spending growth in public funds has been accompanied by rapid expansion in student numbers. As my hon. Friend said, participation of young people in higher education now stands at a record level of more than 30 per cent. and the number of mature students has risen dramatically. It is a remarkable achievement. That it has been accomplished with significant real improvements in productivity, while maintaining quality is a testament to the resourcefulness of our universities and colleges.
However, expansion has imposed significant demands on the taxpayer. It is now widely recognised that there is a limit to the amount which the taxpayer can be expected to pay for higher education. Against that background, we announced in the 1992 autumn statement a period of consolidation in student numbers.
Our current expenditure plans assume an increase of 22,000 full-time equivalent student numbers between 1994–95 and 1995–96 and provide for participation in higher education to be maintained at around 30 per cent. up to 1997–98. We have asked the HEFCE to ensure that those numbers are not exceeded, and it has decided to achieve that by setting maximum numbers of award holders for each institution.
Our expenditure plans for 1996–97 and beyond will be announced later this year in the 1995 Budget. For the longer term, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has set in train a review of higher education which is considering issues relating to the purpose of higher education and its future size and shape. We have had more than 100 responses from different organisations to our consultation exercise earlier this year, and we are carefully analysing them all.
Within the overall funding provided by the Government, the HEFCE is responsible for distributing grant funds to different institutions. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), set out broad guidance to the HEFCE in 1992, when it was established. The guidance concentrated on the key aims which its funding methods should meet and the particular issues to take into account.
176
In short, those are to secure greater efficiency, to relate funding to quality, to maintain the diversity of missions of institutions and to secure stability of funding. Further guidance is given each year in an annual grant letter announcing the outcome of the public expenditure survey.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, however, Ministers do not seek to influence the detail of the funding council's funding methods or its allocations. Under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, while the Secretary of State for Education may attach terms and conditions to her grant to the HEFCE, they may not relate to the funding allocations to individual institutions.
The HEFCE has taken on responsibility for an enlarged higher education sector with a diverse range of institutions. It has worked hard, in consultation with universities and colleges, to develop funding mechanisms that reward efficiency, but secure as much stability as possible in funding year to year.
It is a measure of the HEFCE's success that those mechanisms have enabled the sector to adjust to the transition from expansion to consolidation without undue turbulence. That is particularly important in the current climate, as we are asking institutions to make continuing efficiency gains within tight budgets.
The HEFCE's funding method is applied to all institutions according to the same general principles, although individual institutions will, of course, have different allocations. Grant funding is mostly for research and teaching, although there is some non-formula funding for expenditure which cannot fit easily into a general funding formula. There is also capital funding. Nearly all the research funding is allocated by a formula which reflects quality ratings measured in periodic research assessment exercises.
The majority of the HEFCE's funds for teaching is allocated to a core which guarantees institutions a high percentage of the previous year's funding, provided that they recruit agreed student numbers. The average unit of council funding is calculated by reference to the previous core funding provided by the council and the number of students recruited by an institution. It is determined separately for each academic subject category, level of study and mode of attendance.
Institutions that have higher average units of funding will have higher annual efficiency gains applied to their core funding than those with lower average units of funding. The remainder of the funding council's funds for teaching is allocated to the margin, which is targeted on specific activities. Institutions which have lower efficiency gains will receive a proportionately larger share of formula-based allocations of marginal funding.
I believe that Dr. Peter Knight, in the article to which my hon. Friend referred, acknowledged the HEFCE's funding method for teaching to be even-handed between long-established institutions and new universities, and it noted that the level of grant funding for teaching that an institution receives from the HEFCE is related largely to its own decisions on student recruitment. I understand that the HEFCE has replied to Dr. Knight's article, pointing out that, in respect of the variations between institutions in the average units of council funding for the same subject, the option of providing the same funding for each subject to all institutions was rejected, following consultation with the institutions themselves.

177
Those, such as Luton, that have chosen to increase student numbers significantly in recent years will have lower average units of council funding but higher total levels of teaching funding, taking into account funding council grants and tuition fees, than would otherwise have been the case.
It is worth stressing that the funding council does not decide how universities and college run their own affairs. Institutions decide how to deploy their total public and private resources, in the light of their individual missions and their particular development plans. Whatever their decisions, all institutions must manage within the resources available to them.
In the current period of consolidation, the HEFCE is setting maximum numbers of awards for each institution in order to ensure that the sector does not exceed the student numbers for which we have provided in our expenditure plans. In setting maximum numbers, the funding council has taken account of the rate of in-built growth in student numbers within each institution. I accept that that will inevitably mean that some institutions will not be able to continue to expand as they may have wished, but I am sure that the House will appreciate the reasons for the decisions on public expenditure that underlie our current policy.
Equally, I appreciate the university of Luton's desire to secure the level of funding it believes it needs to pursue its plans, but, as I have explained, funding allocations to individual institutions are the responsibility of the HEFCE, not Ministers. It would not, therefore, be right for me to offer a view about the funding allocation to Luton or any other university or college. If any institution is unhappy with the funding it receives from the HEFCE, it should discuss the matter with the funding council.
I believe that the HEFCE's chief executive has met the vice-chancellor of Luton university and his colleagues on a number of occasions. The university will therefore have been able to make its case directly to the funding council. That is clearly the way forward, but I shall be happy to pass on the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend today to the council.
I should clarify that the council, not Ministers, is currently reviewing its funding methodology, and will be consulting institutions about its plans. The review is instigated and managed by the funding council itself. Naturally, institutions which favour particular changes of any kind will be able to express their views as part of the consultation process, and I hope that they will.
I hope that I have made clear that the financial position of each institution depends largely on its own decisions on recruitment and management, which is as it should be. Although I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in and enthusiasm for the university of Luton, Ministers have properly set the funding framework, but are not and should not be in the business of instructing the funding council, or of telling individual institutions how to run their affairs in their own circumstances, using the resources available to them.

Low Income Statistics
1.30 pm
Mr. Frank Field: We go from hefty to low income statistics in one jump, if not in one move.
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the Social Security Select Committee's reports on low income statistics. Given that the Under-Secretary is present, I hope that we may take the debate a few stages further. If it had been taking place 160 years ago, the Prime Minister would be in his seat on the Treasury Bench to initiate it. Robert Peel believed that one had to have not only a feel for politics but a passion to know what was happening in evolving Victorian Britain. He thought that it was a prime job of government to provide information on which politicians could make sensible decisions and that would provide the expanding electorate with a more informed view of policies debated in the Chamber. It is a double compliment to the Minister that the present Administration feel that he is a proper substitute for Robert Peel. Anybody who has been through the baptism of fire of the Child Support Agency knows of the respect and affection in which the House holds the Minister in respect of that and other topics.
On the Victorian theme, if one walks along the Library Corridor, one sees local government reports for every year. At the turn of each calendar year, reports were published by the House containing information on how the Poor Law was working. If there had been a set-to and a punch-up in the Peckham workhouse, the inquiry report would be included in the year's annual returns to the House. What people ate and their comings and goings to and from the Poor Law were faithfully recorded.
It is a strange indictment of our society, given how much we have invested in modern technology, that we probably know less about what is happening in our society than the Victorians knew about what was happening in theirs. That is a double disadvantage because we need a basis for rational debate, and society is again changing rapidly. One has only to look at the labour market and at fiscal and benefit policies to know that it is crucial to have an up-to-date picture of what is happening, so that policies can be shaped according to the real world, not according to the fantasy world that politicians, sadly, too often inhabit.
The budget for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible is approaching £90,000 million and is the largest single item of Government expenditure. Although taxpayers have, until now, with not too grudging approval, agreed to those funds, they know as we do that one reason for spending £90,000 million is concern for people at the bottom of society. Under Harold Wilson's Government, an Administration began to collect data on low-income statistics. The frequency of their publication was increased so that, at the 1979 general election, those statistics made an annual appearance—albeit many years after the year to which they applied.
For reasons that I do not need to give, the Government decided to set aside that series of statistics and to introduce data on incomes below average earnings. The Select Committee took a different view and has continued at regular intervals to publish what would have been the low income statistics series, had the Government continued it. As I have commented before, the Government would have a better record to put before the electorate if they had stuck with the old series.

179
Both series are valuable, but that value is limited. Both provide a snapshot of people on low incomes at any one time. The information contained in the Government's official data on households having below-average incomes far exceeds that which we expected to gain from the low-income families data. Certain information given in the series set aside cannot be obtained from the data on households having below-average incomes. Although the Government publish information on the numbers of people below income support level who do not claim for reasons other than non-eligibility, the low-income series gives a much more comprehensive picture of the group that appears to be eligible and is not claiming and that which is below eligibility levels for income support but is not claiming for other reasons, such as ignorance of entitlement.
I hope that we shall spend most of our time debating not the old-fashioned snapshot approach but the urgency of obtaining information about what is happening to the same people over time. We have a lot of information about what is happening to groups at certain income levels over time, but not about whether the same people form those groups. If Robert Peel were participating in this debate, he would say that the Government are setting off with maps that are equivalent to those of the world drawn up by people who believed that it was flat, when what is needed are maps that take into account the fact that the world is round. Instead of having Brownie snapshots of income levels at any one time, we need a movie camera to keep a gaze on particular groups over time.
In the 1970s, the new earnings survey was used to provide such information. In one particular year, the lowest decile was taken out and that group was followed for the next five years. Of course, some people were lost from the survey, and at the end of the five years it was not complete. However, we learned that it was wrong to think that, because someone is poor or on a low income now, he will be in the same position next year—let alone in five years' time. The new earnings survey showed an enormous movement of people up the income scale. Some people bounced up from the bottom to the second-from-top decile in the space of five years.
Part of the emphasis in this debate should be on calling attention to the importance of data that look at the same people over time. One is grateful to the Institute for Fiscal Studies for producing such data recently, showing that the poor form not a homogeneous group, but one that varies. There is a flip side to the cheerful news that that brings to the Government, who can rightly point out that, at any one time, the poor are not the same group. Of most concern to the House is the group in the snapshot that remain poor over a long period.
I wish to make two pleas. First, under the old supplementary benefit system, returns were made which showed us how many people claimed benefit not only for one or two years, but for three, four, five, 10 and 15 years, and more. Since the introduction of income support, there have been no equivalent data. Instead, there has been a grouping of everyone who has claimed for more than two years. Is it possible to include additional information in our returns on income support?
I move on to my second plea. I congratulate the Government on the family resources survey, which will begin our movie camera approach to what is happening to poorer people and richer people, but surely we should have regard to the three great cohort studies that were
180
initiated after the war, in 1946, 1958 and 1970. We should ascertain to what extent we can build on to their retrieval of information, given that there is still contact with most of the people in each of the samples. There are questions that I would like to be answered.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that my intervention will go slightly beyond the focus of the debate. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to consider establishing a framework of successive cohort studies every seven years, whether in the United Kingdom or throughout the European Union, with a return every seven years, so that we are aware of changes within the changing picture?
Mr. Field: The cohort studies were initiated by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who for a long time was a Member of Parliament. If he were still alive—sadly, he is not—there might have been some follow-up studies consequent on the 1970 study. I agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
We need desperately to know by what exits people leave benefit and gain work. If they gain work, is it full-time or part-time? If it is part-time work, is that what they wanted or did they want more? If they get a part-time job, are they able soon to move up the rungs to a full-time job? If that full-time job is a low-paid one, how do they get themselves into much better paid positions within the same firm or another firm?
There is a great need for answers to the questions that I have posed. There may be exits from poverty which we have not considered and which we need to encourage once we have the relevant information. There is an obvious place at which to start, and it is not the new study that the Government have commissioned, on which I congratulate them. We should make the maximum use of the three cohort studies which were initiated in the earlier post-war period, which could begin to answer the questions that I have asked.
1.42 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I shall make only a brief speech, because I am anxious to hear the Minister's response to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I am struck by the fact that social security expenditure is at record levels. Yet one of the major worries in British society is what might be called social insecurity. Paradoxically, there is an equation between social security expenditure and social insecurity. Pensions and child benefit, within the social security budget, provide evidence of social security. Much of the rest of that budget—for example, expenditure on unemployment and expenditure through income support on one-parent families—is, in a sense, evidence of insecurity in society.
One of the difficulties for Ministers in the Department of Social Security, whether now or in future, is assessing the forces within our economy and society that make for social insecurity. It is their task to determine the best way in which to attack some of those forces. That challenge points to policies within the public sector that are often the province of Departments other than the Department of Social Security.
It is my plea that there should be a coherent approach to family policy. As a new member of the Select Committee on Social Security, it strikes me that, while

181
some of the data on low incomes are available because of factors that are well known, especially unemployment, increasingly family poverty wears a newer face. Much of that poverty is the result of the growth of one-parent families. Whatever we say about that growth, we should all be concerned that there is almost an equation between one-parent families and poverty.
We know that seven of every 10 one-parent families depend on income support. Of the never-married single parents with children—they constitute one of the most vulnerable and fastest-growing groups—85 per cent. are on income support. Our expenditure on income support is very much a symptom of insecurity and family breakdown. One of the great challenges in social policy is to determine how we should start to shift resources away from breakdown—in other words, spending on breakdown—to investing in families on income support.
We have heard something about data, and the relevant reports are full of data. They relate to millions of children within families on income support or with incomes just above that level. I shall mention a one-parent family who came to see me at my surgery—a young woman of 21 years with a two-year-old boy. The mother and her child are entirely dependent on the state in the sense that they have a local authority flat—it is a pretty poor one that is badly heated—and are on income support. The child has asthma and it is often necessary for the mother to call in the national health service. That family is an example of great dependency on the state.
The family I have described, and many others like it, are costing the country dear. The nation is contributing billions of pounds to assist vulnerable families. At the same time, the standard of living of the individual family to whom I have referred is extremely poor. I was especially concerned because the mother has great ambitions. She told me that she did not want to be on income support. She wants a job. She told me that she wanted to be a traffic warden. That is a brave decision, given Croydon's traffic circumstances. She told me of her idea and she wanted support to help her secure that job.
I replied, "When you deal with the Department of Social Security or any other Government agency, has anyone talked to you about your ambition, including the training that you might need to become a traffic warden or to take on another job? Has anyone discussed with you child care implications?" Sadly, the answer was no. That was partly because, being on income support, she did not have to report for work. There was no requirement that she should search for work. Under the current system, there was no package of training, advice about child care or counselling.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will take up the wider aspects of social security and tell us when, at last, the Government will get to grips with family policy.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. Over about 15 minutes we have ranged extremely wide, from Sir Robert Peel through to pleas for a coherent family policy. There has been reference to Lone
182
families and statistics. As the House knows, I could cheerfully debate each item for far longer than 15 minutes. I shall do my best to confine my response.
I make no claim to be Sir Robert Peel. I do, however, come from the same place as Sir Robert. We are both from Bury in Lancashire, where Sir Robert's tower still stands overlooking the town. He is remembered with great affection and his statue is in the town square to celebrate what he did in terms of the corn laws and feeding the people. He is especially well remembered.
I welcome the opportunity to debate and to discuss low income statistics. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, it is vital that we have reliable and up-to-date information about those on low incomes. It is important that we are able to identify which groups on low income are most at risk and the circumstances that produce those risks. There has been a variety of statistics. Probably the most well known of the current statistics is that set which is known as households below average income. Those statistics provide us with the overview that we now use. The statistics are not used alone. I shall be making reference to other studies and talking about other information that we can use. I hope that my remarks will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—I have in mind especially his final remarks.
It is, of course, entirely within the aim of government to have as coherent a family and social policy as possible, bearing in mind the complexity of family structure now, and particularly the change in relation to lone parenthood, which we have discussed a number of times in this place.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the report from the board of social responsibility of the Church of England? Unlike the headlines in the papers—broadsheet and tabloid—and reports from the BBC, that report accurately says that four out of five children are brought up by two-parent families, that two thirds of lone parent families were not single parents to begin with and that, by having respect for families and for family responsibilities, and by building up their confidence and their competence, we are likely to have fewer people falling into the low income statistics, and more coming out faster.
Mr. Burt: I welcome the analysis that is contained in the report, of which I have read something. I do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions and I do not necessarily agree with its failure to promote a particular form of family as the ideal. The report is right to look at the complexity of family life today. It is right to seek an end to condemnation, but one can look forward to an ideal of family structure without necessarily condemning those who are on their way towards it.
To remove completely the aim and aspiration of a married relationship does not seem correct to me, but that is a matter for the Church, and no doubt we shall be hearing much more about that. Its attempt to analyse, and to supplement the analysis of, the complexity of family life that we have today is extremely relevant and it attempts to deal with the world as it is. It is the Government's job to deal with the world as it is and families as they are, but, if it is anyone's job to say where they would like the world to be and where they would like people to be, I believe that it is for Christians and for the Church to make a statement in relation to that as well.

183
The households below average income statistics are based on the family expenditure survey. It looks at the incomes of individuals on the assumption that each person shares the total income of the household. Using that information, it estimates the pattern of incomes of the United Kingdom and how it changes over time.
The HBAI provides information on how individuals fare, relative to their counterparts in the year of analysis, by looking at the number of individuals below various fractions of average income. It also allows comparisons to be made with earlier time periods by looking at numbers of individuals below fixed income thresholds. Income growth is estimated for the population, broken down by position in the income distribution, economic and family types. Information on who makes up the low income groups is also provided.
Over recent years, the HBAI has also included information on those with above-average incomes. This provides a complete picture of the changing income distribution. It is an evolving analysis that seeks to shed new light on aspects of income distribution, but it does suffer from the problem of being a snapshot. I shall say a little about longitudinal studies in a moment. I shall outline briefly some of the results from the latest edition, which bear some repetition. They were more positive than negative. The results show that the average income of British households has risen by around 38 per cent. Increases were not confined to a few top earners. The average income of all family types reported on in the HBAI has increased.
Pensioners have fared particularly well—the average income of pensioner couples, after housing costs, has increased by 53 per cent. in real terms. There are also far fewer pensioners in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution—only 8 per cent., compared to 31 per cent. in 1979. It is also encouraging to note that average income has increased for the unemployed and for those in full-time work on low pay.
Income has increased for the majority of the working population, although there continues to be a dispersion of earnings, probably reflecting a shift towards skilled labour and an improvement in labour market flexibility. Even the least well-off have been able to improve their living standards, as various studies showing the increase in consumer durables among the bottom 20 per cent. have shown over time. However, the results for the lowest income group need to be interpreted carefully—I think that the House understands that better than some analysts outside—particularly those for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution.
There are two important considerations, of which the first is changes in composition. An increase in the number of people reporting low incomes can affect the average income of the bottom decile and cause an apparent reduction, even where incomes are higher than those of individuals in a similar position in 1979. Changes in employment are especially important there. Since 1992, unemployment has fallen by nearly 600,000, but the snapshot of society at the time that the statistics were compiled naturally reflects the higher unemployment figure then, and the number of people reporting low incomes, especially the self-employed, has had its impact.
Secondly, incomes are not always a reliable indicator of true living standards for lower income groups. Of course, the bottom decile includes many people on low incomes and correspondingly low living standards, but it
184
also includes, especially at the very bottom, many people, often self-employed, reporting very low incomes but with relatively high expenditure. The number of self-employed reporting zero or negative incomes has increased significantly. However, of the 150,000 self-employed reporting no income, around 60 per cent spend more than the average for the population as a whole.
That casts some doubt on the bottom decile statistics, particularly in relation to those who are in occupations where reporting a lower income than one might have is rather an advantage. The bottom decile spends more than the second decile and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the expenditure of the bottom income decile, after housing costs, has risen by about 30 per cent. since 1979.
I now come to the longitudinal studies, and I pay tribute to the IFS work. When individual fortunes are followed through, a different picture emerges from the snapshot. Recent work, again by the IFS, shows that up to a half of those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution in 1991 had left it by the following year, and for those who had left, income rose by 45 per cent. Even among those who remained, income rose slightly over the year. That research, therefore, tells us what the snapshot does not: the poor are not, as they are so often portrayed, a stagnant group with gradually declining living standards. It also shows that, over relatively short periods, there is a significant movement into and out of the lowest decile of the income distribution.
We are, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has pointed out, very aware of the need to complement analyses like the HBAI with information about how the position of individuals changes over time. I hope that some details about our current programme of research will be of help to the hon. Gentleman and the House.
The Department's current programme of research includes a number of projects, both longitudinal and cross-sectional. First, analysis of the British household panel survey continues. It is a longitudinal study of a nationally represented sample of more than 5,000 households in Great Britain and involves an annual survey of each adult member in the household, making a total of more than 10,000 individual interviews.
The aim is to collect and analyse evidence of the experiences of a representative panel of the British population over a number of years, to improve our understanding of the incidence, pattern, duration, interrelation and impact of everyday issues and experiences and to examine how individuals, families and households confront them. That is precisely the information that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West was looking for to deal with some of the complex situations that arrive in our surgeries every day.
Secondly, work based around the national child development study continues. That longitudinal study follows the lives of all those living in Great Britain who were born between 3 and 9 March 1958. It was started by the National Children's Bureau, which carried out a follow-up survey of the 16,500 people in that group when the children reached age seven in 1965, and continued with further surveys at ages 11, 16 and 23. The most recent wave was conducted by the City university in 1991, when the respondents were aged 33.
We clearly intend to incorporate that information, including the information that I mentioned earlier by the IFS, into our work over time. As we get more information, we shall bring that in.

185
The new earnings survey panel was mentioned earlier. I am glad to say that the longitudinal data from it are becoming available and provide similar information on the mobility of earnings to that available from another source, but the survey has a less full coverage than information from contribution records, which are already being investigated at the hon. Gentleman's request. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that we intend to use information from national insurance contributions records to track changes in circumstances. A database is being developed that will show the employment history of a representative sample of adults. The importance of employment patterns in changing incomes suggests that that data will provide valuable insights.
All that will provide us with a wealth of valuable data, but data alone will not help those who are on a low income. The important point is to identify the main causes of low income and to take positive action to help people to improve their circumstances. The clear message from the HBAI and from other information we have is that the rise in unemployment, changes in the labour market, and particularly the widening distribution of earnings, have had a major impact on the distribution of incomes. Another significant factor has been the increase in the number of families with children becoming unemployed or dependent on social security benefits.
From information, anecdotal and based on survey, the Government have deduced that getting people back into work is the very best thing that we can do for those who are relatively poor. Hence all the work that has been done in recent years—the improvements in family credit, with changes in hours and disregards, and the work done to reduce national insurance contributions at the lowest level—and the work being done—in October 1996, an in-work benefit for single people and couples with children will be piloted, and the back-to-work bonus will be introduced in October 1996. All those measures aim to bring people back into work.
We shall therefore continue to use the information on low income statistics to do the job that Governments should do best—that is, to ensure that people move out of poverty and into a position where they can be truly self-sufficient, contributing not only to their own self-esteem but to society at large.

East Jerusalem
2 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss important events concerning the Holy City during the month of May. I am grateful, too, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for coming along to reply to this brief debate. Its purpose, of course, is to give him the chance to give the House an account of the Government's response to those events and to give us his thoughts on where we all go from here.
The House knows only too well that east Jerusalem was conquered by the Israeli army in 1967 from the Arabs and has therefore been occupied territory since that date; thus, it comes under the fourth Geneva convention of 1948.
Occupied territory is a temporary phenomenon. I am just as opposed to other countries conquering and occupying by force of arms other people's territory against the wishes of their populations in 1995 as was my father's generation in western Europe in 1940–41. It is to me desperately important that the occupying power behaves impeccably. Alack, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be well aware that that has not been the case in east Jerusalem.
A few weeks ago, led by, I believe, the outspoken mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. Olmert, the Israeli Government decided to acquire 131 acres of Arab-owned land in east Jerusalem. There is some dispute about whether it was all Arab-owned land, but I think that the Foreign Office broadly accepts that figure.
Undoubtedly, the intention has been for some time to reduce the Arab population of east Jerusalem, to build them out and to have de facto annexation of Greater Jerusalem. Undoubtedly also, the intention is thus to ensure that east Jerusalem is never the capital of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine.
That is incredibly foolish. I think that the Israeli public—the majority of whom apparently go along with that policy—have totally misunderstood the resentment that any such policy, if carried out to the full, would bring to the area.
There was an interesting letter in The Independent on 20 May written by supporters of the International Campaign for Jerusalem. It said:
"Whatever piece of paper Mr. Arafat may be cajoled into signing, and whatever our individual views, the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim worlds will never accept the permanent loss of Jerusalem…What Israel and the US now seem bent on doing is to condemn Jew and Arab to relentless conflict for final domination."
Those are rather grim words.
The matter was appropriately brought before the United Nations Security Council. Alack, Madeleine Albright, the US permanent representative in New York, on behalf of the Clinton Administration, cast a veto over the resolution being proposed. That resolution was based on six other Security Council resolutions going back as far as 1968.
The ambassador said that the words went too far. On the contrary, it was a mild resolution in the rather heated circumstances. It called on the Israeli Government to rescind the seizing of the 131 acres and called on them to desist taking any such action in the future.
The Americans have done this before. They have been the big friend of Israel when it has run into trouble with the international community. But I hope that the House

187
will take grave exception to the veto that was cast. It was, after all, President Clinton who basked in the glory of that famous White House ceremony when he persuaded a slightly reluctant Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to shake hands with Mr. Yasser Arafat. How can the Americans now be regarded as fair referees between Arab and Jew after that veto?
Going beyond the middle east, there is the basic matter of international law. If we do not have international law, we have international anarchy. We have illegal acts, including terrorism, and we have a rule of might is right. I cannot believe that the United States Administration would for a moment wish to support those particular activities.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, under that declaration of principles between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government, the ultimate status of Jerusalem was deferred until next year. That was appropriate. But to make a very obvious point, it is totally wrong for the Israeli Government, having reached that agreement with the Palestinians, then to try to change the fundamentals by building the Arab population out of east Jerusalem. That is deceitful and disgraceful and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will declare that that is his view, too.
Where do we go from here? Mr. Rabin faced a potentially humiliating defeat in the Knesset. The Arab and communist parties and the Likud party joined forces and there was a real danger of his Government going down. Therefore, reluctantly, he decided not to go ahead with that seizure of Arab land. There were general words that such activity would not take place in the future. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance. To what have the Israelis committed themselves on that point?
I have seen nothing, and no one has brought to my attention any reports, to show that Mr. Rabin thought that he had made a terrible mistake in going ahead with the seizure of Arab land but realised that he had badly treated his partners on the Arab side. Think of the position of King Hussein of Jordan, who has reached a separate agreement with Israel. He was facing a deep crisis at home in his domestic politics. Think of the position of Egypt or Syria. Both countries either have or may well have in the future very close relationships with Israel.
Will it be possible for the Palestinians and the Israelis to reach a final decision on the future of Jerusalem? We hope so. Many years ago, the late Lord Caradon wrote a pamphlet in which he suggested that Jerusalem should become an international city. When he gave me that pamphlet, I was not convinced, but as time has passed—although I am well aware that any such idea is anathema to both Jew and Arab—I have decided that it may provide the answer. Perhaps the problem could be kicked into touch for 50 years until relations between countries such as Israel, Jordan and Syria are on an even keel. The alternative, a continual row over Jerusalem, could prove extremely dangerous.
I am not entirely happy about leaving negotiations to the elected Government of Israel on one side and the Palestinian National Authority on the other. First, the balance is clearly unfair; secondly, the international community must be involved. Of course the 183 countries in the United Nations have views on the future of Jerusalem: it is not just a local middle east issue. How can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister ensure that international pressure is brought to bear on the future of the Holy City?
2.11 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for allowing me to speak. The Conservative and Labour middle east councils have worked together for some years to help both the Palestinians and the Israelis to solve their problems through dialogue, but we have been increasingly frustrated by the American Government's determination to favour one side throughout the long, sorry process. The Israeli Government's veto of the Security Council resolution prompted us to engage in this short debate.
From the outset—ever since the signing of the Oslo agreement—hon. Members have supported the Palestinians and Israelis who have committed themselves to the diplomatic peace process. Today's debate is important, but its usefulness or otherwise will depend on whether we can establish a suitable approach to the central and sensitive question of Jerusalem. I am anxious to hear the Minister's response.
A meeting between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal middle east councils and a representative of the American embassy was recently called to discuss the American veto of the Security Council resolution. We were anxious to impress on the American representative the importance that we attach to international law—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath—in the search for a successful outcome to the middle east peace process. That applies particularly to the question of Jerusalem and its status as an international city under international law.
As recent events have demonstrated, controversy over the Israeli development of Jerusalem in defiance of international law poses unacceptable risks to the peace process. The purpose of the international consensus on the status of the city was to avoid such circumstances. The law governing Jerusalem provides a holding position pending negotiations and agreement on a final settlement; importantly, it also provides the best way of shoring up faith and confidence in the diplomatic peace process during these difficult times.
During a symposium organised by the Conservative and Labour middle east councils in London in 1992 to discuss the role of international law in the context of the peace process, Dr. Rashid Khalidi made precisely that point. He said that the failure of Israel and the international community to implement the principles of international law
"daily brings home to the Palestinian population under occupation their powerlessness, as well as the fact Israel is unrestrained by any external power or law, and that even the super-power sponsor of the negotiating process is unwilling or unable to restrain Israel from such violations, despite the duty to do so as a co-signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. This in turn reinforces the profound scepticism among the Palestinian population regarding this negotiating process, which in turn is grist to the mill of the minority opposed in principle to the process."
As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, the declaration of principles—which we are anxious to see fully implemented—was clearly constructed in such a way as to leave the most sensitive and complex issues until the final stages of the negotiations. One of the main reasons for our concern about the Israelis' attempt to continue the annexation of land that is in dispute—particularly land in the Jerusalem area—is that it puts pressure on the peace process.

189
It is encouraging that Israel backed down in the face of international opposition to its recent plan to expropriate more land in east Jerusalem, despite the US veto of the proposed UN Security Council resolution condemning such a land grab. There are those—including people in Washington—who say that this is a bilateral process in which we, as an international community, must not interfere. I say that support for international law—and, indeed, for the United States' own letter of assurances sent to the Palestinians before the Madrid peace process began in 1991, stating that neither side should do anything on the ground to prejudice the final outcome of the talks—can only promote progress in the bilateral process involving Israel and the PLO. Only yesterday, there were signs of progress in the Cairo talks, with an unexpected number of additional powers being offered to the Palestinian National Authority.
All that augurs well for an agreement on redeployment by the 1 July deadline. It is crucial for the House to send a clear signal of support for the conduct of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in the spirit and practice of reconciliation rather than against a background of confrontation, whether in Jerusalem, Gaza or the west bank.
2.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on raising this issue. They both have considerable experience and knowledge of the subject, and, as it happens, they nearly always agree. I shall try to respond to their specific points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath began by reciting the recent history of a very ancient city. He is, of course, right to say that the fourth Geneva convention applies. He emphasised the importance of an occupying power's compliance with the convention, and I entirely agree. That is fundamentally important, and from time to time we have made precisely the same point to the Israeli Government.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dundee, West also focused on the Israeli Government's recent decision to expropriate 130-odd acres of land in and around east Jerusalem. My hon. Friend advanced the arguments against that expropriation very clearly. The British Government regarded the decision as a serious development; let me make it plain that we consider the settlements in the occupied territories in east Jerusalem to be illegal, and also to constitute a serious obstacle to any peace settlement.
The decision to expropriate was roundly condemned by the international community, and the United Kingdom joined—and joins—in that condemnation. I very much welcome the decision by the Israeli Cabinet not to proceed with the expropriation. I very much hope that that proposal is not brought forward again at any time in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath stated rightly that the status of east Jerusalem is to be left to the end of the negotiations. I believe that it is right
190
that it should be left to the end of the negotiations. I know that there has been a tendency, especially by the Palestinian negotiators, to seek to bring forward the question of the status of east Jerusalem to an earlier stage. I believe that such an approach would be an error and it is certainly inconsistent with the declaration of principles.
The plain fact is that an agreement on the status of east Jerusalem is going to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. I do not believe that it is possible to achieve such an agreement unless substantial agreement is achieved on all the other matters. Therefore, I hope that all the parties to the negotiations will be ready and willing to stand by the principles already agreed and leave the status of east Jerusalem until the end.
I hope very much that it will possible to approach that question of status from the point of view that east Jerusalem should be made a focus for reconciliation rather than a subject of continuing conflict. I do not see how that is going to be achieved unless all the parties to the negotiations accept that a way has to be found of sharing Jerusalem. Quite what that way is, it seems to me, is not something for a British Minister to seek to identify in advance. It is a matter for negotiation by the parties to the negotiations.
I am absolutely clear in my own mind that it is wrong to seek to pre-empt any conclusion that might otherwise be possible by, for example, creating facts on the ground. Against that background, I certainly condemn any attempt to extend settlements in or around east Jerusalem. I say, too, to the Palestinians that they must not seek to pre-empt the decision in any way.
I am aware of the view of the Israeli Government that sharing Jerusalem will not be possible, that they are willing to provide access to the holy places but cannot go beyond that. That view is, of course, felt throughout the Likud, but is also a view expressed by almost all the Ministers in the present Israeli Government. My own belief is that such an approach will not provide the basis for a long-term, sustainable agreement.
I think that, if we are to see a settlement that will satisfy Palestinians and Arabs, it is going to have to be on the basis of some sharing of Jerusalem that goes beyond merely allowing access to holy places. As I say, it is not for a British Minister to seek to identify any particular model, but it is for us to commend the principles to those who participate in the negotiations, and that we will do.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West concluded his speech by referring to elections and redeployment. I share his view that this is a matter of enormous importance. I hope that it will be possible to come to an agreement around July on elections within the occupied territories and a redeployment of the Israeli defence forces away from residential areas or, at least, away from the most sensitive ones.
If the Palestinian authority is to have the kind of legitimacy that both we and, more important the Israelis wish to see—and, which, of course, th estinians wish to see—it must be underpinned by a tion In the absence of an election, that authority will not have the kind of authority and legitimacy that it requires to carry through the rather difficult decisions that it has to carry through.

191
It was partly this thinking that caused the Prime Minister to offer that the European Union should seek to co-ordinate the observing and monitoring of those elections. I am glad to say that the principle of that has been accepted and we see a fixed agreement to carry out the redeployment and to carry forward the elections as being a critical phase in the process of securing a final agreement. The European Union and the British Government in particular will seek to do all that they can to reinforce that part of this process.
2.25 pm
Sitting suspended.
192
2.30 pm
On resuming—
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Belize
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security arrangements devised to safeguard the independent future of Belize. [25429]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Belize is an independent country within the Commonwealth. Since 1 January 1994, Belize has had responsibility for its own defence.
    Mr. Davidson: Having withdrawn British troops from Belize, are the Minister and the Government satisfied that sufficient arrangements are in place to ensure that the territorial integrity of Belize is safe in the event of any external aggression? In particular, are there arrangements in place which will assist Belize in the event of substantial illegal migration affecting the territorial integrity of that state?
    Mr. Davis: The Government do not believe that a renewed military threat is likely. The Guatemalan Government have made clear their intention to resolve their disputes peacefully through negotiation.
    As to the ability to cope without the support of British forces, we agreed with the Government of Belize that the British garrison should be reduced to a training presence and that the Belize defence force would assume responsibility, as I said, on 1 January 1994. We have made it clear that we shall maintain our programme of assistance for the development of the BDF to sustain and improve the force's capability through the provision of loaned service personnel, equipment, training and advice. In addition, Belize continues to receive substantial amounts of British aid.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: One possible cause of instability in that area is, of course, the run-up to the presidential elections in Guatemala in October. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will make it clear to the Guatemalans that any playing with Belize would be extremely unhelpful because that country is a member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth and would get our full backing, and that we should like to see our warm relations with Guatemala extended and developed?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend, as ever, asks a wise question about Latin American affairs. We have maintained good relationships with Belize and Guatemala. Guatemala is clear about our stance with respect to Belize, and I think that that had a sizeable influence on their current position on the matter.

    EU Council of Ministers
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department has to increase the transparency of decision-making in the European Union Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [25432]
    Mr. David Davis: We will continue to press for more transparency in the Council's decision-making, building on the principles agreed during the United Kingdom presidency.
    Mr. Barnes: In democracies, formal legislative decisions are made by Parliaments, with full details provided of their votes and the state of Bills and amendments. This place is full of volumes of documents listing such material, yet the Council of Ministers, which is effectively the Parliament of Europe, meets in secret and all we get from it are its final directives and decisions and, occasionally, a final vote, if a vote happens to take place. Is not there a long way to go before transparency, meeting democratic requirements, is introduced into the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Davis: The United Kingdom is interested in all practical improvements which command broad support in the Council. The hon. Gentleman does not give credit where credit is due. The achievements so far include routine publication of votes, wider public access to Commission and Council documents, full briefing of the press before and after meetings of the Council and some Council sessions being held in public and televised.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not this House a good place to start in achieving real accountability of the European Union Council of Ministers? In that context, could not my hon. Friend have come back from the ministerial meeting at Messina and made a statement to the House about the preparations for the intergovernmental conference? The stand that he took at Messina was welcome, and he should never fear to stand alone.
    Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for that compliment. Throughout the course of the next six months, there will be some 15 meetings of the reflections group and I shall ensure that a clear account of what I say at those meetings will be given in a written answer.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European Union counterparts regarding the situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [25433]
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda. [25434]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): Rwanda has been discussed on a regular basis in the European Union, most recently at the Development Affairs Council on 1 June attended by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker.
    Mr. Enright: Since we beatified the blessed Baroness Chalker yesterday, I would not wish to canonise her today. Although I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the efforts that they have made in the European Union, in spite of quite disgraceful opposition, to continue to support Rwanda in the way that it is being supported, may I urge on them the necessity of taking to task the French Government for continuing to supply arms outside Rwanda to parties to the conflict and ask the Government to consult about that in the European Union?

    195
    In the context of Lomé, will the Government also take to task Zaire and South Africa who—equally—are supplying arms outside Rwanda to parties to the conflict?
    Mr. Baldry: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations. I am grateful that he has recognised that we have been taking a constructive role in trying to find a way forward for the resumption of sensible EU aid to Rwanda. Indeed, we have been taking a leading part in that effort. I hope that full resumption of EU aid will be possible in the very near future. Of course, in a situation such as that in Rwanda, armed groups wandering around the place do not help anyone. Certainly it behoves everyone in the international community to try to ensure that everyone behaves responsibly, supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and of peacekeepers in the region and does nothing else which may undermine the peace process taking place in Rwanda.
    Ms Anderson: Does the Minister accept that reconciliation can be achieved only when those responsible for the genocide are brought to justice? Does he also accept that the identity of the ringleaders is widely known, as is their whereabouts? What pressure are the Government putting on African Governments to see that those war criminals are brought to justice?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not think that there is any disagreement that those who committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law should be brought to account for their actions. That is exactly the reason why the United Kingdom Government sponsored the Security Council resolution establishing an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. As the hon. Lady says, bringing such people to trial is an essential pre-condition for efforts of reconciliation. We have been supporting the tribunal with funds and it will soon start its work. We clearly hope that, in the not too distant future, those who were responsible for some of the earlier atrocities will be brought to trial and to book, which will be part of the reconciliation process in Rwanda.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Returning to the question of arms and the arms embargo, is the Minister aware that human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch are concerned about the fact that arms are getting to former members of the Rwandan armed forces in refugee camps outside Rwanda? The suggestion is that Governments, individuals and organisations in France, South Africa and Zaire are actively involved in that process. Will the Minister and the Government, in supporting the retention of the United Nations role in Rwanda, press for the UN to have monitoring powers not only inside Rwanda but outside, to ensure that arms do not get through to would-be combatants? If that does not happen, we face the prospect of a return to intertribal conflict and the resumption of the genocide that the world saw last year.
    Mr. Baldry: I think that I answered that point fairly fully in reply to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and there is nothing else that I can say on the subject. The facts speak for themselves. We have been determined to try to ensure that there is the maximum number of international and UN monitors, and we have been among the foremost nations in helping to fund those monitors, outside as well as inside Rwanda. That will make a considerable contribution, because what is going on will be more widely known.

    EU Reflections Group
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the main items in his briefing instructions to the Minister of State as the United Kingdom representative for the start of the EU reflections group proceedings this month. [25435]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Prime Minister set out the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference in his speech in Leiden, and in the House on 1 March. That is the basis on which the Minister of State will operate in the study group. The study group is designed to prepare options for the conference; the start of the IGC itself is at least seven months away.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a normal enthusiasm for the European Union does not reduce our ability to look after our own vital national interests? Quite the reverse, it enhances that ability. In that context, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Minister of State will be as enthusiastic as he is about our membership, and will not be like Mr. Bretherton at the original Messina conference?
    Mr. Hurd: We want to make a success of British membership of the European Union, and that means that in preparing for the IGC there are certain specific things that we aim to achieve and to persuade others to achieve, and certain other things that we say that we shall not do, and would not accept if others put them forward. That is the line that my hon. Friend has begun to set out in the reflections group, and it will continue through the IGC.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that under the existing treaty of union signed at Maastricht the obligation to change or even to review the existing treaty is extremely limited? Can he tell us where any obligation to change is listed, if it is listed at all? Anything wider than that on the wide topic that has been the subject of many documents is not an obligation under the existing treaty. Indeed, it is outwith the terms, so is it not therefore optional for all members of the Union?
    Mr. Hurd: No member state can be compelled to accept any change in the Maastricht treaty. That treaty foreshadowed certain subjects that would need to be considered again, but it did not impose an obligation on any member state to accept any change.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any real point in proceeding with the meetings of the reflections group at this stage, when the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic has made it clear that he will not agree with any decisions coming out of the IGC until after our general election, when he fervently hopes that the Labour party will be in power and will give him everything that he wants?
    Mr. Hurd: Despite the blandishments of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in Bonn recently, I have the rather strong impression that that is not the Federal Chancellor's view. However, the British people will make the decision. We are entirely relaxed about the timing of the IGC. As the Prime Minister said in the speech that I have already mentioned, the Maastricht treaty has been in force for little more than 18 months, and it is rather soon

    197
    to reconsider it all. The treaty says that the review should start in 1996, so that will have to happen, but it does not lay down when the review should end.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Foreign Secretary see the discussion paper from the Fresh Start group, which claims a membership of 50 Tory Members? Did he note its recommendation that his objective at the forthcoming IGC should be to create a crisis with the other members? Would the Foreign Secretary like to express his personal opinion on those of his colleagues who want a crisis with those nations to whom we sell most of our exports? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is true. The markets provided by those countries are the cause of most of the inward investment in Britain. Will he therefore tell them that the crisis that they want with Europe would also be a crisis within British industry?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is creating in his question a crisis where no crisis exists. The paper to which he referred is still in my pending tray. We are not aiming for a crisis. We aim for steady progress towards the kind of European Union with which the Government and the British people are at ease—a Europe of nations dedicated to opening markets, to free trade and to the institutions of Europe on the whole doing less, and doing it better.

    Overseas Commerce
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to strengthen overseas commercial activities. [25436]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): On 1 March my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced plans to strengthen commercial activity overseas by opening 14 new posts and creating over 100 additional commercial staff slots. New export promotion targets and programmes, many of which will involve our posts overseas, are also included in the second competitiveness White Paper, launched on 22 May.
    Mr. Hendry: Given that we are experiencing an export-led recovery and that firms in my constituency and elsewhere are actively seeking new markets overseas, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that our diplomats around the world see it as an ever more important part of their role to actively support British industry? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he sees as the key priority in that area?
    Mr. Goodlad: Helping British companies to win business is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's largest single activity overseas, and accounts for 30 per cent. of front-line staff. We have 205 commercial sections in post world wide, and shortly there will be 217. The priorities for the commercial services are to provide market intelligence, to help find overseas business contacts, to support overseas market research, to provide information on overseas companies, to help promote products and services, to organise seminars and briefings and to give political and economic advice on overseas markets. They also provide a door-opening service for United Kingdom companies. I am confident that that work is being done professionally.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge that the size, scale and—to some extent—the status of our overseas embassies often reflects times past rather than changing patterns in the world? What steps are being made within the Foreign Office to review the strength of our overseas representation in different countries to ensure that it reflects new and emerging patterns in the world and is not frozen in the past?
    Mr. Goodlad: There is a constant process of inspection; the Foreign Office is probably the most heavily inspected and reviewed part of the public service. That is reflected by the fact that we are continually closing posts where they are no longer needed, reducing them in size and opening them where there are new challenges and opportunities. We are going through a fundamental expenditure review. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he looks for, as the list of embassies is updated on a continuous basis.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive response to that question. Does he accept that the major growth in the world in the next 10 to 15 years is likely to take place, not in over-regulated Europe, but in the middle east, the Indian sub-continent, the Pacific rim and south-east Asia? How many of the additional posts which he has announced will fall within the middle east, the Indian sub-continent, the Pacific rim, south-east Asia and China?
    Mr. Goodlad: The short answer to my hon. Friend is a lot. Information on the new posts has been placed in the Library. The list includes Australia, Turkmenistan, Thailand, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Mexico, Georgia, Laos and Armenia, and includes the very areas which my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Iraq
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's policy towards Iraq. [25437]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the UN sanctions until Iraq complies with its obligations under all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Recognising the suffering of the Iraqi people, we played a major part in achieving the unanimous adoption of resolution 986, permitting Iraq to export substantial quantities of oil in return for aid. Iraq's precipitate rejection of the resolution is a striking example of the regime's disregard for its own people.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful for the Minister's thoughtful reply. He will be glad to know that I shall not ask about past arms sales to Iraq. Will he assure the House that, as part of the sanctions, the United Nations is rigorously enforcing the question of arms imports into Iraq? Is he certain that no country is supplying armaments to that awful regime?
    Mr. Hogg: I am not aware of any military support for Iraq, and we would do our best to frustrate it should we become aware of it.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that one of the reasons which he

    199
    gave the House for continuing sanctions was the installation of elaborate monitoring equipment and the need to ensure that it works properly. Does it?
    Mr. Hogg: We are still at an early stage in installing the systems. The real problem is that Mr. Ekeus has not yet declared himself satisfied that Iraq has complied with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions that deal with weapons of mass destruction. That is particularly, although not exclusively, true of biological warfare capacity.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his counterparts in the UN over further Serbian aggression in Bosnia and Croatia. [25438]
    Mr. Hurd: I have been in close touch with counterparts about the future of the UN force in Bosnia and the detention of UN troops by the Bosnian Serbs. We have been holding talks in London with the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, in the past two days. The new French Foreign Minister will visit me this evening and that will no doubt be our main topic of conversation. While the release of the second group of hostages this morning is welcome, we all agree that all UN troops should be returned unconditionally, unharmed and at once.
    Mr. Griffiths: What does the Foreign Secretary think of the failure of the Bosnian Serbs to allow the Red Cross access to the hostages? Is not that in breach of recognised international codes of conduct and morals?
    Mr. Hurd: The Bosnian Serbs are in breach of those codes by detaining the hostages in the first place. We are applying pressures, both direct and indirect, to bring about their unconditional and immediate release. There has been some progress, although not yet enough. While people are held, they should be treated decently, and access by the Red Cross should be allowed.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of the need to maintain firmness and cohesion among the nations of the contact group, are there plans for the contact group to meet either at Heads of Government or Foreign Minister level? If there are no such plans, will my right hon. Friend consider convening a meeting?
    Mr. Hurd: We had a meeting at ministerial level last week, and I am sure that we shall need another such meeting before long.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary will know that there have been some reports that Mr. Kozyrev is unenthusiastic about the proposals for an additional deployment of troops from the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us as a result of his conversations with Mr. Kozyrev whether he is now reconciled to that further deployment? Is there now a risk that Russia will object at the United Nations to the deployment of those troops?
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Kozyrev said yesterday that he had been reassured by the explanations on that point. The draft resolution, which will need to go before the Security Council, will be designed to lift the ceiling of UNPROFOR, which is defined in the present resolutions
    200
    and is too low, but it will not need to change the mandate. There is plenty of scope in the mandate for useful work by the reinforcements now going out to protect the British contingent in UNPROFOR—for example, supplying light artillery and equipment for mine clearing, while giving greater protection to those involved.
    Mr. Budgen: If it be true that there is risk that the Bosnian war might spread across the map of Europe and involve Russia and the United States coming in on opposite sides, why are we talking about withdrawing the troops?
    Mr. Hurd: Our aim is not to withdraw troops; our aim is to make a success of the present exercise. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have said for a long time that that is our aim and our wish.
    One can conceive of circumstances in which that becomes impossible, in which case, obviously, we would need to withdraw. I think that then the arms embargo would probably be lifted, that the present half peace, half war in Bosnia would become once again a full and savage war and that there would be a risk of it spreading outwards to other parts of the Balkans, with the accompanying risk that the big powers might be divided as to which side, if any, they supported.
    However, our aim is not to withdraw. Our aim is to make a success of what we have set our hand to.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The whole House will wish whatever negotiations are taking place about release of the hostages to be successful, but may we have an assurance that the British Government are not sanctioning a trade-off whereby we give, or anyone gives, undertakings not to make air strikes in return for the release of hostages? May we have an assurance that the British Government are not giving any sanction to any party that that might be our position?
    Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister gave that assurance to the House in the debate last week.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of my constituents—I agree with them—consider that the only national vital interest we have in Bosnia is obtaining the release of our troops? Is it not strange that we have to have more troops there than any other country, especially when Italy, which presumably has a much greater national interest, and Germany, have almost none? Will he tell the House what will be the total monthly cost of humanitarian aid in the presence of our troops when all the reinforcements have been deployed, and who is paying that cost?
    Mr. Hurd: We do not at the moment have the greatest number of troops; the French have the greatest number of troops, although my hon. Friend is right to say that, when the full reinforcements that have been promised are in place, we shall probably have the greatest number. The Prime Minister set out in the debate last week—I believe he had general support on both sides of the House—two main reasons why we sent troops to Bosnia. The first is the humanitarian one—to save lives. The second is the strategic one—that we wish to damp down that war if we can, to contain it and to prevent it spreading. Those are the two reasons for our decision that the Prime Minister explained, and I think that he was right.

    201
    The humanitarian aid and UNPROFOR, the UN force, are financed by the UN, overwhelmingly. We make our contribution to that, as do other countries. The UN is not sufficiently financed at the moment. There are countries—not including us—who do not pay their dues, so there is a slowness in being repaid. Fundamentally, however, those are UN operations.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I join the Foreign Secretary in warmly welcoming the latest release of hostages, and express our full support for every pressure on the Bosnian Serbs for the early and safe release of all hostages? Does he agree that the release of the majority of the hostages shows that the international community was right to show a new resolve towards the Bosnian Serbs and to refuse to give in to blackmail, and that the House was right to set aside the voices urging an immediate withdrawal, which would have been the biggest concession that the Bosnian Serbs could have asked for?
    Mr. Hurd: The debate in the House last week showed the House at its best. It was entirely right that anxieties were expressed, because anxieties exist; I believe that we all feel them. However, it was also right that the great majority of voices should support the line that we are taking. We will hold to that line.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to consider yielding at the next IGC additional powers to the European Parliament; and if he will list the powers concerned. [25439]
    Mr. David Davis: The European Parliament acquired important new powers in the Maastricht treaty, and we have heard no convincing case for extending them further in the 1996 IGC. If it is to address genuine public concerns, the European Parliament should devote more attention to tackling fraud and to holding the Commission to account. So I can answer my hon. Friend in one word: none.
    Mr. Riddick: I thank my hon. Friend for his clear and unequivocal reply. Will he confirm that, in the unseemly horse trading that will no doubt take place at next year's intergovernmental conference, the Government will make no concessions on the issue of co-decision making powers which would hand over more powers to the European Parliament at the expense of Ministers, including British Ministers—something that has been supported by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament, Ms Pauline Green, and that other well known Labour lady, Ms Glenys Kinnock?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is exactly right about the Labour party's position. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is no surprise that some federalists entertain fantasies about a Labour victory. Fortunately, that will never happen.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that last September, in an interesting speech at Leiden, the Prime Minister called for the House to be more involved with the European Parliament in overseeing legislation? The sort of fatuous, anti-European Parliament remarks that the Minister has just made do not contribute to resolving the
    202
    difficult problem of the democratic deficit and the need to find some balance between the need to represent our constituents in the House and the role of the European Parliament.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman, with his incredible intelligence, clearly did not listen to my answer. I made no reference to national Parliaments. He is right to say that the Prime Minister said that we should pay attention to giving our national Parliaments a greater involvement in the legislation of the European Union, and we shall be doing just that.
    Mr. Jenkin: But what do my hon. Friend and his colleagues intend to do about the fact that the European Parliament will progressively gather more powers by virtue of the legal framework that currently exists?
    Mr. MacShane: Quite right.
    Mr. Jenkin: "Quite right," says the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). As the unions chip away at our opt-out from the social chapter through the courts and through the European courts, will not the European Parliament gather power over those competencies? Has not my hon. Friend got either to take to the intergovernmental conference a plan completely to reform the legal structure of the EU or go for much more comprehensive opt-outs to stop the European Parliament interfering with the success achieved by the Government in industrial relations in this country?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem of creeping competence, and it applies precisely to the area that he describes—the social chapter opt-out. I shall pay much attention to that issue in the next six months.
    Ms Quin: In response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), the Minister mentioned issues of public concern. Will he explain why the list of topics to be considered by the reflection group, of which he is a member, concentrates overwhelmingly on institutional issues and contains no specific mention of unemployment or issues such as the environment or the reform of the common agricultural policy? How does he intend to ensure that those matters are properly discussed? As the Minister also said that he was in favour of more openness, what specific plans does he have to inform the public and Parliament about the progress made in those discussions?
    Mr. Davis: I have already answered half of those questions. If the hon. Lady had paid attention to the reports of what I said at the reflections group, she would have seen that I said that less than 50 per cent. of the people of Europe currently feel that their nation state receives a benefit from the European Union. That is precisely because individual citizens do not see themselves as gaining from the European Union. I said that that issue had to he addressed by the reflections group during its considerations in the next six months.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when one strips away the noise and bluster that we have heard from the Opposition on the issue, the simple fact is that more power for the European Parliament would mean less power for this Parliament? If that is what the Opposition believe, they should put it to the electorate, who would reject the notion.
    Mr Davis: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Labour formula for the intergovernmental conference appears to be capitulation on qualified majority voting, collapse on co-decision and surrender on the social chapter—none of which would benefit this country.

    Cyprus
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political situation in Cyprus. [25440]
    Mr. Hurd: We believe that the present division of Cyprus is unacceptable. We are actively supporting the United Nations Secretary General's mission of good offices, which offers the best hope for a just and lasting solution. Exploratory discussions between representatives of the two communities in Cyprus were held in London on 21 to 23 May. We are encouraging both sides in Cyprus to approach future negotiations positively and flexibly.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State agree that, as a guarantor power, Britain could be doing much more to ensure, first, that refugees are able to return to their homes as part of a just solution and, secondly, that news is obtained of people who have been missing since 1974? When does the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues next expect to visit the island of Cyprus to discuss in person a long overdue speedy and just solution to the problem?
    Mr. Hurd: In the past few years we have expended a lot of energy pursuing both the specific points that the hon. Lady mentioned. My colleagues and I are continually in touch with the President of Cyprus and the Foreign Minister of Cyprus, Mr. Michaelides, to discuss how we can help the two communities to reach a necessary agreement. We believe in one Cyprus with two communities and a federal constitution. It is difficult to turn that principle into a settled agreement. That is why we are in favour of private talks, which were held in London. They did not make as much progress as we had wished, but we must keep on trying, as the hon. Lady said.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear statement of support for one Cyprus with two communities and also for the work that he and the Foreign Office have done to ensure that the two communities can meet to talk about matters which concern them greatly. They are the ones who must make a decision about a just and lasting solution, but does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has a particular responsibility to Cyprus both as a guarantor power and because many British citizens who are also Cypriots look to the Government in London to become actively involved in finding a solution?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. He and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly remind me constantly that we have a special responsibility to Cyprus for both the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned. We take that responsibility seriously, and we act upon it energetically.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government are taking against the illegal harassment of Gibraltarians by unjustifiable border checks. [25441]
    Mr. Hurd: I have raised our concerns with my Spanish counterpart, Mr. Solana, and our ambassador in Madrid has protested formally to the Spanish Foreign Ministry. We have also approached the Schengen secretariat, other Schengen states and the European Commission. We shall continue to raise the matter with the Spaniards until they take adequate measures at the frontier with Gibraltar to ensure that people can cross the border freely and without undue impediment.
    Mr. Young: When the Falkland Islands were invaded, force had to be met with force. The harassment that has taken place over many months is affecting British citizens and the economy of Gibraltar. Does the Secretary of State believe that rebukes to the Spanish Government of which they take no notice will be adequate in this situation? Does he have any other thoughts about what can be done to stop the harassment? Will he also give an assurance that the Government will not remove any of the Gibraltar Government's existing powers?
    Mr. Hurd: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. There have been problems at the frontier. They were solved temporarily as a result of a meeting that I had with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 20 December, but the trouble has recurred recently. We must keep up the pressure and the Spaniards know that we will do that.
    The hon. Gentleman's second point raises a completely separate issue. As Gibraltar wishes to remain and prosper as a financial centre within the European Union, it is important that it should comply with the rules of the European Union for which the British Government, as the sovereign power, are responsible. We are in touch with Gibraltar, particularly about the need to bring legislation on money laundering into line with the standards in Britain. I am more hopeful than I was that we are making progress. It is a separate issue, but it is important.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Schengen agreement on frontier controls is not the equivalent of the external frontier of the European Union, although Spain is using it as such and as a pretext for delays at the frontier? What action is the Foreign Office taking to persuade Spain to ratify the external frontier convention in relation to Gibraltar, as that could put an end to the circumstances which enable Spain to take destructive action in respect of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Hurd: I look forward to talking about the subject in greater depth with the Spaniards before long. My hon. Friend is quite right about the distinction between the Schengen agreement and the external frontier. We do not believe that the Spaniards have any justification for their action.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Foreign Secretary consider that the threat which was reportedly made to impose direct rule on Gibraltar might encourage the Spaniards to believe that the constitutional position of Gibraltar could be undermined in view of precedents elsewhere? Does he acknowledge that the United Kingdom would have more credibility in regard to upholding the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar if it fully respected the democratic institutions in Gibraltar?
    Mr. Hurd: We hold entirely to the undertaking given to the people of Gibraltar in the 1969 constitution that we would never enter into arrangements whereby the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another

    205
    state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. On the separate issue of direct rule, we have no desire to act directly; for the reasons that I have already given, however, it is important that the Government of Gibraltar should pass legislation bringing their law book into line with their own wishes and ambitions as a financial centre.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    12. Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has drawn up a formal agenda for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [25442]
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's preparation for the intergovernmental conference. [25444]
    Mr. David Davis: The intergovernmental conference is still some way off—at least seven months, and perhaps more. Several issues are already identified for discussion—I have spelt them out on previous occasions—and other issues may be added. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the basis of our approach to the 1GC in the House on 1 March and Cabinet Committees have already taken a preliminary look at some of the individual issues.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. At a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult to find those who wish to remember that they voted for the Maastricht treaty, I was wondering whether a White Paper would he a useful performance factor to enable the Foreign Office to prove that it is winning all the arguments? For instance, in the preamble we still have such phrases as "ever closer union" and "single institutional framework". Do they sit easily with our professed aim to safeguard Britain's national interests?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that I not only remember voting for Maastricht but I have a list of those who did and those who did not. As for his comments about ever closer union and creeping competence, I have already answered my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on that matter. My hon. Friend can be very clear that I shall continue to oppose centralising tendencies in the European Union, including the matters that he raised. On the White Paper, I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 May at columns 703–4 of Hansard.
    Dr. Wright: Will the Minister confirm that the thrust of British policy as we approach the IGC is to win friends and influence people? Will he tell us now, in concrete terms, which friends we are currently winning and over which issues we are now exercising some influence? Is not the truth that, as before, the British Government are marching us resolutely and remorselessly to irrelevant and impotent isolation?
    Mr. Davis: Government policy is principally aimed at defending the British national interest—that first, that second and that last. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's variation of his leader's "I'll never stand alone" frame, in which Labour will stand up to nobody for anything. That is not the way to win arguments in Europe.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister made a clear commitment to restoring
    206
    the powers of this national Parliament over European matters, which must include European legislation? Will he confirm also that there will be no weakening of that resolve, and describe the mechanisms by which that objective will be achieved?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he wants to see this national Parliament and all national Parliaments exercise rights in the control of legislation. That is very much part of the brief that I take to the reflections group, and which I expect we shall take to the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Soley: Was the Minister not present in the House on 3 May, when the Foreign Secretary said that he supported the Maastricht treaty aim of a common foreign and security policy and that he would continue to build that policy "brick by brick", to use his phrase? Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister saying on 23 May that he would block any attempt by the Community to extend its powers into foreign defence policy? Perhaps the Minister will say what is Cabinet policy.
    Mr. Davis: That is a remarkable exercise in ignorance by the hon. Gentleman, who does not distinguish between Community and Union. The British Government's stance is straightforward: to make a common foreign security policy work, and work well, on an intergovernmental basis.

    Monetary Union
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on European monetary union; and how this will be presented at the reflections group. [25443]
    Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom will not participate in a single currency in 1996 or in 1997. The United Kingdom would only ever take part in a single currency if to do so would be in the national interest. Under the UK protocol to the treaty on European union, any decision to seek to join a single currency would be a matter for the UK Government and Parliament. The Government see no reason for any of the articles or associated protocols relating to economic and monetary union to be on the agenda for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. Neither is it on the agenda of the reflections group. The Government do not therefore intend to provide any submission on the issue to the reflections group.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and helpful reply. I take it that when he attends the reflections group he will be aware that other participants will arrive with the views of their countries and national Parliaments and Executives clearly in mind. They may want to do things that my hon. Friend might oppose. May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that what he has just said will give him the ground for opposing?
    Mr. Davis: In one sense, we shall be observing a difference of view between other countries. Some will want to relax the convergence criteria, some will want to tighten them. For that reason, I do not foresee a single currency being a major issue in the reflections group or the intergovernmental conference.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The thrust of the Minister's answer was helpful. but does he accept that he who pays the piper calls the tune? In the European context, do we

    207
    not have to monitor carefully those who would print bank notes and issue Government bonds and destroy the whole economy?
    Mr. Davis: One benefit of the British Government's position is that we are part of that process. Our policy input is extraordinarily important, and we are taken extremely seriously in those arguments. We have as much influence as anyone could wish.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quickest way to create a federal Europe would be to enter a single currency, so it is hardly surprising that the Government are so cautious? Public support for the Government's position is also hardly surprising. When will the Opposition wake up to that fact?
    Mr. Davis: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is never.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. [25446]
    Mr. Hogg: We have recognised the states of the former Yugoslavia with the exception of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The development of relations with the latter will depend on its recognition of the other states and on its readiness to take further concrete steps to promote a political settlement to the conflict.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Government's position remain one of support for a negotiated peaceful outcome to the crisis? Will the Minister assure us that the Government's position is at one with that of the United Nations Secretary-General on the additional troops being sent to former Yugoslavia, and that they should remain and be under UN control?
    Mr. Hogg: It is indeed our policy to promote a political settlement within former Yugoslavia, and Bosnia especially, although I am bound to say that progress on that is not so rapid as we would like. The reinforcements are being deployed under the UN flag to reinforce the performance by UNPROFOR of the mandate.

    Morocco
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of relations between Britain and Morocco. [25448]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Relations between Britain and Morocco are good. We recognise Morocco's significance as a stable and moderate country in a region which, though fragile, is of increasing importance to the EU.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he reassure the House that the Government will continue to do their best to help to reach a positive conclusion to the EU-Morocco fishing agreement, and to the European-Moroccan Mediterranean Association amendment, in the interests of the regional stability to which he has referred, as well as economic progress in the area, especially in view of the great suffering in Morocco due to the awful drought and its consequences?
    Mr. Hogg: With regard to the association agreement, we support it and hope to see an agreement concluded.
    208
    We favour greater access for Moroccan goods to EU markets. We would also welcome a fisheries agreement and are disappointed that one was not possible. When negotiating that agreement, it is important not to prejudice the position that we have taken for some time on the question of western Sahara.
    Sir David Steel: How actively are the Government attempting to assist the ending of the procrastination in holding a referendum on western Sahara?
    Mr. Hogg: We are anxious to see a referendum and we are doing what we can to bring that about. It depends in the end on persuasion, and we are trying to persuade.

    Diplomatic Locations
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new diplomatic locations have been opened by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in each of the past three years; at what cost to public funds; how many similar locations have been closed; at what saving to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [25449]
    Mr. Hurd: I have deposited the information requested by the hon. Gentleman in the Library. Our interests are global and our overseas representation needs to match them. We must respond quickly and flexibly to changing opportunities and to challenges. This year we plan to close three posts and open 15 new ones. The new posts are concentrated in countries where new export opportunities for British companies are opening up.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply that 15 new trading opportunities have been opened up for the United Kingdom. Is he satisfied that the Treasury is prepared to respond quickly enough with the money required to open new diplomatic missions abroad, especially where there is a possibility of new trade, as has occurred in recent years in eastern Europe, including Russia and Poland?
    Mr. Hurd: No, indeed. The Treasury would not be doing its job if I felt comfortable about that. The Treasury makes us sweat to open new posts. For instance, we have plans to abolish more than 500 support staff over three years. Such savings and reviews and constant pressure for greater efficiency, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State always refers, are what we rightly have to implement and maintain so as to expand overseas and help our exports in the way that I have announced.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State have an opinion about the need for a consulate in Krakow, where many other principal European players have consular services? Bearing in mind its important geographical position in central Europe, will he have regard to the desire both by British people and by Polish people to see some significant representation in that important southern Polish city?
    Mr. Hurd: Let me look into that. I have not studied that, although I notice that at least 10 of the posts that we have opened in the past three years are in central and eastern Europe, for the kind of reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend think that redeployment is going quickly enough? There is a

    209
    suspicion that we have perhaps too many diplomats in lovely cities such as Paris and not enough in Poland and eastern and central Europe.
    Mr. Hurd: We have cut Paris by, I think, 10 per cent. in recent years. With a new French Government and new personalities, as is the case now, when it is important to get to grips with them and the issues quickly, one sees vividly the need to have trained and expert and professional staff in a place such as Paris.

    United Nations Anniversary
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. [25450]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There will be a major national commemoration ceremony in Westminster Hall on 26 June in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the huge advantage to international peace and mediation in the last 50 years achieved by the UN, which was founded here, will the Minister give an assurance that not only will the Government continue to be absolutely unqualified supporters of the United Nations but that they will also take the lead in ensuring that the UN is equipped to deal with the objectives of the next half century? In particular, that may mean retargeting some of its efforts and ensuring that some of our allies and friends play as full a part—including contributing fully, as we have done—in ensuring that it is an even more effective organisation in the years ahead.
    Mr. Hogg: I believe that we have been taking the lead—for instance, on proposals that we have made in the context of conflict prevention and more specifically on the action that the United Kingdom Government have taken in support of the United Nations in Bosnia.
    Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister use every opportunity during this year to express the grave reservations of the Government and the House about moves in the United States Congress to reduce subscriptions to the vital work of the United Nations? Will he make it clear to the members of Congress whom he meets that that is exactly what the world does not need at this time?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I regard the legislation that was passed in the Congress as extremely damaging and I regret that it happened. I shall certainly take every opportunity to make that point to American Congressmen and Senators and to stress the importance of making a full contribution to the United Nations. Indeed, I shall make the further point that that is required by their international obligations.
    Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that, in the year when the United Nations is
    210
    celebrating its 50th anniversary, there are no proposals for Britain to withdraw from the oldest of those agencies, the International Labour Organisation?
    Mr. Hogg: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment answered questions yesterday tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on precisely that matter. I commend to the hon. Gentleman those replies, which make the position and the commitment of the United Kingdom Government quite clear.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the appreciation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for the considerable assistance rendered by our ambassador and mission in New York for the IPU conference in August and September on the occasion of its 50th anniversary? Following what he has just said, will he use his good offices to persuade the US Congress to support that opportunity to assess the needs and requirements of the United Nations for the next 50 years?
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the British ambassador to the United Nations. On the second part of his question, the answer is yes.

    Consular Activities
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's consular activities in (a) Europe, (b) north America, (c) south America, (d) Asia, (e) Africa and (f) Australasia in 1994. [25451]
    Mr. Baldry: A breakdown by geographical area of how consular resources were spent in 1993–94 is contained in the 1995 departmental report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Dr. Howells: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I should like to ask him about one aspect of that expenditure: entry clearance duties. What measures are being taken to strengthen the alleged links between his Department and the Home Office to ensure that the activities and duties carried out by our consulates around the world with regard to entry clearance are of a sufficiently high standard and efficient enough to ensure that backlogs of work are not placed at the door the hard-pressed and under-resourced immigration service at ports of entry in Britain?
    Mr. Baldry: The entry clearance officers who work in our posts throughout the world are a mixture of Home Office and Foreign Office officials and they seek to carry out their work expeditiously. If the hon. Gentleman can instance any post where he thinks that entry clearance work is not being carried out as speedily as it should be, I hope that he will bring it specifically to my attention. Our experience is that throughout the world our entry clearance officers work hard, diligently and efficiently.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1210) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
  That the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1271) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

Leaseholders' Protection
3.30 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the annual maintenance charge which may be levied on leaseholders and a leaseholder's liability for certain works, where the freeholder is a local authority or housing association.
The Bill is intended to address a specific injustice facing many leaseholders whose landlords are either local authorities or housing associations.
At the outset, I should make two points clear. First, the Bill does not cover leaseholders in the private sector. I do not deny that there are problems in that area, but they are generally different, and the remedies should be different too.
Secondly, my Bill does not purport to be offering a comprehensive or the only solution. I would be willing to incorporate other measures or to vary the specifics as a result of suggestions which I hope that my initial proposals will prompt. However, the basic problem must be tackled—that of the sheer size of annual maintenance charges being imposed on many leaseholders, and the underlying causes.
In my constituency, some leaseholders suddenly received demands in excess of £20,000, with curt warnings, such as "Pay or face eviction." The highest annual bill brought to my attention was £25,850, for a new roof and double glazing.
In a letter to me, the leaseholder concerned wrote:
"We are being forced to pay for things we do not require and we have no way of affording. We are under immense stress and strain not knowing how we are going to cope—it is an absolute trauma on top of the problem of being unemployed. We are desperate and fear that we will lose our home."
Such leaseholders are not, by any stretch of the imagination, wealthy. Often, they face an annual bill which is larger than the original cost of their property. That is an absurd situation. For them, it is a financial nightmare. It has brought them to the edge of personal disaster, causing untold strain, undermining their whole sense of security, leaving them haunted by the prospect of imminent homelessness.
Alongside that problem are complex disputes about the nature of the maintenance work that needs to be done. Leaseholders often claim that they are being forced to pay huge amounts for work that is unnecessary or which they do not want—for example, double glazing. Other leaseholders tell of the verbal guarantees they were given at the time of purchase that certain renovation works would be carried out at not cost to them—guarantees later reneged upon.
There are disputes about repairs versus improvements, and renovation as against remedying structural design faults. Often the lease is inadequate or unclear, an arcane area into which I do not intend to venture today.
The first proposal in my Bill is a rough and ready one aimed at bringing fast protection to these financially embattled leaseholders. It would put a clear statutory limit, a cap, on the amount that a leaseholder could reasonably be charged by the landlord or agent in any one year. The exact amount will be fixed, after consultation, by regulation.

213
There is already acceptance of the concept of a reasonable limit in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, that is an uncertain protection, usually requiring lengthy and often expensive litigation, and producing inconsistency in practice. A fixed figure would be clear to all parties, who could plan in the certain knowledge that it would provide a sure quantity of protection.
Such an idea recognises that it is legitimate for a freeholder to expect a leaseholder to contribute to general works, and that sometimes those works may be major. By signing a lease, the leaseholder accepted certain responsibilities, and I do not wish to extinguish those. Nevertheless, the Bill would put into figures a cap above which an annual demand might be widely considered unreasonable.
My second proposal is designed to prevent an unscrupulous landlord from issuing bills up to the annual limit each year, which, when compounded, could also become unreasonable. I propose a further maximum charge over any such five-year period, which would also he fixed by regulation.
My third proposal seeks to give leaseholders more powers in the decision-making process, as a means of reducing maintenance charges. It would give a leaseholder the right to obtain his own survey to determine what work was required, followed by the right to obtain his own tenders for that work, combined with longer statutory notice periods and tighter regulations on consultation. The landlord would be obliged to take the leaseholder's survey and tenders into account, and would have to show good reason for not accepting the lowest tender price for the least work deemed necessary.
My fourth and final proposal is to define more clearly what works a freeholder can insist must be done—those that are mandatory on the leaseholder, as opposed to those that would be optional and might be accepted or rejected by the leaseholder. A local authority or housing association would be unable to force the leaseholder to contribute to works in the latter category.
Such a distinction might appear difficult to make, but closer examination convinces me that it would be relatively easy to list most works in one of two categories. For example, the exterior painting of a block or the repair of a leaking roof would fall into the mandatory category, while double glazing or a purely cosmetic improvement scheme would not.
That "exemption clause" would immediately protect many leaseholders against expensive projects in which they do not wish to participate. On the other hand, they
214
could opt in if they wished: it might well be in their interest to do so, so that they could benefit from the economies of scale that might be available.
Together, these measures would give extensive new protection to leaseholders without freeing them from the necessary obligations that leasehold—as opposed to freehold—brings. They would also help to achieve a better balance of power between leaseholders and public-sector freeholders.
At present, the problem is one of imbalance. Public sector freeholders are mighty organisations with huge financial muscle; they appear less amenable to leaseholder pressure than the average private sector freeholder, normally a small organisation that depends on leaseholder good will for ease of running. There have even been suggestions that some local authority housing departments or housing associations have a hidden agenda to force out leaseholders as part of a design to return properties to tenancy only. One housing official said that to me in so many words.
My scheme is deliberately designed to have no adverse public expenditure consequences. Indeed, it is preferable to some existing suggestions that would have such consequences. The leaseholder consent provisions would force landlords to cut the more ambitious modernisation projects to acceptable levels; long-term renovation would have to be staged over a number of years, rather than pushed through in one go. Public sector freeholders would have to behave like freehold home owners in the maintenance of their property, taking one step at a time as finance allowed.
In the very few remaining cases in which that was simply not possible—for example, urgent works to ensure structural safety—it might, rarely, be necessary for the freeholder to draw on other funds. That small amount—in comparison with the total held—would have to come from efficiency savings. There is some potential there, as my Bill would also prevent any extra costs resulting from the Bill from being imposed on tenants.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Piers Merchant.

Leaseholders' Protection
  LEASEHOLDERS' PROTECTION
  Mr. Piers Merchant accordingly presented a Bill to limit the annual maintenance charge which may be levied on leaseholders and a leaseholder's liability for certain works, where the freeholder is a local authority or housing association: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    New clause 2

      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 he 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.

      216

      (9) An order under subsection (2) above—

      (a) shall not confer any right to production of, or access to, items subject to legal privilege;

      (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 James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.39 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): 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: Government new clause 3—Authority for search—Government new clause 4—Disclosure of information held by government departments.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The powers provided by the new clauses are not new. We are simply extending those powers that already exist under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, for the purpose of investigation into drug trafficking, to cover investigations into whether a person has benefited from the commission of any other offence. The powers in the new clauses, which have been requested by the chief police officers, will considerably assist investigation into the proceeds of crime.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 3

      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

      217

      (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

      (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 he 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 James Doug fol.-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      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 riot 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;

      218

      (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,

      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 section2.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      VERDICT OF NOT PROVEN NO LONGER COMPETENT
      '. In any criminal proceedings the verdict of not proven shall no longer be competent:.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 5 would do away with the device which allows Scottish juries to let an accused person off while indicating that they think that he probably committed the crime. That is obviously a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Our famous not proven verdict is a sort of formal cop-out, which has been regard with much curiosity, but which has not been adopted in any other jury system on the planet, as far as I know.
      I strongly believe that amendments to Scots law should be made in a Scottish legislature. I am confident that that will be possible perhaps in three years' time, but I know that the availability of this widely misunderstood hybrid verdict is giving rise to serious problems now. As, for the time being, this House is the only place in which Scots law can be amended, I hope that the House will give serious consideration to the proposal.
      I hope that it is clear from my reputation that I cherish Scotland's institutions and its traditions, and perhaps even our national idiosyncrasies, but it is abundantly clear to me that this particular example is far more bother than it is worth. It is making real mischief and devaluing the quality of Scottish justice. I understand that the distinction between not proven and not guilty dates back to a trial in 1728, in which the jury was so unimpressed by the prosecution case that it decided that the established verdict of not proven would not be clear enough in that particular case. The jurors set a Scottish precedent by finding the accused not guilty. That is where it all started.
      Ever since then, Scots juries have had a menu of three verdicts available to them. The first is not guilty, which means what it says. The second is guilty, which means very guilty. The third is not proven, which is interpreted as meaning that the jury thinks that the accused is possibly or probably guilty, but has the effect of acquitting him.
      The not proven verdict is a comprehensive cop-out. The accused person may be technically and effectively acquitted. Of course, he cannot be retried for the same offence, but it leaves an indelible smear on the character and record of that acquitted person. That is a thoroughly undesirable departure from the principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
      On Monday this week, a jury returned a not proven verdict on a lawyer who had been accused of a drugs offence. In theory, he has been acquitted, but it is fair to assume that his reputation is blemished, and that his career is likely to be affected as a consequence of that not proven verdict. He is not guilty but, after that verdict, he is not innocent, either.
      I appreciate that the not proven verdict is a welcome bolthole for a guilty person who would otherwise be sentenced but, by the same token, it is an intolerable burden for an innocent person to carry, and all the worse because one cannot appeal against a not proven verdict to clear one's name.
      The situation is even worse for the victims of crime in these cases. They have a clear message from the jury that the original accused person may well be guilty, but that
      220
      person walks away without a sentence and the police cannot reopen the case against him or anyone else. Clearly, that is an especially traumatic and unsatisfactory state of affairs for victims and the relatives of victims of serious or violent crime.
      3.45 pm
      We are all indebted to Kathleen and Joe Duffy for the thoughtful and constructive campaign that they have been waging since the extraordinary conclusion of the trial of the man accused of murdering their 19-year-old daughter, Amanda, in 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been closely involved with the Duffy family as their Member of Parliament, and the House will know that he has been pressing for many years for the abolition of the not proven verdict. I have no doubt that he will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
      I do not anticipate that the new clause will command the unanimous support of the Scottish legal profession. Indeed, it would be unusual and worrying if it did. I fully realise that a not proven verdict must be a useful last straw for a desperate defence advocate to grasp, but there is plenty of evidence of long-standing concern about this curious formula among prominent lawyers in Scotland.
      Dr. Godman: Ignoring lawyers for a moment—it is always a pleasure to ignore them—does my hon. Friend think that the not proven verdict has any merit at all?
      Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that it has any merit whatever, but my hon. Friend will no doubt seek to participate in the debate later.
      I see no useful purpose in maintaining the distinction, or cop-out. The accused person should be acquitted or convicted; no middle way should be available. That has been said down through the years. The most famous quotation is perhaps that from Sir Walter Scott who described the verdict as
      "that bastard verdict, illogical, contrary to legal principle and wholly indefensible".
      Much more recently, Lord Wheatley described it as
      "indefensible in logic and a relic of procedures long-since abandoned".
      I cannot resist mentioning my favourite Scottish lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has been campaigning against the not proven verdict for many years—starting, I think, with a ten-minute Bill on 5 February 1969, when he represented Aberdeen, South. It remains to be seen whether the present hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) will do likewise.
      The not proven verdict may be a rather quaint Scottish tradition, but I submit that nostalgia cannot be a sound basis for good justice. The not proven verdict is a device for sidestepping justice and has been tolerated for far too long.
      Above all, it is time for the Government to come off the fence. Lord Rodger, the Lord Advocate, has said publicly that he is uneasy about this verdict. At one stage, the Government said that they were awaiting the outcome of the English Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which came out strongly against the idea of introducing scope for a not proven verdict to be used by English juries. The Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to review the issue back in 1993, but I understand that the

      221
      review concluded with yet another question—what should he done about majority verdicts if the not proven option were to be removed?
      It looks to me as if the Government have copped out of the opportunity to deal with Scotland's notorious cop-out verdict. The Secretary of State has found refuge in another fudge. I accept that the point about majority verdicts must be dealt with, but the fact remains that the not proven verdict is not a serious verdict. It is a formula which should be consigned to history. The case against it has been conclusively proven, and I commend the new clause to the House as a way of dealing with the problem once and for all.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) moved the new clause with commendable brevity. I wish that I could be quite as congratulatory about the terms in which he did so.
      I do not mind attacks on lawyers—that is part of the rations on these occasions—but when the hon. Gentleman is reduced to praying in aid Sir Walter Scott, it is worth pointing out, as I think I did on Second Reading, that one of the reasons that Sir Walter Scott was driven to write the Waverley novels was the fact that, up to then, he had had a rather unsuccessful career at the Scottish Bar. While he may be regarded as an authority on the 19th-century novel, he is not generally regarded as someone upon whom great reliance can be placed in important matters of Scots law.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian is quite right, to the extent that part of his thesis is that no legal system can survive if it does not submit itself to scrutiny from time to time about its practice and its procedure. That is especially the case when there is a wave of public opinion, to which reference has been made, which appears to support a change which seems right superficially.
      It is always important and significant, however, to have regard to the extent to which a change of the kind proposed in the new clause may have profound and far-reaching consequences. In my judgment, the new clause has such consequences, to which the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself, either in the speech with which he moved the new clause or, indeed, in producing a series of consequential amendments to deal with some of the difficulties which the simple abolition of the not proven verdict would undoubtedly bring about.
      There is no justification for keeping the not proven verdict simply because it is peculiarly Scottish or because it has been long established in the Scottish system of law. The case for its abolition must depend on whether it is frustrating justice. It must also depend on a proper understanding of Scottish legal procedure.
      As the Government's consultation document "Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland" pointed out, much of the recent criticism of the not proven verdict proceeds on misconceptions about its nature and its effect. People genuinely believed that, if a person was found not proven, he or she could be prosecuted again if fresh evidence became available, not understanding that the not proven verdict is a verdict of acquittal—the Scottish equivalent of a person tholing his or her assize. Another
      222
      part of the public's misconception is that, if an individual is found to be not proven, no one else can ever be prosecuted for the crime said to have been committed.
      Before we rely too much on a wave of public opinion, one has to ask oneself about the extent to which that public support for change is based on a proper understanding of the existing legal principles involved.
      Mr. John McFall: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned public opinion. Does he accept that the public look to the law as it exists, and that the job of the Crown is to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an individual? If it proves that, the case is proven, and if it does not prove that, the case is not proven. Logically and simplistically, the case for a two-verdict system is manifest.
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he said "simplistically". I shall come to that. The difficulty—perhaps it is not a difficulty but an important feature—of the not proven verdict is that it is a sophisticated verdict in a sophisticated legal system. I shall explain why it should be retained.
      Dr. Godman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell: No. I want to make some progress, as I am sure that many hon. Members wish to catch Madam Speaker's eye.
      It is often said—indeed, the hon. Member for East Lothian said it—that not proven is an easy way out for the jury. In my professional practice—perhaps I ought to declare an interest having been a member of the Faculty of Advocates for some 27 years—I do not recall more than a couple of trials in which a not proven verdict was reached when I felt that justice had been impeded or had not been done. Indeed, I confess that more often I felt a considerable sense of injustice when there was a ringing cry of not guilty, which is what I understand the hon. Gentleman would prefer to a verdict of not proven.
      As I have said, not proven is a sophisticated verdict in what we are right to regard as a sophisticated legal system. The circumstances in which it is appropriate may not be capable of scientific prediction, but the law is not an empirical but a normative discipline. The verdict allows juries, sheriffs and justices of the peace sitting alone the opportunity to express a shade of meaning concerning an acquittal different from what they believe would be justified by the use of the words "not guilty".
      We should be justified in removing the not proven verdict from our procedure only if it could be shown that it stood in the way of best practice. The hon. Gentleman talked about what response such a verdict might produce in the mind of the victim, and I can offer some anecdotal evidence pointing in the opposite direction from that in which he sought to point the House. In the mind of one of my constituents who was the victim of a sexual assault, that verdict has continued to provide a justification for her courage in exposing herself to cross-examination in open court.
      Anyone with any understanding of the position in which a female victim finds herself when she claims that she has been the subject of a sexual assault will appreciate the fact that it is often an act of considerable bravery for that individual to stand in court, give evidence and be subjected to a rigorous and sometimes most unpleasant

      223
      cross-examination about her sexual history. That may happen less now, but it still happens to some extent if the court regards it as relevant.
      In the case that I mentioned, my constituent took comfort from the fact that, although her evidence was apparently insufficient on its own to bring home guilt on her assailant, she did not face what she would have regarded as the horror of seeing him offered the unqualified certificate of good character to which a not guilty verdict would have entitled him.
      If the not proven verdict is such an anomaly, why do juries use it at all? Anyone who observes the jury system over a long period is bound to come to the view that juries display innate common sense and judgment, and that, by and large, jurors get it right on the evidence laid before them. I understand the occasional outpouring of grief of anxiety, or even outright anger, that arises when a not proven verdict is returned, but sympathy and understanding of those emotions should not blind us to the fact that, in serious cases, decisions about guilt and acquittal are taken by the jurors empanelled for that purpose, not by the system of verdicts.
      I am by no means convinced that the relatives of someone who has been murdered would feel any more comfortable because a verdict of not guilty rather than a verdict of not proven had been returned. My instinct tells me that, if one can measure such things, they are likely to feel even more distressed.
      The hon. Gentleman implied that there was some stigma attached to a not proven verdict. However, I have had several clients who have been admitted—to use a neutral expression—to that verdict, and in my professional experience no one has ever expressed any anxiety about the fact that that was the result of the trial.
      Any alteration to the three verdicts available to juries in Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. That is a fundamental weakness in the hon. Gentleman's approach. As I said at the outset, apart from the merits of the verdict, one must have regard to its consequences.
      It is not often appreciated that in Scotland a person can be convicted of the most serious charge in the calendar of our criminal law, the charge of murder, on a verdict of eight votes to seven. In such cases, in which the movement of one juror from one side of the argument to the other can have such profound results, the not proven verdict is an important protection in cases in which a simple majority would be sufficient.
      Even if the hon. Gentleman were right to suggest that, for the reasons he cites, the not proven verdict should be removed, he could not escape the consequences. He must reconsider the number of jurors, for example, and the majority.
      Mr. Home Robertson indicated assent.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is all very well for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to assent from a sedentary position, but I have looked through the Order Paper without seeing the consequential amendments which he is proposing in the event that the amendment to which he has just spoken is carried.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Jerry Wiggin will be moving them later.
      Mr. Campbell: Propriety demands that I should not respond to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover.
      Madam Speaker: I did not hear it.
      Mr. Skinner: I said that Jerry Wiggin will move the amendments.
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has repeated his remark in order that you may not hear it on a second occasion, Madam Speaker. Clearly you have what one might describe as discreet hearing.
      Madam Speaker: Judicial deafness.
      4 pm
      Mr. Campbell: Yes.
      I do not wish to detain the House any longer. In many ways, the arguments have been well rehearsed for a long period. A fundamental weakness of the hon. Member for East Lothian's position is his failure to tell the House what the consequences of the amendment would be, or what his proposals would be to deal with those consequences.
      Dr. Godman: In defending the verdict of not proven, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that there is public concern about it. Is he suggesting that it is a rare event and confined to few cases?
      Mr. Campbell: No. I do not have the statistics, but no doubt the Minister will be able to advise the House on that. [Interruption.] As if in response to that signal, pieces of paper are fluttering about parts of the House. In a sense, the number of occasions in which the verdict is returned is neither here nor there, as the logic of the verdict is the same whether it is returned on a few occasions or a large number.
      Reference has been made to the fact that this is an issue to which the House has had its attention drawn on many occasions in the past, and no doubt will again. On this occasion, the effort that the hon. Gentleman has made is thwarted not simply by the nature of his arguments, but by his failure to provide a clear indication of the consequences he expects, and how those should be met.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I wish to oppose the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). In doing so, I join the massed ranks of the judges of Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and the rape crisis centres and victim support organisations in Scotland—in other words, the majority of informed opinion in Scotland. I could add another esteemed organ of informed opinion in Scotland to that list—the Scottish conference of the Labour party. I hope that their views have some effect on some of my hon. Friends, if not on Conservative Members.
      The counter-arguments are driven by the campaign in Hamilton; we all have great sympathy with the circumstances which led to that campaign, and we understand some of the reasons which led to it. But we must stand back from that campaign and say that it is based on a fundamental misconception. The primary and obvious alternative to the not proven verdict is not guilty.

      225
      Without going into details of the case, if the verdict of not proven had not been given, the verdict would probably have been not guilty.
      Hon. Members wishing to abolish the not proven verdict may be saying that those people who receive that verdict should be found guilty—to some extent, that comes through from the Hamilton campaign—but they must realise that we could be faced with a great increase in the number of miscarriages of justice in Scotland if that came about. That would not be acceptable.
      Various arguments were used against the verdict by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, one of which was the suggestion that a lot of the people concerned were in fact guilty. I found some of his arguments confusing. He went on to say that the verdict places a stigma on the person who is found not proven. As he has already said that most of them are guilty, I do not see how he regards that as a problem.
      More fundamentally, I refer to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a distinguished member of the Faculty of Advocates. He said that he has not come across the problem of stigma, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) agreed with him from a sedentary position. So I do not think that the problem of stigma is serious. When all is said and done, a not-proven verdict is an acquittal.
      Mr. George Robertson: I did not agree with that assertion. Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that rape victims should be happy that such a verdict leaves a stigma behind? After all, that is the only consolation which alleged rape victims can have if acquitted not proven is the verdict at the end of the trial. Is my hon. Friend happy with that?
      Mr. Chisholm: I shall discuss the position of rape victims in detail. The main reason that I have been prompted to make this speech is because I have been lobbied by the rape crisis centre in Edinburgh, which is supported by other rape crisis centres in Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not discussing that matter now.
      It has been suggested that not proven is a confusing verdict. If we were to get rid of everything that is confusing in the Scottish legal system, we would dismantle quite a lot. More seriously, the not proven verdict can be explained. A judge can explain the options open to the jury, and it is not confusing if it is explained clearly to the jurors and the public at large. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian suggested that a not proven verdict is unsatisfactory for victims, but it is far more satisfactory to victims than a blanket not-guilty verdict.
      The rape crisis centre in Edinburgh and the people it represents feel passionately about this issue. Other women's organisations in Edinburgh have also raised the issue with me.
      A verdict of not proven is commonly used in rape trials. The consultation document says that, in the High Court, almost 50 per cent. of acquittals for rape are as a result of not proven verdicts. That is a high figure. If such a verdict is abolished, we shall load the dice even more against
      226
      women in rape trials, and goodness knows the dice are already heavily loaded against them. I do not know the Scottish figures, but I shall table a parliamentary question later. In England in 1993, in only 10 per cent. of reported rapes was a man eventually found guilty. The figure for England in 1985 was 24 per cent., so I shall be interested to know whether it is the same in Scotland.
      That illustrates the serious problem that women face in being believed on accusations of rape. If the not proven verdict is taken away and such verdicts in the High Court become not-guilty verdicts, the credibility, honesty and reliability of women will be further called into question. If women know that that verdict is not available, it will not only be a serious problem for victims of rape but women will be discouraged from coming forward with complaints of rape. I therefore cannot express too strongly the fact that rape crisis organisations feel that this is a major issue for them and those they represent.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I share my hon. Friend's concern about rape victims. I agree that there are a large number of acquittals, whether as a result of not guilty or not proven verdicts. But does he agree that the real problem is the standard of proof that must be attained, and that, because it is difficult to prove rape to a jury's satisfaction, the not proven verdict tends to be a bolthole for juries who are not satisfied whether a person is positively guilty or not guilty?
      Mr. Chisholm: In a sense, my hon. Friend repeats the fundamental driving force of the abolition campaign, which is the assumption that not proven verdicts would become guilty verdicts. I hope that I do not misrepresent my hon. Friend in saying that.
      The rape crisis organisations, of all people, should be sensitive to that issue. They know, as everyone knows, that the tiny percentage of guilty verdicts in rape cases does not reflect the number of men who really are guilty. They know that many guilty men walk free. Nevertheless, they want the "not proven" verdict to stay. Obviously, they want more convictions; obviously, they want more people to be found guilty who are guilty, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
      Not proven falls on the same side of the divide as not guilty, and therefore the not provens would tend to become not guilty rather than guilty. That is the fundamental argument that must be made in the debate. It is the fundamental misunderstanding of the campaign to abolish it.
      Dr. Godman: In cases involving the complaint of rape, would it not be more helpful if women complainers were given the type of protection extended to young children, as they are defined as vulnerable witnesses?
      Mr. Chisholm: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A great many changes must be made in the way in which rape victims are treated in court. In the new phase of the zero tolerance campaign, which has just begun, one of the demands is that there should be a review of the whole judicial system as it impinges on women victims.
      Moving to a conclusion, I wish to echo—perhaps an unusual thing for an Opposition Member to do—the words of the consultation document: that the three verdicts were a pragmatic recognition of reality. That is true in rape cases and in many other cases. It represents reality.

      227
      Today I spoke to at least one English Member—I shall probably speak to a few more in the next hour or so—who said that he wished that the not proven verdict was available in England because it would solve many of the problems that he has witnessed in the courts when people get off not guilty. He was thinking not of rape cases but of other situations in which it would be better that someone should be found not proven rather than not guilty.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has not made his case. I think we must say that the case against that verdict is not proven, and we should retain it.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I shall make a brief speech.
      First, I think that it would be wrong to change the position on the statute book, because we claim, properly and rightly, that we like the uniqueness of our Scottish legal system and the not proven verdict is probably one of the most distinctive parts of the Scottish legal system.
      I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who made a speech that surely convinced the House of the huge merit there is in not having full-time Members of Parliament. The advantage of having Queen's counsel come here to give us their experience in the courts is valuable when we discuss something of which few of us have any real experience—what happens in the courts and the pressures on people who appear in court.
      The hon. and learned Member made a massive contribution to the retention of the not proven verdict, in a way that only someone with his background and experience could have done. For that we must be thankful. I hope that the House will listen carefully to what he says. It is sad that we have so few Queen's counsel now representing Scottish parliamentary constituencies. In my opinion, we need them, as we need people with other backgrounds and experiences, so that the House can properly and adequately debate the complexities—we are discussing a fairly complex situation—and listen to the experience of people who have travelled the course and understand what is involved.
      I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Dr. Godman: I was struck by some of the things said by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), especially about cases involving the allegation of rape. I was also much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), and it is his lead that I would follow, especially in respect of complainers in rape cases. In spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said about the cross-examination of complainers in rape cases, I continue to believe that they are confronted with a terrible ordeal. Despite what he said, I still believe that, in some cases, a complainer has her sexual history trawled through by the counsel for the defence.
      I should like more protection to be given to complainers in rape cases. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland well knows my position. I have argued that the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993—I think, section 33—could be amended so that complainers in rape cases could be defined as vulnerable witnesses and benefit from the use of television links in court cases. Until now, Ministers and other lawyers in the House have rejected
      228
      such a radical measure, but the definition of a vulnerable witness could be extended to cover citizens with learning disabilities.
      There are witnesses in cases who need extra protection. Certainly, complainers in rape cases should be placed in that category. The squalid trawling of sexual history still takes place—I do not care what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East says. Complainers in such cases undergo a dreadful ordeal. If, by amending the 1993 Act, we could diminish that ordeal, we would all benefit as a nation, not just the complainers and their families. If the difficulties faced by complainers in rape cases were reinforced by the abolition of the third verdict of not proven, I would vote against the measure on those grounds.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not mean to convey, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not understand me to convey, the notion that I was in any way unsympathetic to the way in which the law has developed in relation to the protection of those alleging rape from the sort of analysis of previous sexual history that certainly used to occur. I am entirely in favour of that development. Such analysis occurs much less frequently than it did under the law, even as recently as 10 or 15 years ago.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I know from my experience of the benefit of his company on Standing Committees discussing miscellaneous provisions legislation that he is extremely sympathetic to the position of the complainer in sexual assault cases. I readily acknowledge that the complainer in such cases today does not face the extreme ordeal that complainers faced 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. The same holds true for child witnesses in cases involving child abuse, sexual abuse and neglect.
      But that is not to say that being in the witness box and being cross-examined by a highly articulate and sometimes sarcastic defence counsel who is keen to trawl through a woman's sexual history are not a terrible ordeal. On that count alone, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leith for his contribution. We must do a great deal more for complainers in rape cases to ease the harsh difficulties that they face when giving evidence and to persuade others to come forward to report cases of rape—too many cases go unreported.
      To follow on from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) should take account of the serious reservations that have been expressed about his new clause.
      Mr. George Robertson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for moving new clause 5. Hon. Members know that I have strong personal views on the subject and, as this short debate has shown, there is a division of opinion in Scotland and even within political parties about the not proven verdict. Therefore, among the Opposition—and, I hope, the Government as well—there will be a free vote at the end of the debate on new clause 5. My views are well known and I shall expand on them,

      229
      but my right hon. and hon. Friends are free to vote in whichever Lobby they believe is right and proper, bearing in mind the future reputation of the Scottish legal system.
      The first question that must be dealt with in relation to the abolition of the not proven verdict and the three verdicts in Scotland is what those verdicts actually are. There are three verdicts available in Scottish courts, which are known colloquially as not proven, not guilty and guilty. That is what the general populace believe the verdicts to be and, in that respect, Scotland is unique among the judicial systems of the world.
      However, those are not the formal titles of the verdicts in the Scottish Office. On 23 June 1993, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, answered my parliamentary question requesting a breakdown of the number of guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts that were handed down in jury trials in Scottish courts. He answered the question in the following terms:
      "High Court:
      Acquitted Not Guilty, Acquitted Not Proven, Charge Proved".— [Official Report, 23 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 208.]
      From the point of view of the Scottish Office, which is in charge of the judicial system, the public are wrong. The three verdicts are not guilty, not guilty and not proven; people are acquitted not guilty, acquitted not proven and charge proved.
      I believe that there is a case for reducing the number of verdicts to two, and whether they should be charge proved and acquitted not proven is, quite frankly, a matter of sophistry—to coin a phrase that has been in the news recently. The not proven verdict creates problems simply because there are three verdicts, the terms of which cannot even be agreed. The existence of those three verdicts has led to confusion and, I believe, to an undermining of faith in the Scottish criminal justice system.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a distinguished member of the legal profession and a Queen's counsel, told the House that there was a wave of adverse public opinion about the not proven verdict—which he asked us to ignore or at least discount—because people were confused. If there is such confusion about the terminology of the verdicts in the courts, it is not surprising that there is some confusion among the general population.
      What about those poor people who serve on juries? At the end of trials, the sheriffs or judges often do not make clear the differences between the three verdicts. Sheriff Francis Middleton retired last year after a lifetime in the legal profession. He said that it was extraordinary that, during his time on the Bench, he never felt obliged to explain to juries the difference between acquitted not guilty and acquitted not proven. It is assumed that people know the difference but, as I have shown, the Scottish Office itself uses phraseology that is entirely different from that used by the judges and the sheriffs in court. Therefore, it is scarcely surprising that members of the public, as well as jury members, are confused.
      When the award-winning BBC programme "Focal Point" examined the not proven verdict, it found that 48 per cent. of those who had served on juries believed that a not proven verdict was an open verdict and that the
      230
      cases could be brought back to court. The people we are charging with the responsibility of arriving at verdicts in court cases share the same confusion as the general public about the not proven verdict. That cannot be good for the reputation, integrity and efficacy of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
      Why is the not proven verdict an issue in Scotland, and why should it have become a matter of public controversy in Scotland? It is not simply because of the Amanda Duffy case, although that was horrifying and devastating to the individual concerned, to her parents and to members of the local community in my constituency. That was not the issue that brought the concern to the public mind, although the campaigning zeal of the Duffys certainly made it a bigger issue that it might have been.
      It was always a matter of controversy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) represented the constituency of Aberdeen, South, he presented a private Member's Bill to abolish that verdict. The controversy rumbled on long before the murder of Amanda Duffy.
      There is worry and concern in Scotland about the presumption of innocence. It was interesting that the hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East, with all his legal reputation and his affection and admiration for the Scottish legal system, did not find it necessary even to mention the concept of the presumption of innocence that lies at the heart of the legal system in our democracy. Everyone is presumed to be innocent unless he or she is found guilty beyond the bounds of reasonable doubt.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's attack on me is unjustified. Anyone who are knows anything about the Scottish legal system knows that the presumption of innocence stands at its heart. I would not have thought that, in a debate largely involving Scottish Members, it should be necessary to rehearse something that we know to be fundamental.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is fundamental, but the contention is that a not proven verdict undermines the presumption of innocence. We can either believe that the presumption of innocence is important and must be protected or we can believe in its limitation by the not proven verdict. We cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the fact that there are two verdicts of acquittal does not undermine the presumption of innocence or the onus of proof that rests on the Crown throughout. If the onus of proof is not discharged, the jury can choose to say that the individual is not guilty, which is a certificate of credibility, or that the individual is not proven.
      Mr. Robertson: It is not the individual, but the case, that is found to be not proven. The individual is presumed to be innocent. It is an acquittal, but not proven.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman seems unusually satisfied with the fact that someone can leave a court with less than a full acquittal. That must undermine fundamentally the presumption of innocence because, whatever he says, people leave court with a not proven verdict and a stain on their reputation; the community at large in Scotland then assumes that the individual was

      231
      guilty, but there was not enough evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends seem to imply that when they talk about other court cases, including rape cases, where people are satisfied with a not proven verdict as it appears to be different from a full acquittal. We should not be satisfied with the differentiation between the two categories, and a not proven verdict certainly undermines the presumption of innocence.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that the people of Scotland take a certain view following a case resulting in a not proven verdict. I suggest that there are cases where someone was found not guilty, but people in Scotland felt that that person was guilty but the case failed because the evidence did not stand up. It does not change attitudes and views. If the hon. Gentleman calls that in aid to support his case, he must realise that such a view is prominent when the feeling is that the Crown has somehow failed to make a case in court against an individual.
      Mr. Robertson: If the Crown fails to make the case, the individual deserves to leave the court with a verdict of not guilty, whatever the assumption may be. Not proven is a particular category designed to make sure that a person leaves the court with less than a full acquittal and less than the presumption of innocence with which that individual should enter and leave the court in circumstances where the Crown has not been able to persuade the jury that the individual is guilty. There is a legacy of frustration left behind by victims and their families where all that remains is a mystery. People throughout Scotland feel that the not proven verdict leaves in its wake an air of constant frustration and aggravation that cannot do the system any good.
      4.30 pm
      I am not alone in that view. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian quoted the Lord Advocate. I know that we are not permitted to quote his speeches in the House of Lords, but in this instance he was speaking to Scotland on Sunday. He is Scotland's senior Law Officer and if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—who has just rapidly departed the Chamber—is influenced by lawyers, presumably the Lord Advocate is someone to whom he should listen.
      Despite the fact that the Lord Advocate is a member of the Government, he has a refreshingly high reputation as a Scottish Office Minister. He told Scotland on Sunday:
      "It is certainly something which, if one were starting out to design a legal system today, starting afresh, I don't think there's any evidence that you would introduce three verdicts. I don't think it is something that has such obvious benefits that one would design it in."
      If that is a defence of the not proven verdict, it is mighty weak. The Lord Advocate seems to be suggesting, given the opportunity that the Bill presents, that we should design out the not proven verdict—if it should have been designed in the first place.
      More devastating even than the words of the Lord Advocate were those of the Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales. After extensive studies and deliberation, it published the year before last its conclusions on changes that should be made to the English system, bearing in mind some of the advantageous and strong aspects of the Scottish system. In 1992, the Lord Advocate wrote to me:
      "Although the remit of the Royal Commission does not extend to Scotland, the Secretary of State has already undertaken to give careful consideration to any recommendations which have a bearing
      232
      on the Scottish criminal justice system. Due consideration will be given to anything which the Royal Commission may have to say about the Not Proven verdict at that time."
      The eyes of the Scottish Office and of the Secretary of State were on the deliberations, and the royal commission was aware that people in Scotland—especially those responsible for such legislation—would study its recommendations carefully. At paragraph 75, the royal commission, chaired by Viscount Runciman, said of Scotland's unique not proven verdict:
      "During our deliberations we considered the case for introducing into England and Wales the Scottish verdict of 'not proven'. This is available in Scotland as an alternative to 'not guilty' although it still counts as an acquittal. Most of those who gave evidence to us did not favour such a verdict. We too regard it as an unsatisfactory option, particularly from the point of view of the defendant, who is left with a cloud hanging over his or her reputation. If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to the verdict of not guilty."
      Mr. William Ross: How many accused people did the hon. Gentleman find during his extensive studies who were dissatisfied with a verdict of not proven being brought against them?
      Mr. Robertson: Quite a number. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said that many of his clients were extremely pleased with a not proven verdict. The people who were happiest were those who were guilty but got off. During the Duffy campaign, the campaigners met a lady who had been charged with resetting a girocheque. The case went to trial and was found not proven. Weeks later, a postman in the same area was charged with resetting girocheques, including those for which the lady had been charged and convicted. The not proven verdict will stay with her. Technically, it was an acquittal, but there will be a stain on her character for the rest of her life. There are people who feel that a stain remains on their character.
      I quoted a passage from the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice. It reflected an emphatic view, which happens to be shared by the hon. Member who represents the Duffy family. It is the view of the royal commission that was set up by the Government to examine in enormous depth all aspects of the English criminal justice system. The royal commission was asked to examine what parts of the Scottish system should be translated to the English system. I repeat its conclusion:
      "If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to a verdict of not guilty."
      It should not be assumed that, because there was a campaign about a murder one Saturday night in Hamilton town centre, the verdicts of individual courts can also be assumed. We want to eliminate the possibility that juries will go for a cop-out verdict that leaves neither the defendant nor the victim satisfied at the end of the day.
      It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that the removal of the not proven verdict would lead to more miscarriages of justice, on the ground that there would be more guilty verdicts instead of acquittal non proven verdicts. I ask my hon. Friend and others who think along those lines whether it would have been better in cases in England if the stain on the characters of the defendants lived on when they were ultimately found to be innocent. Does anyone imagine that the campaign that was mounted on behalf of

      233
      the Birmingham Six would have continued with the vigour and ultimate success that it reflected if those defendants had been found not proven instead of guilty?
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: There would have been one consequence. They would not have spent many years in prison.
      Mr. Robertson: Yes, that would have been one consequence. But, at the end of the day, they would not have been proved to be innocent. Does anyone imagine that those defendants would not have been suspected of guilt throughout the campaign? The reality is that, at the end of the campaign, the six were found to be innocent. They were not acquitted not proven, with the reputation that goes with that.
      Mr. Chisholm: It is my view that the alternative to not proven is not guilty. The implication behind the argument of those who say that the removal of the not proven verdict will lead to more convictions is that there will be more miscarriages of justice. It is those who want to get rid of the verdict who tend to make the assumption that there will be more convictions.
      Mr. Robertson: No, they do not make that assumption. There will be more guilty verdicts and more not guilty verdicts. The third of the verdicts that are not proven will have to be distributed either as guilty or not guilty, or proven or charge proved, whatever terminology is adopted. The campaign is designed to reduce the number of verdicts to two, the number that applies in every other country. It is not directed to decide which of the various terms will be used.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is not approaching the problem in rape cases in the right way. If there is a problem in rape cases in securing convictions—I am sure that I have the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East on my side—it does not rest with the number of verdicts or the potential for acquittal; the problem rests with the mechanisms by which the evidence is presented, including the standard of proof required. It has nothing to do with the verdicts that are available.
      I have responded in writing to the rape crisis centres that have written to me. I have told them that, if they are satisfied with juries going for the not proven cop-out, they are doing a disservice to those who find themselves in court.
      Mr. Wallace: It is important that the hon. Gentleman clarifies that point as, unreasonably, other inferences may be drawn from what he said, and from what his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, when referring to the problem of the standard of proof in rape trials. Is it the policy of the Labour party that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt? That is the standard of proof. Is there any question in rape trials that that standard of proof should be changed?
      Mr. Robertson: Of course not. The whole question of how rape trials should be conducted and the admissibility of proof must be looked at separately and distinctly from the verdicts. People who take consolation from there being two acquittal verdicts do not address the serious problem with getting convictions in rape cases. The whole
      234
      basis of what I am saying today and what I have said before is that the presumption of innocence must remain. The standard of proof must also remain.
      If there is a problem in dealing with allegations of rape and convictions in rape cases, it has nothing whatever to do with the verdicts. Indeed, one of the strong criticisms of the not proven verdict is that, increasingly, juries are using it as a cop-out from making a decision. The decision might be for guilty or not guilty, but having the cop-out relieves juries, especially in rape trials, of the obligation of coming to a firm conclusion on what they have heard in court.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East says that my hon. Friend's new clause is defective because there are no consequential amendments and it does not take into account any consequential effects that it would have if passed. The fact is that the issue of the not proven verdict stands on its own. Yes, it may ultimately be connected with the majority that applies in a Scottish jury, but it is not inextricably linked to it. They both stand on their own and they can be adjusted on their own.
      I personally believe that, if we were to remove the not proven verdict, ideally we should then change the majority required for a jury to convict; but there is no necessity to do that simply as a consequence of the new clause. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in trying to undermine my hon. Friend's new clause, is taking the argument—it is a further argument rather than part of exactly the same argument—further.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North, who has departed, having given us the benefit of his wisdom, tells us that we should listen to experts, because on this rare occasion he happens to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. The fact that he can ignore practically everything else that the hon. and learned Gentleman says seems to have no consequence at all. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to establish a precedent, that we should always listen to the lawyers, that only lawyers can be experts on the law, when he is so eloquent in his praise of the hon. and—I suppose that we have to say "learned"—Gentleman on this occasion.
      The Lord Chancellor of England, who does not hold any English legal qualification at all, takes almost exactly the same view. If the legal profession in England is united on one thing, the Lord Chancellor will be determined to alter it, and he has not been put off at all by the massed ranks of the English legal establishment. I think that these arguments do not hold strongly.
      Who at the end of the day is still in favour of three verdicts in the Scottish courts? Not the victims, who are left hanging in the air of frustration and mystery that comes at the end of a trial when a not proven verdict is handed down. Certainly not the recipient, unless he or she was guilty and is relieved at having been acquitted, because the recipient is left with a stigma, which, as the English royal commission identified, is impossible for him or her to clear.
      The system cannot be satisfied with a situation that undermines the presumption of innocence. The public, who are at best confused by,and at worst hostile to the idea of the not proven verdict, certainly are not in favour of having three verdicts. The legal profession may well be, especially those who are in criminal cases on the defence side, because it is an entirely suitable deployment

      235
      of their skills to go for three verdicts instead of just two. Those who were clearly guilty but feel that they have got off could be in favour of it as well.
      Much more seriously, juries who do not want to take a straightforward decision based on the case that has been put before them will be pleased to have three verdicts in the Scottish courts. I do not believe that that is a sufficient strength of opinion to weigh against the arguments that have been deployed.
      4.45 pm
      I accept that there are strong views on the other side of the issue. There are people who believe that three verdicts make our system more flexible, who believe that three verdicts give the jury in a Scottish trial more choice and, therefore, more chances to get it right at the end of the trial, and there are some people in Scotland who firmly believe that we should not bring our legal system into line with those in every other country in the world. They are entitled to that view. I disagree with them, but it is a strong view and many hon. Members have expressed it in this brief debate.
      The Opposition will have a free vote, and my hon. Friends who have listened to the debate and others can vote according to their conscience and according to the way in which they feel their opinion should go. I personally will be in the Aye Lobby at the end of the debate.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggested that a not proven verdict would result in no further proceedings, but proceedings can be taken against another person—for example, an associate of the person who was the subject of the not proven verdict. That is an important point.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made a persuasive and convincing speech. Most judges, whether in the sheriff, district or High Court, would agree with the tenor of what he was saying. Certainly, in relation to witnesses in rape cases, what he said was particularly relevant and strongly felt.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that there have been huge improvements in the treatment of rape cases. The police are now much more sensitive in their dealings with such cases, and great efforts have been made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, steps forward on video evidence have already been taken in legislative provisions. Clauses 17 to 20 of the Bill will facilitate the giving of evidence by other witnesses for whom it would be particularly distressing to recount events in court. No doubt we shall constantly review that matter in future years.
      Mrs. Fyfe: We all appreciate that there have been some improvements in the way in which rape cases are conducted in court, but nevertheless we still have to examine the fact that there are a surprisingly large number of acquittals, whether they are acquittals on the basis of a not guilty or a not proven verdict. We cannot believe that so many women are lying, so has the Minister any proposals to undertake further reforms in the way in which rape trials in particular are conducted? If so, could we see them before the Bill is concluded?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady raises a rather different point concerning the trauma experienced
      236
      by witnesses in rape cases or cases of serious sexual assault when, having gone through the process of giving evidence, they find that their evidence is disbelieved. The not proven verdict is a help in such circumstances because it means that the woman will feel that her evidence has not been given in vain and has been registered strongly by the jury in its verdict.
      I did once secure the acquittal of a man on a not proven verdict whose case arose out of an episode in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I can say only that he was grateful for that verdict, as no doubt would many of the clients of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East have been. Therefore, I would not for a moment suggest that all the representations are one way.
      The three-verdict system has been part of the Scottish criminal law for more than two and a half centuries, but we do not regard the not proven verdict as anachronistic. It has been used in a significant number of cases—broadly one fifth of cases in recent times.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that the not proven verdict is available not only to jurors but, in certain cases, to judges? It is available to justices of the peace and sheriffs sitting in summary jurisdiction.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is true.
      Our consultation exercise of 1994 cleared up many misunderstandings. Two out of three responses supported the retention of the three verdicts. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) pointed out, a substantial body of opinion supports the not proven verdict, and the balance of opinion in our consultation was strongly in favour of its retention. Its practical usefulness is shown by the fact that it continues to be used regularly; it may also be a more satisfactory acquittal verdict for many victims and witnesses, who feel in such cases that their evidence has not been disbelieved. That partly meets the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
      In the light of the evidence amassed by the consultations, I believe that the new clause should be rejected and that the not proven verdict should be retained.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing characteristic courtesy in giving way. A moment ago, referring to my intervention, he suggested that complainants in rape cases were treated more compassionately than hitherto. No one would deny that, and the change has been welcome; but, in referring to clauses 17 to 24, was the Minister suggesting that complainants in such cases would receive protection akin to that given to child witnesses by way of sections 33 to 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993? If so, I shall be the first to stand up and cheer him.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 18 will enable a video-recorded statement by a witness who gives evidence and adopts that statement to be admitted as evidence of the facts spoken to in the statement. I realise that not all the measures in the Bill may go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like them to, but the position will be reviewed in due course.
      Earlier, I mentioned the case of Madeleine Smith, a young girl charged with poisoning her boyfriend. The jury could not bear the thought of bringing in a guilty verdict and sending to the gallows a vivacious young girl with

      237
      much to offer in the future. That is why it brought in its not proven verdict—although jury members frankly admitted that they did not believe it.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that this had been a useful debate. I submit that it will have been useful only if it leads to our removing the anomalous verdict of not proven from the Scottish legal system.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made an interesting little speech, showing his fawning support for everything that QCs ever say and his keenness on supporting all that is good in Scotland. Given his record of voting to dismantle much that is good in Scotland over the past 16 years, many of us will take that with a heavy pinch of salt.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Mr. Home Robertson: Must you?
      Mr. Walker: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is courteous. Does he not agree that, when his record of voting against measures that he thinks affect Scotland adversely in opposition to his party is equal to mine, he can be as critical as he likes?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that that is one-all.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Tayside, North was so sensitive. I shall try to be more careful in future.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some serious points and some lawyer's points: there is, of course, a distinction. He raised a serious point about majority verdicts. He is right: if the not proven verdict were removed from the menu available to juries, it would be necessary to do away with the simple majority that is currently required in Scotland. That is a matter which would need to be addressed in short order.
      My complaint about the Government is that they have been dancing around the issue for a long time. They keep finding different excuses for not changing the law. The matter has been considered for them enough. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East is right to say that the matter could and should be addressed. However, I found his other points less persuasive.
      I appreciate that it must be attractive for a defence counsel to have the long-stop of persuading a jury that there is sufficient doubt to bring in a not proven verdict. The trouble is that there is a fundamental lack of logic in the three-option list of verdicts. One can acquit, convict or produce what can be best be described as a grudging acquittal. However, it is still an acquittal. There is no logic in a verdict of that nature. It simply creates the odd phenomenon of either qualified innocence, which carries a stigma—a principle that I find repugnant—or qualified guilt, which carries no penalty. What earthly use can that serve? It is a major anomaly, which ought to be addressed. The House is the only place where it can be addressed until such time as we have a Scottish Parliament.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) raised serious concerns about the implications of the abolition of the not proven verdict for rape cases. If there are such concerns, he is right to express them and I appreciate the anxiety that is felt. However, my hon.
      238
      Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made the point that there are other ways to ensure that there is better quality and that more effective evidence can be laid in such cases to make it easier to get convictions, where they are appropriate.
      I feel that the priority must be good justice. The not proven verdict provides no justice for anybody. For that reason, I am inclined to press new clause 5 to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 325.

      Division No. 159]

      [5.00 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Ashton, Joe

      Jamieson, David

      Austin-Walker, John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Barnes, Harry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Lewis, Terry

      Bayley, Hugh

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bell, Stuart

      McCartney, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Macdonald, Calum

      Benton, Joe

      McFall, John

      Berry, Roger

      McMaster, Gordon

      Bradley, Keith

      McNamara, Kevin

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Caborn, Richard

      Maxton, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Meacher, Michael

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Michael, Alun

      Clapham, Michael

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Milburn, Alan

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Clelland, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Coffey, Ann

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cohen, Harry

      Morley, Elliot

      Cousins, Jim

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mullin, Chris

      Denham, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Dixon, Don

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Dowd, Jim

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Olner, Bill

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Parry, Robert

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Patchett, Terry

      Eastham, Ken

      Pickthall, Colin

      Etherington, Bill

      Pope, Greg

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Flynn, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Fraser, John

      Radice, Giles

      Fyfe, Maria

      Raynsford, Nick

      Galbraith, Sam

      Reid, Dr John

      Gapes, Mike

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Garrett, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Gerrard, Neil

      Rogers, Allan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gordon, Mildred

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Spellar, John

      Hall, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hanson, David

      Stevenson, George

      Henderson, Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Heppell, John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Timms, Stephen

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Turner, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hutton.John

      Illsley, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ingram, Adam

      Mrs. Helen Liddell and

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Mr. John Home Robertson.

      239

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Darling, Alistair

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Davidson, Ian

      Alexander, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Day, Stephen

      Alton, David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Ancram, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Arbuthnot, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Duncan, Alan

      Ashby, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Atkins, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Elletson, Harold

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Enright, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Battle, John

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Beggs, Roy

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Evennett, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Faber, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Booth, Hartley

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Foulkes, George

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Burt, Alistair

      Garnier, Edward

      Butler, Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gorst, Sir John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Graham, Thomas

      Chidgey, David

      Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hague, William

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Congdon, David

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Conway, Derek

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hardy, Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Harris, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Corston, Jean

      Heald, Oliver

      Cran, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cummings, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      240

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

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

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Norris, Steve

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Page, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Pawsey, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Pickles, Eric

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Key, Robert

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rendel, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Richards, Rod

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Knapman, Roger

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knox, Sir David

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Legg, Barry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Simpson, Alan

      Lord, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Luff, Peter

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

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      McAllion, John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maclean, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Madden, Max

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maddock, Diana

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Madel, Sir David

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marland, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Marlow, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marttew, Eric

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Meale,Alan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Touhig, Don

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mudie, George

      Tredinnick, David

      241

      Trotter, Neville

      Whittingdale, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tyler, Paul

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Walden, George

      Willetts, David

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

      Wallace, James

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Ward, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Watson, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 6

      LODGING OF APPEALS
      '.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, in all criminal proceedings any appeals shall be lodged with the Clerk of Court within fourteen days of the conviction, sentence, judgement, order pronounced, procedure, conduct or issue giving rise to the appeal or on cause shown at such later date as the court may allow.

      (2) The appeal shall be in writing, and shall be in such form and subject to such procedure as shall be prescribed by Act of Adjournal.

      (3) This section shall not apply to the following appeals—

      (a) appeals in terms of section 76(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;

      (b) appeals in terms of section 334(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; and

      (c) appeals in terms of section 228(a) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 6 has been tabled to create a unified and streamlined appeals structure. Currently, there are various types of appeals such as bills of suspension and bills of advocation under section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. The new clause is designed to harmonise procedures—hence subsection (2) of it. It would also harmonise the form of all appeals and make them much more straightforward and less convoluted. It would allow for all types of appeals to be subject to a single time limit of 14 days as opposed to the present varying time limits. For example, a written intimation of intention of appeal must be lodged within 14 days, a written note of appeal within six weeks and a note of appeal against sentence within two weeks. There is already provision in the Bill for the extension of appeals and our new clause would not touch that.
      Sections 76(a) and 334(2)(a) of the 1975 Act deal with appeals from preliminary diets. Those diets deal with matters of competency, relevancy, pleas in bar of trial and any other miscellaneous matters required to be raised. An appeal from a decision at a preliminary diet must be taken two days after such decision and, therefore, the 14-day time limit in the new clause should not be relevant.
      Section 228(a) and (c) deal with an appeal on indictment against conviction and against conviction and sentence. Those sections have been excluded because when there is an appeal against conviction, an intimation of intention to appeal is lodged and the specific grounds of appeal are not usually framed until the accused and his
      242
      representatives receive a copy of the judge's charge to the jury. The 14-day time limit would therefore be inappropriate because the judge's charge to the jury is not normally received until six to eight weeks after the appeal against conviction is marked. With those comments in mind, we offer the new clause for the Government's consideration.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause seeks to introduce a uniform time limit for all appeals, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has suggested, excluding appeals from preliminary diets and solemn appeals against conviction or conviction and sentence. As the drafting of the new clause implicitly acknowledges, however, by excluding certain categories of appeal the time limit which should reasonably be allowed for the lodging of an appeal must depend on the complexity of the particular type of appeal procedure involved.
      We believe that to impose a uniform time limit would remove the current flexibility, since the time limit is individually set to suit the nature of each specific appeal procedure. In some cases, a time limit of 14 days would be longer than is necessary and would needlessly delay proceedings; in other more complex appeals, such a time limit would be too short and would result in frequent applications to the court to extend the time limit on cause shown.
      It has been suggested that the new clause would enable a single form to be used which would cover all the essential information required and cut the number of forms currently in use. In fact, the form used in each appeal procedure is specified by act of adjournal made by the High Court and the new clause would not change that. It is for the High Court to decide whether a separate form is required for each type of appeal or whether certain types of appeal could use a combined form. It would not be appropriate for that to be prescribed in primary legislation.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will acknowledge that it is more appropriate to retain the current flexibility in specifying the time limit individually for each type of appeal procedure and to leave with the High Court the discretion to determine the most appropriate forms of appeal. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.
      Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with the Minister's views on the need for the flexibility of the High Court, but there is also a need for simplicity and harmonisation, which is absent at the moment. I ask the Government to consider that in future legislation. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 7

      VICTIM LIAISON
      '.—Every court with criminal jurisdiction shall appoint a victim liaison officer who shall—

      (a) contact each complainer and ascertain whether they require—

      (i) advice or guidance regarding the procedure adopted by the Court,

      243

      (ii) information regarding the progress of the case and its outcome, and

      (iii) information regarding support services for victims; and

      (b) having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 7 concerns the need for a victim liaison officer to be appointed by the courts. When we discussed a similar new clause in Committee, we had a positive and constructive debate. We have redrafted the new clause because it was pointed out in Committee that the previous new clause had a certain rigidity about it. In paragraph (b) of the new clause, we have inserted that the victim liaison officer
      "having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'."
      The victim liaison officer would have flexibility, as it was pointed out in Committee that perhaps not everyone involved would wish to be informed about the progress or otherwise of a case.
      It is important to recognise in this debate that the Scottish legal system still has a long way to go before it treats victims properly. Information should flow from the justice system to the victim. Information from the police with whom the victim was initially involved, the procurator fiscal's departments and the courts should be sent to the victim and the victim's family. A wide definition of victim should be adopted, simply because the victim might be in hospital, for example, and the victim's family would need to be consulted on certain issues.
      On the day the original new clause 6 was moved in Committee, the Minister was kind enough to send all members of the Committee a copy of a Scottish Office research paper on information needs of victims. That information came out only on that day and we had insufficient time—the Minister admitted that he, too, had insufficient time—to consider it in detail. In retrospect, we find that the central message of the report is that victims are still largely being kept in the dark.
      In compiling the report, 915 victims of crime were interviewed. It found that the police were the best at telling victims and witnesses what was happening with a case and the courts and the procurator fiscal system were the worst. For example, 47 per cent. of victims were contacted by the police, less than a quarter had any contact with the procurator fiscal and only 13 per cent. were contacted by the courts. Elderly women were much more likely to be kept informed.
      The report also found that a third of victims of crimes which were solved were not told that someone had been charged, more than half of the victims of unsolved crimes were not told that no charges had been brought and in more than 40 per cent. of cases in which the victims knew that someone had been charged, they were not told whether the case went to court. A further 58 per cent. had not learnt of the outcome more than 12 months after they reported the crime.
      244
      It is important to note that only 10 per cent. thought that they had been kept very well informed of key developments in the case and more than half said that they had been poorly informed. More than 90 per cent. of those who were not told that someone had been charged said that they had wanted that information and 85 per cent. of those interviewed said that they wanted to know the outcome of the case.
      The report said that there was
      "a significant level of unmet need for information… Sometimes victims were unhappy with the way they had been treated by criminal justice agencies. This was sometimes due to 'insensitive handling' rather than a lack of information."
      The report is not bad in itself but, as we noted in the debate in Committee, it was undertaken by a London-based firm known as MVA Consultancy. I have examined the articles and memorandum of that company, and it deals mainly with business, planning, transport and so on. In Committee, I asked a question that is worth repeating: why did the Government not give that £34,000 contract to someone in Scotland, especially the Scottish universities, which know a great deal about the subject? That question is still valid.
      On page 6 of the report, sections 2.3.10 and 2.3.11 tell us that the company sent out 600 questionnaires but that only 18 per cent. came back. The problem with that 18 per cent. was that the victims had been selected and stratified by the type of offence, and according to whether the crime was detected or undetected. Crimes were also grouped in four broad categories: assault, theft from a house, other theft and other crimes. The categories excluded serious offences such as rape, serious assault and murder; they also excluded victims' relatives and victims of domestic violence.
      The authors of the report said that they excluded those individuals because they would have been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, whereas they wanted to interview people who had not been interviewed by the fiscal. What difference would it make to the statistics whether someone had been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, and how could the researchers know the seriousness of a crime when seriousness is a subjective and not an objective concept?
      For example, the theft of a handbag from a young girt, if it contained only her make-up and other perfumery, may not be very serious, whereas the theft of a handbag from an 85-year-old lady, when it might contain her life savings, her birth certificate and some memorabilia, would be a serious offence with a traumatic effect on the individual victim. That illustrates the subjectivity of the idea of seriousness.
      It is in precisely those cases, such as domestic violence, assault and murder, that we want to know whether the victims or their relatives have been consulted, and we want to know their views. There is a serious deficiency in the research, because it does not contain such information.
      Victims and victim support must be taken seriously. The research paper tells us starkly that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support, and that almost 40 per cent. of those who had not had contact said that that was because no one had told them about it. In Committee we asked the Minister what the Government intended to do about that. If I remember correctly, he said that the information would be computerised so that it was readily available in the procurator fiscal's office and could be more widely consulted.

      245
      As the Government have made the idea that they care for victims the centrepiece of the law and order debate, that is an insufficient response. Their own research tells them that the victim is kept in the dark and is a subsidiary element in the whole process. That should not happen. The victim should be of primary concern, and the Government's record on the issue is deplorable.
      The new clause asks the Government seriously to reconsider the situation and to tell us what they intend to do for victims in the Scottish criminal justice system. Will they sweep victims' needs under the carpet, as they do at the moment, or will they introduce a more formal set-up, involving Victim Support and other agencies, so that the victim will have assistance from the first minute that he or she is in contact with the police, the procurator fiscal and the courts?
      The need for information to be conveyed thereafter, when the victim is away from court, is also paramount. We do not want to read of cases in which victims of rape are told by their neighbours that the accused is out on the streets again. It is the job of the Government and of the courts to ensure that the information is readily available, so the ball lands back in the Government's court. Let us hear the Minister's response and discover what their intentions are. I hope that the Minister will respond to the new clause in a positive and enlightening fashion to the new clause.
      Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, as in the past few days I have joined the ranks of those who have become victims of crime. I cannot honestly say that I have more than a passing academic interest in what happens to the culprit at the end of the day, but I recognise that, for many victims of crime, especially with crimes against the person when there has been an element of personal injury, that is of considerable importance to the victims.
      Only in recent times have we as a society started to pay more attention to the victims of crime. I do not advocate that our criminal justice system should be turned into a system of victim vengeance. Vengeance should play no part in the criminal justice system. However, as a constituency Member I know of cases in which victims feel that they have been lost sight of as the case against the accused takes its course, and it is almost forgotten that at the outset there was a victim.
      I am thinking of a particular case in which a young constituent was killed in a road accident. The parents found out only some time later that the case had gone to court and what the outcome had been. The aspect of that case which is relevant to the new clause is that, at the outset, during the initial months, the police officer who had been dealing with it had kept in close contact with the bereaved family. But, as such things happen—no one was at fault—the police officer was moved on to another posting and the contact was lost.
      When that happens, the important ties that have been established are lost, and the victims tend to go by the hoard. That is not malicious or even negligent; it is simply that the system does not have a means of keeping people involved, especially in cases where there has been a guilty plea. Obviously, when the plea is not guilty the victim may have to come to court, which presents a different set of circumstances, in which one hopes that proper attention
      246
      will be paid to him or her. After a guilty plea, however, the victim is often lost from sight as the case is processed. But victims have an interest in knowing how our judicial system, acting on behalf of the community as a whole, has dealt with the perpetrator of the crime against them.
      I welcome the general thrust of the new clause. It would be difficult and perhaps burdensome to say that the procedures laid down in it should take place in every single case, because that could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy. However, someone—perhaps someone in the sheriff clerk's office—should be identified as being responsible for ensuring that the interests of the victims of crime are considered. It can be a strange thing for people who have never attended court before, especially if, as victims, they will have to give evidence, to find themselves suddenly faced with the whole panoply of the law. Someone should sit down and talk the witness through the process. After all, the chances are that the witness will not be legally represented, although the accused and the Crown will be represented. Someone from the fiscal's department may have time to explain what will happen, but one suspects that that may not necessarily be the case in a busy sheriff court or the High Court.
      There should be someone in the court to say what will happen when the witness goes in, who will be sitting where, and what the procedure will be. If the witness is giving evidence for the Crown, he should be told that he will be asked questions by the procurator fiscal and will then be cross-examined. A liaison officer could simplify the process and allow witnesses some inkling of what they can expect when they go into the court.
      Equally, the other two paragraphs in the new clause state that a liaison officer should provide information regarding the progress of the case, or indicate cases in which the accused pleads guilty. The officer should also provide information on victim support services. Agencies and voluntary organisations which cater for the victims of crime are growing in number in our communities. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said in moving the new clause, the number of victims who make use of those organisations is relatively small because of the lack of basic information.
      I understand that there will be the usual technical objections to the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which the new clause has been moved. There must be proper recognition in society of people who fall victim to crime. A lot of sympathy is expressed at present, but that sympathy must be translated into practical action.
      5.30 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: I want to make particular reference to the victims of rape. In the debate on new clause 5, the Minister seemed to believe that the retention of the not proven verdict went a long way towards satisfying the needs of rape victims. The question of not going into the sexual history of the victim should be applied in all cases—the judge should not be free to decide whether to do so.
      It is not only a matter of protecting vulnerable witness, although that was a valuable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Counsel for the defence again and again ask questions relating to the clothing of the complainant, or

      247
      the fact that she was walking alone at night. Those issues should not be raised in an attempt to defend the accused and to try to put doubt in the minds of the jury. It is not a question of departing from the standard of the case being beyond reasonable doubt. I am referring to the issues that can be raised in court.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had an opportunity to speak to new clause 5. We are now on new clause 7, which deals with victim liaison; she must address her remarks to that subject.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to use that subject to lead into new clause 7. If we believe that victims need more support and help, new clause 7 could be of immense benefit. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause. He must be willing to discuss the problems that victims—I am referring particularly to rape victims—can experience.
      I felt that I had to relate the Minister's remarks on new clause 5 to new clause 7 because it is important that he not only supports this new clause but goes further and discusses the needs of rape victims with rape crisis centres. He must see what else can be done to ensure that trials are conducted as fairly as possible and that victims are fairly represented so that a proper verdict is delivered. After all, that is the most important thing to a victim.
      An organisation based in Glasgow called Families of Murder Victims has raised with me the fact that when a loved member of a family is murdered, no one explains anything to the relatives of the victim. They do not get a transcript of the trial, which is offered free to the defendant, and they are often made to sit in the same room as the family and friends of the person accused of the murder. Families of Murder Victims feel that relatives get a raw deal, and I hope that the Minister will refer to that point.
      Dr. Godman: I was only too happy to add my name to the new clause, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will allow me to say that a more appropriate title might well have been "Witness Liaison Officer" or "Witness Adviser". We have seen a remarkable improvement in the assistance given to witnesses, particularly those whom I have long defined as vulnerable witnesses. New clause 7 would strengthen that most welcome development.
      The Minister will surely agree that clause 18, while providing a most welcome step forward, falls far short of the provisions contained in sections 33 and 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I am sure that the Minister was not attempting to compare clause 18 favourably with the two sections of the 1993 Act, but he will surely agree that much more assistance needs to be given to vulnerable witnesses.
      Section 33 of the 1993 Act allows for the appointment of a commissioner—who could act as a witness adviser or a safeguard—who must act as an independent evidence-gatherer. Similarly, section 35 of the Act allows for a child's evidence to be given by television link. It is essential that the sheriff's office has a victim liaison officer—or witness liaison officer—where closed circuit television is used. I have looked at the installation in Greenock, and incidentally I am pleased to say that—judging from a recent letter I received from the Minister—it seems that the installation is to be permanent. That will be most welcome in Greenock, if not in Paisley.
      248
      If further use of television screens is to be made, a young witness would benefit from the advice of a "safeguarder" or adviser as envisaged in new clause 7. That will be extremely helpful whether the case takes place under what I call the old-fashioned proceedings or, under sections 33 and 35 of the 1993 Act, evidence is taken outwith the court room.
      The Minister should have some sympathy for the new clause. As envisaged, the development of witness advisers could be as welcome and as radical as those sections of the 1993 Act, in which the Minister played an important role. By and large, the interests of child witnesses are now dealt with compassionately, and sheriffs and judges treat such vulnerable witnesses sympathetically. But that more sensible and compassionate approach does not deny the usefulness of the officer envisaged in the new clause.
      Although most courts take care of the interests of vulnerable witnesses, how many sheriff courts and courts used by the High Court are in every sense barrier-free for the visually handicapped? I should have thought—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He is rather stretching this new clause.
      Dr. Godman: I am sorry that you say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because an adviser could be in a powerful position to advise disabled witnesses, particularly where there are no facilities for that person to give his or her evidence in a comfortable frame of mind. In numerous courts the visually handicapped are handicapped as witnesses, and the same applies to people confined to wheelchairs. Such witnesses would benefit enormously from advice given by an adviser as defined in new clause 7. I fail to see why you brought me to order on that point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did so simply because the hon. Gentleman was out of order. He was seeking information on exactly how many courts had this, that and the other. Although it may be appropriate for an adviser to seek such information, it is hardly appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to develop that line of argument this afternoon. I should be grateful if he would desist from doing so.
      Dr. Godman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Such an adviser could play an important role in helping disabled witnesses. He could certainly help complainers in rape cases by advising on the likelihood of the court trawling through their sexual history on cross-examination. They should be regarded as vulnerable witnesses and a victim or witness liaison officer, as proposed in the new clause, could be of considerable help to complainers or child witnesses in such cases.
      Another group who should be assisted by such an adviser is people with learning difficulties. I have always argued that they should be treated as vulnerable witnesses. It must be an awful ordeal for such people to go into a court of law. Some manage better than others, but with the help of an adviser the difficulties experienced by such people in attending and giving evidence in our courts would be dramatically reduced.
      There is therefore a strong case for such an adviser to be employed by the courts' administration solely for the purpose of easing the difficulties faced by vulnerable witnesses.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Although we debated this issue thoroughly in Committee, I am happy that we

      249
      have returned to it today, because it is extremely important. It gives me an opportunity to repeat the Government's commitment to ensuring that victims are dealt with correctly and sensitively.
      Victims have an important place in our criminal justice system, which must be fully recognised. If victims were to lose faith in how the system treated them or delivered justice, fewer would report crimes or act as witnesses. That in turn would reduce the system's effectiveness and capacity to identify offenders and bring them to justice.
      I have much sympathy with the sentiments behind the new clause. All coherent and sensible measures to improve the position of victims are to be welcomed. But the statutory path suggested by the new clause is the wrong one to follow. The right path is the one on which we have already embarked, which builds on much existing good work being carried out by the agencies of the criminal justice system, based on research and pilot projects.
      5.45 pm
      Unlike the new clause, our support for victims is not only court-based. Under the justice charter, police forces are expected to put victims in touch with local victim support schemes if the victim so wishes, and all police forces have an official policy to provide the necessary information to victims. Equally, once a trial is over, the efforts of Victim Support (Scotland) will continue to support victims who still need emotional support. Government funding to Victim Support (Scotland) has increased enormously from £600 in 1985 to £878,000 in 1994 and it is being increased by a further 11 per cent. this year up to £1 million.
      I was specifically asked in Committee about action that we shall take in the light of the research report. I say to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the contract for research on the information needs of victims was put out to selective tender and was won by MVA in December 1993 for a total of more than £34,000, which has now been paid in full. Most of the research commissioned by the Scottish Office's criminal research office is undertaken by Scottish universities. That research required expertise in what could be described as "market research"—sending out questionnaires to large numbers of individuals. MVA was considered to have the expertise available as well as previous experience in Scottish criminal justice. I cannot say at this time who else submitted proposals for that research, but I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He mentioned research. Does he accept that, as I said earlier, the crimes that were excluded from paragraphs 2, 3, 10 and 11 included those such as rape and other sexual assault? It is on precisely such areas that we need information. As a result, does he accept that that research is deficient in terms of what we do in the future?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Any research is not necessarily complete, but it must be used as a basis for going forward. If further evidence is required we could usefully look into that. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the Minister of State responsible.
      The report makes it clear that there is an unmet demand for more information, and we acknowledge that there is definitely room for improvement. To construct a system to cope effectively, speedily and comprehensively, and at a
      250
      reasonable cost, with the provision of more information to victims, as outlined in the report, is no easy task, nor can it be done overnight, but since the report's publication we have made a number of initial moves.
      First, the report suggested that local police guidelines on the provision of information could be operated much more consistently and we are pursuing that matter with chief police officers in Scotland to see how they could achieve greater reliability and coverage in keeping victims informed of progress. Secondly, we have accepted an invitation from Victim Support (Scotland) to participate in a steering group formed to consider proposals for pilot projects targeted on supporting victim witnesses in court.
      The Crown Office obviously has a leading role to play in providing case-specific information at certain stages of the process. The Lord Advocate and his officials will proceed in relation to aspects of the report that fairly fall to them and to procurators fiscal.
      I strike a note of caution. The research findings clearly highlighted the fact that the majority of victims definitely want to be well informed about case-specific information, general criminal justice procedures and contact points for assistance. However, it is clear from the report that a range of options is available for providing that additional information, which might work differently in practice.
      Under, for example, the first option, victims of serious offences and vulnerable witnesses would be given information at key stages but other victims would have to telephone for information. That is attractive, as it seeks to target the provision of information, but, as the report says, that gives no guarantee that the victims who most need or want it would automatically receive what they require.
      The second option, whereby victims would opt into a system of automatic information provision, largely gets round the problem of victim selection associated with the first option. However, as with the third option, whereby all victims would automatically be kept informed, it is questionable whether it would be a wise use of taxpayers' funds to place no limits on the supply of information, especially where the case concerned might be minor. In addition, the third option takes no account of those victims who do not want information, who may simply want to put the experience of the crime behind them.
      All those considerations need to be given careful thought. Even Victim Support (Scotland) remains in the process of digesting the report and reaching an opinion about the options.
      I have said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that we will carefully consider all the issues, and consider whether it is necessary to prepare a leaflet for victims so that they should be better informed.
      To summarise, I must restate our opposition to the new clause. Although the sentiment is laudable, the amendment is misguided. Better victim liaison will not be achieved by placing such a statutory duty on the courts. Instead we should pursue, as the Scottish Office is already, a flexible and co-ordinated approach throughout all agencies of the criminal justice system, working in close contact with Victim Support (Scotland) and other voluntary organisations.
      With those assurances in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will not press his amendment.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his reply, but a deficiency remains. [Interruption.] The Minister has kindly replied to me, so I would not say that.

      251
      There is a deficiency in the Government's approach because the figures that stand out are that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support (Scotland). What will the Government do to bring victims far more into the mainstream regarding the courts? Will he reflect on the fact that two out of every five victims who were contacted by Victim Support (Scotland) said that they had not contacted victim support because no one had told them of its existence?
      If there is a dearth of information in the first place, the Minister's suggestion that a leaflet be produced for victims should be implemented immediately. That is important.
      The Minister said that the new clause was inflexible because it imposed a statutory duty. However, subsection (b) offers flexibility because we say in that,
      "having ascertained the needs of the complainer,"
      the victim liaison officer would
      "provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be."
      Flexibility is therefore built into the new clause.
      I took the arguments made by hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that someone from, perhaps, the procurator fiscal's department should act as a victim liaison officer. At the moment, each department is charged with keeping the victim informed voluntarily, but it does not happen. There must be some co-ordination. The victim liaison officer, being appointed by a court with criminal jurisdiction, would satisfy that demand. It would allow for someone to sit down and talk to witnesses and victims.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, the nomenclature of a witness liaison officer may be more appropriate. Regardless of nomenclature, there is a need for victim support.
      The Government's lack of financial support is reprehensible. Victim Support (Scotland) has provided briefings to us as Members of Parliament. One briefing mentioned the need for fair compensation for crime victims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It is absurd that the board would still award £1,000 for a child who has been sexually assaulted, compared with £1,250 for an adult who suffers a dislocated finger.
      The Government's attitude to that is topsy-turvy. It is time that they entered the real world. The least that the Minister should do is to take the issue seriously so that victims receive the message from the debate that they do have a place in the criminal justice system. The Opposition suggest that they have a primary place; the Government have relegated them to the second and third division. We consider that their needs are much more important than that, and should be considered.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 259.

      Division No. 160]

      [5.55 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Battle, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Alton, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashton, Joe

      Bell, Stuart

      Austin-Walker, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Barron, Kevin

      Benton, Joe

      252

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Harvey, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Henderson, Doug

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Heppell, John

      Blunkett, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hodge, Margaret

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

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

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Burden, Richard

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Chidgey, David

      Jamieson, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Clelland, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coffey, Ann

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cohen, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Connarty, Michael

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Corbett, Robin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Loyden, Eddie

      Corston, Jean

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cummings, John

      McAllion, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      McCartney, Ian

      Darling, Alistair

      Macdonald, Calum

      Davidson, Ian

      McFall, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McKelvey, William

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Denham, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dixon, Don

      Madden, Max

      Dobson, Frank

      Maddock, Diana

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dowd, Jim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

      Enright, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Etherington, Bill

      Michael, Alun

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Flynn, Paul

      Milburn, Alan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fraser, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Galloway, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gapes, Mike

      Mudie, George

      George, Bruce

      Mullin, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gordon, Mildred

      Olner, Bill

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Patchett, Terry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gunnell, John

      Pike, Peter L

      Hall, Mike

      Pope, Greg

      Hanson, David

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hardy, Peter

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      253

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Stevenson, George

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Purchase, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Reid, Dr John

      Timms, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Touhig, Don

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Turner, Dennis

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tyler, Paul

      Rogers, Allan

      Wallace, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Watson, Mike

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

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

      Wise, Audrey

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spellar, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Ms Estelle Morris and

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Alexander, Richard

      Coe, Sebastian

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Colvin, Michael

      Amess, David

      Congdon, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Ashby, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkins, Robert

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      unninghan, Roseanna

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Day, Stephen

      Bates, Michael

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Batiste, Spencer

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dover, Den

      Body, Sir Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Booth, Hartley

      Dunn, Bob

      Boswell, Tim

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Elletson, Harold

      Bowis, John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evennett, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Faber, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Burt, Alistair

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Butler, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forth, Eric

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Carttiss, Michael

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Cash, William

      French, Douglas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gale, Roger

      Clappison, James

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Garnier, Edward

      254

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      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

      Hannam, Sir John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Page, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Hendry, Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hicks, Robert

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Richards, Rod

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

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

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jack, Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Speed, Sir Keith

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

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knox, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spring, Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Legg, Barry

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Leigh, Edward

      Steen, Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Stephen, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Lord, Michael

      Sykes, John

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Madel, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Malone, Gerald

      Tredinnick, David

      Mans, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Marland, Paul

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Walden, George

      255

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ward, John

      Willetts, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wood, Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Whittingdale, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 10

      JUDICIAL EXAMINATION
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 6, line 40, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 167, in page 6, line 42, at end insert—
      '; and
      (c) in paragraph (b) after the words "allegedly made" there shall be inserted "and in summary of the evidence upon which the Crown intends to proceed.".'.
      No. 168, in page 7, line 3, at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (4)—

      (a) leave out the words "With the permission of the sheriff'; and

      (b) after the words "accused may" there shall be inserted "object to any question asked by the prosecutor and".'.

      Mr. McFall: I draw particular attention to amendments Nos. 167 and 168. Amendment No. 167 would ensure that an accused person who is subject to judicial examination should have access to a summary of information upon which the Crown is basing its case. At a judicial examination, the prosecutor can ask an accused person about an extra judicial admission only if the accused has received a copy of the written record of the confession.
      Under the terms of the Bill, the prosecutor will be able to ask questions designed to elicit an admission. Amendment No. 167 would redress the balance between the prosecutor and the accused in judicial examination by ensuring that such questions can be asked only if the accused has also received a copy of the summary of evidence. If the prosecution has the right and the entitlement to ask questions in order to elicit an admission, surely the defence has the right to object to that. The defence should know the facts upon which the prosecution is relying and, with that in mind, we tabled amendment No. 167.
      Under the terms of the Bill, the defence can say something only with the permission of the sheriff and the accused can be asked questions for the purpose of clarification only with the permission of the sheriff. Amendment No. 168 would eliminate the need to ask the sheriff's permission and add the accused's right to object. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am afraid that I fail to see the need for amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168, despite the explanations offered by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). The main amendments that the Bill will make to the judicial examination process are limited to trying to ensure that the prosecutor can ask the accused a simple question to which the accused can give
      256
      a straightforward answer. That being the case, I do not see why we need to change any of the fundamental aspects of the process.
      It would be entirely premature to provide a summary of evidence at judicial examination stage. The judicial examination takes place at a very early stage of the process, soon after the accused has been arrested and charged. At that stage, the prosecution will often not be in a position to give a full summary of how it intends to proceed—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will know that from his experience as an advocate-depute. I do not believe that there would be any advantage in the accused having such a summary at that stage, and there could be no question of the Crown being limited to proceeding only on the basis of such evidence as may be available at the time of the judicial examination.
      I also cannot see the advantage of amendment No. 168, which would amend clause 10 by providing an enhanced role for the accused's solicitor in the process of the judicial examination. A clear duty is placed on the sheriff by the statute to ensure that the procedure is undertaken in a manner that is fair to the accused so that he or she understands fully what is being asked. To tinker with that system by introducing a more extensive role for the legal representative of accused persons in objecting to the questions put to the accused by the prosecutor would be to alter the nature of the process unnecessarily.
      In the event that it is thought that anything said by the accused in the course of a judicial examination has been extracted by unfair or improper means—despite the fact that the procedure is under the control of the sheriff—it would be open to the defence, at either a first or preliminary diet, or indeed at the trial itself, to challenge the evidential value of the judicial examination. I believe that there are perfectly adequate safeguards for the accused, and, in those circumstances, I urge that the amendments be withdrawn.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I understand the practicalities of asking the prosecution to provide all the details of the evidence upon which it intends to rely. However, the amendment is not exclusive, in the sense that the prosecution would be debarred in some way from relying on other information at another stage. It occurs to me that there may be an imbalance, in that the accused is expected to state his defence but the prosecution is not obliged to state the terms of the prosecution, other than the bald narrative of the charge no doubt contained in the petition warrant.
      Therefore, the Minister should consider the fact that at that stage the accused is obliged to come clean—to put it colloquially—but, apart from the terms of the charge, the prosecution is not asked to do likewise. Looking at the matter from the point of view of fairness—which is always the ultimate test in procedures of this kind—we should ask whether it might be possible to provide the accused with something along the lines suggested by the amendment. The Minister knocked the amendment aside rather baldly, but I think that it deserves further and more detailed consideration than he felt able to give it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I will answer the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The questions asked of

      257
      the accused will be very simple and straightforward. The amendment is difficult because it requests a summary of evidence at a time when the prosecution may not have all the evidence readily available. If it is a serious case, such as a murder case, additional information may become available later in the course of the investigation and we must remember that judicial examination takes place at a very early stage in the proceedings.
      For those reasons, it is not appropriate or wise to impose a cumbersome process upon the prosecution. We must balance the interests of justice with fairness to the accused, and I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that the effects of the amendments would not be in the best interests of justice.
      Mr. Campbell: I shall intrude upon your discretion and respond briefly to the Minister's comments if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not understand that there is no exclusivity. The amendment does not say that, having stated its case, the Crown could never go beyond the terms of that case in the future.
      I do not think that the Minister has directed his attention to the fact that a person is arrested and charged with an offence only because there is at least prima facie evidence from corroborated sources as to his or her guilt. To that extent, by the time that an individual appears at the judicial review, the prosecution must know the evidence on the basis of which it has been thought fit to charge that individual.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is in the interests of justice for the simple reason that, if the prosecution puts forward its case at a very early stage and it then emerges that there is a great deal more evidence that it was unaware of and the case involves other matters as well, the defence could argue in the trial that the prosecution did not put forward the case fully and properly at the time of the judicial examination. The prosecution may not have been in a position to do that. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be imposing upon the prosecution a cumbersome and onerous process which would not be in the best interests of justice.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13

      FIRST AND PRELIMINARY DIETS IN SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 51, in page 9, line 6, leave out '76' and insert '67'.
      No. 52, in page 9, line 32, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
      No. 53, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
      No. 54, in page 10, line 25, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 14

      INTERMEDIATE DIET IN SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 10, leave out lines 29 and 30.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 14 provides, among other things, for intermediate diets to be mandatory in summary proceedings. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce the new diets gradually, court by court and, if appropriate, to disapply the provisions in particular courts.
      Gradual introduction will permit monitoring and evaluation of the 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.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 10, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 11.
      No. 57, in page 11, line 7, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
      No. 58, in page 11, line 16, 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 James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 17

      EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 14, line 45, leave out "other".
      Clause 17 is one of four clauses introduced in Committee to implement the recommendations contained in a report by the Scottish Law Commission, "Evidence—Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings", which was published on 23 February.
      The amendment arises from our further consideration of the clauses. It will permit any party to the proceedings in which a hearsay statement has been admitted to seek the leave of the court to lead additional evidence. Clause 17(9) currently restricts that right to any party other than the party leading the evidence of a hearsay statement.
      I hope that the amendment will accordingly be welcomed by the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21

      EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 46, after 'material' insert
      'deriving from human beings or animals'.
      In fairness to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should say that the amendment is a concession to him, as I resisted everything else he proposed, particularly on Lockerbie. The hon. Gentleman wanted a better definition of "biological". We have responded to that, as he had a valid point. We have made it beyond doubt that references to biological material do not include material of botanical origin, such as drugs, but refer only to material deriving from human beings or animals. That is the clarification that the hon. Gentleman sought, and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      COMMENT BY PROSECUTOR ON ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO GIVE EVIDENCE
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 26, line 4, at end insert—
      '(2) The prosecutor shall only be permitted to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence in any proceedings against him if—

      (a) the accused has intimated a special defence of alibi or incrimination; or

      (b) the court has upon application being made agreed that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case that the prosecutor should be entitled so to comment.'.

      The amendment relates to clause 32. It concerns the right of the prosecutor to comment on the defence's failure to give evidence. As was mentioned in Committee, it is an important measure, which has drawn sharp criticism from the legal fraternity.
      When I mention the legal fraternity, perhaps I should mention one of its members who advises all parties in the House. irrespective of stance—Michael Clancy of the Law Society. We value Michael's assistance greatly over the months and years. Michael has been ill recently, but he is recovering, and today he was in the Box under the Gallery watching the deliberations. Both sides of the House are grateful to Michael for the assistance that he has provided. I know that the Minister, in particular, agrees with me, but it is nice to have recorded in Hansard the assistance that he gives all parties in the House, not least on the issue of the right of the prosecution.
      The Law Society, among others, feels strongly about the issue. The amendment seeks to circumscribe the occasions when the prosecutor can comment on the defence's failure to give evidence. It has been suggested in the press in Scotland by eminent legal writers that the scales of justice are being tipped in favour of the prosecution rather than the defence by the introduction of the clause. The Opposition agree with that view, and ask the Government seriously to consider the issue so that the scales of justice are finely balanced again, and are neither in favour of the prosecutor or the defence.
      260
      Without the amendment, the prosecutor will be able to comment on the accused's silence on a particular issue. That will give the prosecutor more power and leeway than the judge has at present. That cannot be in the interests of fairness and the law.
      We should consider what could happen in the case of an over-zealous prosecutor. The point was drawn to the attention of the Minister before, but he gave an inadequate answer. If there is an over-zealous prosecutor, the judge could comment on that, but by commenting on it, he would be bringing to the attention of the jury the fact that the prosecutor mentioned it in the first place, so the judge would be reinforcing it. It would be in the mind of the jury throughout the trial and when it decided the verdict. That is an important point that I would like to get across to the Minister in the amendment.
      There is a considerable amount of case law relating to the right of the court to comment on the accused person's silence at trial. Those cases clarify the circumstances when the judge may comment. The prosecutor should be subject to the same restrictions as the judge. The amendment would ensure simply that the prosecutor's right to comment is no wider than that of the judiciary.
      In September, the Government published a consultation paper:
      "The right to silence, judicial examination and evidence of previous convictions".
      It was a hastily produced document. One has it in mind that it was based on the position in England and Wales, and the Government sought to align the position in Scotland with that in England and Wales. I submit to the Minister that the legal system in Scotland is unique, that we do not need to copy England and Wales, and that the Government undertook a hasty measure when they produced their document last September.
      Judges have been drawing attention to the accused's silence since 1918 in the case of Brown v. Macpherson, when Lord Justice General Strathclyde said:
      "the judge may, and in my opinion should, in exceptional cases comment upon the fact…that an accused"
      failed to give evidence or go into the witness box.
      There are other cases since that time have developed that case law such as Scott v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1946, Stewart and others v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1980 and McLean and Canning v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1993. So the judge can comment on cases.
      The law is clear that judicial comment can only be made when special defences of alibi or incrimination have been entered,, where it is clear that the accused knows certain facts unknown to anyone else or where inference of guilt can be drawn from the unanswered Crown case. If the judge is constrained by case law to comment on the failure of the accused to enter the witness box, why will not the prosecutor be similarly constrained? Why are the Government offering the prosecutor an excess not available to the judiciary? Such a constraint would help to balance the scales of justice.
      The right to silence has existed more than 100 years, since the Criminal Procedure Act 1887—so why in 1995 are the Government overturning that right and tipping the balance in favour of the prosecution? The Government have no credible case, and it ill behoves them to proceed without adequate explanation. It is important to maintain public confidence in Scotland's criminal justice system,

      261
      and the Government's proposal would be a small step to reducing it. It would not serve the interests of justice, and I ask the Government to reconsider.
      6.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to the Law Society, which has been diligent in making representations to all parties, and to Michael Clancy—for whose help to right hon. and hon. Members we are most grateful. We wish him a speedy recovery.
      Clause 32 removes the prohibition on the prosecutor's right to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence on his own behalf. We have promoted that change because we believe it right that the prosecutor should be able to draw to the jury's attention, with the proper degree of care and balance, what may be an important element of the case before them. The clause gives the prosecutor the right to comment in all such situations. That follows the recommendations of the Thomson committee.
      We believe that the prosecutor can be relied on to use the discretion appropriately and sparingly. To emphasise that, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has undertaken to issue guidance to procurators fiscal on the use of the right to comment. The system provides perfectly adequate safeguards against the possibility of the prosecutor going too far in his comments. The prosecutor's right to comment will be no wider than that of the judge. If the prosecutor were to go too far—I emphasise our belief that that will be very much the exception—it will be open to the judge to draw that to the attention of the jury in his charge, and to direct them accordingly.
      Mr. McFall: If the prosecutor is over-zealous, it will be the judge's place to correct him—but by doing so, the judge will have brought the situation to the jury's attention on two occasions. Rather than allow such flexibility for the prosecutor, is it not necessary to issue guidelines to which prosecutors could work? Without them, there will be no adequate safeguard.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is the purpose of the guidance that my noble and learned Friend will issue to prosecutors, which will he of substantial assistance.
      In cases of defences of alibi and self-defence, the judge's ability to comment is not limited to the examples quoted by the hon. Gentleman of the kinds of situation in which comment might be made. In the final analysis, it will be open to the accused to seek leave to appeal against any ensuing conviction or sentence if it is thought that the prosecutor's comments might have led to a miscarriage of justice. Neither limiting the right to comment to situations where special defences have been intimated nor requiring the court to take a decision in advance of the prosecutor commenting on the failure to give evidence is a sensible way to proceed.
      Even if there were some merit in that approach, I am unclear why it should be thought appropriate to list only the special defences of alibi and incrimination in this amendment, and exclude the other special defences, including that of self-defence. Seeking to introduce the
      262
      unusual and imperfect procedures in the amendments would not add anything to the safeguards already available to the accused. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: On Second Reading, I said that I did not share misgivings that a prosecutor might be entitled to comment on the absence of the giving of evidence by an accused person. From my own experience of prosecuting and defending, if that is not done expressly, there is often an opportunity for the prosecutor to comment at least by implication.
      I was not as persuaded as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) of the need to be anxious about the Bill's proposal. However, that reflects a substantial and radical innovation that is contrary to previous procedure, which may have consequences for the freedom of the subject. In those circumstances, there is a duty to be certain that innovation will be properly restricted.
      My anxiety about the Minister's response is illustrated by an expression coined by Mr. Melvin Belli, a famous United States attorney—or trial lawyer, to use the vernacular. He said, "If you let a skunk into the jury room, you should not be surprised if it creates a smell." That is a colourful way of saying that, if evidence or comments are produced before a jury, one can hardly be surprised if the jury takes account of them—no matter how strict the instructions given by the trial judge to disregard them.
      Although the Minister may have a point in respect of certain technicalities, the principle behind the amendment is of ensuring that an innovation that may have consequences for the freedom of the subject should be regulated by Parliament rather than by the direction or instruction of the Lord Advocate, however well-motivated and conceived to be in the public interest. That is a sound and substantial principle, and I hope that the Minister will give it further consideration and not reject it on technical grounds. That fundamental issue ought to be properly considered.
      Mr. McFall: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who mentioned an expression coined by an American lawyer. I used the same analogy in Committee, but credited it to Lionel Daiches, QC. Perhaps it has done the rounds. The point is that the Government's proposal gives the prosecutor another bite at the cherry.
      We know about miscarriages of justice, the controversy surrounding Parliament's intentions, and the recent debate in Scottish courts. Parliament should make its voice clear in the Bill. In another place, Lord Hutchinson—an eminent lawyer—referred to the Home Secretary's implied abolition of the right to silence as an act of vandalism:
      "To make a comment of that kind is to ask the jury to give the silence some evidential value; that is, to add to the prosecution case. That is why both Royal Commissions in England pointed out that that was mischief … The whole basis of criminal law, both in Scotland and in England, is that no defendant should ever be put in that position."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 414.]

      263
      Those eloquent words go to the heart of the issue and of the amendment. We believe that they should be enshrined in the Bill.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall respond briefly. I met Melvin Belli at a Canadian university. He said that he would speak only if he were provided with moose and pemmican. He was indeed a colourful figure.
      I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is somewhat over-concerned. At least one judge in another place has expressed support for the change that we propose. He agreed with the Government that it was a sensible move. It seemed anomalous that no comment by the prosecution was allowed when virtually every other party to the proceedings was not so inhibited. I believe that, when the judge was practising at the Bar, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) sometimes appeared as his junior.
      We believe strongly that the recommendation of the Thomson committee, which has been the subject of consultation, should be enacted. I have no doubt that its implementation and operation will be reviewed in due course. The Lord Advocate's guidelines will spell out the sort of comment that may be made and the circumstances in which it would be appropriate.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the guidelines be published?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall make inquiries. It is better that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be given the correct answer within a few hours rather than an immediate response, which may or may not be correct.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for that response. If he makes inquiries, will he write to us?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 246.

      Division No. 161]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Byers, Stephen

      Alton, David

      Caborn, Richard

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Barnes, Harry

      Chidgey, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Battle, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coffey, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Cohen, Harry

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Blunkett, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Paul

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Keith

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Darling, Alistair

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

      Davidson, Ian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      264

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Denham, John

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Don

      Maddock, Diana

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Enright, Derek

      Michael, Alun

      Etherington, Bill

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Milburn, Alan

      Fatchett, Derek

      Miller, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fraser, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      George, Bruce

      Mullin, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Golding, Mrs Lin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gordon, Mildred

      Olner, Bill

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pike, Peter L

      Gunnell, John

      Pope, Greg

      Hall, Mike

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hanson, David

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Harvey, Nick

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Henderson, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heppell, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hodge, Margaret

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Reid, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Rendel, David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hutton, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Ingram, Adam

      Simpson, Alan

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jackson, Helen (Shef' Id, H)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jamieson, David

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

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jowell, Tessa

      Spellar, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lewis, Terry

      Stevenson, George

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McAllion, John

      Timms, Stephen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Touhig, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Turner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum

      Tyler, Paul

      McFall,John

      Wallace, James

      McKelvey, William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McLeish, Henry

      Watson, Mike

      Maclennan, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      McMaster, Gordon

      Wicks, Malcolm

      265

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wise, Audrey

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Joe Benton.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Evennett, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Faber, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Amess, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Ancram, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Forman, Nigel

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Ashby, David

      Forth, Eric

      Atkins, Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      French, Douglas

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gale, Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bates, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gill, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Booth, Hartley

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorst, Sir John

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butler, Peter

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hendry, Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hicks, Robert

      Clappison, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Congdon, David

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan, Alan

      Knapman, Roger

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, Sir David

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Elletson, Harold

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      266

      Legg, Barry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lord, Michael

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Luff, Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Madel, Sir David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Marlow, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sykes, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Merchant, Piers

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Norris, Steve

      Viggers, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Walden, George

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Page, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pawsey, James

      Waterson, Nigel

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Pickles, Eric

      Whitney, Ray

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Whittingdale, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Richards, Rod

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Riddick, Graham

      Wilkinson, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sackville, Tom

      Dr. Liam Fox and

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Mr. Simon Burns.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 35

      SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 27, line 3, 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 1 on the standard scale, 50 hours; and

      (ii) in any other case,'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 110, 111, 61 and 112.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments introduce procedural changes to clause 35.
      Amendment No. 112 introduces a right to appeal against the imposition and length of a supervised attendance order where such an order has been made as a disposal at first instance in respect of an offender aged 16 or 17.
      Amendment No. 61 will make it clear that the Secretary of State can notify courts that schemes are available only for limited classes of cases.
      I undertook to consider an amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in Committee. We have further considered the position. We agree that, where an offender who is already in prison or detained for other matters falls to be dealt with by the court for fine default, the imposition of a supervised attendance order for default may not be the best option. Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 give the court discretion in such circumstances.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 110, in page 27, line 13, at end insert
      'and is not serving a sentence of imprisonment'.
      No. 111, in page 27, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (6), the following definition shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
      "imprisonment" includes detention;".'.
      No. 61, in page 27, line 33, at end insert—
      '( ) in paragraph 1(1)(a), after the word "persons" there shall be inserted "of a class which includes the offender";'.
      No. 112, in page 29, line 3, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of any appeal or review, a supervised attendance order made under this section is a sentence.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 42

      LEAVE TO APPEAL
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 33, line 14, at end insert—
      '(1 A) In section 228(1) of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted at the end "or any allegation that the conviction was otherwise unsafe.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 171, in page 33, line 31, at end insert—
      'Provided that, in the case of an allegation under subsection 228(2) above of any miscarriage of justice in the proceedings in which the person was convicted or any miscarriage of justice on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence which was not heard at the trial and which was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial, the judge shall grant leave to appeal.'.
      Mr. McFall: Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 are concerned with convictions that are considered to be unsafe.
      Amendment No. 171 is also concerned with evidence on any issue where it is considered that there was a miscarriage of justice on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence that was not heard at
      268
      the trial and was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial. In that case, the judge, in our submission, shall grant leave to appeal.
      We have seen that situation in Scotland over the past six months or so, where there has been an unprecedented split between one division of the Court of Criminal Appeal, chaired by Lord Hope, and the other division, presided over by Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk. That dispute centred on cases in which someone who had been convicted claimed that since his trial credible and reliable new evidence had emerged which cast serious doubt on his guilt. The legislation allows the Appeal Court to hear additional evidence only if that evidence was not available at the trial and could not reasonably have been made available.
      Several months ago, Lord Hope, supported by Lords Allanbridge and Brand, decided to allow an appeal in a case despite the fact that the additional evidence was available at the trial. However, that decision was tested by five other Law Lords, including Lords Ross, McCluskey, Morrison, the late Lord Morton and Lord Cowie. They stated that the law was clear and that the other three judges had gone against their own previous decisions in the way in which they had reinterpreted it.
      7 pm
      The reason for that reinterpretation by Scotland's most senior judge was that he wished to be flexible regarding appeals and the law. That is not to say that other judges did not wish to be flexible. They felt that Parliament had set down the parameters within which they had to operate. However, I think that Lord Hope was considering the situation regarding the environment in which the law operates and wished to place a liberal interpretation on that. I, and I think many others, would agree with him regarding his intentions in that respect.
      There is a real and growing disquiet about the Scottish Appeal Court's ability or willingness to consider possible miscarriages of justice. Lawyers and the public are becoming more and more aware of how difficult it is to have any case re-examined in Scotland. I think that it was with that in mind that Lord Hope decided, in his opinion and in that of the other judges, to interpret the law in a more liberal way.
      The situation in Scotland is not different from that in England and Wales. It is a myth that the miscarriages of justice discovered in the past few years in England and Wales are unlikely to happen in Scotland because of what is perceived as a superior legal system. The truth is that, in Scotland, we are less likely to face up to the possibility that they may exist.
      At present in Scottish gaols, a number of prisoners are robustly proclaiming their innocence. A number of such cases have been taken up by their Members of Parliament. For example, the case of George Beattie has been taken up by his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). In addition, there are the cases of Raymond Gilmour from Paisley and the ice cream war prisoners, Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steel—the latter having gone to extraordinary lengths, gluing himself to the fence at Buckingham palace, to proclaim his innocence, and the former, having been on hunger strike, declared, on his return to prison from hospital, that he might go on hunger strike again. The cases of Peter Hurtt and Alex Hall are two further examples.

      269
      There is a real danger in this situation. Pressure is building up and fuelling the argument for easier referral in cases where there is an alleged miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding the fact that we wish a new body to consider the situation. It is noticeable that the noble Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk, who ruled against Lord Hope's liberal interpretation of the law, himself in a speech just two years ago, said that there had to be a body to deal with miscarriages of justice in the criminal law system.
      The situation is crying out for some change. Even in tonight's debate, we could go some way towards reassuring the legal fraternity and the judges in Scotland about Parliament's intentions. When the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and clause 32 in particular, was being debated—now section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975—there was no perception that future generations would be able to bring Hansard to their aid. But the decision in the other place in Pepper v. Hart—in November 1992, if I remember correctly—has ensured that Hansard will be of great assistance. It is precisely with regard to areas of ambiguity where the intentions of Parliament need to be ascertained that the deliberations in Parliament can be used by those outside to interpret the will of Parliament.
      The intention of Parliament with regard to appeals is not very clear. My evidence for that is the Hansard report of 5 June 1980 of the Standing Committee's proceedings on clause 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That has now become section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Only eight minutes was allowed in Committee to debate the 17 pages of the appeal procedure. Parliament cannot do adequate justice to such a volume of work in eight minutes. We should be concerned that, with the eight minutes that we spent in 1980 and perhaps eight minutes tonight, we shall have spent only a quarter of an hour on the issue of appeals, yet it is one that is tearing the heart out of the Scottish legal system, with the top judges almost at each other's throats.
      Given the judgment in Pepper v. Hart, Parliament's intentions can be made clear tonight. Tonight's debate could have a crucial and immediate effect on the development of law in Scotland. We owe it to the legal system to give the matter more than the eight minutes given to it in 1980. The Minister could bring clarity to the policy decision for a liberal interpretation which Lord Hope and other judges are seeking to develop.
      If we had what was considered to be an unsafe conviction and Lord Hope's liberal interpretation was applied and upheld, the case of Elliott, with which the Minister is familiar, would not have overturned the decision in the case of Church. We could do the legal system in Scotland a favour tonight by our deliberations.
      The Government set up the Sutherland committee to consider the issue of miscarriages of justice and to establish a body to consider them. One of the criteria that it considered was whether the Appeal Court should be able to hear additional evidence that was available at the time of the trial provided that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence. If I am correct in my interpretation, the dispute between Lord Hope and his fellow judges centres on the interpretation of the word "reasonable".
      270
      I favour the view that the Appeal Court should be able to hear additional evidence that was available at the time of the trial, provided that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it. The current statutory provisions in respect of additional evidence are contained in section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, under which a person may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice in the proceedings in which he was convicted, including any alleged miscarriage of justice, on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence that was not heard at the trial and was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
      Other important statutory provisions in respect of additional evidence are sections 252 and 253 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. In particular, section 252(c) states:
      "Without prejudice to any existing power of the High Court that court may for the purposes of an appeal under section 228(1) … (c) take account of any circumstances relevant to the case which were not before the trial judge."
      A number of observations could be made about section 228(2), but, for the purposes of this debate, it is appropriate to concentrate on the words in the statute that relate to the non-availability limit on the introduction of fresh evidence. The cases of Church v. Her Majesty's Advocate 1995—to which I referred earlier—and Elliott v. Her Majesty's Advocate 1995 are relevant. In the Elliott case, the court considered that the provisions of section 228(2) regarding additional evidence constituted a requirement that must be satisfied before the court could hear additional evidence.
      Whereas section 228(2) allows a review of any alleged miscarriage of justice when that alleged miscarriage of justice relates to the non-production of additional evidence, the court is constrained by the terms of the statute to hear that evidence only if it was not heard at the trial, was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
      In earlier debates, the Minister has referred to the Thomson committee. In its first report in August 1971, it expressed the view that additional evidence could be presented on the basis of a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial. The current provision in section 228(2), which derives from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, was considered by the court in the Elliott case. The Lord Justice-Clerk considers that, because Parliament did not adopt the reasonable explanation test suggested by the Thomson committee and instead provided the wording currently contained in the statute, it is clear that Parliament intended this more exacting test. The decision in that case reaffirmed the law as it stood prior to the Church case.
      Given that in 1980 we debated such a volume of material for only eight minutes, I wonder what Parliament's intention was. I think that many people outside will wonder the same, and it is important for the Minister to comment tonight. Concern has been expressed in a number of quarters that the High Court's interpretation of the additional evidence test does not meet the demands of justice.
      The interpretation of the non-availability limit and the introduction of fresh evidence are clearly an issue. In paragraphs 6.29 and 6.30 of his book "Criminal Appeals", Lord McCluskey suggests that non-availability raises a

      271
      "simple question of fact: either it was available or it was not but one must also ask: 'available to whom?"
      Lord McCluskey concludes that availability must be considered from the standpoint of the appellant, full account being taken of what was practicable for him at the trial. He also states that the word "reasonable" is
      "notoriously elastic and it remains to be seen how severely the High Court will apply this test if the applicant was in fact ignorant of the existence or potential of the additional evidence but could have learned of it by harder work or better detection work he or his advisers might have discovered it".
      In all the circumstances, we support the view taken in the Church case, that a reasonable explanation for the failure to produce evidence based on a liberal interpretation of section 228(2) shows the route to reform. It is clear that the policy objective pursued by the Lord Justice-General is, in that case, correct, and that the proper test for dealing with the problem raised in the Church case would be along the lines of an excusable failure to produce the evidence at the original trial. That having been said, I acknowledge that the decision in the Elliott case to the effect that the Church case was wrongly decided is—in terms of the proper construction of the 1975 Act—correct.
      I have considered the test proposed, under the Criminal Appeal Bill, that the terms of section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 should be amended to provide that the evidence should be admissible and capable of belief. I approve of the change, and I think that many members of the Scottish legal fraternity consider that a similar provision should be enacted for Scotland.
      Given the Pepper v. Hart decision in the House of Lords, I stand by the comments that I made in The Scotsman on 25 March 1995. I said then:
      "The fact that the law is so rigid means that justice is not being done fairly".
      That justice is not being done fairly is recognised not only by those who have recourse to the courts but by those who preside over them. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide a clarity that could assist the Law Lords when they examine cases such as this in the future.
      7.15 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that, in the Elliott case, a five-judge bench of the High Court overruled the recent judgment in Church v.Her Majesty's Advocate. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the judgment concerned section 228(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
      The Elliott judgment confirmed that a person might bring an appeal on the basis of fresh evidence only if that evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial. The effect of the judgment is that the law has been declared to be as it was thought to be before the Church judgment.
      The question on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated—the question whether there is any need to change section 228(2) —is now being considered by the committee on appeals criteria and miscarriages of justice procedures, chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland. We shall decide whether proposals for legislative action should be presented once that committee has reported.
      Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 appear to be founded on a belief that the new leave to appeal arrangements will increase the likelihood that miscarriages of justice will go
      272
      uncorrected. I cannot accept that proposition. The leave to appeal arrangements contained in clause 42 will filter out—at an early stage—only frivolous and unmeritorious appeals that would otherwise waste the time of the Appeal Court. The new arrangements should therefore allow the court more time in which to consider meritorious appeals when a miscarriage of justice may genuinely have occurred.
      Amendment No. 170 deals with the question of appeals criteria in general, and appears to seek to modify the criteria currently applied by the Appeal Court in Scotland. The Scottish Office takes the matter very seriously. We consulted on possible changes to the criteria applied by the Appeal Court in the consultation paper "Sentencing and Appeals", but no clear consensus emerged.
      Mr. McFall: What does the Minister consider to be a definition of "reasonable"? That one word is causing a fracture between Lord Hope and other Lords in the Scottish court. Could we not assist the process this evening by providing an opinion—and, one hopes, siding with Lord Hope, the most senior judge in Scotland, who believes that a more liberal interpretation of the law is required?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said in my opening remarks, Lord Hope's judgment has been clarified by a five-judge bench of the High Court which overruled the judgment in Church v. Her Majesty's Advocate. That decision is the one that will apply.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided to set up a representative body—
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his indulgence in giving way to me again. He says that the position has been clarified, but if he looks at the judgment of those five judges he will note that, according to them, Parliament's intentions were clear. On 5 June 1980, Parliament devoted only eight minutes to the 17 pages involved. Its intentions were far from clear—and clarity from Parliament is cried out for. That is the main issue.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, this is a matter on which the courts must interpret the Act as it now stands and they have done that in the five-judge bench of the High Court. As to whether any amendments are necessary, this particular subject is under consideration by the Sutherland committee and we will consider very carefully indeed any representations that they make to us.
      Sir Stewart Sutherland is the principal of Edinburgh university, and he is looking at these issues in considerable depth. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Dumbarton should seek to pre-empt the committee's work. The amendment has not been drafted in the light of the careful consultation which is necessary and which the committee is bringing to the complex issues involved.
      We have already given an undertaking to respond to the Sutherland committee's recommendations as quickly as practicable, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for those comments, but there are two issues. First, there is the dispute between Lord Hope, Lord Ross and others. Clarity is required on that.

      273
      The second issue is the Sutherland committee. The Minister takes refuge in the fact that the Sutherland committee has been established and will report in the summer of 1996. Meanwhile, the Criminal Appeal Bill is going through the House. There will be a miscarriage of justice body for England and Wales but nothing for Scotland.
      The fact that the Sutherland committee reports in 1996 will probably ensure that nothing will be done for Scotland this side of a general election. I and many others in Scotland do not think that the present situation should prevail beyond the next general election. We are looking to the Government to speed things up. It was quite absurd to use the time scale of summer 1996 in the first place. It could have been done much more speedily.
      Given that the committee will report in summer 1996, what guarantees can the Minister give that the Government will be up and running immediately to deal with the situation? The miscarriages, and alleged miscarriages, of justice in Scotland at the moment are a running sore. The Government have to attend to that matter. It is no use having recourse to the Sutherland committee when its report date is as far away as 1996. Something more urgent needs to be done now. It is with that in mind that we have tabled the amendments.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that the Sutherland committee will report before or by July 1996. The chairman has said that it will report as soon as possible and that those matters will, of course, be dealt with urgently.
      The definition of "reasonable" is very much a matter for interpretation by the courts, as it has been over the past century. It is not for us to speculate on what might have been the parliamentary intention earlier, when the particular provision was passed.
      Mr. McFall: I thank Minister for that reply. He is really saying that we do not know what Parliament had in mind in 1980, but it is certainly none of our business in 1995 to decide what Parliament had in mind in 1980. Frankly, that is a most inadequate answer, and something needs to be done.
      That one word "reasonable" is causing the problem. Something needs to be done about it. If the Sutherland committee reports by July 1996, will the Minister give a commitment that the recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible thereafter, by October 1996, in the new parliamentary Session?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will act as soon as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State takes these matters very seriously, as he does all issues involving justice where it is alleged that the person convicted has not committed the crime and fresh evidence has allegedly been made available.
      Amendment negatived.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 34, line 24, 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.

      274

      (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—

      (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.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 2, 62, 4 and 63.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 42 introduces a new requirement for leave to appeal. When these provisions were debated in another place, it was noted that where leave to appeal was granted, the appellant would be allowed to advance all grounds of appeal contained in the note of appeal even if the single judge had considered certain grounds to be frivolous and unarguable.
      The amendments also ensure that where the single judge or the High Court identifies the arguable grounds for appeal not contained in the note of appeal it shall be competent for the appellant to found aspects of the appeal on those grounds of appeal without requiring further leave from the High Court. This matter was also debated in another place. I am pleased to be able to clarify the arrangements.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 34, line 29, 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.".'.
      No. 62, in page 35, line 36, 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.'.

      No. 4, in page 35, line 41, 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.".'.

      275
      No. 63, in page 36, line 35, 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 James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 46

      NEW PROSECUTION FOR SAME OR SIMILAR OFFENCE
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 38, line 19, leave out 'and'.
      No. 114, in page 38, line 32, at end insert '; 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.".'.

      No. 115, in page 38, line 36, leave out 'and'.
      No. 116, in page 39, line 2, at end insert '; 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.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 49

      EXAMINATION OF FACTS
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 41, line 34, leave out
      'made under subsection (8) below'.
      No. 7, in page 42,, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 8, in page 43, line 22, leave out
      'made under subsection (8) below'.
      No. 9, in page 43,, leave out lines 38 to 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 51

      APPEAL BY ACCUSED IN CASE INVOLVING INSANITY
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 46, line 23, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 11, in page 46, line 46, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 48.
      No. 12, in page 47, line 33, at end insert 'and'.
      276
      No. 13, in page 48, line 7, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 9.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 52

      APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR IN CASE INVOLVING INSANITY
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 49, line 1, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 15, in page 49, line 13, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 15.
      No. 16, in page 50, line 1, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 17, in page 50, line 13, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 15.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 55
      COMMITTAL TO HOSPITAL FOR INQUIRY INTO MENTAL CONDITION
      Amendment made: No. 64, in page 51, line 31, leave out 'health' and insert 'condition'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 60

      JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT IN RELATION TO STATUTORY OFFENCES
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 56, line 43, leave out from 'offence' to 'a' in line 46 and insert—

      '(a) to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding 60 days;

      (b) to impose'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 66 and 88.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first two of these amendments make it clear that the amount of caution that the district courts may fix in respect of a statutory offence is the same as that applicable to common law offences by virtue of section 284 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
      The second amendment puts beyond doubt that a court in solemn proceedings may order an offender, on conviction, to find caution for good behaviour.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 66, in page 56, line 47, 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."!.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 65

      LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL APPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 67, in page 58, line 18, leave out 'as follows' and insert
      'in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below'.
      No. 68, in page 59, line 19, at end insert—
      '(6) In section 30(3) of that Act (application of section 25 of that Act to legal aid in contempt proceedings)—

      277

      (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)".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 70

      GENERAL PROVISION
      Amendment made: No. 146, in page 61, line 22, leave out
      'in respect of which it is made'
      and insert—

      '(i) from the commission of the offence; or

      (ii) where section 71(3A) of this Act applies, from the commission of the offence and any other offence to which this Chapter applies'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 71

      BENEFIT FROM COMMISSION OF OFFENCE
      Amendments made: No. 147, in page 61, line 36, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 148, in page 61, line 37, leave out 'of the benefit' and insert
      'referred to in section 70(5)(a)(i) of this Act'.
      No. 149, in page 62, line 3, leave out from 'period' to end of line 6 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 70(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.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 73

      GIFFS
      Amendments made: No. 150, in page 63, line 6, after 'if' insert '—(a)'
      No. 151, in page 63, line 10, at end insert '; or
      278
      (b) where subsection (3A) of section 71 of this Act applies, it was made by the accused within the relevant period within the meaning of subsection (3C) of that section.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 74

      MAKING OF CONFISCATION ORDERS
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 64, leave out lines 32 and 33.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 153, 155 and 160 to 162.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The provisions that these amendments would adjust prevent the court from making a suspended forfeiture order or other forfeiture order until it has determined the amount payable. We do not consider that the court should be so fettered because that could take months. The court should be able to forfeit property immediately after conviction where this is considered appropriate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 153, in page 64, leave out lines 39 and 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 75

      STATEMENTS RELEVANT TO MAKING CONFISCATION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 154, in page 65, line 14, leave out
      'from the commission of the offence'
      and insert
      'for the purposes of section 70(5)(a) of this Act.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 76
      POSTPONED CONFISCATION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 155, in page 66, line 20, leave out from 'him;' to end of line 22.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 77

      INCREASE IN BENEFIT OR REALISABLE. PROPERTY
      Amendments made: No. 156, in page 67, line 23, leave out
      'obtained in connection with the commission of the offence'
      and insert
      'for the purposes of section 70(5)(a) of this Act'.
      No. 157, in page 67, line 34, leave out
      'in connection with the commission of the offence'.
      No. 158, in page 68, line 16, after '71(2)' insert 'and (3B)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 79

      CONFISCATION ORDERS WHERE PROCEEDS OF CRIME DISCOVERED AT LATER DATE
      Amendments made: No. 117, in page 69, line 22, leave out 'Section 74' and insert
      'Sections 70(3) and 74(1), (2) and (4)'.
      No. 159, in page 69, line 35, after '71(2)' insert 'and (3B)'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      7.30 pm

    Clause 80

      APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINES TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONFISCATION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 70, line 44, 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.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 82

      EXERCISE OF POWERS BY COURT OR ADMINISTRATOR
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 71, line 23, leave out from 'of to end of line 25 and insert
      'and paragraphs 1, 4 and 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act in relation to confiscation orders and on an administrator by that Schedule.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 83
      COMPENSATION
      Amendment made: No. 119, in page 72, line 26, leave out '92' and insert '91, 92, 94'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 101

      ARRESTMENT OF SCOTTISH PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ORDER REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 98
      Amendments made: No. 69, in page 88, line 11, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert
      'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
      No. 70, in page 88, line 17, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
      No. 71, in page 88, line 27, leave out
      'prosecutor shall apply to the court'
      and insert
      'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
      No. 72, in page 88, leave out lines 36 to 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 4

      SEQUESTRATION ETC. OF PERSONS HOLDING REALISABLE OR FORFEITABLE PROPERTY
      Amendments made: No. 120, in page 111, line 6, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
      No. 121, in page 112, line 11, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
      No. 122, in page 113, line 17, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
      No. 19, in page 113, line 34, leave out
      'section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
      and insert
      'section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
      No. 123, in page 114, line 29, leave out '94' and
      insert '96 and 98 to 101'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 5

      AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1987 RELATING TO PART II
      Amendments made: No. 124, in page 116, line 30, leave out 'a probation order or'.
      No. 160, in page 116, leave out lines 36 to 38.
      No. 161, in page 116, leave out lines 44 to 46.
      No. 162, in page 117, line 25, leave out from 'him' to end of line 27.
      No. 125, in page 118, line 33, after '(6)' insert
      'Without prejudice to section 2(1) of this Act,'.
      No. 126, in page 118, line 35, leave out from 'the' to the end of line 47 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.".'.
      No. 127, in page 122, line 30, leave out '6A' and insert '2'.
      No. 20, in page 123, line 49, 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 (2) of section 11A of this Act shall be deemed to have been executed by the court as if that subsection authorised such execution.".'.
      No. 128, in page 124, line 11, after 'person's' insert 'interest in his'.
      No. 129, in page 126, line 42, leave out 'paragraph (b) and'.
      No. 130, in page 126, line 43, at end insert—
      (' ) in subsection (2), for the words "(1)(a)" there shall be substituted "(1)";'.
      No. 131, in page 127, line 21, 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 (1) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) of the said section 9.".'.
      No. 21, in page 128, line 14, 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".'.
      No. 22, in page 128, line 24, after '11' insert ',11A'.
      No. 132, in page 128, line 25, leave out from 'words' to first 'of' in line 26 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".'.
      No. 73, in page 128, line 31, leave out from 'words' to the end of line 32 and insert
      'from "and" to "11(6)" there shall be substituted "28, 28A and 28B".'.
      No. 133, in page 129, line 17, leave out '(except subsection (8) thereof)'.

      281
      No. 23, in page 129, leave out line 45 and insert—
      '(ii) for the word "11" there shall be substituted "9, 11, 11A".'.
      No. 134, in page 130, line 5, leave out
      'a gift caught by Part I of this Act'
      and insert
      'an implicative gift'.
      No. 24, in page 130, line 46, 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'.
      No. 25, in page 131, line 9, leave out
      'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
      and insert
      'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
      No. 74, in page 131, line 11, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert
      'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
      No. 75, in page 131, line 19, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
      No. 26, in page 131, line 24, 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'.
      No. 76, in page 131, line 30, leave out
      'prosecutor shall apply to the court'
      and insert
      'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
      No. 27, in page 131, line 38, leave out
      'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
      and insert
      'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
      No. 77, in page 131, leave out lines 40 to 46.
      No. 135, in page 132, line 1, leave out from first 'section' to for' in line 2 and insert
      '32 (Orders in Council as regards taking action in designated country)—
      (a) in subsection (2)'.
      No. 136, in page 132, line 3, 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.".'.
      No. 78, in page 132, line 19, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
      No. 79, in page 132, line 36, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
      No. 80, in page 132, line 51, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
      No. 81, in page 133, line 32, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
      No. 30, in page 133, line 45, at end insert—
      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)".'.
      No. 137, in page 133, line 45, at end insert—
      '. In section 41(2) (disclosure of information held by government departments)—
      282

      (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.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 6

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 82, in page 134, line 19, leave out
      'Schedules A (forms of indictment),'
      and insert
      'Section 3 of and Schedules'.
      No. 31, in page 134, line 27, leave out from beginning to '3' and insert
      'Parts I and III to VI of Schedule 2 (forms of procedure) and Schedule'.
      No. 32, in page 134, line 28, at end insert—
      '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".'.
      No. 33, in page 135, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
      No. 83, in page 135, line 14, at end insert—
      '. 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;".'.

      No. 84, in page 135, line 23, at end insert—
      '. In each of sections 23 and 329 (remand and committal of persons under 21) —

      (a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), 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.".'.

      No. 85, in page 135, line 29, 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.".'.
      No. 34, in page 135, line 35, leave out paragraph 15.
      No. 86, in page 136, line 23, at end insert—
      '. After section 48 there shall be inserted the following section—

      283
      "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.".'.
      No. 87, in page 136, 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.".'.
      No. 138, in page 137, line 12, 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.".'.
      No. 88, in page 142, line 7, at end insert—
      '. After section 182 there shall be inserted the following—
      "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.".'.
      No. 89, in page 142, line 27, at end insert—
      '. In each of sections 196(1) and 402 (fines, etc., may be enforced in another district), the proviso shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 90, in page 144, line 12, after 'etc.)' insert—
      '(a) in each of subsections (1) and (2), after the words "section 228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (be) or (board)"; and
      (b)'.
      No. 91, in page 144, line 18, at end insert
      ',(bb), (be) or (board)'.
      No. 92, in page 144, line 38, at end insert—
      '. In section 269 (extract convictions), after the words "section 228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (bc), or (board)".'.
      No. 35, in page 145, line 5, at end insert—
      '. 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.'.
      No. 163, in page 145, line 20, at end insert—
      '. Section 289D (IA)(d) (power to alter sums specified in section 435(e) of that Act) shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 164, in page 145, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
      '. In section 300 (appeal in respect of bail)—
      (a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      284
      "(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".'.

      No. 94, in page 145, line 25, at end insert—
      '. 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.".'.

      No. 95, in page 145, line 29, after 'applications)' insert '(a)'.
      No. 96, in page 145, line 30, at end insert; and
      (b) after the word "open" there shall be inserted "shut and"!.
      No. 38, in page 145, line 32, leave out from '(1),' to '; and' in line 36 and insert
      'the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end shall cease to have effect'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in page 145, line 37, leave out 'subsections (4) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (4)'.
      The amendment would again ensure the provision of useful information that is to be withdrawn. If the information is withdrawn, the defence cannot advise adequately regarding a plea to be made or a prospective penalty to be imposed. Paragraph 97 of schedule 6 provides, among other things, that section 311 (4) and (5) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 shall cease to have effect.
      There is concern about section 311(5) which provides that, where a complaint includes a statutory charge, a notice under the Act has to be served on the accused with a complaint and notice of prior convictions after the charge has been proved and laid before the judge by the prosecutor and entered into the record of the proceedings. That means that the accused will frequently not know of what he has been found guilty. When the accused is telling his lawyer his circumstances, it is extremely useful

      285
      to have such notice, and withdrawing it would be detrimental. With that in mind, I seek the Government's views.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The proposal to repeal the requirement to provide notices of penalties in summary cases follows a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Criminal Procedure, chaired by Lord MacLean.
      The value of the notices does not justify the considerable resources devoted to preparing and serving them. They are not served in solemn procedure or for common law offences and, as they state only the maximum penalty available, they provide limited guidance to the accused as to the penalty which is likely to be imposed on him.
      The requirement to serve a notice of penalty can, in certain cases, lead to the court not being able to sentence the offender if the notice, for some reason, contains an error or has not been properly served. In our view, it is not appropriate that the proper functioning of the court should be disrupted because a minor technical procedure has gone awry.
      I understand that incidental use has been made of the notices by sheriffs and justices of the peace as guidance on the maximum penalties available to them in sentencing. We recognise that sentencers need to be fully informed of the penalties available to them. The Scottish Courts Service and the Crown Office are therefore in the process of setting up arrangements for providing the bench with the required information. The Crown Office has agreed to prepare and maintain a manual of statutory offences which will be made available in all courts, including the district courts. It should provide the courts with much more comprehensive and, indeed, appropriate information than a notice of penalties.
      With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 145, leave out lines 39 and 40.
      No. 139, in page 146, line 27, 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,".'.
      No. 97, in page 147, line 12, at end insert—
      '. Section 345 (administration of oath to same witness in case at same diet) shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 140, in page 148, line 42, at end insert—
      '. 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".'.
      No. 40, in page 149, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
      '. Section 435 (expenses) shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 41, in page 151, line 14, at end insert—
      '. 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—
      286
      "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.".'.

      No. 42, in page 151, leave out lines 29 and 30.
      No. 99, in page 151, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3) In subsection (6), for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted "the United Kingdom".'.
      No. 100, in page 151, line 46, at end insert—
      '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 (I), 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.".'.
      No. 101, in page 152, line 18, leave out from beginning to '(service' in line 20 and insert
      'In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980'.
      No. 141, in page 154, line 32, 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

      287

      (ii) so far as not concurrent with that period, any term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced in respect of the new offence,

      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".".'.
      No. 142, in page 155, 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".'.
      No. 43, in page 155, line 45, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 1 on page 156 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'.
      No. 44, in page 156, line 4, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 5 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'.
      No. 143, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
      '(8) This section extends to Scotland only.'.
      No. 102, in page 158, line 40, 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—

      (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.".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 7
    Amendments made: No. 103, in page 159, line 30, column 3, leave out 'Schedule A' and insert 'Section 3'.
    No. 45, in page 159, line 37, column 3, leave out 'Schedule 2' and insert
    'In Schedule 2, Parts I and III to VI'.
    No. 104, in page 161, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 196(1), the proviso.'.

    No. 46, in page 162, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 277, in subsection (2), the words "section 236C", "section 237", "section 246", "section 259","section 272" and "section 273".Section 282.'.

    No. 165, in page 162, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

    'Section 289D(IA)(d).'.

    No. 47, in page 162, line 53, column 3, leave out 'Section 311' and insert
    'In section 311, in subsection (1), the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end; and subsections'.
    288
    No. 105, in page 163, line 37, column 3, at end insert—

    'Section 345.'.

    No. 106, in page 164, line 35, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 402, the proviso.'.

    No. 48, in page 164, line 48, column 3, at end insert—

    'Section 435.'.

    No. 49, in page 165, line 7, column 3, at end insert—

    'Section 457.'.

    No. 50, in page 165, line 9, column 3, leave out from '(1),' to 'in' in line 14.
    No. 107, in page 165, line 20, at end insert—

    1976 c.67.

    The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976.

    'In section 4(1),in the proviso, the words "on indictment".'.

    No. 108, in page 165, line 21, leave out 'section 9(3)'.
    No. 144, in page 166, line 35, column 3, leave out 'paragraph (b) and,'.
    No. 145, in page 167, line 22, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 41(2), the words from the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection.'.

    —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Wood.]
    7.37 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Bill was brought to the House from another place in February and has since been subjected to intense scrutiny by members of all parties, in Committee and now on Report. We have been able to respond to some of the points that were made.
    The Bill will equip the criminal justice system in Scotland to meet the challenges that it faces as we move into the 21st century. It will tighten the operation of bail, ensure the effective use of DNA detection techniques, improve the selection of jurors, streamline appeals procedures and reduce the burden on the Appeal Court. It will significantly reduce needless attendance at court by witnesses and victims of crime, provide fairer treatment for those unfit to face trial because of insanity, extend the scope for the use of fines in appropriate cases, provide a serious alternative to imprisonment for fine default and extend the powers of the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime.
    Those measures will improve the delivery of justice in Scotland. The improvements will be felt throughout the criminal justice system for many years to come. The Bill is wholeheartedly in Scotland's interests, and I commend it to the House.
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Ian Davidson: I should be willing to speak to many issues were time available, but I want especially to raise the issue of those who offend while on bail. The issue arose repeatedly in Committee, and I must admit that I am not convinced that the

    289
    Government are taking it sufficiently seriously. I do not think that they realise how, in many working class communities in particular, the credibility of the system is being undermined by what people regard as a revolving door situation.
    Very often, young people committing violent assaults are released back into the community almost as soon as they have entered the police station. In some cases, they are perhaps taken to court but are then released on bail without any penalty being imposed on them. That effectively acts as a deterrent to witnesses who might otherwise come forward and it makes people much less likely to report offences to the police, because there is a widely held view that nothing happens as a result of complaints being made. That is enormously dispiriting for police officers who make the time and take the effort to catch youngsters who have perpetrated—in many cases—quite horrific offences against ordinary law-abiding members of the community. I have already raised a couple of incidents in correspondence with the Minister, but it is worth bringing him up to date with the situation in my area.
    A gang is active in Govan that has approximately 18 members. Collectively, over an 18-month period, they have been arrested no fewer than 259 times. The vast majority of the gang have not, at the time of speaking, been sentenced by the courts: no penalty has been imposed on them. In those circumstances, it is understandable that there is a widespread view that those youngsters are utterly untouchable.
    I wish to make particular reference to one case that has horrified me and many people in the community, about which the Minister has not so far been able to respond. On 11 March, a youngster struck one of my constituents on the hand and head with a machete. My constituent was left with a scalp wound, his hand was badly damaged and there was a danger that his arm would be lost altogether. He had to be taken to hospital for a blood transfusion. The 15-year-old youngster who had committed the offence was caught, taken to court and immediately released back into the community. He was not held for any length of time whatever.
    One week later, the same youngster attacked somebody else with a knife, inflicted severe injury and endangered the person's life. Again, knives and weapons were used. That time, the youngster was held for nine days and then released: a youngster charged with two attempted murders was held in custody for nine days before being released. Eventually, on 27 April, that same youngster was involved in another stabbing incident. There is something obviously amiss when a youngster who is clearly violent and prone to attacks with dangerous weapons is released back into the community without any restraint whatever.
    I want to draw another point to the Minister's attention. I appreciate that he is busy with other matters, but I would welcome his attention so that he can respond when he replies to the debate.
    The Govan fair took place recently. On the Friday evening of the fair, there were battles between two gangs in the Govan area, during which eight people were arrested. The next night, there were further battles, during which six people were arrested. Among those who were arrested were five youngsters who between them had a total of 104 charges pending.
    290
    When youngsters who have 104 charges pending—many of them were offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980—are released and running about in central Govan with knives machetes and axes, clearly the criminal justice system is not operating correctly. One of those youngsters—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must remind him that the purpose of Third Reading is to debate what is in the Bill. He is describing rather extensive incidents and I do not understand how they relate to Third Reading; perhaps he could enlighten me.
    Mr. Davidson: I was trying to clarify how the Minister believed that the provisions in the Bill would deal with the detail of those circumstances. In Committee, the Minister was long on generalities and extremely short on practicalities.
    People in my community—and, I am sure, in other communities—want to know how the Bill will deal with such realities. I have not heard the Minister say what differences would apply under his new system. One of the youngsters arrested at the weekend in Govan had already been charged with attempted murder, serious assault, police assault and a series of other attacks with deadly weapons. The Minister has offered no guarantee that the system will change. That is an absolute disgrace. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to spend the money required to ensure that such youngsters are kept in some form of detention until they can appear in front of a court to be sentenced to a substantial period of incarceration.
    The Minister must say how such a system can be allowed to continue and whether he is prepared to issue rules or guidance to procurators fiscal to ensure that a youngster charged on two counts of attempted murder, as in the earlier case which I mentioned, is not released back into the community to become involved in other feuds and disputes. That is clearly outrageous, and it goes to the very heart of the Bill.
    The Government have said that they believe that the Bill will improve the operation of justice in Scotland. People in Scotland will believe that justice has improved only when they see action being taken against those in the community who they know are repeated offenders. The existing system does not provide for such action and therefore requires change.
    7.46 pm
    Mr. McFall: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on Third Reading. It is noticeable that all Scottish National party Members have been absent from debate on this Bill from the beginning to the very end. When it comes to detail and examining law and order, they are gone. They are good for quick sound bites and criticism, but nothing else.
    Indeed, I well remember that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has Peterhead in his constituency, did not participate in debates on the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill 1993, either. Perhaps, with the new hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), the SNP will take more of an interest in home affairs. It should be playing an active part

    291
    in this House on issues such as those addressed in the Bill, because they are of extreme concern to the Scottish people.
    The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is less to do with criminal justice and more to do with the administration of criminal justice. I look forward to a real criminal justice Act so that we can consider in a coherent fashion the problems facing Scotland. Scores of technical amendments have been moved tonight. That makes for bad law at the end of day. We talked earlier about miscarriages of justice because of the intentions of Parliament. It is hardly welcome having so many amendments thrown at us. The Minister kindly wrote to the Opposition to say that most of the amendments were technical, but in a year or two we may find that they were not merely technical and deserved proper scrutiny. We have not been able to give them our full attention.
    The Minister mentioned that the Bill would assist the situation regarding bail bandits—those who continually contravene bail requirements. I see very little in the Bill to do that. Like a number of other hon. Members, I received a letter from the Lord Advocate on 5 June which said that he, like members of the Committee, was concerned about those offending while on bail. In his opinion, the present guidelines do not deal specifically with so-called bail bandits. He said:
    "The difficulty in dealing with persistent offenders is that most of them are of an age where the imposition of a custodial sentence will almost certainly be viewed by the courts as a last resort. This is relevant to the issue of bail or remand because the courts rightly do not think it appropriate to remand an accused in custody in respect of an offence for which he is unlikely in the end to receive a custodial sentence."
    As a result, the Lord Advocate has set up a working party to
    "look closely at whether a more consistent approach to bail by prosecutors can be achieved."
    Like us when we deal at a constituency level with the legal bodies, he knows that the prosecutor's attitude to bail can be crucial. The Lord Advocate's working party is considering
    "other steps which might be taken to deal more effectively with persistent offenders. For example, it will consider what more can be done to build on the existing practice of bringing outstanding charges in respect of individual persistent offenders together in one complaint or indictment. The longer an accused is on bail awaiting trial, the greater scope there is for him to re-offend while subject to a bail order".
    That explains much of what is wrong with our criminal justice system. People brought before the court know that if they plead not guilty it will delay their having to face their responsibilities. That is because of the administration of the court and its efficiency or lack of it. I submit to the Minister that the evidence from practitioners suggests that our courts are not working efficiently. Individuals can plead not guilty, and it may be a year or even two years before they have to face the consequences of their actions. That is no good for the credibility of the legal system, and there is nothing in the Bill to remedy it.
    There is a crying need for a more coherent criminal justice Bill, and one that is exclusively Scottish rather than being based on the tail end of legislation that has been passed for England and Wales. I cite the provisions concerning miscarriages of justice and the right of silence, on which the Government arrived late in the day with their consultation paper.
    292
    There is a lot to learn, and the Minister is a bit complacent when he talks about less imprisonment for fine default. We are all at one in welcoming what the Government offer here, but where's the beef? What will happen? At the moment 40 per cent. of people admitted to prisons are there for fine defaulting. We all know that that is scandalous, inefficient and not economically viable, but what are we to do about it? More needs to be done; yet there is insufficient provision in the Bill to reassure the Opposition or people outside that anything will be done.
    Similarly, the Bill has insufficient provisions for dealing with waiting times at court. Our courts are clogged with witnesses who are there needlessly and with police officers being paid overtime simply to hang about. That problem needs to be attended to. Innovative and radical solutions are required, but the Government have not faced up to the need for them. Yes, the Scottish Office has put out good consultation papers over the past year, but their import has not been translated into practice in the Bill.
    I appeal not for the disparate approach that has been adopted hitherto, but for a coherent approach and a dedicated Scottish criminal justice Act to cover not simply the administration of justice but criminal justice itself. We welcome some of the measures that the Government have introduced, but we ask them seriously to consider introducing a coherent criminal justice Act.
    7.53 pm
    Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that I am not at all surprised by the absence of the Scottish National party Members of Parliament. In my 12 years here, I have noticed that they show a distinct lack of interest in law reform and in the overwhelming need for reform of our criminal procedures.
    The Bill is good in parts, but it is deficient in some respects. I tried to intervene when the Minister referred to "meritorious appeals", simply to say that to my lay mind—I am not a lawyer, as the Minister knows—our system of appeals and of protection against miscarriages of justice is much less adequate than the English system. It is no excuse simply to offer to implement the recommendations of a report that will not see the light of day until early summer next year. Those recommendations will not be implemented this side of the general election, which, with all due respect to the Minister, his party will lose.
    The Bill is good in parts, but it fails to deal with the interests of vulnerable witnesses. The Minister has a first class record in seeking to protect the interests of child witnesses. Sections 33 and 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which I have already mentioned, bear witness to that. The growing number of television installations in our courts also bear witness to the Minister's concern for that aspect of law reform, but he has missed the opportunity offered by the Bill.
    For my sins, although I do not know why, I was not selected for the Standing Committee. I would have tabled amendments there to widen the definition of vulnerable witnesses and to give them greater protection. The Minister has done much for child witnesses, but nowhere near enough for those isolated fellow citizens with

    293
    learning disabilities who have to come to court and give evidence. They are as vulnerable as young children in sexual abuse or child abuse cases.
    I believe that the same is true of complainants in rape cases. Again, I know that the Minister as an individual and as an advocate is sympathetic to the anxieties felt by women in such cases, and since I entered the House dramatic changes have taken place in the conduct of cases involving allegations of rape, especially in cross-examinations.
    There have indeed been massive and welcome improvements for such witnesses, but much more needs to be done. The same can be said about miscarriages of justice. So the Bill is good in parts, but a damned sight more needs to be done before we can say that our system is as good as the systems south of the border and elsewhere, especially in the Scandinavian countries.
    7.57 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
    Of course I shall study everything that was said by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). In specific answer to the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) raised on behalf of his constituents, albeit on Third Reading, I am advised that the example involving the "Crossey posse" is still sub judice, so I cannot comment on that.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill toughens the arrangements for bail. The procedures are new and in effect allow courts to treat the fact that an offence was committed on bail as a factor to be taken into account in sentencing. The proposal to restrict access to bail is designed to send a signal to all criminals that the right to bail is not to be taken lightly or granted automatically. Where a person has committed a serious crime in the past and served a sentence of imprisonment, and then appears before a court charged with another serious crime, bail should not be an option.
    Incidentally, my noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Gentleman on that subject today, and I have his letter in my hand. The hon. Gentleman may not yet have received it, but he is welcome to my copy at the end of the debate. The letter sets out the fact that the matter is covered in the guidelines issued by the Lord Advocate to procurators fiscal and to prosecutors in Scotland in general. The points that the hon. Gentleman made are being tackled not only by the provisions in the Bill but by the review of the guidelines about which the Lord Advocate has written to the hon. Member for Dumbarton.
    As I said in Committee, the problems of bail abuse will be addressed in the review, and the Lord Advocate has made clear that he is updating the guidelines. The working party will complete its review by the end of the summer
    294
    with a view to the guidelines being issued in the autumn. It is the Lord Advocate's intention to publish the guidelines and—if the hon. Member for Dumbarton has no objection—I shall send copies of the Lord Advocate's letter which covers that issue to him and to the hon Member for Govan.
    Mr. McFall: In reply to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be delighted if the Minister would send a copy—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make another speech, he must do so with the leave of the House. I thought at first that he was intervening on the Minister.
    Mr. McFall: I thought that I was intervening, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not clear. Had the Minister completed his speech?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall be happy to give way if that will assist the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McFall: I knew that I was right all along. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I shall be delighted if he will send the Lord Advocate's letter to members of the Committee. I ask him to pass on my thanks to the Lord Advocate for such a speedy response to the points raised in Committee.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

    CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8693/94 and 8943/94, relating to a strategy to prepare the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for accession to the European Union, and No. 5928/95, relating to industrial co-operation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; and welcomes the agreement of the European Council at Essen to the strategy set out in Annex IV of the Council conclusions.—[Mr. Wood.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Shalfleet Bridge, Isle of Wight
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The first sadness I have is that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has to be detained on the Front Bench throughout the debate. My second sadness is that tonight I will break a rule and a standard that I set myself when I entered the House nearly eight years ago, which was never to use parliamentary privilege. Sadly, despite extensive correspondence between myself and the editor of the island's only newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press, and between my solicitor and the editor of the newspaper, we have been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement as to the publication of the facts surrounding Shalfleet bridge.
  The saga commenced in January of last year when, very unusually, I was asked while travelling to Parliament one dark and stormy night on to the bridge of the Red Jet catamaran which runs from Cowes to Southampton. Captain Jones, the master, who invited me on to the bridge, was a resident of Shalfleet. Sadly, his home had been flooded, and he was very angry.
  He told me some home truths about the Shalfleet bridge saga which surprised and startled me. But while I was sympathetic to the plight of him and his family and other flooded home owners, I did not at that time see what I as a Member of Parliament could do to help, especially as the Shalfleet councillor, Steve Cowley, was also deputy leader of the county council. The county council was carrying out the repairs to Shalfleet bridge which caused the problem. Councillor Cowley is also the chairman of Shalfleet parish council.
  While I was on the train, something that the captain had said to me kept nagging at the back of my mind, but I just could not put my finger on it. As fate would have it, the same captain was in charge of my return journey. By then, he had taken up some of my suggestions and had sought some independent advice. On Friday 7 January, a story appeared in the Isle of Wight County Press by its reporter George Chestney about the flooding. It was then that the penny finally dropped.
  That article, while germane to the sorry tale, was one of the most powerful and descriptive pieces of journalism I have ever read. One could sense the water bursting through the front doors of those poor people. Their homes alongside the bridge had been flooded because props had been placed under the bridge which caused it to act like a dam.
  Sadly, the article included two highly suspect pieces of information, which had apparently been taken at face value. One was about a trailer, while the other was a statement from Councillor Cowley about the National Rivers Authority's permission for props under the bridge. The impression given was that a trailer had blocked the bridge and had contributed to the flood. Although I never saw it myself, I was assured that, far from being a large farmyard trailer, it was a small camping trailer of the type towed behind a car. The consensus view in the village was that the trailer was entirely incidental to the flooding, and was a red herring.
  296
  Councillor Cowley was quoted in the article as saying:
  "It is the NRA which is responsible for this stream. The County Council only strengthened the bridge with props after getting the approval of the NRA".
  It was then that the penny dropped again. Councillor Cowley is a dairy farmer, and the NRA has a reputation for prosecuting farmers for polluting streams. Councillor Cowley has a real thing about the NRA.
  Mr. David Evans: Is Councillor Cowley a Conservative, a socialist or a Liberal?
  Mr. Field: He is a Liberal Democrat. He is the deputy leader of what was the Isle of Wight county council and is now the Isle of Wight unitary authority.
  As I make it a rule to doubt practically everything I read in the Isle of Wight County Press, I immediately contacted the NRA. I was staggered by its immediate response. I received a copy of a letter dated 8 December that was sent to the county council, in which the NRA said:
  "The props are without question a potential flood hazard as any rubbish, branches washed down the watercourse, particularly in a flood, could get caught in these, thus effectively forming a dam within the watercourse. A number of dwellings could be at greater risk of flooding."
  The letter goes on to say that the responsibility to ensure no blockages take place rests with the county council.
  In a letter dated 18 February, the NRA points out to the council that it still has not had a reply to its letter of 8 December. Councillor Cowley told affected home owners a downright lie. He hoodwinked the Isle of Wight County Press and—it appears—the parish council to protect the administration of which he is the deputy leader. It was in fact his responsibility, not that of the NRA.
  We were then told by the council that the bridge replacement work could not go ahead, because it had just been listed. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the Isle of Wight planning unit was informed at the beginning of July 1993 by English Heritage that the bridge was in a draft re-survey list to be listed—ten months before any of the work even commenced. That did not stop Councillor Cowley misleading yet again the parish council and the poor people whose homes were flooded. He again hoodwinked the ever-gullible County Press.
  On 18 February, it reported:
  "Mr. Steve Cowley told fellow parish councillors how the county council was finally thwarted in its plans to rebuild the listed stone bridge by an English Heritage official, apparently recommending that the Department of the Environment should not allow demolition."
  The article goes on:
  "Mr. Cowley, also a county councillor, said it could be several months before the Department of the Environment made its decision on demolition."
  The plans had not been finally thwarted; the bridge had been listed nearly a month before.
  The clerk to Shalfleet parish council, Mrs. Heather Freeman, wrote to me asking me to attend a public meeting of Shalfleet parish council to meet the angry residents of the village. Her letters of 10 February, 10 March, 21 April and 12 May all asked me to attend a meeting to discuss the bridge. Councillor Cowley is the chairman of Shalfleet parish council. Mrs. Freeman insisted in her correspondence that the council requested that I attend the meeting organised by the parish council,

  297
  because, at that time, local opinion, with the help of Councillor Cowley, still favoured the view that the blame for the problems with the bridge somehow lay with the Government.
  On 20 May, Heather Freeman wrote:
  "I have now received a letter from Mr. Richardson, the County Surveyor, which seems to indicate that a Public Meeting about Shalfleet Bridge might be rather pointless at the moment."
  The letter goes on, inter alia, to say that the council considered that it might be wasting everyone's time to hold a public meeting at that time.
  There then appeared a couple of articles in the Isle of Wight County Press, the last of which appeared on 28 October and stated:
  "Work to strengthen Shalfleet Bridge and the subsequent inconvenience caused when its supporting props were washed away could all have been avoided, it has emerged".
  On 11 November, a sad letter from one of the affected residents, Mr. Telford-Bailie, was published in the County Press, pointing out that the press articles were completely untrue, and casting doubt on the council's "consulting engineers", who had to that date remained anonymous. That letter alone should have alerted the editor of the County Press to the cover-up that was taking place over that appalling scandal of lies, deceit and utter incompetence. But nothing was seen or heard by the island's only newspaper.
  There are two more pieces of the jigsaw. I spent more than two hours on the telephone to the County Press reporter, George Chastney, during which I unfortunately lost my temper so badly that my secretaries came into my office to see whether I was all right. I had deliberately phoned him on the day that he was due to attend the Shalfleet parish council meeting.
  I asked him to put those questions to Councillor Cowley, as he is also a parish councillor. I asked why the paper was refusing to investigate the serious allegations by the National Rivers Authority against the council. I demanded to know why the paper was not championing the cause of the householders whose homes had been wrecked. I asked him why the newspaper was letting the councillors and the council off the hook.
  His reply was:
  "I haven't been asked to write that story."
  At that point, I exploded in a fit of rage. I am sure that the House would like to know that George Chastney was subsequently employed by the Isle of Wight county council as its public relations officer, a post which he still holds.
  What about the people who had had more than 5 ft of water through their homes, some of whom were not adequately insured? Everyone—the island's newspaper; the county council; the parish council; and Councillor Cowley—wanted it all hushed up and swept under the carpet. They were happy to blame the NRA, the Government and the Department of National Heritage. It is nothing short of scandalous.
  There is one other salient part of the jigsaw. The county council is the largest single client of the Isle of Wight County Press for advertising and circulars, apart from housing advertisements. When the newspaper built its new offices in Pyle street, it was left with its old premises because of the property slump. Who should come along
  298
  to rent the old premises? Yes, Minister, you have guessed it: the county council. The newspaper's financial accounts at that time were beginning to look a little rocky until the council, with the people's cheque book, bailed it out by agreeing to rent its old property.
  If, when my constituents read this debate, they still doubt my allegations about the County Press and its inability to defend the interests of its island readers and the duplicity of Councillor Cowley, who forgot the fundamental rule which every elected representative should never forget—to defend the people, not the system; he put politics before the people—they should compare for a moment the zeal with which the newspaper reported an anonymous letter from St Mary's Hospital, freemasonry, and Southern Water's lack of action in Ventnor.
  With the exception of the sad death of a good friend as a result of the space given to that anonymous letter and the reporting that followed it, none of those issues could be compared to 5 ft of water pouring through people's homes because of the incompetence of the council, which Councillor Cowley perjured himself, not once but twice, to protect.
  To those who will no doubt try to say that this debate is just a political exercise on my part, may I say that Councillor Barton, the Liberal leader of the council, would never have allowed the people of his ward or division to suffer in that way. He would have had the officers' guts for garters. This debate is not about my desire to see officers of the council hanging by their braces from a lamp post in Newport square with placards round their necks saying "guilty". It is about the four pillars of a free and democratic community: first, the Member of Parliament; secondly, the local council; thirdly, the parish council; and fourthly, the press.
  Taking them each in turn, I am ashamed to say that my initial reaction was that I could not see how the matter involved Parliament. Secondly, the council's incompetence was compounded by ineptitude, and excused and obscured by Councillor Cowley's downright lies. To be charitable, the first lie might have been told in the heat of the moment but, by the second, he must have known the true position.
  Thirdly, the parish council was full of vim and vigour while it thought that it was the Government's fault, but boy was the matter dropped like a hot potato once it knew that it was the island's fault. Fourthly, the editor of the newspaper has accused me up hill and down dale. If he put as much enthusiasm into guarding the interests of his readers as he has into avoiding publishing the facts and trying to denigrate me personally, the function of the public administration on the Isle of Wight would be much better.
  One can choose any criterion to compare how the island's newspaper discharges its function of being a fearless exposer of the truth. Not a single fact has come to light about masonic influence on the decision-making process of the island's local authority. Nevertheless, acres of space in the newspaper have been devoted to freemasonry.
  Numerous column inches have been given over to the prosecution of offences between homosexuals and the slightest problem with one of the privatised utilities, the health service or social security agencies. The list is

  299
  endless. All those matters have been pursued with a zeal that has sometimes bordered on religious fervour, with the notable exception of the island's local government.
  I have alluded to the extraordinarily cosy relationship between the council and the Isle of Wight County Press, which is unhealthy and does not serve the interests of the whole island. The excuse is often given that those problems are political. The editor even said as much in this case. What, I ask the House, can possibly be political about 5 ft of water pouring through people's homes and wrecking them? It has to be pure, unalloyed bunkum.
  In a debate on the Adjournment of the House, I congratulated Councillor Maureen Stalworthy on becoming the first chairman of the new unitary island council. She is a lady of principles, and has a firm sense of proprietary behaviour. She will shape the island's council, but I reiterate the opinion that the lack of a chief executive is unhelpful in a small community such as the Isle of Wight.
  I have been surprised by the number of Liberals—councillors and others—who have expressed their private anxieties to me about the conduct of local government, and that rather paranoid approach to an alternative point of view, and the total cop-out, "Oh, it's political." The clerk of Shalfleet parish council, Mrs. Heather Freeman, encapsulated the anxieties nicely when she said, in her fragrant way, that she thought that the local community would be taken aback by what had happened:
  "It is all a little surprising, but it is good news in a way because the scheme will be more straightforward, less expensive and will maintain the integrity of what is now a listed building."
  Mrs. Freeman is the wife of the managing director of the Isle of Wight County Press, as well as clerk of the Shalfleet parish council.
  I said at the beginning of the debate that I had three sadnesses. They were, first, that I was detaining my hon. Friend, when obviously his officials in the Department of National Heritage, the National Rivers Authority and the Department of the Environment have discharged their duties fairly and correctly in the sad saga of Shalfleet bridge. The second sadness was the fact that I had been placed in a position in which I have had to use parliamentary privilege rather than set those matters aright in our own community on the island. My final sadness is that we have a saying on the Isle of Wight, "If you kick one islander, they all limp." The real loser in this sorry saga has been the island itself.
  In every company of which I have been a director, all the shareholders have always had an excellent deal. As a director of a building society, the depositors expected from me a high standard of financial probity. As long as I am the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, it will be my aim to ensure that the highest standards of administration pertain throughout the island. In the saga of events that led to the flooding of those people's homes beside the Shalfleet bridge, they have not. That reflects badly on us all—on myself, the councils, the councillors and the press.
  It is my earnest hope that the debate will be—no pun intended—a watershed, and that we shall never forget that we all have a duty of responsibility to the people who elect us, not to one party or another, and certainly a duty not to defend the indefensible when an administrative cock-up occurs. That must surely include and involve the island's only newspaper.
  300
  I chose, of all the aspects that I might have chosen to highlight in the debate tonight, the listing of the Shalfleet bridge, because the Department of National Heritage is responsible for that matter and for the media. Although I vehemently oppose any control of freedom of the press, it is obvious that the Isle of Wight County Press must pull its socks up considerably and defend the interests of all its readers much more rigorously.
  8.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has made an important and powerful speech this evening, and I congratulate him on the courage and dignity that he has shown in bringing that matter before Parliament. As he rightly said, my Department is concerned with but a small part of the sorry saga that he related tonight, although it is indeed responsible for the press.
  I propose to set out in some detail what my Department did about the bridge and its listing, so that my hon. Friend may know exactly what the facts are, as I believe them to be from the point of view of my Department, and so that he has on the record exactly what happened, with accuracy and with truth, at least in the part of the tale that he has unfolded this evening. It may be helpful if, first, I explain, from the point of view of my Department, the circumstances leading to the listing of the bridge.
  Following a review of buildings on the Isle of Wight, English Heritage had submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage a draft revised list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest for the island, which it recommended for listing. The Shalfleet bridge was one of the structures included in the list for the first time.
  That list was under consideration in my Department when, in view of an application for planning permission before the local planning authority for the demolition and rebuilding of the bridge, we were asked by the Isle of Wight joint planning technical unit on 20 January 1994 for an immediate decision on whether it was to be listed. Accordingly, the bridge was listed on that day, my right hon. Friend having carefully considered the advice from English Heritage that it met the listing criteria.
  In considering whether to add a building to the statutory list, the only factor that the law allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take into account is whether it possesses special architectural or historic interest. The law does not allow him to consider other factors, such as the building's state of repair—unless it has harmed its architectural interest—its maintenance costs or its unsuitability for modern needs.
  Such matters are not relevant to a listing decision. However, they can properly be taken into account in the context of any subsequent application for listed building consent for works connected with the demolition, alteration or extension of a building.
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that a building meets the listing criteria, the law does not allow him any option other than to list it. Once a building is listed, works to it are subject to control under the "listed building consent" procedures, which are operated, in the first instance, by the local planning authority.

  301
  Listed building consent is required for the demolition of a listed building, or any other alteration or extension that affects its character as a listed building. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment where consent is refused. Where the local authority itself wishes to carry out works to a listed building, as was the case with Shalfleet bridge, it must obtain consent from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Although listing creates a presumption in favour of preservation, it does not necessarily mean that the building or structure concerned must remain intact for all time. Indeed, we fully acknowledge that, in many cases, some change may be essential to ensure that a listed building remains in active use. The main purpose of listing is to register the special interest of a building, in order that that can be weighed against arguments in favour of its demolition, alteration or extension, if and when an application for listed building consent is made.
  It is entirely logical that the listing process should confine itself to the consideration of the merits of a building, while the listed building control, which can take into account wider issues, comes into play only when there are proposals that will affect the special character of a listed building.
  I appreciate that the requirement to obtain listed building consent can cause delay in the implementation of some important proposals. Indeed, I fully acknowledge that the listing of Shalfleet bridge delayed implementation of the solution to the problem of the bridge strengthening. However, it is entirely justifiable that there should be an opportunity to take stock and consider, with considerable care, whether there are ways of achieving the required objectives which are compatible with preserving the special interest of our historic buildings and structures.
  302
  Broadly speaking, we believe that time has shown that the present system provides the right framework for identifying buildings that are worthy of preservation, within which proposals to alter or demolish them can be fully assessed and all relevant factors taken into account. After all, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, without the listings, many of our finest buildings might not have survived to this day.
  It is indeed unfortunate that the repair work to Shalfleet bridge was delayed, but it appears that a permanent solution has now been implemented, which meets the concerns of all interested parties.
  Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend shares the surprise that those poor villagers had—and that I had when I inquired into the matter—that it now appears that the demolition of the bridge was never necessary in the first place. The props that were put under it, which caused it to dam up, were drawn to the attention of the council by the National Rivers Authority as being extremely dangerous. It is a saga that never needed to happen. The bridge has been adequately reinforced and strengthened for the traffic it takes, and will be a memorial there for ever, as a very pretty piece of architecture on the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is certainly right—the bridge need not be demolished. It was decided not to demolish it; it was decided to strengthen it. I understand that the strengthening of the bridge, which has now taken place, is cheaper than the estimate for the rebuilding of the bridge.
  With those few words about one small aspect of my hon. Friend's important speech, I leave him to take the matter forward with all the dedication to justice that he has shown.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Body Armour
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding he will make available to chief constables to ensure that all police officers are issued with bullet-proof or knife-proof vests. [26274]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: No specific provision is being made available for this purpose, but total funds for the police service increased by 4 per cent. in 1995–96 to £6.4 billion. It is for chief officers to decide when and how to equip police officers with body armour, reflecting local priorities.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons over the past two years who were held in police custody had warrants separately issued for their arrest in respect of non-payment at the time they were discharged from custody; and if he will make a statement. [26028]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the names of those persons for whom there is a warrant for non-payment of fines are not included on the police national computer; and if he will make a statement. [26029]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Most warrants for non-payment of fines are executed locally, and the police often take the view that no useful purpose would be served by recording them on the police national computer. I understand that police forces enter the names of such persons on the police national computer where they consider that making the information available to other forces would be worth while, bearing in mind that the defaulter could not be arrested by any officer not in possession of the warrant itself.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what means custody officers in police stations have to establish whether persons whom they detain or release have warrants against them for non-payment of fines; and if he will make a statement. [26030]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: All warrants issued by the courts and forwarded to the police are recorded on the force warrants register. In the case of warrants on which initial inquiries have been made without success, entries are made on the police national computer. For all persons coming into police custody, both sources of information are checked.

  Female Prisoners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners are currently being held(a) three to a one-person cell and (b) two to a one-person cell; and what were the figures for each of the last 10 years. [26095]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 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 Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of female prisoners currently sharing two and three to a cell and the figures for each of the last ten years.
  At the end of May there were 48 female prisoners in England and Wales sharing two to a cell designed for one. There were no female prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one.
  Information for previous years is only available from centrally held records from 1992 onwards and is given in the table below:

  Number of female prisoners sharing two and three to a cell at end of May 1992—May 1994

  Number of female prisoners sharing two to a cell

  Number of female prisoners sharing three to a cell

  May 1992

  82

  —

  May 1993

  22

  —

  May 1994

  24

  —

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-mutilation occurred in women's prisons in each of the last 10 years. [26097]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 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 Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of incidents of self-mutilation in women's prisons in each of the last 10 years.
  Incidents of self-mutilation which occur within Prison Service establishments are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Records are, however, kept of the number of incidents of deliberate self-harm each year, within which the number of deliberate self-mutilations will be contained.
  A breakdown of incidents of deliberate self-harm by sex is available only from 1992–93 onwards. These figures are reproduced in the attached table.

  Number of deliberate self-harm incidents among female inmates

  Year

  Number of incidents of deliberate self harm

  1992–93

  1,114

  1993–94

  1,113

  1994–95

  1,213

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners in England and Wales are currently serving sentence for drug offences, by nationality of each prisoner. [26886]
  175
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many female prisoners in England and Wales are currently serving sentence for drug offences, by nationality of each prisoner.
  The most recent provisional information for 28 February 1995 is given in the attached table.

  Female sentenced population in England and Wales on 28 February 1995; drugs offences, by nationality

  Number

  Barbados

  2

  Brazil

  1

  Canada

  1

  Columbia

  4

  Cyprus

  1

  Germany

  1

  Grenada

  1

  Ghana

  14

  Guam

  1

  Guyana

  13

  Hungary

  1

  Irish Republic

  3

  Jamaica

  31

  Kenya

  1

  Liberia

  1

  Nigeria

  35

  Netherlands

  5

  Pakistan

  5

  Female sentenced population in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 28 February 1995, by offence group, offence, and length of sentence (excluding fine defaulters)

  All sentence lengths

  Up to and including 3 months

  Over 3 months up to and including 6 months

  Over 6 months up to and including 12 months

  Over 12 months up to and including 18 months

  Over 18 months up to and including 3 years

  Over 3 years up to and including 4 years

  Over 4 years up to and including 5 years

  Over 5 years Over and including 10 years

  Over 10 years and less than life

  Life

  Violence against the person:

  268

  12

  18

  17

  17

  36

  15

  22

  26

  5

  100

  Sexual offences:

  11

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Burglary:

  51

  1

  5

  17

  8

  11

  5

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Robbery:

  93

  1

  3

  8

  11

  36

  16

  8

  10

  —

  —

  Theft and handling:

  251

  44

  59

  77

  33

  35

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Fraud and forgery:

  92

  9

  15

  20

  11

  24

  12

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences:

  330

  1

  6

  19

  21

  59

  46

  50

  109

  19

  —

  Other offences:

  124

  16

  18

  8

  9

  24

  16

  12

  15

  1

  5

  Offence not recorded:

  163

  9

  21

  30

  17

  51

  14

  6

  13

  1

  1

  Total of all immediate custodial offences

  1383

  94

  146

  198

  127

  279

  125

  102

  178

  26

  106

  Manslaughter Detainees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average length of time for patients with hospital orders for manslaughter between the restriction order being imposed and any kind of leave of absence, including supervised shopping trips; [26096]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 May, Official Report, column 554, on restricted patients with a hospital order sentenced for manslaughter, for each year and each category, what was the average length of term between
  176

  Female sentenced population in England and Wales on 28 February 1995; drugs offences, by nationality

  Number

  Poland

  1

  South Africa

  1

  Spain

  1

  Turkey

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  Tanzania

  1

  United Kingdom

  193

  USA

  8

  Venezuela

  1

  Zambia

  1

  Total

  330

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state by category of crime, the type of crime committed by each of the female prisoners in custody as at 9 May and the length of sentence in each case. [25963]

  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 Ms Janet Anderson, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will state by category of crime, the type of crime committed by each of the female prisoners in custody as at 9 May and the length of sentence in each case.
  The most recent provisional information for 28 February 1995 is given in the attached table.

  the patients' first supervised visit outside and their ultimate release; [26152]

  (3) on restricted patients with a hospital order sentenced for manslaughter, how many of those patients in each category in each year have taken part in supervised outside visits; [26154]

  (4) on restricted patients with a conviction for manslaughter for each year listed what was the shortest length of time between the restriction order being imposed and any kind of leave of absence, including supervised shopping trips. [26155]
  177
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: This information is not available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report column 554, on restricted patients with a hospital order sentenced for manslaughter, how many of the patients in each year in each category have committed further offences since being released; and if he will give details of the offences. [26151]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Of the 84 restricted patients with a hospital order who were sentenced for manslaughter and discharged between 1985 and 1994, two are known to have been subsequently convicted of a standard list 1offence before the end of 1993. One patient was sentenced for manslaughter in 1987, the other in 1989. The subsequent offences were theft from shops and burglary in a building other than a dwelling.
  1 All indictable—including triable either way—plus some summary.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held(a) three to a one-person cell and (b) two to a one person cell; and what these figures were for each of the past 10 years. [26150]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 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 Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners currently sharing two and three to a cell and the figures for each of the last ten years.
  At the end of May 1995 there were 8,362 prisoners in England and Wales sharing two to a cell designed for one. There were no prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one.
  Information for previous years is only available from 1987 and is given in the attached table.

  Number of prisoners sharing two and three to a cell, 1987–94

  Number of prisoners sharing two to a cell

  Number of prisoners sharing three to a cell

  May 1987

  13,634

  4,878

  May 1988

  12,230

  4,893

  May 1989

  12,156

  4,446

  May 1990

  10,100

  3,261

  May 1991

  10,686

  2,007

  May 1992

  9,392

  1,038

  May 1993

  7,412

  126

  May 1994

  8,106

  —

  Probation service

  1994–95 budget(cash terms)(£)

  1995–96 budget(cash terms)1 (£)

  1995–96 budget(real terms)2 (£)

  Change from 1994–95 to 1995–96 in cash terms(£)

  Change from 1994–95 to 1995–96 in percentage terms

  Avon

  6,363,247

  6,391,504

  6,190,319

  28,257

  0.4

  Bedfordshire

  3,561,153

  3,520,072

  3,409,271

  (41,081)

  -1.2

  Berkshire

  5,598,357

  5,537,701

  5,363,391

  (60,656)

  -1.1

  Buckinghamshire

  4,123,056

  4,032,524

  3,905,592

  (90,532)

  -2.2

  Cambridgeshire

  3,985,020

  3,957,128

  3,832,569

  (27,892)

  -0.7

  Cheshire

  5,814,495

  5,817,204

  5,634,096

  2,709

  0

  178
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in(a) England and Wales and (b) London; and how many of them are in each security category. [26156]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 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 Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners currently held in (a) England and Wales and (b) London; and how many of them are in each security category.
  The information requested is given in the attached tables.

  1. Number of prisoners held in England and Wales and London on 26 May 1995

  England and Wales

  Greater London

  Prison service establishments

  Police cells

  Prison service establishments

  Police cells

  Total

  44,564

  126

  6,238

  —

  50,928

  2. Number of Prisoners Held in England and Wales and London (Greater London) on 26 May 1995

  Security Category

  England and Wales

  Greater London

  Totals

  Category A

  655

  91

  746

  Category B

  6,464

  379

  6,843

  Category C

  15,428

  1,342

  16,770

  Category D

  3,694

  250

  3,944

  Uncategorised or Awaiting Categorisation

  18,449

  4,176

  22,625

  1. Female prisoners and young offenders are given only a security category when category A is applicable.

  2. Unless category A is applicable, adult male prisoners are not given a security category until after conviction and sentence.

  3. Greater London comprises the London boroughs and the City of London.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the budget for each probation service in England and Wales for 1994–95 and 1995–96 in(a) cash and (b) comparable terms; and if he will identify the budget difference in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms between those years for each probation service. [26878]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is given in the table:
  179

  Probation service

  1994–95 budget (cash terms) (£)

  1995–96 budget (cash terms)1 (£)

  1995–96 budget (real terms)2 (£)

  Change from 1994–95 to 1995–96 in cash terms (£)

  Change from 1994–95 to 1995–96 in percentage terms

  Cleveland

  4,827,165

  4,823,077

  4,671,261

  (4,088)

  -0.1

  Cornwall

  2,498,062

  2,534,760

  2,454,973

  36,698

  1.5

  Cumbria

  4,024,646

  3,969,364

  3,844,420

  (55,282)

  -1.4

  Derbyshire

  4,995,971

  4,973,854

  4,817,292

  (22,117)

  -0.4

  Devon

  7,164,724

  7,019,289

  6,798,343

  (145,435)

  -2

  Dorset

  4,303,024

  4,234,358

  4,101,073

  (68,666)

  -1.6

  Durham

  4,258,812

  4,194,821

  4,062,781

  (63,991)

  -1.5

  Essex

  8,787,508

  8,670,720

  8,397,792

  (116,788)

  -1.3

  Gloucestershire

  3,757,233

  3,731,342

  3,613,891

  (25,891)

  -0.7

  Hampshire

  9,064,455

  8,982,941

  8,700,185

  (81,514)

  -0.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,314,230

  4,217,601

  4,084,844

  (96,629)

  -1.7

  Hertfordshire

  5,713,026

  5,582,714

  5,406,987

  (130,312)

  -2.3

  Humberside

  6,113,919

  6,054,183

  5,863,615

  (59,736)

  -1

  Kent

  9,580,095

  9,571,436

  9,270,156

  (8,659)

  -0.1

  Lancashire

  8,817,083

  8,758,995

  8,483,288

  (58,088)

  -0.7

  Leicestershire

  5,369,795

  5,325,131

  5,157,512

  (44,664)

  -0.8

  Lincolnshire

  3,826,514

  3,786,164

  3,666,987

  (40,350)

  -1.1

  Greater Manchester

  23,570,470

  23,455,063

  22,716,768

  (115,407)

  -0.5

  Merseyside

  15,295,192

  15,082,112

  14,607,372

  (213,080)

  -1.4

  Norfolk

  4,079,001

  4,046,821

  3,919,439

  (32,180)

  -0.8

  Northamptonshire

  3,315,744

  3,335,463

  3,230,473

  19,719

  0.6

  Northumbria

  11,854,200

  11,741,910

  11,372,310

  (112,290)

  -0.9

  Nottinghamshire

  8,564,573

  8,428,929

  8,163,612

  (135,644)

  -1.6

  Oxfordshire

  3,527,945

  3,457,918

  3,349,073

  (70,027)

  -2

  Shropshire

  2,487,777

  2,451,574

  2,374,406

  (36,203)

  -1.5

  Somerset

  3,992,139

  3,893,500

  3,770,944

  (98,639)

  -2.5

  Staffordshire

  7,289,697

  7,152,056

  6,926,931

  (137,641)

  -1.9

  Suffolk

  3,585,647

  3,561,455

  3,449,351

  (24,192)

  -0.7

  Surrey

  5,567,848

  5,517,022

  5,343,363

  (50,826)

  -0.9

  East Sussex

  4,133,220

  4,129,636

  3,999,647

  (3,584)

  -0.1

  West Sussex

  3,199,562

  3,190,990

  3,090,547

  (8,572)

  -0.3

  Warwickshire

  3,352,241

  3,310,034

  3,205,844

  (42,207)

  -1.3

  West Midlands

  24,675,442

  24,505,679

  23,734,314

  (169,763)

  -0.7

  Wiltshire

  3,271,815

  3,259,977

  3,157,363

  (11,838)

  0.4

  North Yorkshire

  3,181,142

  3,247,283

  3,145,068

  66,141

  2.1

  South Yorkshire

  12,011,042

  11,775,791

  11,405,124

  (235,251)

  -2

  West Yorkshire

  18,846,175

  18,662,490

  18,075,051

  (183,685)

  -1

  Inner London

  37,333,414

  36,696,501

  35,541,405

  (636,913)

  -1.7

  North East London

  8,965,634

  8,914,046

  8,633,459

  (51,588)

  -0.6

  South East London

  5,915,413

  5,878,271

  5,693,241

  (37,142)

  -0.6

  South West London

  4,542,530

  4,517,551

  4,375,352

  (24,979)

  -0.5

  Middlesex

  16,320,936

  16,126,480

  15,618,867

  (194,456)

  -1.2

  Dyfed

  2,051,959

  2,049,153

  1,984,652

  (2,806)

  -0.1

  Gwent

  2,623,790

  2,626,928

  2,544,240

  3,138

  0.1

  North Wales

  3,454,566

  3,453,344

  3,344,643

  (1,222)

  0

  Powys

  786,562

  768,276

  744,093

  (18,286)

  -2.3

  South Glamorgan

  3,797,786

  3,773,319

  3,654,546

  24,467

  0.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,997,396

  3,986,142

  3,860,670

  11,254

  0.3

  West Glamorgan

  3,228,344

  3,198,479

  3,097,800

  29,865

  0.9

  1 Figures are in terms of 100 per cent, grant implied by the cash limit and exclude additional funding devolved in 1995–96 to support partnership grants.

  2 Using the GDP deflator with 1994–95 as the base year.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the review of probation officer recruitment and qualifying training discussion paper issued by his Department; and how many respondents broadly favour the document's proposals and how many broadly oppose them. [26207]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We expect to give an account of the nature and balance of the overall response in due course.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1995–96 cash and running costs limits within his responsibilities. [27441]
  180
  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 1—Home Office administration, police, probation and other services, England and Wales—will be reduced by £1,799,000 from £4,438,456,000 to £4,436,657,000. This will enable the transfer of £1,694,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the transfer of responsibility for marriage guidance and a running costs transfer of £105,000 to the Privy Council Office in respect of the Home Office contribution to the central drugs co-ordination unit.

  In consequence of these changes the Home Office gross running costs limit will be reduced by £105,000 from £1,740,436,000 to £1,740,331,000.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles aged 10 to 16 years were convicted in(a) Lancashire and (b) the north-west for each year since 1992 for each offence. [26727]

  Number of persons aged 10–16 years convicted at all courts for all offences by area and type of offence 1992, 1993

  Lancashire1

  North-west2

  England and 1992

  Type of offence

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  72

  74

  559

  576

  3,072

  3,152

  Sexual offences

  4

  9

  57

  42

  246

  261

  Burglary

  196

  178

  974

  868

  5,449

  5,207

  Robbery

  22

  16

  184

  222

  931

  1,082

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  272

  225

  1,577

  1,548

  7,936

  8,361

  Fraud and forgery

  9

  6

  47

  35

  199

  167

  Criminal damage

  19

  28

  90

  143

  954

  1,121

  Drug offences

  7

  6

  94

  69

  334

  266

  Other (excluding motoring)

  24

  23

  322

  281

  1,037

  1,130

  Motoring

  2

  4

  43

  20

  270

  132

  Total indictable

  627

  569

  3,947

  3,804

  20,428

  20,879

  Summary non-motoring

  204

  200

  1,373

  1,331

  6,673

  6,057

  Summary motoring

  55

  58

  294

  362

  1,905

  2,324

  All offences

  886

  827

  5,614

  5,497

  29,006

  29,260

  1 Lancashire police force area.

  2 North-west region = Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire police force areas.

  Nigerian Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners originally emanating from Nigeria and sentenced for drug offences have been(a) paroled and (b) subsequently deported since 1 January 1994. [26887]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners originally emanating from Nigeria and sentenced for drug offences have been paroled and subsequently deported since 1 January 1994.
  Since 1 January 1994, forty two prisoners of Nigerian nationality sentenced to imprisonment for drug offences have been granted parole. Forty of these prisoners were subsequently deported.

  Convicted Killers
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have died since 1965 at the hands of previously convicted killers. [27139]

  Mr. Maclean
  During the period 1965 to date, a total of 72 persons in England and Wales are known to have been killed by persons who had previously been convicted of homicide.

  Prison Service Procedures
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the procedures the Prison Service must follow in order to provide information to the police when serious offenders under long-term imprisonment escape. [27160]
  182
  Mr. Maclean
  The information as requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the table shows, in less detail, the number of offenders aged 10 to 16 convicted by type of offence group for the years 1992 and 1993: 1994 data will not be available until the autumn 1995.

  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. Mike O'Brien, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what procedures the Prison Service must follow in order to provide information to the police when serious offenders under long term imprisonment escape.
  Every prison establishment is required to hold a set of contingency plans to be followed in the event of an incident. All escapes from establishments and from escort are specifically covered in these contingency plans.
  These plans specify that the police must be informed immediately, normally by telephone., The prison is required to give the police details of the escape and the prisoners involved.
  Details including a photograph are also sent to the Police Gazette for inclusion in that publication which goes to all police forces.

  John Pritchard
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the governor of Sudbury open prison on the escape of John Pritchard and the speed with which a photograph and other identification information was passed to the police; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the escape of John Pritchard from the custody of Her Majesty's Prison Service. [27159]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter have been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  183
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the abscond of John Pritchard from Sudbury open prison and the speed with which a photograph and other identification information was passed to the police.
  Mr. Pritchard was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1979 and had been at Foston Hall, a satellite wing of Sudbury open prison, since September 1993 where he had behaved well.
  On 9 May 1995 Mr. Pritchard was missing from the routine lunchtime roll check and could not be found on the subsequent search of the building and grounds. Derbyshire police headquarters at Ripley was informed at 2.15 pm and a constable from the local police station collected photographs and personal details of Mr. Pritchard from Sudbury at 4 pm.
  Mr. Pritchard remains unlawfully at large.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each index of the police national computer, indicating the minimum and maximum size of each index over the last year. [26438]

  Mr. Maclean
  The numbers of records on each of the five databases on the police national computer, on 26 May 1995, are given in the table. The maximum and minimum numbers of records over time are not recorded.

  Number

  Vehicles

  41,396,172

  Stolen property

  58,888

  Phoenix1 (convictions, disqualified drivers and wanted and missing persons)

  5,314,544

  Fingerprints

  4,275,907

  Crime Pattern Analysis

  5,438

  1 Phoenix—the Criminal Justice Record Service—replaced the names database on 22 May 1995.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the(a) stolen and suspect vehicle index and (b) wanted and missing person's index of the police national computer, indicating the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year. [26439]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 26 May 1995, 458,264 vehicles were listed as lost or stolen and details on 44,486 suspect vehicles were recorded. The number of persons listed as wanted or missing was 138,585, but separate figures for the wanted and missing categories are not available. The maximum and minimum numbers of records over time are not recorded.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and what was the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer. [26447]

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of transactions undertaken on the police national computer by each police force in England and Wales during the 12 months to 30 April 1995, together with the proportion of requests made to the vehicle database, is given in the table.
  184

  Police force

  Number of transactions undertaken

  Proportion of transactions undertaken on vehicles database (per cent.)

  Avon and Somerset

  1,229,763

  63.0

  Bedfordshire

  481,728

  64.4

  Cambridgeshire

  453,788

  68.2

  Cheshire

  607,382

  56.5

  City of London

  252,288

  52.5

  Cleveland

  436,483

  51.0

  Cumbria

  445,759

  59.2

  Derbyshire

  649,086

  63.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  874,883

  62.8

  Dorset

  617,375

  55.8

  Durham

  514,522

  52.1

  Dyfed Powys

  371,754

  48.1

  Essex

  983,911

  54.2

  Gloucestershire

  429,875

  62.4

  Greater Manchester

  2,492,681

  61.6

  Gwent

  261,464

  53.7

  Hampshire

  1,176,623

  49.5

  Hertfordshire

  459,694

  58.5

  Humberside

  597,371

  61.7

  Kent

  1,369,684

  57.6

  Lancashire

  1,456,465

  55.8

  Leicestershire

  476,043

  60.8

  Lincolnshire

  410,139

  54.5

  Merseyside

  933,015

  46.7

  Metropolitan

  7,838,669

  52.2

  Norfolk

  481,910

  48.4

  North Wales

  571,182

  52.7

  North Yorkshire

  591,548

  62.2

  Northamptonshire

  536,941

  58.1

  Northumbria

  1,383,422

  68.0

  Nottinghamshire

  746,837

  61.2

  South Wales

  990,282

  60.7

  South Yorkshire

  921,304

  77.6

  Staffordshire

  620,090

  60.3

  Suffolk

  410,070

  65.7

  Surrey

  490,422

  62.9

  Sussex

  955,518

  50.4

  Thames Valley

  1,427,094

  58.6

  Warwickshire

  372,211

  67.2

  West Mercia

  760,449

  57.4

  West Midlands

  2,455,107

  55.2

  West Yorkshire

  1,609,052

  56.5

  Wiltshire

  345,455

  59.1

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year indicating the number of access requests that involved searching more than one index. [26437]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data on the police national computer are stored on five databases. The number of transactions, which may involve additional or retrieval of information, undertaken on each database by police forces in England and Wales in the 12 months to 30 April 1995 is given in the table. It is not possible to determine whether transactions undertaken on separate databases are linked, with the exception of those undertaken on both the fingerprint and names databases. There were 798,853 transactions which involved the use of both these databases.
  185

  Number

  Vehicles

  23,976,834

  Stolen property

  291,118

  Names1 (convictions, disqualified drivers and wanted and missing persons)

  17,360,326

  Fingerprints

  945,309

  Crime pattern analysis

  338,005

  1 The names databases was replaced by Phoenix—the Criminal Justice Record Service—on 22 May 1995.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are members of neighbourhood watch schemes; and what are his estimates of the impact of this scheme on crime. [25208]

  Mr. Maclean
  At the latest count, there were over 130,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales covering over 5 million households. The recent police research group report—"Policing and Neighbourhood Watch: Strategic issues"—has confirmed that crime and the fear of crime can be reduced in communities by setting up a neighbourhood watch group. The research also shows that belonging to a group has the added benefits of maintaining public confidence and good police-public relations; safeguarding against vigilantism; and reinforcing community spirit.

  In addition, many police forces I have visited have confirmed that neighbourhood watch schemes have played an important part in the fight against crime.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations are being given by him to charging fees to members of neighbourhood watch schemes; and if he will make a statement. [25209]

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no question whatsoever of charging of fees of any sort to neighbourhood watch members. The Government are keen to expand neighbourhood watch and encourage more members and will not contemplate measures which would be a disincentive.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to amend cash limits and/or gross running costs limits within his Department. [27645]

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 6, Treasury Solicitor's Department will be reduced by £250,000 from £7,244,000 to £6,994,000.

  The gross running costs limit for the Treasury Solicitor's Department will be increased by £1,000,000 from £20,258,000 to £21,258,000 to reflect extended use of the Treaury Solicitor's Department legal services by other Government Departments. The increased work load will generate additional receipts which will more than offset the increase in running costs expenditure.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he plans to the 1995–96 cash limits for the Lord Chancellor's Department, class IX, vote 1. [27442]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 1 will be increased by £1,694,000 from £781,320,000 to £783,014,000. The increase, which relates to funding for marriage guidance, will be offset by a transfer from the Home Office class VIII, vote 1 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual General Meetings
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he plans to take to prevent pay resolutions submitted by shareholders at company annual general meetings being treated at votes of confidence in the board of directors. [27323]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the board to decide how it wishes to respond to any resolution which is submitted by shareholders to the company's annual general meeting. It is not for Government to determine the stance which either the directors or shareholders should adopt.

  Executive Pay
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he plans to take to empower and encourage institutional shareholders to control directors' pay, and particularly in respect of the utilities. [27324]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that institutional investors should take an active interest in the management of companies in which they invest, including matters such as executive remuneration. The terms of reference of the Greenbury committee, which is examining the structure within which executive pay is determined and disclosed, include consideration of the role of shareholders. I look forward to seeing the committee's recommendations.

  Lowe Bell Communications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what contracts have been awarded to Lowe Bell Communications since D day PR contract in 1994. [26972]

  The Prime Minister
  Lowe Bell Communications has been awarded no further contracts relating to the world war two commemorations since the D day contract. As for other contracts, this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Written Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will start discussions on the possibility of introducing the principle of written parliamentary questions being answered during parliamentary recess.
  187
  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so, but the hon. Gentleman may wish to ask the Procedure Committee to consider his suggestion.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  National Lottery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects a national lottery outlet in the House to be operational.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  At its meeting on 28 February, the Administration Committee considered a request from Camelot Group plc for permission to install a lottery terminal within the precincts of the House. The principle which guides the Committee in its consideration of requests of this kind is that any proposed service must be of direct relevance in assisting Members to carry out their parliamentary duties. It was felt that a lottery terminal did not meet this criterion.

HEALTH

  Nolan Committee
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recommendations of the first report of the committee on standards in public life concerning NHS bodies. [25936]

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Nolan committee recommendations for(a) appointment to national health service boards and (b) as rewards whistleblowing. [26310]

  Mr. Malone
  I broadly welcome the recommendations made by the committee on standards in public life on issues relating to national health service bodies. The Government will be considering in detail all the recommendations addressed to the Government and will be responding before the summer recess to those singled out by the committee for early implementation.

  NHS Sight Tests and Dental Examinations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the cost to the NHS of restoring the right to(a) a free eye test and (b) a free dental check-up. [26567]

  Mr. Malone
  On the basis that the trend in the number of sight tests apparent before the announcement of changes in November 1987 continued, and with the sight test fees remaining at the 1994–95 level, the cost of restoring free sight tests is estimated to be in the order of £110 million.

  Based on the prices and charges applying in 1994–95 and assuming that the removal of the charge led to no increase in the number of dental examinations, the annual cost of abolishing charges for dental examinations is estimated to be in the order of £60 million.

  EU Health Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what matters were discussed and what matters decided at the EU Health Council on 2 June; and what matters were voted upon. [26696]
  188
  Mr. Malone
  The Health Council on 2 June agreed common positions on three proposals from the European Commission for Community actions in the field of public health which covered: combating cancer; health promotion, information, education and training; and prevention of AIDS and other communicable diseases. Political agreement was reached on a fourth proposal for a programme combating drug dependence, on which the opinion of the European Parliament is still awaited. The Council agreed conclusions on the Commission's European Union action plan to combat drugs—1995 to 1999—agreed to a resolution on blood safety and self-sufficiency in the European Community, and discussed but drew no conclusions on a memorandum from the French presidency on orphan medicines. Orphan medicines are used to treat orphan diseases which are extremely rare diseases with very low numbers of sufferers. The matters on which decisions were taken were agreed by all member states, with no abstentions or votes against.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she intends to take to raise the profile of children's services plans. [27567]

  Mr. Bowis
  I propose to make an order under section 17(4) of the Children Act 1989 to impose a specific duty on local authorities to produce and publish children's services plans.

  Authorities will be expected to use their powers under section 27 of the Children Act to request local education and health authorities to collaborate with them in the planning process for such plans.

  Copies of the consultation letter and draft circular will be placed in the Library.

  Children Act 1989 Report
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the third report to Parliament on the Children Act 1989 will be published; and if she will make a statement. [27568]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have, today, placed in the Library the third report to Parliament on the operation of the Children Act in England and Wales.

  The report shows that local authorities are placing more emphasis on supporting children within their own families, as well as placing a greater proportion of children they look after in foster families and improving the quality of residential care.

  GP Practices (Attacks)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the number of attacks on staff, patients and property in GP practices. [26740]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the operational definition of the net ingredient cost of drugs for the NHS; and if she will make a statement. [27131]
  189
  Mr. Malone
  "Net ingredient cost" is a term applied to drugs dispensed within the family health services in England and Wales. It refers to the cost of drugs before discounts available to dispensers, container allowances and value added tax, if appropriate, are taken into account. It does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  Brentwood Blood Transfusion Centre
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have taken place in the operation of Brentwood blood transfusion centre within the last six months; and if she will make a statement. [27174]

  Mr. Sackville
  The operation of the blood transfusion service is a matter for the National Blood Authority.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total capital expenditure on the Brentwood blood transfusion centre in each year for the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [27175]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. The hon. and learned Member may wish to contact Sir Colin Walker, chairman of the National Blood Authority, for information from 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where the administration and distribution of blood and blood products to the south-east of England will be based after the proposed closure of the Brentwood blood transfusion centre; [27176]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the future organisation of the national blood service. [27180]

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the National Blood Authority. The authority has undertaken an extensive consultation and will produce revised proposals shortly.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce an accreditation system for privately owned ambulance services; and if she will make a statement. [27181]

  Mr. Sackville
  This Department has no plans to offer accreditation to private ambulance operators. A code of practice for private ambulance operators, issued by the national health service executive, EL(93)109, has already been circulated widely and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary for Health if she will make a statement as to the rules governing the qualifications of staff employed as(a) ambulance technicians and (b) paramedics in private ambulance services. [27177]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for private ambulance service operators and those contracting for their services to ensure that staff employed have qualifications appropriate for their duties.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will restrict the use of the term "paramedic" to the specific holders of the national health service TD qualification; and if she will make a statement. [27182]
  190
  Mr. Sackville
  Closure of title is a goal for paramedics themselves to pursue. I understand that the Ambulance Services Association has already initiated moves towards that end.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Micro-enterprise Development
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress within the Overseas Development Administration in respect of the funding of the Grameen trust; and when he expects a decision to be made on funding. [25878]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on 23 May, column 511.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Wapenhams report that incentives to World bank staff should reflect success in implementing the poverty reduction agenda rather than loan disbursement. [25629]

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank issued a report in September 1994 describing progress made in the implementation of "Portfolio management; next steps: a programme of actions". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Measures taken include: revised job competencies with a strong focus on implementation; recruitment efforts to fill skills gaps, especially in the social sciences; introduction of a new project performance rating methodology, emphasising achievement of development objectives and work on performance indicators. Performance indicators on poverty reduction were among those completed last year.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the World bank's country poverty assessments are(a) prepared according to consistent, published criteria, (b) take account of non-income measures of wealth and (c) are used to inform country public expenditure reviews; [26527]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that World bank country poverty assessment teams include (a) a balanced mix of economists, social scientists and other relevant professionals, (b) consultants recruited from the country concerned and (c) representatives of organisations of the poor in the country concerned. [26528]

  Mr. Baldry
  A working group on poverty reduction was set up under the framework of the bank-led special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. It made recommendations last autumn for improving the quality of poverty assessments and their linkage to such other work as public expenditure reviews and country assistance strategies. The United Kingdom has played an active role in this working group.

  The recommendations highlighted the importance of carefully designed and professionally conducted participatory poverty assessment techniques by teams with the appropriate mix of skills; the need for local participation and collaboration; and a broader approach

  191
  towards measuring poverty, including non-income measures. Bank management is aiming to ensure that this best practice is reflected in future poverty assessment exercises.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the requests to the Government for aid and assistance for demining in Angola in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [26773]

  Mr. Baldry
  The first requests for assistance with humanitarian demining in Angola were received from British non-governmental organisations—Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group—in 1994. Pending conclusion of the Lusaka peace talks, we provided £482,243 for demining training, marking and surveying. Since then, we have provided £1,242,825 for expansion of their efforts in Bie, Huambo and Moxico provinces. We are encouraging the European Commission to help co-finance their activities. We are also supporting the UN's central mine action office in Luanda with two key posts—the mines training officer and operations room manager—plus related office support and equipment—£230,000.

  East Timor
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations about East Timor were made by the Minister for Overseas Development during her recent visit to Indonesia; and what was the response of the Indonesian Government. [27014]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development discussed a wide range of issues including human rights and the situation in East Timor during her visit to Indonesia.

  EU Development Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed and what matters decided at the European Union Development Council meeting on 1 June; and what matters were voted upon. [26697]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Development Council decided on a political and technical dialogue with the Government of Rwanda, which will enable EC aid to be resumed. The Council agreed resolutions on complementarity, structural adjustment and regional integration, and a declaration providing guidelines for research. The Council also set priorities for EC aid to South Africa in 1995, and launched a joint evaluation of EC aid programmes to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the Mediterranean, and Asian and Latin America. There were exchanges of view on EC humanitarian aid, rehabilitation, migration and development, and the UN world conference on women.

  No votes were taken.

  Tropical Rain Forest, Cameroon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of the Cameroon concerning the destruction of the tropical rain forest by logging companies. [25430]
  192
  Mr. Baldry
  The conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests are the focus of our aid programme to Cameroon and also the subject of regular dialogue with the Government of Cameroon. We are helping implement new forestry laws aimed at controlling exploitation and giving wider management powers to rural communities.

DEFENCE

  Compensation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions his Department has been sued by a former member of the armed forces as a result of incidents involving the negligent discharge of weapons in each of the last five years. [25935]

  Mr. Soames
  Fifty-three compensation claims have been identified for injury resulting from the negligent discharge of weapons. Legal proceedings have been issued in 16 cases.

  Military Equipment
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose three rough terrain wheeled tractors are required, as set out in tender No. EM and DIA/152; what consideration has been given to lease or contract hire of such equipment; and if he will make a statement. [26120]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 January 1995,Official Report, column 684.

  Princess Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Princess Alexandra hospital in Swindon will be leased to the Princess Margaret hospital trust after the closure of the former in 1996. [26306]

  Mr. Soames
  Negotiations with the Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust on a possible use for the hospital have been progressing well, although a number of stages remain to be completed before a contract could be signed.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with representatives of Pan European Airways with regard to proposals to fly calves from military airbases in conjunction with the National Farmers Union; and if he has to date authorised the use of such bases. [26733]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received no such approaches from Pan European Airways.

  Dartmouth Royal Regatta
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 230, on how many occasions since 1965 a guardship from his Department has not attended the Dartmouth royal regatta; if he will list the additional official duties during August 1995 which prevent the attendance of a guardship at the current regatta; and if he will review his decision. [27354]
  193
  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Navy has on each occasion between 1965 and 1994 been able to provide a vessel to attend the Dartmouth royal regatta. While it is not our practice to reveal the detailed operational programme of the Royal Navy, the following official tasks are being undertaken by Her Majesty's ships during August:

  Destroyers/Frigates—VJ commemorations—four vessels (visiting London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast)

  Plymouth Navy Days—five vessels

  Royal Yacht Escort—one vessel

  Mine Counter-measure Vessels—VJ Day—one vessel (visiting Liverpool)

  Navy days—one vessel

  Coming on top of the very high levels of operational commitments affecting RN vessels at present, these tasks mean that, regrettably, there is no prospect of providing a ship to attend the 1995 Dartmouth royal regatta.

  RAF Rissington
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the consultant's report on the future of RAF Rissington, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [27268]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's policy to publish such reports. In due course, a draft planning brief for the site will be released by the Cotswold district council for public consultation, and I understand that the hon. Member will be involved in that process.

  Air Attacks (Sarajevo)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian buildings were hit and how many civilian casualties were incurred in the recent bomb and rocket attacks by American planes under NATO command in the Sarajevo area. [27209]

  Mr. Soames
  None of which we are aware.

  Air Incident (West Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to establish the ownership of the equipment jettisoned by an aircraft in west Cumbria on 31 May and the circumstances in which it was jettisoned. [27304]

  Mr. Soames
  I can confirm that my Department is inquiring into the circumstances which led to the discovery of an undamaged aircraft fuel tank to establish whether it was lost by a military aircraft.

  RAF Topcliffe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of implementing additional flying training to date at Royal Air Force Topcliffe; what is the estimated total cost when complete; and if he will make a statement. [27162]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of the Royal Air Force's flying training rationalisation programme, a change of task is being implemented at RAF Topcliffe. This change will not involve additional flying training at the station, but there has been and will be some relocation of units to and from the site. The estimated cost of the relocation of flying units to RAF Topcliffe is £460,000; the majority of these costs will be incurred in financial year 1995–96.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations his Department had with(a) local authorities, (b) local organisations and
  194
  (c) residents prior to upgrading the additional flying hours and training aircraft at Royal Air Force Topcliffe; and if he will make a statement. [27166]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no such consultation as no increase in flying hours or the number of training aircraft at RAF Topcliffe is planned as a result of the Royal Air Force's flying training rationalisation programme.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the increased number of(a) personnel, (b) aircraft by types and (c) flying hours when Royal Air Force Topcliffe has reached its additional training programme; and if he will make a statement. [27165]

  Mr. Soames
  No increase is planned in the number of my Department's personnel, aircraft or flying hours flown at RAF Topcliffe. Future flying training at RAF Topcliffe will, however, be conducted on the Tucano aircraft, whereas previous flying training carried out at the station utilised the Firefly aircraft.

  Service Bases
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May, Official Report, column 230, if he will list all those Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and Army bases which were sold to the highest bidder. [26275]

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

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the estimated cost to his Department of undertaking(a) a structural survey of key buildings and breakwaters and (b) an environmental assessment of the Portland naval base on behalf of the purchaser, Portland Port Ltd.; when this work began; and if he will make a statement. [26277]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has at present no intention of carrying out a structural survey of buildings and breakwaters at Portland naval base, nor do we intend to conduct an environmental assessment.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings have been given to Portland Port Ltd. in respect of new roads to the Dorchester bypass, and thence north to the M5, the midlands and south Wales; what will be the estimated cost to the Government of fulfilling these undertakings; when such roads may be complete; and if he will make a statement. [26278]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has given no undertaking to Portland Port Ltd. in respect of new roads to the Dorchester bypass, and thence north to the M5, the midlands and south Wales. The question of any costs falling to my Department does not therefore arise.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 404, if he will list the meetings between officials of his Department and prospective bidders for the purchase of the Portland naval base; if he will name the lobbying companies which made representations on behalf of the bidders; and if he will make a statement. [26279]
  195
  Mr. Soames
  Meetings between my officials and prospective bidders for the Portland naval base were held on 27 May, 15 July and 15 December 1994; and 4 January, 12 January, 14 February, 21 February, 22 February and 7 April 1995. No representations were made by lobbying companies on behalf of the bidders.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Drivers Jonas report into the sale of Portland naval base. [26280]

  Mr. Soames
  The Drivers Jonas report on options for the reuse of the Portland naval base was commissioned in 1993 by Weymouth and Portland borough council. Requests for a copy of the report should therefore be made to the council.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the work being carried out by his Department at Portland naval base prior to the handover to Portland Port Ltd.; what is the cost of these works; and if he will make a statement. [26513]

  Mr. Soames
  Work at Portland naval base is limited to the maintenance work required to meet my Department's obligations until the property is relinquished on 31 March next year. In addition, work will be carried out to clear ordnance from the site in accordance with the usual policy for property in disposal. It is not yet possible to assess the cost of this work.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to undertake the removal of a structure blocking the southern entrance to Portland naval base; if he will identify the nature and cause of that blockage; if he will estimate the cost of removing the structure; and if he will make a statement. [26514]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1914, the battleship HMS Hood was sunk as a blockship in the southern entrance to Portland harbour to provide protection against submarine and torpedo attack. The presence of the hulk, which is now totally submerged, markedly reduces the swell in the harbour which would otherwise be experienced during southerly winds. There are at present no plans to remove the hulk which does not restrict the use of, or access to, the harbour.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of benefits payable to single parents. [26411]

  Mr. Burt
  Total benefit expenditure on lone parents in 1994–95 is expected to be £9.1 billion.

  Employment Categorisation
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, classified as self-employed by the Inland Revenue, are required by the Contributions Agency to he treated as employed for the purposes of national insurance contributions; and in what types of activity they are mainly engaged. [26389]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency are committed to a "common approach" in determining employment status. Under this arrangement, the conclusion reached by one Department 196
  about an individual's status after an investigation of all the facts will normally be accepted by the other.

  It is not possible to estimate the number of people who are treated as self-employed by the Inland Revenue but as employees by the Contributions Agency for the purposes of national insurance contributions. There is a very limited number of groups of workers covered by particular statutory rules which may result in such different treatment.

  Certain divers are assessable as self-employed persons for income tax purposes but pay national insurance contributions as employees. Additionally, the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations provide that particular groups of workers should be treated as employees. In these cases it may mean occasionally that the national insurance treatment differs from the tax treatment. The following groups of workers are affected:

  Agency workers;

  Ministers of religion;

  Office cleaners;

  Part-time or visiting lecturers, teachers or instructors;

  Persons employed by their spouse.

  There is currently some difference in treatment involving workers in the entertainment industry which is under review.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an undertaking that the national insurance number will be used only with respect to taxation and social security benefits; and if he will make a statement. [26398]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Monday 30 January,Official Report, column 519.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the report into housing benefit published by the Social Security Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions. [26653]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have received a copy of the report "Housing Benefit—The Review of Social Security", paper 3, which was published on 11 May and have noted the issues identified. The report does not call for a formal response, but I welcome the views of the committee in the context of the Government's proposals to improve work incentives and to target housing benefit more effectively—matters on which the committee has been consulted separately.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many nuclear test participants are in receipt of war pensions. [26662]

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that claimants without bank accounts receiving payments above the girocheque
  197
  encashment limit resulting from successful tribunal decisions receive such payments in a form which they can convert into cash; and if he will make a statement. [26741]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Yes.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of people paying contributions to a personal pension scheme in each year since 1988 under the categories(a) self-employed

  Numbers: Thousands

  Type of scheme

  1988–89

  21989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Self-employed contributors1

  44

  104

  238

  423

  599

  n/a

  1 A self-employed person has been defined as someone whose main source of income is from self-employment.

  2 For the years prior to 1990–91 the estimates are less firm because before independent taxation Inland Revenue recorded income separately for the husband and wife, but only recorded allowable deductions from income, such as personal pension contributions, for the tax unit as a whole. Where both husband and wife were self-employed and there was a personal pension contribution, an assumption has been made that it is attributable to only one partner. Where only one partner is in self-employment any PP contributions are assumed to be attributable to that person.

  3 Figures from the survey for the tax year 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue Survey of Personal Incomes.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff of(a) the Department of National Heritage and (b) agencies for which the Department of National Heritage is responsible (i) took early retirement, (ii) took voluntary redundancy, (iii) took compulsory redundancy and (iv) were retired on medical grounds in (1) 1993–94 and (2) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25507]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information in respect of the Department of National Heritage and its two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks agency, is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (estimate)

  DNH

  Early/voluntary retirement

  1

  13

  nil

  Compulsory redundancy

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Medical retirement

  nil

  nil

  1

  HRPA

  Early/voluntary retirement

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Compulsory redundancy

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Medical retirement

  2

  6

  1

  RPA

  Early/voluntary retirement

  nil

  12

  2

  Compulsory redundancy

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Medical retirement

  nil

  5

  4

  1
  Costs charged to the Property Services Agency under the PSA's "Early retirement/Swap Scheme".

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his 198
  contributors, (b) employed contributors, not contracted out of SERPS, (c) employed contributors, contracted out of SERPS, receiving DSS rebate-only contributions to the scheme, and (d) employed contributors, contracted out of SERPS making personal payments in addition to DSS rebates. [21839]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Further to my answer of 1 May, Official Report, columns 112–13, estimates of the number of self-employed contributors to personal pensions are in the table.

  Department in (a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26228]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has set a performance target of 18 working days from receipt for dealing with written correspondence. If necessary, an interim reply will be issued explaining when the full answer can be provided.

  A correspondence tracking system is in place to log correspondence answered via Ministers' offices and to monitor performance. In 1994, there were 6,355 pieces of private office correspondence requiring a reply. Five thousand and twenty, approximately 79 per cent., were answered within the Department's target. Although this is less than one would have hoped, it must be borne in mind that the Department must often consult with its sponsored bodies in order to provide replies.

  All telephone inquiries received by the DNH public inquiry unit will be answered on the spot where possible. The remainder will be answered within two working days or by negotiation, as appropriate to the scope of the inquiry. During 1994, all telephone inquiries were dealt with within the agreed target.

  All telephone and written inquiries made under the open government code of practice will be answered within the required time scale of 20 working days from receipt of the inquiry as set out in the DNH procedural note.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will establish national heritage funds for England, Scotland and Wales to administer the funds collected in each country through points of sale; and if he will appoint to each members who are representative of lottery ticket buyers and require them to consult an expense-paid advisory council chosen proportionately by random selection from socio-economic groups who purchase lottery tickets; [26845]
  199
  (2) if he will review the operation of the national lottery to ensure that its proceeds are spent on projects which are indisputably of benefit to the socio-economic groups who have bought most of the tickets. [26864]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The arrangements for distributing the net proceeds of the national lottery were agreed by Parliament and are working effectively. I have no plans to change them.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to invite(a) the Federation of Women's Institutes, (b) the Townswomen's Guild, (c) the British Legion and (d) other grassroots non-political organisations to consult their members and put forward each year local projects for the use of national heritage funds obtained from the lottery for the benefit of the socio-economic groups which contribute most of the money. [26877]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The applications process for grants from the national lottery is open to everyone provided their proposal is for the public good and not primarily for private gain. I am sure that the 11 independent distributing bodies would welcome appropriate applications from the groups mentioned and other similar organisations.

  Mrs. Llin Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money projects concerned with children's play have received from the national lottery. [26752]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Projects concerned with children's play have not yet received any awards from national lottery proceeds.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the revenue raised from admission charges to museums and galleries sponsored by his Department for each institution, broken down to show(a) revenue from general admission charges and (b) revenue from charges for entry to temporary exhibitions in the last year for which figures are available. [26145]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The information is shown in the table.

  Estimated revenue from (a) general admissions to the museum and (b) charges for entry to temporary exhibitions in DNH-sponsored museums and galleries in 1994–95

  Institution

  (a) £ million

  (b) £ million

  British Museum

  nil

  0.277

  Imperial War Museum

  3.293

  nil

  National Gallery

  nil

  0.224

  National Maritime Museum

  1.489

  nil

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  1.745

  nil

  National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside

  0.347

  0.175

  National Portrait Gallery

  nil

  0.250

  Natural History Museum

  3.133

  nil

  Royal Armouries

  n/a1

  nil

  Tate Gallery

  0.187

  1.449

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.1432

  0.628

  Wallace Collection

  nil

  nil

  Geffrye Museum

  nil

  nil

  200

  Estimated revenue from (a) general admissions to the museum and (b) charges for entry to temporary exhibitions in DNH-sponsored museums and galleries in 1994–95

  Institution

  (a) £ million

  (b) £ million

  Horniman Museum

  nil

  nil

  Museum of London

  0.270

  nil

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  0.415

  nil

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  nil

  nil

  Total

  12.022

  3.003

  1 It is not possible to provide figures for the Royal Armouries as admission is via a combined ticket to the Tower of London.

  2 The Victoria and Albert Museum suggests a level of voluntary donation for admission to its South Kensington site.

  The figures are based on revised information supplied for the purpose by the institutions and include revenue for admissions from outstations of two institutions—the Tate gallery and the national museums and galleries on Mersyside—which do not charge for admission to their main sites.

  BBC Production
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research has been(a) undertaken by and (b) evaluated by his Department to establish if it is (i) cheaper or (ii) more expensive for the BBC to produce a programme in-house or to commission it from independent producers; and if he will arrange for this research to be published. [26778]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The BBC must determine the most cost-effective way of commissioning and making programmes, and how it meets the statutory obligation to commission 25 per cent. of its qualifying output from the independent sector. My Department is, however, concerned with the wider question of the efficiency of the broadcasting sector, including the BBC and independent producers, in the context of helping the industry to improve its international competitiveness.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits and running cost limits for 1995–96. [27839]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the following change will be made: The cash limit for class XI, vote 1—programme expenditure and administration—will be reduced by £5,999,000 from £999,272,000 to £993,273,000. The reduction reflects the removal of the gross subhead for ERDF expenditure from the supply estimates. The expenditure, which is wholly pre-funded by receipts from the EC, will be controlled through a new non-voted cash limit, DNH/ERDF for agency payments on behalf of the EC. The level of receipts and payments, mainly in support of projects aimed at promoting tourism, will be brought to the attention of Parliament through the creation of a net token subhead on the vote.

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was(a) the number of indemnity undertakings given by Departments under section 16 of the

  201
  National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ending 31 March and (b) the value of any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and which remain outstanding as at 31 March. [27840]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information my hon. Friend requests is as follows:In the six-month period ended 31 March 1995 the following undertakings to indemnify were given by the relevant departments for items on loan to national and non-national institutions.

  Items

  Department of National Heritage

  469

  Scottish Office Education Department

  77

  Welsh Office Education Department

  35

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  14

  The values of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and outstanding at 31 March 1995 are:

  £

  Department of National Heritage

  2,096,423,871

  Scottish Office Education Department

  169,842,604

  Welsh Office Education Department

  25,179,133

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  5,098,379

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he has taken to ensure access for the disabled to(a) theatres and (b) cinemas. [25253]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: My Department is a major funding partner in the ADAPT trust, which provides adaptations to theatres, cinemas, and other arts buildings, specifically to improve access for disabled people. I have also written to the chairman of the distributing bodies of national lottery funds, asking that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in the allocation of funds to successful projects. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards are fully committed to access initiatives for disabled people.

  Complaints
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when his Department last updated its policy; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26212]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Any complaint against my Department will be dealt with as promptly as possible. However, we do not have a formal DNH complaints procedure.

  The two executive agencies and the sponsored bodies for which I am responsible are involved more directly in providing services to the public. Both agencies have visitors charters which set out full complaints procedures. In addition, the 23 sponsored bodies having the greatest direct dealings with the public have been asked to draw up charter standard statements. The majority of these have now been published and all set out formal complaints procedures.

  Any member of the public who is dissatisfied with how a complaint has been dealt with by either DNH, its two
  202
  agencies or those of its sponsored bodies which come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, may ask a Member of Parliament to submit their complaint to the PCA for investigation and review.

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual cost to the Department of staff leaving under redundancy or early retirement schemes to incorporate (i) added years lump sum payments, (ii) redundancy payments, (iii) pension payments including enhancements and (iv) any other special arrangements for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and projected for (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [25642]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage was created in April 1992, and has two executive agencies, Historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks, which were created in October 1991 and April 1993 respectively.

  The costs to the Department of early retirement and redundancies are borne from the Department's running costs provision. A detailed breakdown of the various costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total costs borne on the Department's and agencies' running costs in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are shown as actual figures. For 1995–96 the amounts are estimated. Projections for 1996–97 will be determined during the public expenditure survey.

  The early retirement costs for DNH and HRPA and RPA are shown in the table:

  DNH

  HRPA

  RPA

  1993–94

  £26,866.44

  Nil

  Nil

  1994–95

  £30,029.45

  Nil

  Nil

  1995–96

  £19,811.40

  Nil

  £958.72

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Art Collection
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional percentage of works of art in the royal collection has now been recorded on the computerised inventory; and when he expects the undertaking to be completed. [26566]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 28 April, column 737. Any questions concerning the royal collection should be addressed to: The Director of the Royal Collection Trust, Stable Yard house, St. James's palace, London SW1A 1JR.

TREASURY

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the Treasury guidelines on disposal of surplus Government land. [26276]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Treasury's cash and running costs limits in 1995–96. [27561]

  Sir George Young
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate the cash limit for class XVII, vote 1 will be reduced by £3,887,000 from £70,730,000 to £66,843,000 and the running costs limit will be reduced by £17,080,000 from £76,280,000 to £59,200,000. The reductions comprise:a transfer of responsibility and net provision of £2,395,000, mainly for the central management of the principal civil service pension scheme, to the Office of Public Service and Science class XVIII, vote 1;
  a reduction of £2,000,000 in running costs expenditure arising from the Treasury's fundamental expenditure review;
  a transfer of £169,000 to the Department of Health; and
  an increase in other current and capital expenditure of £677,000.

  Tradepoint Financial Networks plc
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Tradepoint Financial Networks plc. [27752]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Securities and Investments Board is today announcing its decision to recognise Tradepoint Financial Networks plc—Tradepoint—as an investment exchange under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  The Treasury has given SIB leave under the FSA to recognise Tradepoint. This decision was reached after receiving a report from the Director General of Fair Trading. This report concluded that none of Tradepoint's rules has, or is likely or intended to have, any significantly anti-competitive effect. Having considered the DGFT's report, I have concluded that there are no grounds on which the Treasury should refuse SIB leave to recognise Tradepoint as an investment exchange.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [27373]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 22 May.

  £ million

  Corporation Tax

  Year

  Petroleum revenue tax

  Supplementary petroleum duty

  ACT set-off

  Main-stream CT

  Royalty

  Total

  1979–80

  1,435

  —

  78

  172

  628

  2,313

  1980–81

  2,410

  —

  97

  244

  992

  3,743

  1981–82

  2,390

  2,025

  270

  411

  1,396

  6,492

  1982–83

  3,274

  2,395

  202

  319

  1,632

  7,822

  1983–84

  6,017

  —

  430

  447

  1,904

  8,798

  1984–85

  7,177

  —

  1,244

  1,188

  2,426

  12,035

  1985–86

  6,375

  —

  1,085

  1,831

  2,057

  11,348

  1986–87

  1,188

  —

  1,130

  1,546

  919

  4,783

  1987–88

  2,296

  —

  681

  617

  1,024

  4,618

  1988–89

  1,371

  —

  685

  510

  602

  3,168

  1989–90

  1,050

  —

  495

  248

  575

  2,368

  1990–91

  860

  —

  363

  484

  605

  2,312

  1991–92

  -216

  —

  370

  268

  557

  979

  1992–93

  69

  —

  480

  202

  554

  1,305

  1993–94

  359

  —

  219

  39

  606

  1,223

  1994–95

  710

  —

  300

  80

  540

  1,630

  204
  The Council reached a broad consensus on a proposed regulation on the protection of the Community's financial interests fraud. I stressed the need for early agreement on an effective text which would produce a significant improvement on existing arrangements.

  Political agreement on a common position was reached on the proposed investor compensation directive to set minimum compensation requirements for EU investment firms and credit institutions.

  The Commission made short presentations on the state of trans-European networks and their financing; on its spring economic forecasts and on amended proposals for a carbon-energy tax in the light of the conclusions of the Essen European Council.

  The Council agreed that the conditions were now met for the disbursement of the 85 mecu loan to the Ukraine agreed in December 1994. There was also broad agreement in principle to a further loan of up to 200 mecu, with a first tranche of 100 mecu, and with the amount of the second tranche to be determined by the Council on the basis of satisfactory burden sharing. The implementation of the loan is to be linked to the Council's assessment of progress on the nuclear question.

  The Council adopted a regulation by qualified majority to delay revaluation of the Belgian franc within the agrimonetary system. I made clear the UK's opposition to the proposal and accordingly voted against. I stressed that we would not accept any increase in the agricultural guideline.

  There was a brief discussion about pressures on the financial perspectives ceilings for internal and external spending. I agreed with the Dutch and German representatives on the need for more transparency and for budgetary restraint at an EU level as well as at a national level.

  North Sea Oil Revenue
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the different sources of Government revenue received in relation to the production of North sea oil; and if he will calculate the total amount of revenue the Government have received from these sources for each year since 1979. [27262]

  Sir George Young
  Revenues raised from North sea oil and gas production since 1979–80 amount to £75 billion. Annual revenues by category of tax have been as follows:

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1995–96 the average amount of(a) income tax reliefs claimed at the marginal rate, (b) income tax allowances claimed at the marginal rate, (c) income tax reliefs claimed at a rate other than the marginal rate, and (d) income tax allowances claimed at a rate other than the marginal rate for those with gross incomes over (i) £70,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000. [25010]

  Values of allowances and reliefs averaged over all taxpayers, 1995–96

  Gross Incomes above £

  Income tax reliefs claimed at marginal rate £

  Income tax allowances claimed at marginal rate £

  Income tax reliefs claimed at a rate other than marginal rate £

  Income tax allowances claimed at a rate other than marginal rate £

  70,000

  2,490

  1,410

  290

  200

  80,000

  2,810

  1,410

  290

  200

  100,000

  3,570

  1,410

  300

  200

EDUCATION

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes she has to announce to cash limits and running costs on votes within her responsibility for 1995–96. [27444]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 2, higher and further education and student support will be amended as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  X.2

  5,909,345,000

  -1,008,000

  5,908,337,000

  Notes:

  The reduction in the cash limit is made up as follows:

  (a) £240,000 represents a transfer to the Welsh Office for payment to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to cover the costs of students attending diploma in social work courses in Wales;

  (b) £246,000 is to offset increased expenditure on postgraduate awards—non-cash limited; and

  (c) £522,000 transfers from the Higher Education Funding Council for England: grant in aid subhead to student loans non-cash limited to contribute to the expected cost of loans to students attending diploma in social work courses.

  The opportunity has been taken to provide for the Department to meet outstanding insurance claims from the Royal College of Arts totalling £20,000 by making a new sub-head C2. Grant in aid to the Further Education Funding Council is to be increased by £175,000 to allow for work to commence on colleges to allow for access for students with disabilities. Savings have been identified in sub-head B2—grants and bursaries for teacher training—to offset the cost of this expenditure. There is no increase in net provision as a result.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the future administration of teachers' pensions in England and Wales. [27443]
  206
  Sir George Young
  Provisional estimates at 1995–96 income levels based on a projection of the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes and other survey data in line with assumptions in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96" are given in the table. The estimates do not take account of certain tax reliefs for which detailed distributional information is not available, including personal equity plans, tax-exempt special savings accounts, profit-related pay and national savings.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has decided to invite expressions of interest for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme.

  The report that we commissioned from the consultants KPMG concluded that a contract with a private sector company would offer the prospect of substantial savings for the taxpayer. We owe it to the taxpayer to find out whether such savings are indeed available. Inviting expressions of interest for a contract will help to establish this. We shall let a contract only if it would provide better value for money than keeping the administration of the teachers' superannuation scheme in the public sector. We expect that any contract would start in the latter part of 1996.

  The contract would require a standard of service and performance that was at least as high as that which the Teachers Pensions Agency would provide. We would monitor the contractor's performance to ensure that he met those standards. A contractor would not be allowed to use data on teachers for purposes other than administering the scheme.

  Any contract would concern only the administration of the scheme. Whether or not the administration is contractorised, the scheme itself will stay in the public sector, on its current statutory basis; my right hon. Friend will remain responsible to Parliament for the scheme; and officials in the Department for Education will be responsible for advising Ministers on policy on teachers' pensions. Letting a contract would not affect the size or safety of teachers' pensions in any way.

  The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the scheme continues to operate smoothly and without interruption. Any contractor would therefore have to be a well-established company with a proven track record and a reputation for sound relations between staff and management. The crucial importance of continuity would give a natural advantage to potential contractors who proposed to continue to operate from the TPA's current site in Darlington.

  We are advised that DFE staff who transferred to a new employer would have the protection offered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. If we transferred the administration of

  207
  the scheme to the private sector, the contracts of employment of those civil servants employed on the work concerned immediately before the transfer would therefore automatically transfer to the contractor.

  We are grateful to all those who submitted comments during recent consultations on the TPA's future. I have placed a summary of those comments—and the Government's responses to them—in the Library. The comments showed a widespread view that the TPA provides a good service to teachers. That reflects credit on the staff of the TPA and on its chief executive, Denyse Metcalfe. We now want to build on the TPA's success. We believe that the best way to do so is to invite

  School catering services

  £000

  1987–88 to 1993–94

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Net expenditure Total

  Berkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  1,825

  1,145

  1,522

  1,938

  2,281

  9,614

  Lincolnshire

  2,002

  1,935

  1,971

  1,982

  785

  914

  875

  11,389

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,645

  1,383

  1,393

  1,372

  1,772

  1,886

  1,809

  12,178

  Dorset

  1,570

  1,553

  1,624

  1,322

  1,599

  1,998

  1,873

  12,451

  Buckinghamshire

  2,118

  1,577

  2,109

  1,519

  1,611

  1,980

  1,659

  13,477

  Gloucestershire

  2,715

  2,366

  2,835

  2,758

  2,790

  1,959

  1,586

  17,925

  Somerset

  4,122

  3,038

  3,082

  3,117

  2,311

  1,706

  1,775

  20,084

  Cornwall

  2,679

  2,394

  2,312

  2,759

  3,269

  3,394

  2,751

  20,466

  Shropshire

  3,899

  2,670

  3,080

  1,881

  2,501

  3,071

  2,643

  20,677

  West Sussex

  2,857

  2,427

  2,491

  2,345

  2,993

  3,355

  3,720

  21,126

  Suffolk

  4,641

  2,702

  n/a

  430

  3,624

  6,773

  2,307

  21,412

  Northamptonshire

  5,575

  2,553

  3,903

  3,535

  1,715

  2,156

  1,883

  22,248

  Wiltshire

  3,210

  3,090

  3,583

  2,985

  2,779

  2,862

  3,039

  22,487

  Oxfordshire

  2,926

  2,893

  2,445

  2,933

  2,978

  3,303

  4,182

  22,591

  Warwickshire

  3,969

  3,929

  3,284

  3,057

  3,489

  3,722

  3,429

  25,816

  Northumberland

  3,786

  3,443

  3,552

  3,513

  3,906

  3,776

  3,150

  26,055

  Cumbria

  4,388

  3,544

  3,148

  3,960

  3,826

  2,837

  3,505

  26,117

  Cambridgeshire

  3,125

  2,875

  2,679

  3,833

  3,935

  4,707

  4,448

  26,507

  North Yorkshire

  6,145

  2,884

  4,538

  3,385

  3,201

  3,376

  3,667

  28,123

  Bedfordshire

  2,995

  3,274

  3,918

  3,795

  4,001

  5,184

  4,786

  28,855

  Surrey

  6,046

  2,508

  2,689

  3,610

  4,400

  5,695

  3,709

  29,593

  East Sussex

  3,837

  3,803

  4,464

  3,964

  5,120

  5,950

  3,975

  32,027

  Norfolk

  3,655

  3,463

  3,072

  3,917

  4,887

  6,623

  6,169

  32,712

  Kent

  6,281

  4,968

  6,327

  3,302

  8,049

  5,323

  6,055

  41,228

  Cheshire

  8,208

  7,356

  6,065

  4,279

  5,079

  5,685

  5,539

  43,117

  Devon

  6,935

  6,766

  7,548

  4,832

  5,537

  6,466

  6,539

  45,534

  Hertfordshire

  5,746

  4,405

  4,561

  6,319

  9,508

  9,243

  5,396

  46,097

  Staffordshire

  7,154

  6,735

  4,887

  5,211

  7,232

  7,294

  7,526

  46,973

  Leicestershire

  9,156

  5,749

  5,561

  7,041

  7,541

  6,707

  6,633

  49,312

  Durham

  7,458

  6,416

  7,390

  7,331

  8,453

  9,866

  2,158

  49,985

  Essex

  12,462

  8,315

  6,579

  5,366

  5,898

  6,605

  6,235

  52,375

  Hampshire

  6,040

  5,719

  6,779

  7,931

  10.333

  10,745

  11,590

  60,054

  Nottinghamshire

  12,821

  12,382

  9,960

  7,518

  n/a

  12,045

  11,593

  67,249

  Cleveland

  10,073

  7,948

  8,827

  10,158

  10,910

  10,914

  10,258

  69,995

  Avon

  8,789

  8,066

  7,834

  11,484

  11,328

  11,878

  10,599

  70,879

  Humberside

  12,321

  9,750

  9,396

  11,580

  14,693

  14,992

  17,121

  90,773

  Lancashire

  13,987

  11,710

  12,795

  11,266

  13,424

  14,830

  15,074

  94,009

  Derbyshire

  15,723

  16,975

  14,111

  15,336

  18,679

  19,381

  13,908

  115,023

  n/a not available

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the terms of reference of the report of the working party on the measurement of unemployment in the United Kingdom of the Royal Statistical Society; what was the cost to public funds; and who called for or commissioned the report. [25724]
  208
  expressions of interest for a contract to administer the scheme.

  School Catering Service
  Mr. McLoughlin
  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. [27305]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives the total net expenditure on the school catering service for all counties from 1987–88 to 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures are not necessarily comparable because over the seven years returns were not received from all authorities.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The working party on the measurement of unemployment in the UK, set up by the Royal Statistical Society in June 1994, was commissioned by the council of the RSS to investigate the validity of the methods by which unemployment is measured in the UK, and to report back to the RSS. The working party received the support of both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Opposition. The only cost to public funds involved the
  209
  time devoted by Ministers and officials to providing the RSS with information.

  Skills Shortage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on estimates of skills shortages recorded in surveys conducted by private or public bodies which he has evaluated for each standard region; and if he will make a statement. [25766]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1994 "Skills Needs in Britain" survey found that 11 per cent. of medium and large firms were experiencing recruitment difficulties; the 1994–95 "Skills Needs of Small Firms in Britain" survey found that 8 per cent. of small firms were experiencing them.

  The following table shows the percentage of employers experiencing recruitment difficulties in each of the two surveys by Training Enterprise and Education Directorate region:

  Per cent.

  TEED region

  Skill needs in Britain 1994 (medium and large firms)

  Skill needs of small firms in Britain 1994–95

  South-east

  16

  7

  London

  11

  13

  South-west

  6

  5

  West midlands

  13

  6

  East midlands

  17

  10

  Eastern

  7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  9

  North-west (excluding Greater Manchester)

  10

  4

  Greater Manchester

  13

  Northern

  8

  4

  Scotland

  7

  11

  Wales

  3

  10

  Recruitment difficulties are not necessarily due to skill shortages. Employers may not be able to fill posts because job seekers are looking for_ better pay or conditions, or employers are too selective.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes will be made to cash limits or running costs limits of his Department for 1995–96. [27429]

  Mr. Portillo
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:the case limit or class V, vote 1—Department of Employment: programmes and central services—will be increased by £9,465,000 from £2,112,246,000 to £2,121,711,000;
  the gross running cost limit for the Department of Employment—class V, vote 1—will be reduced by £35,000 from £1,363,739,000 to £1,363,704,000.

  The cash limit increase on class V, vote 1 is to provide for ex gratia payments to sponsors of European social fund projects which have been approved by the Department, but which have not been accepted by the European Commission.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  210
  The running costs limit reduction is the result of a transfer of administrative costs to the Scottish Office contingent on the transfer to it of ESF provision.

  Young People
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom have either education or training places and what were the figures in 1979.

  Mr. Paice
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 March 1995, c.132]: I regret that the figure for the percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds in education or training in the UK in 1984 given in my oral reply was incorrect. The incorrect figure given was that 54 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK in 1984 had education or training places. The correct figure for 1984 is 70 per cent. This represented 1.3 million young people in 1984. The figures for spring 1994 remain unchanged at 84 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds, representing 1.1 million young people.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new measures he will adopt to meet housing need. [25934]

  Mr. Moss
  Under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is required to assess housing need and to develop programmes for meeting that need. The executive and housing associations have effective programmes to meet need both by direct provision and by facilitating or enabling other individuals or agencies to do so. The housing policy review and on-going research will help determine any future proposals for meeting housing need.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the research project commissioned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive into waiting lists, allocations and urgent housing rent will be completed. [25942]

  Mr. Moss
  The initial report on the research project is expected to be with the executive by 26 January 1996.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review into the housing selection scheme will be completed. [25941]

  Mr. Moss
  The review of the housing selection scheme is expected to be completed by March 1996.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the professional qualifications of the special advisers appointed by his Department; and whom they advise. [25956]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have appointed one special adviser who works directly to me. It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications of my special advisers.

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fixed penalty notices have been issued by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the police divisions in Belfast since 31 August 1994. [25939]
  211
  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of fixed penalty notices issued by the RUC in each of the Belfast police divisions, from 1 September 1994 to 31 March 1995, is as follows:

  A Division: 17,360

  B Division: 2,404

  D Division: 3,249

  E Division: 2,943

  Health Boards (Staff)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have taken place to terms and conditions of employment for staff transferred to private contractors under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in support services in the health boards since 1990. [26002]

  Mr. Moss
  For each contract awarded to a private contractor under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, the staff transferred with their existing terms and conditions. It is not known what changes, if any, have taken place subsequent to transfer as this is properly a matter for the employers and employees concerned. Any changes resulting from a transfer have, of course, to be the subject of negotiation and agreement between the relevant parties.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how the requirement in article 3.1(a) of EC directive 91/628, that member states shall ensure that no animal shall be transported unless suitable provisions have been made for its care on arrival at the place of destination, has been transposed into United Kingdom law; [24733]

  (2) what arrangements he has made to fulfil Her Majesty's obligation under article 3.1(a) of EC directive 91/628, to ensure that no animal is transported unless suitable provisions have been made for its care on arrival at the place of destination, and if he will make a statement. [24734]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: When transposing directive 91/628, we took the view that the provisions of British domestic legislation on the treatment of animals on agricultural land gave the assurance required under Article 3.1(b) of the directive.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will argue for the repatriation of fisheries policy at the forthcoming IGC. [25445]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to raise this issue at the next IGC.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's projects aimed at promoting healthy eating, indicating the cost of each project to his Department. [26303]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply being given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary 212
  of State for Health, which covers my Department's joint involvement in the work of the nutrition task force.

  In addition to the initiatives being taken forward under the nutrition task force programme, my Department is involved in a number of projects to promote healthy eating through education and information. The costs of these are as follows:

  Total cost up to end 1994–95 financial year £

  Foodsense Healthy Eating booklet

  178,800

  Foodsense Healthy Eating for Older People booklet

  20,300

  Foodsense Healthy Eating video for the deaf

  23,000

  Eight Guidelines for a Healthy Diet (booklet and poster)

  23,300

  Substantial funding of the British Nutrition Foundation's School Resource Pack "Food a Fact of Life"

  1,046,000

  Healthy Eating for Toddlers ((a booklet for mothers) in the course of development). A comic for children, based on the Food Sense booklet for adults (in the course of development)

  Costs yet to be determined

  The British Nutrition Foundation schools pack and the proposed comic for children cover food safety issues as well as healthy eating.

  Costs yet to be determined

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions calves have been returned from Baginton airport to their premises of origin; and flow long they remained there before being re-transported. [26425]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am advised that in 1994 and 1995, there were five occasions when calves were returned to premises of origin from Baginton airport. On two occasions calves that had been so returned were re-exported through Baginton airport where they were subject to welfare checks by officials. The calves had remained at the respective premises of origin for periods of two days and three days before restarting their journey.

SCOTLAND

  A78
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating the latest position as regards proposals for the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston bypass. [25334]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1995]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 31 January to let him know that I had accepted that a more northerly alignment than that previously proposed should be adopted. Design for this new alignment is progressing to enable publication of new draft statutory orders in 1996.

  Zetland Primary School
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government intend to approve the closure of Zetland primary school in Grangemouth in central region. [26872]
  213
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend's consent to the closure of a non-denominational primary school is required only in the circumstances prescribed in schedule 2 to the Education (Public and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, namely, where the number of pupils at the school is greater than 80 per cent. of its pupil capacity, or where pupils would have to attend a different school five or more miles from the school proposed for closure. My right hon. Friend understands that neither of these criteria applies in the case of Zetland primary school, Grangemouth and any decision to close it would, therefore, be entirely a matter for the education authority.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure applies to the Central regional council to close Zetland primary school in Grangemouth. [26850]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Any education authority which makes a proposal to close a school is required to consult in accordance with the detailed provisions of the Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, and to have regard to any representations made to it by persons it is required to consult.

  Tourism
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated annual value of wildlife tourism in Shetland. [27121]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected. Shetland Islands Tourism estimates, however, that around 20 per cent. of visitors to the islands come primarily to watch the wildlife. The estimated annual value of tourism to Shetland is around £10 million.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he issues about the minimum number of pupils for a primary school. [26857]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has issued no guidance on this subject. The detailed organisation of school provision is a matter for education authorities, having regard to local circumstances and their statutory duty to secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education.

  Civil Servants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of civil service posts, including positions in executive agencies but excluding technical appointments at grades 1 to 6 which have been advertised, together with the number of applicants, interviewees and appointees broken down to show(a) civil servants and (b) non-civil servants for each year from 1 January 1990 to 31 December as a whole in Scotland. [26942]

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the form requested, but I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Brent Spar Platform
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to intervene in the proposed dumping at sea by the Shell oil company of the Brent Spar platform. [26691]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar buoy in the north-east Atlantic at a depth in excess of 2,000 m will not present a hazard to the environment or to other users of the sea including fishermen. Disposal in this way complies fully with our obligations under international conventions. Accordingly, Shell UK has received the necessary approval for this disposal.

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those aspects of the proposed privatisation of Scottish Nuclear which will require parliamentary approval. [27252]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The Government's White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK", Cm 2860, stated—paragraph 7.30—that no primary legislation is required to privatise the nuclear generators.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which areas of land in the constituency of Cunninghame, North he intends to dispose of as part of the proposed privatisation of Scottish Nuclear. [27250]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Scottish Nuclear Ltd. has already disposed of most of the land belonging to the company in the Hunterston area for which it has no foreseeable need. No decision has yet been taken about how much land belonging to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. will be privatised with the company.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of people aged five to 18 years with permanent teeth which are actively decayed, filled or missing due to decay. [27200]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Proportion of people in Scotland with permanent teeth which are actively decayed, filled or missing

  Age

  Percentage of people

  5

  1

  6

  6

  7

  18

  8

  29

  9

  41

  10

  46

  11

  56

  12

  61

  13

  65

  14

  71

  15

  79

  16

  n/a

  17

  n/a

  18

  n/a

  Note:

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  OPCS Survey—"Children's dental health in the United Kingdom 1993".
  215
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) number of adult courses of treatment, (b) total national health service gross expenditure, (c) total cost borne by the Exchequer and (d) total cost borne by patients, for the general dental service for each year between 1990 and 1994. [27197]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  General dental services in Scotland

  Financial year

  Number of courses of treatment1

  Gross expenditure2 (£000s)

  Cost borne by exchequer2 (£000s)

  Patient charges2 (£000s)

  1990–91

  31,037,633

  118,470

  82,456

  36,014

  1991–92

  2,321,853

  142,828

  99,754

  43,074

  1992–93

  2,384,442

  141,285

  101,368

  39,917

  1993–94

  2,440,745

  134,204

  93,756

  40,448

  1994–95

  2,500,826

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Dental practice division of the Common Services Agency.

  2 Annual accounts of the 15 Scottish health boards.

  3 These figures are counted from the beginning of the current dental contract introduced on 1 October 1990.

  n/a = not available.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16 and 17-year-olds were seeking training places in each division of Ayrshire at 1 May; and what were the numbers of vacancies. [27253]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 June]: On 30 April, 424 young people under 18 years of age in Ayrshire were seeking training places. Information is not available to split this figure by smaller areas within Ayrshire. I understand from Scottish Enterprise that on 30 April there were 407 youth training and skillseeker vacancies in the Enterprise Ayrshire area. Both these figures are subject to daily fluctuation as young people move into and out of youth training.

  British Steel
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the proposed removal of steel-making equipment from Hunterston; what implications for public funds are involved; and if he will make a statement. [27248]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Decisions about British Steel plc's assets at Hunterston are a matter for that company to take in the light of commercial considerations. There would, therefore, be no implications for public funds.

  Charitable Schools
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those schools in Scotland which have charitable status; and if he will estimate the total sum gained by such schools through(a) rebates on local council taxes, (b) tax reductions in connection with gifts and covenants, (c) tax reductions on bank deposits and (d) provision of cheap butter. [27313]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The information is not available.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of the designated Gourock ropeworks site within the Inverclyde enterprise zone. [26158]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Renfrewshire Enterprise is discussing the options for the development of the Gourock ropeworks site with the site owner. These options will need to take account of the listed building status of the ropeworks.

  Parklea Site
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of the designated Parklea site within the Inverclyde enterprise zone. [26160]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The options for the development of the Parklea site in the Inverclyde enterprise zone are constrained by its inclusion in a potential special protection area in terms of the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. This is likely to preclude any development of the site which would adversely affect conservation interests.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women were imprisoned because of their failure to pay fines levied by the courts in the last year for which figures are available, and in each of the past 15 years. [26191]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of this question related to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of individuals imprisoned because of their failure to pay fines levied by the courts.
  Information on the number of individuals imprisoned because of their failure to pay fines is not available. The table below shows the number of fine default receptions in 1994 and the preceding fifteen years. Receptions do not equate to "persons received". For example, where several fine default sentences are imposed on an individual by one court in one day this is counted as one reception. Where fine default sentences are imposed on a person by two or more courts in one day, however, two receptions are recorded. In addition, if a fine default warrant is received for an individual already serving a custodial sentence then this is regarded as a separate reception.

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1979

  5,737

  290

  6,027

  1980

  7,047

  342

  7,389

  1981

  6,444

  311

  6,755

  1982

  9,030

  422

  9,452

  1983

  8,772

  557

  9,329

  1984

  8,431

  452

  8,883

  1985

  10,829

  735

  11,564

  1986

  9,969

  657

  10,626

  1987

  10,365

  618

  10,983

  1988

  9,170

  544

  9,714

  1989

  8,644

  510

  9,154

  1990

  6,455

  380

  6,835

  1991

  7,295

  614

  7,909

  1992

  7,792

  547

  8,339

  1993

  8,878

  738

  9,616

  1994'

  8,174

  701

  8,875

  1 Information for 1994 is provisional.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of recorded cases of water pollution caused by(a) agricultural activities and (b) industrial firms in each of the past five years; how many of these cases resulted in court hearings; how may individuals or parties were successfully prosecuted in the courts; and if he will make a statement. [26192]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information for 1992–93 and 1993–94 is set out in the table. Figures are not available for previous years.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cases of water pollution1

  Agricultural

  495

  663

  Industrial

  796

  801

  Prosecutions for water pollution offences1

  Brought

  48

  54

  Successful

  40

  48

  1 Recorded by river purification boards.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1995–96 within his responsibility. [27857]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to two voted cash limits.

  a. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 2, training programmes, roads and transport services, industrial and regional support, Scotland will be increased by £1,038,000 from £940,184,000 to £941,222,000. The increase takes account of a transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to provide a technology advisory service to small and medium-sized businesses.

  b. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 5, housing and environmental services, Scotland will be increased by £420,000 from £416,648,000 to £417,068,000. The increase in provision is required to meet the administrative costs associated with the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and will be found within existing Scottish Office provision.

  Neither of these changes will therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  16. Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the burning of the mosque and village of Charar-e-Sharief in Kashmir on Thursday 11 May. [25447]

  Mr. Baldry
  We deeply regret the burning of the village of Charar-e-Sharief in Kashmir and its historic shrine. We have urged all sides to exercise restraint. We shall continue to try to promote a peaceful solution in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the political situation in Kashmir. [25460]
  218
  Mr. Baldry
  We remain concerned by the situation in Kashmir. The Indian Government have made clear their intention of holding elections there before mid-July. Free and fair elections might provide the first step towards the genuine political process for which we have long called.

  Middle East
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the middle east peace process. [25452]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the recent announcement of an agreed framework for negotiations on security arrangements between Israel and Syria, and are urging both sides to press on. We also welcome Israel's suspension of the planned expropriation of land in east Jerusalem and the prospect of Israel and the Palestinians reaching agreement on elections and redeployment in the west bank by 1 July. We have pressed successfully for the EU to play the lead role in monitoring the Palestinian elections. Bilaterally and through the EU we are continuing to support the Palestinian Authority. We are giving $2 million bilaterally towards the EU's new package of support for Palestinian recurrent costs.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the middle east. [25465]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the recent announcement of an agreed framework for negotiations on security arrangements between Israel and Syria. We continue to urge all parties to the peace process to redouble their efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will publish their contributions to the EU IGC reflections group; and if he will make a statement. [25453]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Council report to the study group, to which we contributed, has been published as a Command Paper, Cm 2866. We have also contributed a memorandum on European defence which was tabled in the House on 1 March,Official Report, columns 1060–74. We will continue to keep Parliament fully informed of developments.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Foreign Ministers of the other European Union countries about the preparations for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. [25454]

  Mr. Hurd
  I see my European counterparts regularly at meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council, and for bilateral discussions. We all met at Messina last Friday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Messina conference. I discussed the IGC in general terms with a number of colleagues.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made in Messina by the IGC reflections group on 2 June. [25456]

  Mr. David Davis
  The study group discussed the scope and structure of its work.
  219
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's position on the 1996 intergovernmental conference. [25464]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out very clearly our approach to the IGC, at Leiden in September and in this House on 1 March.

  British Citizens
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are taken to protect the rights of British citizens domiciled in foreign countries. [25455]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is our duty to safeguard the interests of all British nationals overseas. The functions of consular officers are set out in the Vienna convention on consular relations which entered into force in the United Kingdom on 8 June 1972, a copy of which may be seen in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the outcome of the nuclear non-proliferation conference. [25457]

  Mr. David Davis
  No. I have nothing further to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House on 16 May,Official Report, columns 151–61.

  Atlantic Alliance
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether European defence can and will continue to be developed within the framework of the Atlantic alliance. [25458]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are committed to maintaining NATO as the bedrock of our common defence. The NATO summit in January last year welcomed the emergence of a European security and defence identity as a means of strengthening -the European pillar of the alliance while enabling European allies to take greater responsibility for their common security and defence.

  The proposals set out by the Prime Minister in this House on 1 March, Official Report, columns 1060–74, would promote this objective by allowing Europeans to act together more effectively within the Western European Union.

  Western European Union
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his counterparts in Europe over the foreign policy implications of the creation of new defence forces within the WEU. [25459]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I discussed this issue with our counterparts from WEU countries in Lisbon on 15 May. The objective is not to create new standing forces but to establish common arrangements which will allow existing national forces to cooperate more effectively together in both the WEU and NATO frameworks.

  In this context, WEU Ministers welcomed the arrangements for land and maritime forces announced by France, Italy and Spain at Lisbon.

  Tibet
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made about human rights in Tibet. [25461]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last raised the issue of human rights in Tibet when he met Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in New York on 18 April.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Rwanda. [25462]

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Rwanda. [25468]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson).

  Fissile Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the negotiations for a fissile materials cut-off convention are expected to start. [25463]

  Mr. David Davis
  We anticipate that negotiations will begin in June when the conference on disarmament reconvenes in Geneva.

  Women's Rights
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he has made to the Government's report to the UN Beijing conference in September with regard to women's human rights. [25466]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department was closely involved in the preparation of the UK national report for the Peking conference. We have also taken a leading role in seeing to negotiate acceptable human rights language in the draft platform for action to be agreed at the conference.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on arms exports. [25467]

  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.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the government of Kenya for assistance in the design of a new constitution appropriate for a multi-party democracy. [26636]
  221
  Mr. Baldry
  We have not received a formal request from the Kenyan Government to provide an expert to help take forward the process of constitutional review. We have indicated to the Kenyan authorities that we would give careful and sympathetic consideration to any such request.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cases involving the harassment of opposition hon. Members which he has taken up with the Government of Kenya. [26637]

  Mr. Baldry
  We regularly take up charges of harassment and detention of opposition MPs at all levels of the Kenyan Government, frequently in response to particular events. It is, however, not possible to provide precise details of all cases taken up. We shall continue to raise our concerns with the Kenyan authorities, who can be in no doubt about the importance we attach to this matter.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about the opposition Member, Paul Muite. [27015]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have raised at the highest levels our concerns about the arrest and detention of opposition MPs, including Mr. Paul Muite.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the peace process in Angola and the involvement of British peacekeeping forces. [27325]

  Mr. Baldry
  In its statement of 11 May, the Security Council welcomed the recent positive developments in Angola, in particular the meeting between President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi in Lusaka on 6 May. This has given new impetus to the peace process. The UK has contributed a 600-strong logistics battalion to UNAVEM III for three months and provided training in mine clearance in preparation for the deployment of a Zimbabwean battalion.

  Journalists' Facility Trips
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list facility trips abroad which have been granted to British newspaper journalists in the last two years. [25907]

  Mr. Baldry
  The details are as follows:

  Date of visit

  Destination

  Number in press party

  1–4 June 1993

  Romania

  4 Journalists

  Bulgaria

  Macedonia

  6–8 September 1993

  UAE Saudi Arabia

  7 Journalists

  22–24 October 1993

  Syria

  6 Journalists

  3–7 January 1994

  Lebanon

  10 Journalists

  Israel

  Occupied

  Territories

  Jordan

  Malta

  222

  Date of visit

  Destination

  Number in press party

  19–20 January 1994

  Turkey

  2 Journalists

  4–11 April 1994

  Brazil

  2 Journalists

  Falklands

  22–24 May 1994

  Russia

  3 Journalists

  Ukraine

  11–20 September 1994

  Thailand

  2 Journalists

  Vietnam

  Hong Kong

  Japan

  12–14 October 1994

  Kuwait

  16 Journalists

  Bahrain

  Saudi Arabia

  Jordan

  Syria

  Turkey

  4 December 1994

  former Yugoslavia

  11 Journalists

  3–9 January 1995

  Bangladesh

  1 Journalist (4 others-Lahore/

  India

  Islamabad leg only)

  Pakistan

  13–14 February 1995

  Sweden

  1 Journalist

  11–12 April 1995

  Slovakia

  2 Journalists

  Poland

  In all cases, journalists are charged for air and ground transportation.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve the surveillance of nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Authority. [25431]

  Mr Hurd
  The International Atomic Energy Agency has made proposals to strengthen its safeguards system. These will be discussed by the board of governors in June. The proposals now strengthen the agency's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activity. The UK strongly supports this initiative to strengthen safeguards and we will try to get it quickly agreed and put into effect.

  Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release more records of the wartime Special Operations Executive. [27753]

  Mr. Hurd
  I said on 26 November 1993 that a review of the SOE archives had begun. Since then, as I have said in later answers in 1993 and 1994, the records on the far east, Scandinavia, the middle east and north Africa have been made available to the public. The next batch, on eastern Europe, will be opened by the Public Record Office on 9 June 1995. Further SOE records will be made available in due course.

  European Union
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [27754]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information is as follows:

  MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR JUNE 1995

  June 1: Development Council

  Energy Council

  June 6: Internal Market Council

  June 9: Research Council

  June 12: FAC

  June 13: FAC Telecom

  June 15: Fisheries Council

  June 17: FAC

  June 19: Transport Council

  ECOFIN

  June 20: Transport Council

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  June 21: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Culture/Audiovisual Council

  June 22: Environment Council

  June 23: Environment Council

  June 26: Agriculture Council

  June 27: Agriculture Council

  June 29: Social Affairs Council

  2. The following subjects were discussed:
  June I: Development Council

  Adoption of the agenda.

  (Poss) Approval of the list of "A" items.

  Follow-up to the statement of 18 November 1992 on co-operation and development up to 2000.

  a) Complementarity between the development policies and actions of the Union and its Member States.

  b) Consistency between the various Community policies.

  c) Operational co-ordination.

  Structural adjustment Draft resolution.

  Regional Integration Draft statement.

  Research in Developing Countries Draft statement.

  Evaluation.

  Development Co-operation with South Africa Draft conclusion.

  Basic rules on Humanitarian. Aid.

  Progress of discussions on:

  Actions on rehabilitation assistance

  Migration and Development

  Rwanda.

  Other business.

  June 1: Energy Council

  Internal market in electricity: Council conclusions.

  Trans-European energy networks: possible common positions on guidelines and supporting measures.

  Energy policy Green Paper: Council Resolution.

  Thermie II: possible decision.

  Energy efficiency of fridges and freezers: progress report.

  Under "Any Other Business": Energy Charter: progress report; and energy dimension to the Euro-Mediterranean Conference: exchange of views/possible Council Conclusions.

  June 6: Internal Market Council

  White Paper on extending Single Market to the CEEs: discussion amongst the 15 on White Paper, followed by session (and lunch) with CEE and Baltic Ministers.

  Operation of the Single Market (routine presentation and discussion of implementation figures and annual report on Single Market, plus announcement of Commission plans for "Citizens Guide to Single Market").

  224

  Deregulation: progress report on Molitor group.

  Uniform application and effectiveness of Single Market rules and national penalties for violations of them: Council Resolution.

  Draft decision on notification of national decisions derogating from free movement of goods (which sets up a procedure to identify cases where mutual recognition does not occur)—common position.

  Customs 2000: orientation debate on draft decision establishing a programme of practical measures to ensure customs rules work effectively.

  Legal Protection of Database Directive: common position.

  Community Designs Regulation; progress report.

  European Co-operative Society: progress report on draft Directive and Regulation establishing common rules for European Co-ops.

  Bankruptcy Convention: political agreement.

  Novel foodstuffs: common position on directive introducing EC rules for genetically modified foodstuffs.

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:
  June 9: Research Council

  Council Resolution on Research Co-ordination.

  EC/Switzerland Scientific and Technical Co-operation Agreement.

  EC/Israel Co-operation Agreement.

  Task Forces.

  Fourth Framework Programme Enlargement Increase Orientation Debate.

  ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) plus joint meeting with Associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

  June 12–13: Foreign Affairs Council

  Draft Agenda:

  Preparation of the Cannes European Council.

  Racism and Xenophobia: global strategy of the Union.

  Relations with the CEEs:

  Implementation of the pro-accession strategy White Paper

  Relations with the Baltic States:

  Decision on signature of the Association Agreement (possible A point)

  Lome mid-term review: EDF VIII

  Mediterranean policy:

  Adoption of report on preparation of the Euro-Med Conference

  (possible) Tunisia: decision on signature of new agreement

  (possible) Israel: conclusion of negotiations on new agreement

  State of negotiations with Morocco and Egypt

  (possible) Lebanon: adoption of negotiating directives

  Turkey:

  Adoption of draft common position on EC/Turkey Customs Union

  Decision to seek consent of European Parliament

  Relations with Cyprus:

  Adoption of Union position at EC/Cyprus Association Council

  Decision on signature of fourth financial protocol

  Relations with Malta:

  Adoption of Union position at EC/Malta Association Council

  Decision on signature of fourth financial protocol

  Relations with Russia.

  Relations with Ukraine.

  Relations with certain republics of the former Soviet Union.

  Former Yugoslavia.

  Commercial questions.

  Free trade areas.

  (possible) WTO code of conduct.

  Negotiations in the WTO framework.

  225

  Preparation of Halifax G7 summit and meetings with US and Japan.

  South Africa.

  Negotiating directives for a trade and co-operation agreement and protocol to the Lomé Convention.

  GSP agriculture.

  (possible) Relations with Mercosur.

  Adoption of negotiating directives for an inter-regional framework co-operation agreement.

  Relations with Chile:

  Commission strategy paper on strengthening EU/Chile relations.

  Vietnam (possible):

  Conclusion of negotiations on a co-operation agreement

  Euratom/US nuclear energy agreement (possible)

  In the margins:

  Association Council with Cyprus

  Association Council with Malta

  June 13: Telecoms Council

  Council Resolution on Infrastructure Green Paper (Part 2).

  Council Resolution on Mobile Telephony.

  Council Resolution on Postal Services.

  ONP Voice Telephony Directive: common position.

  Council Conclusions on Article 90 Cable Network Directive.

  June 15: Fisheries Council

  Western waters effort regulation.

  Driftnets.

  Socio-economic measures (possible).

  Amendment to technical conservation measures.

  UN Conference on stradling stocks (possible).

  June 19: ECOFIN

  Preparation for European Council (Cannes—26–27 June).

  Broad economic guidelines (recommendation for 1995–96 and consideration of implementation 1994–95).

  Essen follow-up (likely to include employment policy).

  Decisions on excessive deficits.

  Regulation on protection of the Community's financial interests.

  Examination of Member States' reports on measures to combat fraud and waste.

  Green paper on transition to a single currency (discussion).

  Macro—financial assistance to third countries.

  Biofuels: draft directive on excise duty relief for biofuels.

  VAT:

  reduced rate for cut flowers;

  approximation of rates (Commission report).

  Statistical questions;

  European System of National and Regional Accounts.

  Harmonising consumer price indices.

  Cross-border payments: agreement on common position.

  EIB lending to South Africa (possible A point).

  TENS financing (possible).

  CO2/energy tax: orientation debate (possible).

  European Investment Bank: a meeting of EIB Board of Governors will be held on the same day.

  June 19–20: Transport Council

  Maritime:

  Maritime statistics directive—adoption.

  Ro-Ro Ferry Safety—Regulation on early implementation of
  International Safety Management Code (ISM)—Common position. (possible) Resolution on shipping external relations.

  Aviation:

  EC/US relations.

  Airport ground handling—orientation debate.

  Mutual recognition for aviation components—Council Conclusions.

  226

  Land, etc:

  Trans-European Networks—consideration of EP Opinion.

  High speed rail interoperability—common position.

  Tachographs—orientation debate.

  Harmonisation of road signs—resolution.

  Telematics—resolution.

  Railway licensing and access directives—adoption of common position in light of EP opinion.

  (possible) Transport research—resolution.

  June 20–21: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Europol Convention.

  Fraud against the Community Budget.

  Common Visa List.

  Brussels (2) Convention.

  Title VI Finance.

  June 21: Culture/Audiovisual Council

  Revision of Broadcasting Directive: orientation debate.

  Media II: orientation debate.

  New financial instrument for the Audiovisual Sector.

  June 22–23: Environment Council

  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

  Air Quality Framework Directive.

  Wildlife Trade (CITES) Regulation.

  Major Accident Hazards (Seveso II) Directive.

  Climate Change.

  Ecological Quality of Water Directive.

  Biocides Directive.

  LIFE Programme (Financial Instrument on the Environment).

  Waste Shipment Regulation.

  Negotiating Mandate on the Basle Convention.

  Nuclear safety in the Central and Eastern Europe.

  Priority Waste Streams: End-of-life Vehicles.

  JEPS (Joint Environment Programmes).

  June 26–27: Agriculture Council

  Price fixing.

  Cotton.

  Italian, Spanish and Greek milk quota.

  Reform of the wine sector (possible).

  Agrimony (possible).

  Reform of the rice regime (possible). Animal welfare.

  Trade in bovines (amending 64/432).

  Feedingstuffs (possible).

  Hormones (possible).

  June 29: Labour and Social Affairs

  Essen follow-up on employment.

  Draft Directive on Posted Workers.

  Draft Directive on Use of Work Equipment.

  Draft Decision on Programme to Combat Social Exclusion.

  Draft Decision on Action to support Older People.

  Draft amendments to Regulation 1408/71 (Social Security).

  Resolution on Older Workers.

  Conclusions on the Quality of Vocational Training.

  Presidency Report on amendments to Acquired Rights Directive.

  EU Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 29 May. [27755]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A points listed in document 7405/95, which has been placed in the Library of this House, were adopted without a vote.
  227
  The Council discussed the situation in former Yugoslavia in the light of recent developments on the ground.

  The Council adopted conclusions on proposals for greater transparency in its work.

  The Council approved a text for standard human rights clauses in Community agreements with third countries.

  There was a discussion of the Commission's White Paper on approximation of laws in the context of enlargement to the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  The Council adopted conclusions on policy towards the Baltic sea region, and approved a paper on policy towards the Baltic states. A decision was taken to sign Europe agreements with the three Baltic states on 2 June.

  Approval was given for the signature of an interim agreement with the Ukraine on 1 June.

  The Commission reported on the state of play in negotiations for new agreements with Israel and Morocco.

  There was a further brief discussion of the European development fund—EDF VIII.

  The Council discussed the prospects for signature of the EC/Russia interim agreement, and agreed to return to the subject at its meeting on 12 June.

  The Council agreed to the inclusion of Croatia in the PHARE programme, and decided to consider the opening of negotiations for an EU-Croatia trade and co-operation agreement on 12 June.

  The Council discussed, and broadly welcomed, the Commission's recent communication on Japan; and agreed conclusions on the current US-Japan dispute over automobiles and automotive parts.

  The Council discussed the continuing negotiations with Canada under article XXIV.6 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  The Commission reported on its negotiations with the US on a new US/Euratom nuclear trade and co-operation agreement. The Council will return to the subject on 12 June.

  Germany presented a memorandum proposing changes to the EC banana regime: there was no substantive discussion.

  Finally, there was a brief discussion of the planned pre-accession strategy for Cyprus. The presidency noted that arrangements were in hand for the 12 June EU/Cyprus Association Council.

  No votes were taken at the Council.

  A copy of the Council's conclusions will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits, running costs limit, and external finance limits for 1995–96. [27569]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class VI, vote 6 will be reduced by £1 million from £81,156,000 to £80,156,000. This reduction reflects an increase in appropriations in aid in respect of services provided by 228
  the Marine Safety Agency. It will be used to offset an increase of £1 million from nil to £1 million in the Vehicle Inspectorate's external finance limit, and there will therefore be no effect on the planned total of public expenditure.

  Aviation Negotiations (USA)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in aviation negotiations with the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [27858]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am pleased to announce that on 5 June, the UK and US Governments reached agreement on a package of new opportunities for UK and US airlines. This will mean that passengers will be able to benefit from greater frequency of transatlantic service and wider choice, and the prospect of more competitive fares.

  The deal allows increased services for British Airways on its Heathrow-Philadelphia route, allows a second US airline to operate the Heathrow-Chicago route, confirms and extends the terms of the regional liberalisation offer which I made last October, substantially liberalises code-sharing arrangements and allows UK airlines the opportunity to carry some US Government traffic which has, up to now, not been open to UK airlines.

  Both Governments agreed that the provisions of the agreement would come into effect once the US Government had approved all outstanding code share applications by British Airways in respect of US Air.

  Both Governments have also agreed to begin work immediately on the next stage of negotiations with the aim of opening up further opportunities.

  Midland Links Motorways
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many days in each of the past 10 years there have been lane closures on the viaducts of the midland links motorways. [26985]

  Mr. Watts
  It is not possible to establish precisely how many days in each of the past 10 years there have been lane closures on the midland links motorways viaducts. In addition to the programmed major refurbishment works, which include periodic lane closures, there have been closures required for emergency works and for routine maintenance. The major refurbishment contracts are as follows, with duration of each contract:

  i. 1995—M6 Gravelly Hill and Bromford West Viaducts, (on-going contract expected to last for as total of eight months).

  ii. 1994—M6 Bromford East Viaduct (12 months).

  iii. 1994—M5 Western Arm, (eight months).

  iv. 1993—M5 Eastern Arm, (11 months).

  v. 1993-Gravelly Hill CB/EB, (five months).

  vi. 1992—Gravelly Hill CA (three months).

  vii. 1992—Gravelly Hill CD/DC, (four months).

  viii. 1991—M6 Ray Hall, (six months).

  ix. 1991—Gravelly Hill CF/FC, (three months).

  x. 1990—M6 Bescot Viaduct and Fullbrook Embankment, (10 months).

  xi. 1990—M6 Thornbridge Viaduct Verges and Perry Barr Locks, (four months).

  xii. 1990—Gravelly Hill BC, (two months).

  xiii. 1989—M5 Junction 1 to MP2, (three months).

  xiv. 1989—M5 Junction 1 to MP5.6, (three months).

  xv. 1988—M6 Thornbridge Viaduct, (three months).

  xvi. 1988—Gravelly Hill EA, (three months).

  xviii. 1987—M5 Oldbury Viaduct, (10 months).

  229
  By using temporary narrow lanes at times of peak traffic demand, the programmed closures have not materially restricted capacity below that otherwise available. At all other times, sufficient capacity has been maintained to accommodate the prevailing traffic flow with minimum delay.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how and on what basis the substructure motorway maintenance contracts issued by his Department for the midland links motorways are divided between W. S. Atkins and Partners and Maunsell and Partners. [26986]

  Mr. Watts
  The viaduct commissions are divided on a geographical basis. G. Maunsell and Partners' responsibilities cover the M6 from junction 5, to and including junction 7. W. S. Atkins' responsibilities cover the M6 from the west of junction 7 to the north end of Bescot viaduct immediately north of junction 9 and the M5 from where it diverges from the M6 to the southern end of Titford viaduct, just south of junction 2.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of the maintenance and repair of the midland links motorways in each year since 1983. [26987]

  Mr. Watts
  The cost of the maintenance and repair of the midland links motorways, which are taken to be the M6 from junction 5 to immediately north of junction 9 and the M5 from the M6 to just south of junction 2, is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Outturn cost of maintenance and repairs

  1983–84

  10.9

  1984–85

  12.5

  1985–86

  14.0

  1986–87

  5.6

  1987–88

  8.8

  1988–89

  7.1

  1989–90

  16.7

  1990–91

  25.2

  1991–92

  22.7

  1992–93

  22.3

  1993–94

  28.7

  1994–95

  38.0

  1 Structural maintenance only—roadworks carried out by WMCC— records not available.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for the maintenance and repair of the midland links motorways. [26988]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has engaged the services of three firms of consulting engineers to assist in the management, maintenance and repair of the midland links motorways. These are, for the structures and viaducts, W. S. Atkins and Partners and G. Maunsell and Partners and, for the road surface, street furniture and embankment sections, Owen Williams. All three commissions come to an end in April 1996 and the way forward from then on is currently under review.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lane miles of the midland links motorways have been resurfaced in the past 10 years; and what proportion this figure is of the total lane miles. [26989]
  230
  Mr. Watts
  Some 86 lane miles have been resurfaced in the past 10 years out of a total of 118 lane miles—that is, 73 per cent.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the bearings, plinths and joints have been replaced on each of the viaducts on the midland links motorways in the past 10 years; and at what cost. [26990]

  Mr. Watts
  In the past 10 years, there has been no programme to replace the bearings or bearing plinths on any of the viaducts. In isolated cases, it has become necessary to replace the bearing plinths because of other works to the structure. Bearings have been replaced only as a consequence of other modifications to the structure. In total, 0.5 per cent. of the bearings and 4.5 per cent. of the bearings plinths have been replaced in this period. The costs associated with the replacements cannot be accurately determined as they were carried out in conjunction with other operations.

  The expansion joints are replaced during the course of resurfacing contracts. In the past 10 years, the expansion joints have been replaced once on Oldbury, Ray Hall, Bescot, Wigmore, Thornbridge and Bromford viaducts together with most of those on Gravelly hill viaduct. The type of joints used on the midland links viaducts are subject to routine maintenance at five to eight-year intervals to ensure their continuing satisfactory performance. Occasionally, this requires complete replacement of isolated joints. The costs associated with the joint replacement cannot be accurately determined as they are carried out in conjunction with other operations.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles are using the midland links motorways on a daily basis; and what was the design estimate of usage. [26991]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of vehicles using the midland links motorways on a daily basis varies between junctions. The busiest section, between junctions 8 and 9 of the M6, has an average weekday traffic flow of approximately 160,000 vehicles per day whereas the section between junctions 1 and 2 of the MS has an equivalent flow of 90,000 vehicles per day. A motorway of this standard would have been expected to carry traffic flows of around 70,000 vehicles per day.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts have been let for the repair of the parapet wall and rails of each viaduct on the midland links motorways in the past 10 years; and at what cost. [26992]

  Mr. Watts
  In the past 10 years, there have been six contracts let specifically for the repair of parapet rails. Three of these contracts were for work on Bromford viaduct, one for Gravelly Hill viaduct and two for Ray Hall viaduct. The total cost of this work was about £1.75 million.

  Since 1992, as a consequence of safety and traffic management considerations, the repair of parapets, where required, has been included within the major resurfacing. The cost of the parapet repairs included within these contracts cannot readily be identified.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which 10 companies have been the most successful tenderers for construction work of all descriptions on the midland links motorways in the past 10 years. [26993]
  231
  Mr. Watts
  Between 1985 and 1987, no significant contracts were awarded, apart from some minor repair trial contracts, painting contracts, term maintenance contracts and three contracts to provide and install gutters under the deck joints. The 10 companies which have been the most successful tenderers since 1987, in terms of the number of contracts awarded are:

  Name

  Number of contracts awarded

  R and C Williams

  15

  EPL

  9

  AMEC (Fairclough)

  6

  Curtail, Lewis and Martin

  6

  Tarmac

  6

  Galliford

  6

  Edmund Nuttall

  6

  Tilbury Douglas (R M Douglas)

  5

  Christiani and Nielsen

  5

  Kinmain

  5

  W. S. Atkins and Partners

  £ million

  Contract ref.

  Viaduct

  Contractor

  Tender sum

  Final account

  Con A

  Oldbury and Bescot

  John Laing

  0.677

  1.220

  R1

  Oldbury and Bescot

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  1.396

  1.572

  R3

  Oldbury

  Fairclough

  0.339

  0.342

  R5

  Oldbury

  R. M. Douglas

  0.809

  2—

  R7

  Ray Hall and Bescot

  Shand

  1.231

  1.216

  R9

  Wigmore

  M. J. Gleeson

  0.463

  0.457

  R11

  Oldbury

  Shephard Hill

  0.764

  0.727

  R13

  Wigmore

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  0.359

  0.466

  R15

  Oldbury

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  0.357

  0.358

  R17

  Oldbury

  Christiani and Nielsen

  1.354

  1—

  R19

  Oldbury

  Christiani and Nielsen

  1.120

  1—

  R21

  Oldbury

  Fairclough

  0.96

  1—

  R23

  Several

  Fairclough

  0.551

  0.577

  R25

  Ray Hall and Bescot

  Shand

  1.464

  1.579

  R27

  Several

  E. Williams

  0.065

  0.063

  R31

  Ray Hall

  Edmund Nuttall

  0.688

  1—

  R33

  Wigmore

  Trafalgar House

  0.586

  1—

  R35

  Bescott

  Trafalgar House

  0.598

  1—

  R37

  Oldbury

  Edmund Nuttall

  1.498

  1—

  R39

  Oldbury

  Shephard Hill

  1.231

  1—

  R41

  Ray Hall

  M. J. Gleeson

  0.937

  1—

  R43

  Bescot

  Taylor Woodrow

  1.183

  1—

  R45

  Ray Hall

  Christiani and Nielsen

  0.791

  1—

  R47

  Oldbury

  C. J. Pearce and Co.

  0.110

  0.111

  R49

  Titford and Junction 1

  Tarmac

  2.114

  1—

  R51

  Wigmore

  Taylor Woodrow

  1.644

  1—

  Routine Maintenance Contracts

  A

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.149

  C

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.161

  F

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.118

  H

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.289

  K

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.138

  M

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.186

  P

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.271

  R

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.398

  T

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.326

  V

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  1—

  1 Accounts not finalised.

  2 Schedule of rates contract.

  232
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in respect of the substructure motorway maintenance contracts administered for his Department by W. S. Atkins and Partners and Maunsell and Partners(a) the numbers of contracts for each section of the midland links motorways since responsibility was removed from the former West Midlands county council, (b) the tender sum of each contract, (c) the final account of each contract and (d) the successful tenderer in each contract. [27030]

  Mr. Watts
  The substructure motorway maintenance contracts administered by G. Maunsell and Partners and W. S. Atkins are listed in the table. In addition to those contracts listed, the consultants have administered contracts for the hire of access equipment, some minor repair trial contracts and three contracts to provide and install gutters under the deck joints.
  233

  G. Mansell and Partners

  £ million

  Contract reference

  Viaduct

  Contractor

  Tender Sum

  Final Account

  B

  Gravelly Hill

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  0.299

  0.343

  R2

  Gravelly Hill

  Galliford

  0.284

  0.316

  R4

  Gravelly Hill

  Galliford

  0.281

  0.549

  R6

  Gravelly Hill

  Fairclough

  0.506

  0.516

  R8

  Thornbridge

  Tarmac

  0.372

  0.593

  RIO

  Witton

  Tarmac

  0.232

  0.340

  R12

  Gravelly Hill

  Edmund Nuttall

  0.876

  0.888

  R14

  Gravelly Hill

  Norwest Hoist

  0.405

  0.509

  R16

  Gravelly Hill

  Fairclough

  0.400

  0.461

  R18

  Queslett

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  0.342

  1—

  R20

  Thornbridge

  Fairclough

  0.504

  0.583

  R22

  Witton

  Galliford

  0.408

  1—

  R26

  Bromford

  Ian Williams and Co.

  0.055

  0.074

  R28

  Gravelly Hill

  Norwest Hoist

  0.495

  0.606

  R30

  Gravelly Hill

  A Monk

  0.599

  1—

  R32

  Bromford

  Balvac Whitley Moran

  0,299

  1—

  R34

  Gravelly Hill

  Trafalgar House

  0.579

  0.619

  R38

  Bromford

  Kier

  0.965

  1—

  R40

  Bromford

  Tarmac

  0.398

  1—

  R42

  Gravelly Hill

  Christiani and Nielsen

  0.667

  1—

  R44

  Gravelly Hill

  Tarmac

  0.620

  1—

  R46

  Bromford

  Currall, Lewis and Martin

  0.330

  1—

  R50

  Bromford

  Balvac Whitley Moran

  1.415

  1—

  R52

  Thornbridge

  Tarmac

  0.596

  1—

  R54

  Bromford

  Tilbury Douglas

  1.397

  1—

  R56

  Gravelly Hill

  Balvac Whitley Moran

  1.215

  1—

  Routing Maintenance Contracts

  B

  n/a

  Clee Hill/R and C Williams

  2—

  0.218

  D

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.118

  E

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.082

  G

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.262

  J

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.150

  L

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.195

  N

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.173

  Q

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.185

  S

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  0.427

  U

  n/a

  Prismo

  2—

  0.719

  w

  n/a

  R and C Williams

  2—

  1—

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the area of responsibility of Sir Owen Williams and Partners as agents of his Department in respect of the midland links motorways; how many contracts they have issued since 1983; and what was the tender value of each, the final account of each and the successful tenderer in each case. [27031]

  Mr. Watts
  Owen Williams Consulting Engineers—formerly Sir Owen Williams and Partners—responsible for the day-to-day routine maintenance of the

  £ million

  Scheme

  Contractor

  Tender value

  Final account

  Term Maintenance Contract 3

  Prismo

  2—

  3.983

  Term Maintenance Contract 4

  Prismo

  2—

  1—

  Verge Safety Fencing M6 J6-J7

  Invicta Fencing

  0.060

  0.056

  Central Reserve Renewal

  Wrekin Construction

  0.616

  1—

  M5 Palisade Scheme 1

  A and A Lamb

  0.030

  0.025

  M5 Palisade Scheme 2

  A and A Lamb

  0.104

  1—

  Perry Barr Salt/Urea store

  Droicon Plc.

  0.438

  1—

  M6 Noise Barrier

  Royston Steel Fencing Ltd.

  0.137

  1—

  1— Accounts not yet finalised.

  2— Schedule of rates contract.

  234
  carriageways of the whole of the midland links network. In addition, its responsibilities cover the major maintenance contracts on the earthworks sections of the links. Also, on the viaducts, it is responsible for the design and supervision of the traffic management, carriageway surfacing and drainage and street furniture above deck waterproofing as part of major hybrid contracts co-ordinated by the structural consultants.

  Since 1991, when Owen Williams was first appointed to the maintenance commission, eight contracts have been awarded for which it has sole responsibility, as listed in the table.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state each specific benefit he expects to arise from the privatisation of train operations that could not be achieved by public enterprise in each case specifying where such features exist outside the United Kingdom, under which current railway administration and the extent to which that administration is directly or indirectly in receipt of public funds. [26738]

  Mr. Watts
  I expect that the advantages of privatisation and competition that we have seen in other industries—improved service to the customer at lower cost—will be achieved by our plans for the railway industry. Great Britain is at the forefront of railway privatisation and liberalisation so the lessons of privatised industries in this country are more relevant than international comparisons.

  Railways (Information)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that it is not to the financial disadvantage of those responsible for passenger train services for there to be a comprehensive display of all their services calling at stations operated by Railtrack at at least one central location on each station. [27317]

  Mr. Watts
  The financial arrangements for meeting the cost of information displays is a commercial matter for the parties concerned, which is subject to regulation by the rail regulator through station access agreements and licensing.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) statutory obligations and (b) non-statutory obligations apply to train operators in respect of advertising and displaying at the stations served by their services the timetables and fares relating to those services and for these to be changed substantially at times determined on a national basis. [27315]

  Mr. Watts
  In the new railway, station access agreements will impose contractual rather than statutory obligations on the station operator to provide and display up-to-date timetable information at the station. Meanwhile, BR's policy is that all its units should provide appropriate timetable information for passengers at all relevant points.

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost to his Department of staff leaving under redundancy/early retirement schemes to incorporate(a) added years lump sum payments, (b) redundancy payments, (c) pension payments, including enhancements and(d) any other special arrangements for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) projected for 1995–96 and (iv) projected for 1996–97. [25666]

  Mr. Norris
  The detailed breakdown of the various costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff of(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible (i) took early retirement, (ii) took voluntary redundancy, (iii) took compulsory redundancy and (iv) were retired on medical grounds in (1) 1993–94 and (2) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25499]
  236
  Mr. Norris
  The figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 in the following table, are taken from the Department's personnel computer system. The figures for 1995–96 are our latest projections.

  Central Transport Group

  Agencies

  1993–94

  Early retirement

  31

  32

  Voluntary redundancy

  3

  93

  Compulsory redundancy

  0

  0

  Medical retirement

  36

  95

  1994–95

  Early retirement

  29

  222

  Voluntary redundancy

  11

  181

  Compulsory redundancy

  1

  32

  Medical retirement

  20

  103

  1995–96

  Early retirement

  320

  10

  Voluntary redundancy

  2

  5601

  Compulsory redundancy

  0

  56

  Medical retirement2

  1

  20

  1 Some of these staff may go under early retirement.

  2 These are actuals—it is not possible to forecast medical retirements.

  Fishing Vessels (Ownership)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels on the United Kingdom register of fishing vessels are owned by interests based in each EU member state. [25139]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce regulations regarding the implementation of the EU hydrocarbon directive, onshore petroleum licensing and further amendments to the offshore licensing regime. [27563]

  Mr. Eggar
  The following sets of regulations which are due to come into force on 30 June were laid before the House yesterday.

  The Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 1434);

  The Petroleum (Production) (Seward Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 1435);

  The Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 1436);

  The EU hydrocarbons licensing directive—94/22/EC—was adopted in May 1994. It is designed to extend the single market principles of transparency and non-discrimination to the award of licences to explore for and develop oil and gas. The directive received the whole-hearted support of Her Majesty's Government. It will provide United Kingdom companies with opportunities to compete on equal terms for licences and contracts in other EU member states and thereby put to good use their hard-won experience and expertise in offshore petroleum production. The directive is being implemented through the three sets of regulations announced today. The Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive

  237
  Regulations set out the criteria for the award of licences. The Seaward Areas (Amendment) Regulations, and the Landward Area Regulations reflect the detailed changes needed to implement the directive.

  In addition, the new landward areas regulations, which follow discussions with the industry, introduce a new framework for onshore licensing. This will comprise a single licence, the petroleum exploration and development licence or, PEDL, which replaces the separate exploration, appraisal and development licences. Returns relating to the progress of operations under a licence will in future be required annually rather than every six months. The introduction of a single licence covering all stages of activity, together with the reduced reporting requirement, will make the licensing system more flexible, reduce bureaucracy and thereby lessen the burden on the industry.

  Applications for PEDLs will be invited in licensing rounds, as is under the current system. Later this year I will publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities a formal announcement giving the detailed financial terms for new landward licences and the basis on which awards will be made. The notice will invite applications for a new round of onshore licensing.

  In parallel with the new round, I will be inviting holders of existing exploration, appraisal and production licences to transfer acreage in these licences to the new style PEDL.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what effect the implementation of EU directive 85/337 on environmental impact assessments in respect of offshore oil and gas licensing will have on the 16th offshore licensing round; and if he will make a statement; [26548]

  (2) when he will bring forward regulations to implement EU directive 85/337 on environmental impact assessments in respect of offshore oil and gas licensing. [26550]

  Mr. Eggar
  I intend to introduce the necessary regulations by April 1996, in accordance with the confirmation given to the European Commission on 18 April 1995. It is intended that these regulations will, when in force, apply to developments under licences awarded in the 16th round. It has been the Government's policy since 1988 to attach special conditions to licences for blocks within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas requiring companies to carry out environmental impact assessments before any consent for development is given. Such conditions will be attached to those blocks awarded in the 16th round which are within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department informed the EU Commission that it would enact EU directive 85/337 on environmental impact assessment in respect of offshore oil and gas licensing; and if he will place a copy of that response in the Library. [26549]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government confirmed to the European Commission on 18 April 1995 that legislation to implement directive 85/337 in respect of oil and gas licensing would be introduced within the next year. This was in response to a letter from the Commission following up a complaint by a third party. The detail of correspondence between the Commission and member states relating to complaints of this kind is confidential 238
  between the parties and I shall not, therefore, be depositing a copy in the Library of the House.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1995–96. [27564]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have set NWML the following targets for 1995–96:

  to ensure that all fee earning activities are self-financing;

  to increase output per person employed by 5 per cent.;

  to reduce the real cost of a programme hour by 2 per cent.;

  to complete 95 per cent. of all type examinations within 12 weeks; and

  to complete 95 per cent. of all calibration jobs within 18 days of acceptance of the work.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of NWML to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Price Marking Order 1991
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to defer the requirement in the Price Marking Order 1991 for certain products to display unit price from 7 June. [27565]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has today laid before Parliament legislation to defer until 7 June 1997 the requirement in the Price Marking Order 1991 for certain consumer products to display their unit price from 7 June 1995.

  Trade organisations, consumer groups, and local authority trading standards departments have been consulted about this deferment.

  Departmental Budget
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits for 1995–96. [27566]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made. The cash limit for class IV, vote 1—programmes and administration—will be increased by £13,962,000 from £1,209,867,000 to £1,223,829,000. The increase is the net result of an increase of £15,000,000 for new initiatives primarily relating to locally delivered business services, international trade and industrial research and a reduction of £1,038,000 for assistance to collaborative research projects following a transfer to the Scottish Office. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for class IV, vote 3—privatisation of the coal industry—will be increased by £10,499,000 from £3,629,000 to £14,128,000. The increase, which is expenditure outside the control total, mainly covers payments to purchasers of regional coal companies and of care and maintenance collieries in accordance with the sale contracts.

  Cinema Ownership
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of concentration of cinema chains entails referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement. [27080]
  239
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The is no level of concentration, whether of cinema chains or of other businesses, which automatically triggers reference to the MMC. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may refer any merger which involves the acquisition of assets worth more than £70 million, or which creates or increases a 25 per cent. market share. Under the monopoly provisions of the Act, the Director General of Fair Trading referred the supply of films to cinemas to the MMC, whose report was published in October 1994.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries his Department has recently received in respect of references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of cinema ownership. [27081]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department has received a small amount of correspondence on the possible sale of MGM cinemas. This has been forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading, who advises on possible merger references to the MMc. In addition, the Department has received a small amount of correspondence on the MMC's recent report on the supply of films to cinemas.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take into account the effect on competition in the regions in his consideration of the proposed bid for MGM cinemas by the Rank Organisation. [27161]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South on 15 May 1995,Official Report, column 29.

  Export Licences, Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export credit rating is given to Indonesia by the Export Credits Guarantee Department measures; what is the total number of export licences granted for export to Indonesia in each of the past five years; and what is the number refused in each of those years. [26979]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: ECGD does not operate a system of credit ratings but is open for business in Indonesia under its normal range of facilities.

  The table shows the number of export licences granted and refused for export to Indonesia in the past five years:

  Year

  Granted

  Refused

  1990

  100

  0

  1991

  89

  2

  1992

  106

  1

  1993

  98

  0

  1994

  81

  5

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been mounted under the Financial Services Act 1986; and how many were successful. [26108]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A number of organisations may bring prosecutions under the Financial Services Act. Details are not kept centrally. Information is being sought and I will write to the hon. Member further.

  Trade, Bangladesh
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when an official United Kingdom trade mission last visited Bangladesh. [26921]

  Mr. Needham
  The last official United Kingdom trade mission to visit Bangladesh was organised by the DTI's southern Asia advisory group and took place between 12 and 15 November 1994. The mission was led by the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the amount of trade between the United Kingdom and Bangladesh in each of the last three years. [26923]

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Trade figures: United Kingdom/Bangladesh 1992–94

  £ million

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Exports

  39.4

  54.3

  55.7

  Imports

  95.0

  140.1

  156.0

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when an official trade mission from Bangladesh last visited the United Kingdom. [26919]

  Mr. Needham
  The last official trade mission from Bangladesh to visit the UK was a Jute delegation led by Mr. M. Janibul Huq, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Jute, between 6 and 18 June 1993.

  Lyonnaise des Eaux
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions officials or ministers of his Department met Lyonnaise des Eaux before the announcement of the proposed bid for Northumbrian Water. [26317]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Officials from my Department and the Department of the Environment met representatives of Lyonnaise des Eaux on one occasion before the proposed bid was announced. The meeting was concerned with the regulatory issues which any bid would raise.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Ministers or officials in his Department discussed the proposed bid for Northumbrian Water by Lyonnaise des Eaux with Ofwat prior to the announcement taking place. [26318]

  Mr. Heseltine
  In view of the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991, there were contacts between officials from the Department of the Environment and the Director General of Ofwat about the legal and regulatory implications of the proposed bid. DTI officials were present at one meeting.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money was paid to United Kingdom shipyards by way of European Union's seventh directive
  241
  on shipbuilding intervention fund in the last year for which records are available, and how much has been paid to United Kingdom shipyards since the intervention fund was introduced. [26159]

  Mr. Eggar
  Shipbuilding intervention fund payments to United Kingdom merchant shipyards amount to £15.3 million from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 and £604.7 million since the scheme was introduced.

  Steel Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  (Sheffield Hillsborough): To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new recruits have been taken on in the steel industry in each of the last three years. [26392]

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of new recruits who have been taken on in the steel industry in each of the last three years was:

  thousands

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of entrants

  3.1

  2.3

  n/a

  Source:

  Eurostat.

  Industrial Federations
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by industry the industrial federations with which he has held meetings since 1993. [26681]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My ministerial colleagues and I have had meetings with a wide range of industrial and commercial representative bodies.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had in the past 12 months from(a) the Engineering Employers Federation and (b) the Confederation of British Industry's national manufacturing council. [26680]

  Mr. Eggar
  Ministers and officials of my Department have frequent contact with the EEF and the CBI national manufacturing council.

  Employer's Organisations
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the employers' organisations with which he meets. [26682]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet industrial and commercial representative bodies when issues of mutual interest arise.

  Export Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, columns 902–3, concerning the percentage change in United Kingdom export unit values for manufacturers relative to those of the Six, if he will publish the corresponding figures for Italy. [26560]
  242
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is given in the table.

  Percentage change on previous quarter in Italian export unit values relative to others in the other EEC61

  Change on previous quarter

  1987ql

  -1.5

  1987q2

  0.0

  1987q3

  0.0

  1987q4

  0.6

  1988ql

  -0.4

  1988q2

  -0.9

  1988q3

  -2.7

  1988q4

  0.4

  1989ql

  0.4

  1989q2

  0.6

  1989q3

  1.8

  1989q4

  -0.9

  1990ql

  0.5

  1990q2

  1.5

  1991ql

  2.1

  1991q2

  1.1

  1991q3

  0.5

  1991q4

  -0.5

  1992ql

  2.0

  1992q2

  -0.4

  1992q3

  -1.4

  1992q4

  -9.9

  1993ql

  -1.1

  1993q2

  4.0

  1993q3

  0.5

  1993q4

  -1.7

  1994ql

  2.3

  1994q2

  1.6

  1 UK, Belgium/Luxembourg, France, Netherlands and Germany. 1. Unit value indices in US$ for EEC(6) are weighted together using total trade weights.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 902–3, concerning the percentage change in United Kingdom export unit values relative to those of the Six, if he will list the increase in relative unit values between the fourth quarter of 1976 and (a) the fourth quarter of 1986 and (b) the second quarter of 1994; and if he will provide comparable information for the non-Six EEC countries and the non-EEC countries. [27083]

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested relating to EEC Six and non-EEC countries are given in the table. Unit value indices for manufactured goods are readily available only for those EEC countries listed in table D6 of the monthly review of external trade statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Percentage change in the UK export unit values for manufacturing relative to EEC 61 and non-EEC2 countries between 1976 Q4 and a) 1986 Q4 and b) 1994 Q2

  a

  b

  EEC 61

  17.1

  29.6

  Non-EEC2

  10.7

  20.4

  1 United Kingdom, Belgium/Luxembourg, France, Netherlands and Germany.

  2 United States, Japan, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, columns 902–3, concerning the percentage change in United Kingdom export unit values for manufactures relative to those of the Six, if he will publish for the corresponding quarters the changes in the volume of

  243
  exports of manufactures by the United Kingdom and the EEC Six respectively. [26561]

  United Kingdom

  Belgium/Luxemburg

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Netherlands

  1987 q1

  2.6

  1.3

  3.1

  2.9

  -2.7

  3.9

  1987 q2

  8.2

  8.7

  7.0

  3.8

  3.7

  7.3

  1987 q3

  -1.7

  -13.3

  -6.9

  -3.1

  2.8

  -8.1

  1987 q4

  23.7

  27.5

  24.5

  21.1

  19.2

  25.6

  1988 ql

  -8.5

  -0.4

  4.6

  -9.1

  -14.0

  -1.7

  1988 q2

  11.4

  3.9

  4.4

  8.3

  18.9

  5.2

  1988 q3

  -8.0

  -16.4

  -16.5

  -10.3

  -15.7

  -9.8

  1988 q4

  14.7

  23.6

  18.8

  21.2

  23.9

  16.5

  1989 ql

  -4.4

  2.4

  5.4

  -6.1

  -11.5

  -2.0

  1989 q2

  0.7

  1.0

  1.6

  1.0

  13.9

  -1.0

  1989 q3

  -5.9

  -13.0

  -15.8

  -6.2

  -7.4

  -9.0

  1989 q4

  17.6

  18.2

  26.5

  14.3

  18.6

  17.5

  1990 ql

  -1.7

  10.7

  8.5

  9.6

  -3.8

  9.9

  1990 q2

  8.6

  -2.6

  -1.6

  -5.2

  13.6

  -1.0

  1990 q3

  0.5

  -2.0

  -4.7

  0.1

  -7.3

  0.1

  1990 q4

  19.4

  18.4

  22.6

  16.6

  21.5

  15.5

  1991 ql

  -14.7

  -1.0

  -2.5

  -2.9

  -10.6

  -2.9

  1991 q2

  0.6

  -10.8

  -8.0

  -13.4

  -4.0

  -11.2

  1991 q3

  -7.1

  -13.1

  -7.5

  0.2

  -12.3

  -2.9

  1991 q4

  17.3

  18.5

  21.0

  14.2

  26.4

  13.8

  1992 ql

  -9.5

  2.7

  1.3

  -0.6

  -6.8

  -1.0

  1992 q2

  8.8

  0.5

  -0.8

  -4.7

  4.4

  -0.4

  1992 q3

  -3.7

  -5.0

  -2.4

  10.3

  -0.9

  3.4

  1992 q4

  -0.8

  3.7

  3.4

  -1.6

  -1.7

  -0.5

  1993 ql

  -3.5

  n/a

  n/a

  -16.8

  n/a

  -13.2

  1993 q2

  2.5

  n/a

  n/a

  -1.0

  n/a

  5.3

  1993 q3

  -5.4

  n/a

  n/a

  -6.7

  n/a

  -5.7

  1993 q4

  10.4

  n/a

  n/a

  16.4

  n/a

  11.4

  1994 ql

  -2.6

  n/a

  n/a

  -7.2

  n/a

  -4.5

  1994 q2

  5.1

  n/a

  n/a

  14.2

  n/a

  1.1

  1994 q3

  0.3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1.9

  1994 q4

  13.3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  OECD Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade—adjusted for trade in miscellaneous goods.

  UN Monthly Bulletin of Statistics

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 April, Official Report, column 909, concerning the percentage change in the UK export unit values relative to those of the Six, what effect the reduction in relative exports unit values between the second quarter of 1988 and the first quarter of 1990 had on the volume of imports from the exports to(a) the EEC and (b) the EEC Six, and if he will list in

  UK trade with the EC-12 (percentage change on previous quarter)

  Six-month lag

  Twelve-month lag

  UK export unit values1

  Import volume

  Export volume

  Import volume

  Export volume

  1988 Q2

  2.0

  6.1

  -2.5

  1.3

  -1.0

  1988 Q3

  -0.5

  0.2

  3.5

  -0.3

  5.5

  1988 Q4

  -1.7

  1.3

  -1.0

  0.5

  2.7

  1989 Q1

  -1.5

  -0.3

  5.5

  0.4

  1.4

  1989 Q2

  -2.5

  0.5

  2.7

  -0.3

  2.6

  1989 Q3

  -0.6

  0.4

  1.4

  -1.2

  3.0

  1989 Q4

  -4.3

  -0.3

  2.6

  -3.9

  2.9

  1990 Ql

  -3.1

  -1.2

  3.0

  -2.5

  1.8

  1 UK export unit value indices in $US, relative to those for EC6.

  Departmental Performance
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what
  244
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested is given in the table.

  each case the corresponding increase in imports and exports time-lagged by (c) six months and(d) 12 months. [26930]

  Mr. Needham
  The available information on relative export unit values and the volumes of trade with the other 11 EC countries is given in the table. Estimates for the effects on imports and exports, of unit values in isolation from the other relevant factors, are not readily available.

  are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set. [26231]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  All DTI management units and agencies are required to set specific performance targets in MINIS. These targets vary from unit to unit to reflect the diversity of activities undertaken by the Department, and are designed to ensure high performance and quality
  245
  of service. All performance measures and targets are monitored and reviewed annually in MINIS to ensure that they are challenging and will lead to continued improvements in output and performance.

  More detailed information about individual management units' performance measures are published annually in the Department's MINIS documents. A copy of MINIS 94 is available in the Library of the House. MINIS 95 will be available next month. Agencies' targets are published in their annual reports.

  Consumer and Export Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring up to the present date the information contained in the answer of 19 December 1980,Official Report, column 361, comparing the rise in consumer prices and export prices in Japan and the United Kingdom from 1952 to 1979; and if he will list the corresponding figures for the average annual rate of growth of GDP for each of the last 30 years. [27127]

  Mr. Needham
  The information is in the table:

  UK and Japan—changes in consumer and export prices 1952 to 1993

  Percentage change 1952–93

  Consumer prices

  Export unit values1

  United Kingdom

  1,243

  795

  Japan

  553

  11

  1 In terms of US dollars. Comparable figures in terms of national currencies are not readily available.

  United Kingdom and Japan—growth of real GDP 1964 to 1994

  Per cent.

  UK

  Japan

  1964

  5.4

  11.7

  1965

  2.9

  5.8

  1966

  1.9

  10.6

  1967

  2.3

  11.1

  1968

  4.4

  12.9

  1969

  2.4

  12.5

  1970

  2.1

  10.7

  1971

  1.6

  4.3

  1972

  2.8

  8.2

  1973

  7.6

  7.6

  1974

  -1.5

  -0.6

  1975

  -0.7

  2.9

  1976

  2.7

  4.2

  1977

  2.6

  4.7

  1978

  2.7

  4.9

  1979

  2.7

  5.5

  1980

  -2.0

  3.6

  1981

  -1.2

  3.6

  1982

  1.8

  3.2

  1983

  3.7

  2.7

  1984

  2.0

  4.3

  1985

  4.0

  5.0

  1986

  4.0

  2.6

  1987

  4.6

  4.1

  1988

  5.0

  6.2

  1989

  2.2

  4.7

  1990

  0.6

  4.8

  246

  United Kingdom and Japan—growth of real GDP 1964 to 1994

  Per cent.

  UK

  Japan

  1991

  -2.1

  4.3

  1992

  -0.5

  1.1

  1993

  2.2

  0.1

  1994

  3.9

  1.0

  Source:

  IMF International Financial Statistics.

  OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  OECD Economic Outlook.

  OECD Annual National Accounts Vol. 1.

  CSO.

  Social Audit
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research is being undertaken into the development of a social audit for companies; what action is being considered to support the publication of a social audit by companies or to include the provision of this information within the annual report; and if he will make a statement. [26917]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department is not undertaking any research into the development of a social audit for companies or considering any action to support the publication of a social audit by companies.

  Community Business Sector
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figures are available on the community business sector of the economy; what action he is taking to collect further information on the extent of the community business sector; what discussions he has undertaken with the representatives of community business in the United Kingdom; what proposals he has under consideration to improve the climate for developing community business further; and if he will make a statement. [26916]

  Mr. Page
  My Department does not keep statistics on the community business sector of the economy and has no plans at present to collect this information. The formation of community businesses is essentially a matter for the members of the individual community.

  Co-operative Sector
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the main types of organisation involved in the co-operative, mutual and non-profit sectors of the economy; what comparisons by size he has made between those sectors with the company sector for comparable industrial and commercial categories including banking, insurance and retailing; what action the Government are taking to foster and develop the co-operative, mutual and non-profit section of the economy; and if he will make a statement. [26925]

  Mr. Page
  The main types of organisations involved in the co-operative, mutual and non-profit sectors of the economy are building societies, friendly societies, credit unions and industrial and provident societies. Directly comparable figures for this sector and for company sectors in similar categories are not available.

  As part of the deregulation initiative, the Government have reviewed the legislation governing the activities of building societies, industrial and provident societies, credit unions and friendly societies. New draft legislation

  247
  for building societies is proposed for early in the next Session, which will allow them to operate more flexibly and to offer a wide range of products and services. Amendments to legislation governing industrial and provident societies, credit unions and friendly societies will be laid before Parliament on 26 June under the order-making power of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to fund innovative co-operative projects along the lines of those provided in the three years following the demise of the co-operative development agency; what funding is available for this type of project in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [26927]

  Mr. Page
  My Department supported projects to the value of over £100,000 in 1993–94. There are no plans to fund development projects specifically related to co-operative businesses in the current financial year.

  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is being provided through the offices of the local enterprise agencies to the development of the co-operative form of enterprise; what contacts exist between the local enterprise agencies and co-operative development agencies; and what action the Government are taking to ensure that those providing information and advice on the setting up of new business are aware of the co-operative alternative and can provide such information and advice where that is appropriate or requested; and if he will make a statement. [26918]

  Mr. Page
  Local enterprise agencies advise start-up businesses about the opportunities available to them locally. This will include access to finance, counselling, training and impartial advice on a range of subjects including the co-operative form of enterprise.

  The network of enterprise agencies has local links with co-operative development agencies. Individuals seeking self-employment may be referred from one to the other. A number of co-operative development agencies also operate as local enterprise agencies in their own right.

  My Department has funded the development of a resource pack related to co-operatives for business advisers working with micro-businesses. It is being disseminated through a number of regional seminars to which the main providers of information and advice, business links, training and enterprise councils and enterprise agencies, have been invited.

  Recorded Deliveries
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Post Office recorded delivery(a) letters and (b) packages were lost or failed to reach their destination in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Scotland, for each of the last three years. [26588]

  Mr. Page
  The Post Office tells me that this information is not available. Recorded delivery items travel with first and second class post and are segregated only at the point of delivery so that a signature can be obtained. Details of inquiries and complaints about recorded delivery items are not recorded separately but are held with queries about standard postal services.

  Oil Exploration, Falkland Islands
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on negotiations between British Gas and YPF for oil exploration and exploitation in waters around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [27257]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to impose(a) an operational tie and (b) other restrictions on occupancy where these did not exist previously; what changes have been made in these powers since 1987; and what representations he has received on this subject in the context of the forthcoming rural White Paper. [26641]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables the local planning authority to impose conditions on the grant of planning permission—similar powers were contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which preceded this legislation. Our policy on planning conditions is contained in Department of the Environment circular 1/85—Welsh Office 1/85. Among other things, this makes it clear that conditions should be imposed only where they are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.

  Additional guidance on the use of conditions in respect of agricultural and forestry dwellings is contained in annex E to planning policy guidance note 7: "The Countryside and the Rural Economy". This explains that when granting permission for a new agricultural dwelling, local planning authorities may impose an occupancy condition not only on the dwelling itself but on any existing dwellings on the unit which are under the control of the applicant, do not have occupancy conditions, and need at the time of the application to be used in connection with the farm. Such a condition may help to protect the countryside against the risk of pressure for new houses.

  A number of responses to the rural White Paper have included comments on restrictions on occupancy.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he gives to local authorities as to the legitimacy of planning decisions made when councillors taking part in the decision-making process had acted contrary to the common law principles of natural justice; [27022]

  (2) what guidance he gives to local authorities as to the legitimacy of planning decisions made when councillors taking part in the decision-making process had acted contrary to guidance contained in DOE circular 8/90 "The National Code of Local Government Conduct". [27021]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning policy guidance note 1 advises on the approach which decision makers should take when considering planning applications. In addition, a copy of the 1993 report, "Enquiry into the Planning System in North Cornwall District", was sent by this
  249
  Department to all English planning authorities. This gives advice on the need to follow proper procedures when dealing with planning applications and contains a summary of the sanctions available to the Secretary of State and others where national policy guidance is ignored.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region for each local authority(a) the housing revenue account subsidy in 1995–96, (b) the total amount of rent rebates to be paid to local authority tenants during 1995–96, (c) the number of local authority tenants and(d) the difference between the total amount of rent rebates and the housing revenue account subsidy in 1995–96; and what is this difference expressed as an amount per tenant. [27010]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of a table setting out the information requested, based on the latest estimates provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total amount of rent rebates to be paid to local authority tenants in England in 1995–96, the total housing revenue account subsidy for local authorities in England during 1995–96, the difference between these two amounts, and this difference expressed as an amount per local authority tenant. [27009]

  Mr. Curry
  Based on the latest subsidy claims from local authorities, the figures are as follows:

  £

  (a) Estimated cost of rent rebates in 1995–96

  4,460 million

  (b) Estimated Housing Revenue Account subsidy in 1995–96

  4,071 million

  (c) The difference between (a) and (b)

  389 million

  (d) The difference (c) expressed as an estimated amount per tenant

  113

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list total central government financial support to(a) Pendle, (b) Bath and (c) Bournemouth in 1994–95. [26974]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Central Government support comprises support for capital spending as well as revenue spending. The latest available figures for 1994–95 are as follows. Differences between districts' overall level of revenue support depend on a large number of factors including the size of the tax base from which council tax can be raised, as well as the Government's assessment of relative expenditure needs.

  £000's

  Pendle

  Bath

  Bournemouth

  Revenue Support Grant

  3,700

  3,694

  8,591

  Redistributed Non-domestic Rates

  2,758

  2,704

  5,133

  Specific and Special Grants inside AEF (excluding SSA Reduction Grant)

  195

  247

  683

  SSA Reduction Grant (SSA review)

  726

  0

  1,037

  Specific and Special Grants outside of AEF

  9,187

  10,618

  33,652

  250

  £000's

  Pendle

  Bath

  Bournemouth

  Total Revenue Support

  16,566

  17,263

  49,096

  Credit Approvals

  1,246

  3,422

  2,489

  Capital Grants

  1,392

  946

  850

  Total Central Government Support

  19,204

  21,631

  52,435

  Source:

  Revenue Support items: Revised Estimates from RA96 return.

  Note:

  Credit Approvals and Capital Grants: most recent Capital Payments Return. The figures for credit approvals relate to basic and supplementary credit approvals issued, less receipts of specified capital grant.

  Sludge
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the regulations for the application of sludge to farm land. [26939]

  Mr. Atkins
  The use of sewage sludge on farm land is controlled by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, SI 1989/1263, as amended (SI 1990/880).

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash and running costs limits in 1995–96. [27751]

  Mr. Gununer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and supplementary estimates, the following cash and running cost limits will be revised.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 1, housing and construction, covering sections B C D and H of that vote in original estimates, will be reduced by £135,214,000 from £247,204,000 to £111,990,000. This change reflects the transfer of responsibility for net expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office from class VII, vote 1 to class VII, vote 3.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 2, regeneration and countryside and wildlife, will be increased by £450,000 from £1,499,883,000 to £1,500,333,000. The change reflects an increase of £450,000 for the national parks supplementary grant to finance the setting up costs of the new national parks authorities which will be funded from retained PES provision.

  The non-voted cash limit DOE/RCW will be increased by £1,350,000 from £1,480,883,000 to £1,482,233,000. This reflects the increase of £450,000 in class VII, vote 2 and a further increase of £900,000 in respect of non-voted derelict land grant supplementary credit approvals which were omitted from the original cash limit.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 3, environmental protection and water, will be increased by £140,214,000 from £171,321,000 to £311,535,000. The change reflects a transfer of £135,214,000 from the cash limit for class VII, vote 1 in respect of net provision for energy office expenditure; and provision of £5,000,000 to cover the initial starting up costs of the new Environment Agency.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 4, local government and planning, will be reduced by £33,000 from £30,087,143,000 to £30,087,110,000 to reflect savings in expenditure by the Valuation Office agency and valuation tribunals. The savings will be used within vote 4, to cover a residual payment of unaccompanied children grant, which is part of the non-cash-limited section of the vote.
  251
  The cash limit for class VII, vote 9, PSA Services, will be reduced by £10,534,000 from £46,905,000 to £36,371,000 and the gross running cost limit on this vote will be reduced by £12,931,000 from £52,931,000 to £40,000,000. The reduction reflects savings achieved in the residuary functions in severance figures and secondee numbers arising out of the most recent forecasts.

  Increases on votes 2 and 3 will be fully offset by reductions in other cash-limited expenditure and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Second World War Bomb (Island of Portland)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial assistance to Weymouth and Portland borough council under the Bellwin scheme for the costs incurred in dealing with the second world war bomb on the Island of Portland between 1 and 3 April 1995. [27841]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified given the exceptional nature of this incident. A scheme will therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs which are above a threshold, and which have been incurred by Weymouth and Portland borough council in dealing with the bomb and evacuating residents from the Island of Portland between 1 and 3 April 1995.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to make amendments to the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations as they affect boat builders and similar industries. [27859]

  Mr. Atkins
  The systems of integrated pollution control and air pollution control brought in by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have successfully taken root. The industries they regulate are set down in the prescribed processes and substances regulations.

  It is important that th6 regulations are regularly reviewed, to take account of experience of operating the two systems, changing industrial practices, new information about the pollution potential of different industries, and the like. I have today issued a consultation paper which contains proposals for a relatively small number of adjustments to these regulations arising out of just such a review.

  The consultation paper is being circulated widely to relevant industry and trade associations, local authorities, and environmental groups, with a request for comments by 21 July. I am placing a copy of the paper in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to revise the minimum and maximum contract periods for services subject to compulsory competitive tendering under the Local Government Act 1988. [27860]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In August 1994, my Department issued a consultation paper inviting comment on the minimum and maximum contract periods for work then subject to the Local Government Act 1988. In it, we asked 252
  whether, in the light of experience, the existing statutory minimum and maximum contract periods need to be changed. The responses were mixed, but after careful consideration I have decided that changes to the existing contract periods are needed.

  I have today issued to the local authority and trade associations for consultation a draft set of regulations which will increase the minimum and maximum contract periods for a number of defined activities subject to CCT. The new periods will apply except where the work consists wholly or mainly of work for education establishments.

  The new contract periods are as follows, with old periods in brackets:

  Years

  New Minimum period

  New Maximum period

  Collection of refuse

  6(5)

  10(7)

  Other Cleaning

  5(4)

  10(6)

  Maintenance of grounds

  5(4)

  7(5)

  Repair and Maintenance of vehicles

  5(4)

  7(5)

  Managing sports and leisure

  5(4)

  10(6)

  There will be no change to the minimum and maximum contract periods for building cleaning, school and welfare catering or other catering services. The changes will also not affect the recently introduced new manual services or white collar services. The contract periods which will apply to contracts for work wholly or mainly at educational establishments shall be unchanged from those which previously applied to authorities with educational functions.

  A number of respondents observed that it seems illogical that, for some services, shorter contract periods apply to work tendered by an authority with education functions even where the contract in question does not involve any work at an educational establishment. Therefore, separate contract periods will no longer be specified for local education authorities as a whole. Instead the shorter contract periods shall apply only to contracts consisting wholly or substantially of work for educational establishments.

  There can be no doubt that longer contracts will provide a greater incentive to contractors to invest in the services which they provide and thus improve the quality of those services. They will also reduce the average cost of that investment by allowing it to be spread over a longer period. In addition, contractors have indicated that, as longer contracts are of greater value to them, they would be more likely to bid for work if contract periods were to be increased. Improved levels of competition will ensure that bids are more competitive and local authorities will have more choice in deciding who to invite to bid. The combined effect will be to improve greatly the value for money which is obtained in the provision of local authority services.

  Longer contract periods will also encourage local authorities and tenderers to take a longer view when making plans for service provision. The greater stability and continuity which longer contracts provide will assist in the planning of long-term projects such as recycling schemes.
  253
  However, we do not intend to increase the minimum contract period of any service by more than one year. Instead, we propose to make significant increases to the maximum contract periods for certain services to allow local authorities the discretion to tender longer contracts where it is beneficial to do so.

  These changes will not affect tenders in progress for which a tender notice specifying a contract period has already been published.

  An announcement about Wales will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales shortly.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) of 16 March,Official Report, column 692, and the letter of 5 April placed in the Library from the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency concerning joint venture agreements entered into by the agency (1) if he will

  £000

  Medical and front-line support

  (1) Administrative and clerical

  (2) Directly employed NHS staff

  (3) FHSA contractual staff

  (4) Total columns (2) and (3)

  1979–80

  27,837

  159,593

  27,238

  186,831

  1980–81

  33,986

  220,857

  36,434

  257,291

  1981–82

  36,702

  239,751

  40,921

  280,672

  1982–83

  37,504

  261,243

  46,444

  307,687

  1983–84

  42,697

  278,551

  50,538

  329,089

  1984–85

  46,136

  303,396

  56,803

  360,199

  1985–86

  48,130

  327,455

  55,020

  382,475

  1986–87

  50,430

  360,269

  63,485

  423,754

  1987–88

  57,170

  408,732

  70,996

  479,728

  1988–89

  63,526

  475,481

  82,607

  558,088

  1989–90

  73,630

  542,564

  86,186

  628,750

  1990–91

  87,367

  593,407

  91,753

  685,160

  1991–92

  107,018

  626,260

  121,454

  747,714

  1992–93

  124,152

  683,080

  124,219

  807,299

  1993–94

  141,321

  697,545

  128,429

  825,974

  Source:

  Annual Accounts/Financial Returns of HAs, SHAs, FHSAs, NHS Trusts, and Welsh Office records.

  Notes:

  1. Column (1) figures include the salaries and wages of general and senior managers, and administrators and clerks in health authorities, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS trusts, including agency staff. The figures exclude the costs of GPs' administrative staff as this information is not separately collected.

  2. Column (2) figures include the salaries of medical, dental, nursing, professional and technical staff employed in HAs, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS trusts. They exclude the costs of ancillary, maintenance and ambulance staff. They also include in 1993–94 £14.3 million associated with the pre-registration salary/bursary costs of nurses. In previous years these cost were reflected in health body accounts, and are in the figures above for earlier years. From 1993–94 these funds have been managed by the Welsh Office.

  3. Column (3) figures include the estimated earnings of dentists, and GP's and their staff costs, (medical and administrative as information to allow splitting of these costs is not collected). Those for pharmaceutical and ophthalmic contractors cannot be disaggregated from service costs and are not included.

  4. The reduction in administrative and managerial numbers in health authorities resulting form current policy will be reflected in the 1994–95 figures available shortly. Total numbers of administrative and managerial staff are now 193 below the peak level.
  254
  list the total costs to public funds of those projects listed in each of the financial years given; [25295]

  (2) what was the cost to public funds of agency involvement for each project listed. [25296]

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Service Costs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the costs of(a) managers, (b) administration and (c) medical staff in the health service in Wales for each year since 1979 in current prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information relating to managerial and administrative staff is not collected separately, and is shown Collectively as column 1 of the following table.

  Figures previously given in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 13 December 1994 are restated, and the amount for 1992–93 in column 1 revised, due to an error in the accounts of one health authority. The adjustment has been notified and confirmed by the authority concerned.

  The information is as follows:
  255

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual cost to his Department of staff leaving under redundancy or early retirement schemes to incorporate (i) added years lump sum payments, (ii) redundancy payments, (iii) pension payments, including enhancements and (iv) any other special arrangements for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) projected for 1995–96 and(d) projected for 1996–97. [25472]

  Mr. Redwood
  The costs to the Department of early retirement and redundancies are borne from the Department's running costs provision.

  A detailed breakdown of the various costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The total costs borne on the Department's running costs in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were £100,789 and £823,558 respectively. For 1995–96, the amount is estimated at £220,000. Projections for 1996–97 will be determined during the coming public expenditure survey.

  Life Styles
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research into rural Welsh life styles his Department has commissioned since 1 January 1990. [26498]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office together with the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency commissioned a study on life styles in rural Wales in April 1991. The work was undertaken by Professor Paul Cloke, then of the geography department at the University College of Wales, Lampeter, and supported by a team of his colleagues. A final version of this report was presented to the Welsh Office in April 1994.

  Rural Wales
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's estimate of the estimated percentage of people in rural Wales living on the poverty line; and what statistics his Department publishes on these data. [26500]

  Mr. Redwood
  Statistics on patterns of household disposal income, for the United Kingdom as a whole, are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1991/92", published in July 1994, a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not available on a regional basis.

  Brock plc—Contaminated Soil
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet residents at Sea View farm to hear their views concerning proposals to dump contaminated soil by Brock plc. [26357]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Brock plc has appealed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the public inquiry is to be reconvened on 19 June. Residents should make their views known to the inspector in writing at the planning inspectorate, Welsh Office, Cathays park, Cardiff CF1 3NQ.

  Staff
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of civil service posts, including positions in executive agencies but excluding technical appointments at grades 1 to 6 which have been 256
  advertised, together with the number of applicants, interviewees and appointees broken down to show (a) civil servants and (b) non-civil servants for each year from 1 January 1990 to 31 December as a whole in Wales. [26943]

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Office of Public Service and Science on 6 June 1995 at column 138.

  Draft Local Plans
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the draft local plans that have been submitted to his Department to date and those that he has approved. [27138]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is consulted about local plans at draft and deposit stage. To date, draft area-wide local plans have been prepared for the Brecon Beacons and Pembrokeshire coast national parks and for the districts of Ceredigion, Colwyn, Cynon Valley, Dwyfor, Merthyr Tydfil, Montgomeryshire, Newport, Port Talbot, Radnorshire, South Pembrokeshire, Taff Ely and Torfaen. Area-wide local plans have reached deposit stage in Alyn and Deeside, Bleanau Gwent, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Cardiff, Dinefwr, Islwyn, Monmouth, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Rhondda, Rhymney Valley, Vale of Glamorgan, Wrexham Naelor and Ynys Mon. Local plans, adopted by the authorities concerned, currently cover Arfon, Blaenau Gwent, Delyn, Glyndwr, Lliw Valley, Neath, Ogwr, Rhuddlan, Rhondda, Swansea and Wrexham Maelor. In due course, some of these will be replaced by new area-wide plans.

  Full monitoring of local plan preparation is carried out by the Welsh Office every six months and the results of the latest survey will be published soon.

  Skills
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on estimates of skills shortage recorded in private or public surveys which he has evaluated; what measures are being taken to tackle existing skills shortages; and if he will make a statement. [25765]

  Mr. Richards
  The 1994 Welsh employers survey covered nearly 3,000 employers in Wales. It found that 5 per cent. of establishments had vacancies that were hard to fill and 2 per cent had hard-to-fill vacancies due to lack of skilled applicants.

  Reports of other recent surveys conducted for employers organisations suggest that the percentage of firms expecting a shortage of skilled labour to limit output is increasing. However caution must be attached to the findings of regional analyses based on small samples which are liable to significant margins of error. "People and Prosperity: and Agenda for Action in Wales" published on 20 March sets out a concerted plan of action to improve skills levels in Wales.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make an order requiring British Gas, British Telecom, MANWEB, SWALEC, Dwr Cymru and other major privatised utilities to prepare schemes for the implementation of the Welsh language Act 1993, and if he will make a statement; [26552]
  257
  (2) what assessment he has made of the judgments of the House of Lords and European Court of Justice in respect of the cases of Foster and ORS v. British Gas (1994) ICR 84, and ORS v. South West Water Services Ltd. (1994) with regard to the operation of the Welsh Language Act 1993, and if he will make a statement. [26553]

  Mr. Richards
  It was not intended that the provisions of part II of the Welsh Language Act should be applied to the private sector. The Government remain of the view that, despite recent legal judgments, even if it is within the Secretary of State's power to specify some or all of the privatised utilities under section 6(1)(o) of the Act, those bodies should not be so specified.

  However, many private companies, including privatised utilities, have produced Welsh language schemes voluntarily and in response to customer demand. The privatised utilities have, I believe, a particularly good record of operating bilingual policies successfully.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on anti-asthma medication and preparations, per family health service authority, for the last two years for which figures are available. [27178]

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Expenditure

  Family Health Services Authority

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  3.260

  3.702

  Gwynedd

  2.024

  2.345

  Powys

  0.766

  1.046

  Dyfed

  3.259

  3.691

  West Glamorgan

  3.551

  3.902

  South Glamorgan

  3.553

  3.536

  Mid Glamorgan

  3.382

  6.182

  Gwent

  3.549

  3.997

  These figures show expenditure on bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, cromoglycate and related therapy. Some of these preparations are prescribed for indications other than asthma.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure per capita in Wales on anti-asthma medication and preparations for the last five years for which figures are available. [27179]

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure per capital £

  July-December 19891

  2.49

  1990

  5.49

  1991

  6.52

  1992

  7.63

  1993

  8.78

  1994

  9.89

  1 Information not collected prior to July 1989.

  258
  These figures show expenditure on bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, cromoglycate and related therapy. Some of these preparations are prescribed for indications other then asthma.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue a consultative draft of new policy planning guidance notes for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27225]

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall be issuing such a draft shortly.

  Police Diving Teams
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on police diving teams. [27139]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  In connection with its responsibilities, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary holds details of the number of full-time police officers, and civilian police staff, involved in underwater search duties in each force in England and Wales.

  There are 18 underwater search teams in England and Wales. Forces which do not have their own unit, or share one, may arrange for diving support to be brought in from neighbouring forces.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Intestate Estates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people have died intestate in the latest years for which figures are available whose estates have transferred to the Duchy of Lancaster. [26731]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Records are maintained by reference to the date of reporting and of closing of cases, not necessarily by reference to the date of death.

  During the last three years for which figures are available, the number of intestate estates the value of which after disposal of assets was transferred to the Duchy of Lancaster, was, for the year commencing 1 October in each case:

  1991–92: 148

  1992–93: 148

  1993–94: 131

  These are also referred to as "closed cases".

  The number of cases reported to the solicitor for the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster for the same three years were:

  1991–92: 425

  1992–93: 421

  1993–94: 388

  The cases referred to as "closed" above were not necessarily included in those reported in the relevant three years.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many estates under the intestacy
  259
  provisions in the County Palatine passed to the Duchy in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and how many devolved, after investigation, to surviving blood relatives. [26725]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of estates which passed to the Duchy in 1993–94 were 131. The figures are not yet available for 1994–95.

  The number of estates which devolved to surviving blood relatives—kin—in 1993–94 were 32.

  These 32 estates were not necessarily reported as closed during the year 1993–94. Of the total number of cases reported in 1993–94–388—some will be included in the "closed cases" for that year; some in the cases which devolved to surviving blood relatives—kin—after administration; some would have remained under administration at the end of the year; and the balance would have been transferred to blood relatives before administration was completed.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1995–96 cash limit and running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Science. [27756]

  Mr. Horam
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science—class XVIII, vote 1—will be increased by £2,123,000 from £50,590,000 to £52,713,000 and the gross running cost limit will be increased by £13,003,000 from £69,846,000 to £82,849,000. Net running costs for the Civil Service College will decrease by £1,849,000 from £1,849,000 to zero. The increases result from a transfer of civil service management of superannuation functions, and provision from Her Majesty's Treasury—class XVII, vote 1. The increase will be offset by a transfer and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

European Legislation and British Interests
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the exchanges involving the Earl Howe and Lord Peyton of Yeovil on 4th May (HL Deb., col. 1481), they agree that European legislation poses serious threats to a wide range of British interests including London buses, lettuce growers and fishermen; and that those threats cannot reasonably be described as "myths".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we do not share the view that every legislative proposal originating from Brussels threatens British interests. Action at Community level has created the single market, which is of huge benefit to both British businesses and consumers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that British interests, who may at least feel that damaging legislation from Brussels threatens them, have little choice but to rely on the Government to support them in their negotiations with the Commission? If she does agree, does she appreciate that those interests may be altogether more honest and less polite when talking to those of us who did not support the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty than they are when talking to the Government, who did support those Acts and who therefore bear heavy responsibility for the damaging legislation in question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend without any fear of contradiction that if those in business have a point to make, as they often do, and they do not put that point directly to government, they have nobody to blame but themselves if the resulting measure is not to their liking.
The point is this. Brussels is not out to destroy British institutions or practices. Many of its proposals reflect a desire to open markets and encourage free trade. If the proposals from Brussels affect British interests, then we will take them up. But it is in nobody's interest for business to say one thing to government and something else to people who would undo the benefit that we have had from the European Union.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister suggest to the Leader of the House that a special committee be established in which such questions, about square lettuces and round buses, can be raised by those who want to make a nuisance of themselves without imposing on the rest of the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward a very interesting idea. I hope that he is offering himself as chairman of such a committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness has used this occasion to emphasise twice what she describes as the benefits to European industry, and indeed to Britain, will she consider at some time, if necessary at leisure, the necessity for producing a White Paper or a detailed description for the benefit of the public as to precisely what the benefits are that she has so emphasised this afternoon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would have thought that some of the benefits are known to those who read unbiased reports of what is going on. Membership of the European Union has made Britain a magnet for inward investment. Since 1979, more than 635,000 well-paid jobs have come to the UK because of the investment that we have gained; that includes more than a quarter of a million jobs in the past five years alone. Britain attracts one-third of all inward investment that comes into the European Union: 43 per cent. from the US; 41 per cent. of Japanese investment; and 50 per cent. of Korean. That investment would not have come to this country if we were outside the European Union. There is a lot more like that. I am quite certain that we shall find a way to publish it to the noble Lord's liking.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how deeply I regret that anything I said may have led my noble friend who asked this Question to conclude that I lacked sympathy with the problems of fishermen, lettuce growers or London buses?
I sought in my supplementary question to raise the point as to whether my noble friend, in asking such persistently negative questions, might not achieve the very reverse of the result that he wants; namely, to reduce our influence to put these matters to rights. Will my noble friend comment on the fact that it seems rather odd persistently to leave out the benefits to British industry?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton in that I find it lacking in balance to leave out the benefits. In every society or organisation that one joins, one has a responsibility to make sure that it goes in the right direction. Based on a recent CBI survey I can tell my noble friend that, interestingly, only 2 per cent. of members interviewed believed that Britain would be better off outside the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, seems to have forgotten that the single market was a British initiative. It is that single market that has so greatly expanded the opportunities for British firms. Again, a recent CBI survey showed that 71 per cent. of firms were enjoying greater trading opportunities with Europe due to the single market. More trade means more jobs, and that is why we want it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we should like to congratulate her upon the robust common sense of her Answer and the forthright language

1349
in which she expressed it? May I assure her that, if the Government continue speaking in that vein, they will receive the support of the Opposition?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to the noble Lord and say that I shall always speak as I find and that is the truth.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the benefits that she has just outlined are gratifying to most people who have the interests of this country at heart? But is she certain that, in attributing the list that she gave to the fact that we are members of the European Union, she is not overstating the case? Does she not feel that the fact that we have a common language and are not connected with the social conditions which add to costs are also reasons for the list that she outlined to us in her Answer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was talking about the attraction of investment into Britain. Britain takes 41 per cent. of all Japanese investment into the European Union and 50 per cent. of the Korean investment. We do not have a common language with them. I do not believe that I am overstating the case. I came into politics from industry. I still keep links with industry to keep myself informed about what industry is thinking. I challenge my noble friend to find business people who would contradict the fact that 71 per cent. of firms say that they are enjoying greater trading opportunities with Europe owing to the single market.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, was the noble Baroness as surprised as I was to hear from the Liberal Benches a statement that people who ask questions in Parliament are a nuisance? Will she accept that I believe that that is what Parliament is all about; namely, we come to Parliament and ask questions? Is she aware that it is not a myth that at the present time the European Parliament, and indeed the European Commission, want to introduce qualified majority voting into defence and foreign affairs? Is she further aware that many of them now believe, and say, that what they want is a country called Europe? Is that the Government's policy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was going to say something rather nice about the noble Lord. He has an absolute right to ask questions, but the fact that he sometimes bases those questions on information that is a long way from the facts obviously worries people who want a debate on the facts. There is no way in which the Government will have a country other than Britain. There is no such country as Europe. There will not be such a country as Europe. Let me also say that we have made clear many times that Britain will not accept moves to abolish the national veto. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about that and I can give him comfort.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, as always, I am in the hands of the House; but we have three more Questions on the Order Paper.

Road Traffic Restrictions: Slow Vehicles
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a highway authority may ban certain vehicles from travelling on roads at particular hours of the day on the basis of the speeds at which they can travel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): Yes, my Lords. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers traffic authorities to make orders regulating the use that any particular class of traffic may make of any road.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. Is he aware that Essex County Council is consulting on proposals to ban from certain roads at peak times vehicles that are not capable of travelling at more than 30 miles an hour? Such a ban would include milk floats, contractors' plant and farm vehicles, at which the ban is particularly aimed. Will he accept that the evidence that slow-moving traffic causes congestion at peak hours is tenuous, to say the least? Does he agree that in areas where many farms are divided by such roads, so that the only means of access is across or along those roads, such a ban would only be appropriate where an alternative means of access is available?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those powers exist and have existed for some time. It is worth noting that they have been used extremely rarely. My noble friend is correct. Essex is looking into the possibility of introducing some restrictions. But I should emphasise that there are safeguards. Before introducing any kind of permanent traffic restrictions, the traffic authority must publish details of its proposals and consider any objections and representations received against them.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most frustrating experience on a motorway is to be following an abnormal load—a wide load—that cuts three lanes to one lane and causes tailbacks and occasionally accidents? In view of the fact that the Police Community Liaison Committee has suggested night-time movements only for such abnormal loads and the majority of hauliers support that suggestion, why is it not done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are already restrictions on the types of vehicle that can use motorways. The safety considerations that the noble Lord highlights are important. The fact that people become frustrated when travelling behind a slow-moving vehicle can lead to unsafe situations. Our motorways are safe roads and we already take into consideration the kind of factors that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, one of the reasons for traffic congestion is that many contractors cone off sections of the road without any men working behind the cones. Would it not be a good idea to ban contractors from putting up cones unless there are men working on the road?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is why we introduced the cones hotline.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when I drove to the House this morning I found that on one stretch of the road I was travelling at over 40 mph. Was I breaking the law?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to inform me on which road he was travelling.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it was Kennington High Road.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, without notice I could not tell the noble Lord whether he was breaking the law. However, I suspect that it is a 30 mph zone and the noble Lord should report himself to the police.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not much more likely that my noble friend thought that he was driving at 40 mph, but in fact he was only driving at 30 mph or less?
The House is grateful to the Minister for pointing out that a very real problem exists, particularly on narrow roads. It is obvious that that is the situation which caused Essex County Council to consider its rather draconian action. Does the Minister agree that the activities undertaken by the National Farmers Union in issuing guidance notes and in undertaking consultations with police authorities in order to try to mitigate the problem is perhaps the right course to follow at this juncture? The guidance notes include the provision that farmers should avoid taking tractors on roads at busy times whenever possible. Would it not be a good idea to see what result that guidance from the NFU has had?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, these are important issues. Safety is a major concern and there is a great deal to be gained from the type of approach the noble Lord highlighted; namely, talking to the relevant authorities and keeping in touch with the police.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the cones hotline. On a value-for-money basis, will he be good enough to tell the House what the estimated cost is for each call to the hotline?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that without notice. I shall endeavour to find out and let him know.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the whole question of road improvement is likely to become more difficult should a policy of restriction of this sort become more general? It is inevitable that landowners will demand and have to be supplied with expensive accommodation works to guarantee access across roads or along roads if they are not able to travel on highways at certain hours. Not only will that impose delay on the construction of improvements, but it will also add dramatically to costs.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is not a widespread policy. It is designed for use where specific problems are caused by slow-moving vehicles. There would also be enforcement problems with such a policy which may dissuade certain authorities from bringing it forward. Inevitably, where traffic restrictions are brought forward,
1352
that will inconvenience some members of the community. The inconvenience must be taken fully into account by councils in coming to their decisions.

Nuclear Power
2.54 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, according to The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK (Cm. 2860), they are not willing to fund the building of a third nuclear power station at Sizewell.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the question of funding for a new pressurised water reactor station at Sizewell C was examined extensively in the nuclear review. The Government would need to be convinced that there were compelling strategic reasons for using taxpayers' money to build another nuclear station when the private sector is unwilling to do so. The nuclear review found no such reasons.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that building a nuclear power station is extraordinarily expensive and unlikely to be funded by the private sector? Consequently, will he confirm also that in around 10 years' time there will be only one nuclear power station left, Sizewell B, and that will be producing only around 3 per cent. of our electricity, while the remaining 97 per cent. will have to come from fossil fuels plus a few windmills? Inevitably the damage to our environment will be much greater than if we had gone down the nuclear road.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that building nuclear power stations is an expensive exercise. However, if it is possible to find private finance to build the Channel Tunnel, then it is possible to find private finance to build a nuclear power station provided it is economical. The independent consultants looked at the development of fuel diversity since the electricity privatisation in 1990 and the likely future trends. They concluded that the mixture of different fuels for electricity generation was unlikely to fall below the levels of the 1980s during the period up to 2010. Providing public sector support for a nuclear power station would constitute a significant intervention in the electricity market. In the light of the consultants' report, Her Majesty's Government concluded that there was no case for public support for a nuclear build.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government aware that on this occasion they are to be congratulated on coming to the inevitable conclusion? Anybody who reads the report and is able to come to a contrary conclusion will do so because of a preconception that it is necessary to build the reactor. The report proves conclusively that private enterprise will not build it and the Government are well advised not to invest public money in a project which is unwanted and the end of which is unforeseeable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not quite know what to say. Congratulations from the noble Lord on anything that the Government have done is sometimes like the kiss of

1353
death. However, I shall not accept it as such, but merely as congratulations which he wishes to bestow and for which I am grateful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government bear in mind that nuclear power stations do not cause air pollution or acid rain in the way that coal and oil-fired power stations do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Nuclear power stations do not produce greenhouse gases or acid rain gases. There are various environmental arguments in favour of them. But, the nuclear review looked at all that and concluded, nevertheless, that there was no case for public intervention, which would distort the market.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that estimates have been given by economists who are well-versed in the subject of nuclear power that Sizewell B is likely to produce a derisory amount from its sale in consequence of privatisation proposals? What do the Government say about that? Will the Minister also comment on assertions that have been made that part of the nuclear levy, which was designed to deal with the decommissioning of nuclear plants, has been used as a subsidy for Nuclear Electric's ongoing operations? Is that right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the fossil fuel levy was due to end on 31st March 1998. It will now end in 1996 when the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the pressurised water reactors are privatised. It was used specifically for the purposes of decommissioning. I do not agree that the sale of the nuclear industry would produce derisory sums. The noble Lord will have to wait and see. But I merely advise him of what the chairman of Nuclear Electric said—that he welcomed the acceptance that privatisation was the first step in safeguarding the industry's future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister saying that no part of the fossil fuel levy has ever been used for Nuclear Electric's ongoing commercial operations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not saying that. I was saying that the purpose of the levy was to pay for the decommissioning of the nuclear power stations when that comes about.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I agree with the Government's conclusion that there is no economic case for another nuclear power station, and by past experience I have been competing with nuclear power. Nevertheless, it is important from this country's point of view that we should retain an expertise in nuclear power. Can the noble Earl say what measures can be taken to maintain that expertise?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord's concern, which I believe many people share. Nuclear Electric is the operator of a pressurised water reactor and therefore there will be a United Kingdom capability to operate, maintain and upgrade those kinds of stations, so that expertise will remain. The skill base will help to provide the basis for re-establishing a reactor construction capability should that be required.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the money which has been paid by way of levy been retained in a special fund which cannot be touched by Nuclear Electric for any other purposes after privatisation? Can the Minister say to what extent liability which will fall on Nuclear Electric will be affected by variations in the expected life of nuclear reactors, which differ perhaps from the accounting life of 30 years which I believe has been assumed in the accounts of the corporation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the purpose of the levy was to provide funds for decommissioning the reactors. That money has been paid and is available for that purpose.

St. Pancras Chambers
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any estimate of the cost of restoring the St. Pancras Chambers to a state of repair appropriate to a Grade I listed building, when they expect to conclude their search for a proper long-term use, and what measures they have in mind to prevent further degradation of the building.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the cost of restoring the St. Pancras Chambers will depend upon the future use of the building and the timing and scale of any refurbishment scheme. These will be matters for the nominated undertaker of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, acting within a framework comprising: the normal legislative provisions; agreements with English Heritage and the local planning authority; and special requirements for St. Pancras imposed by the Government.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend seek an invitation to visit the chambers from the present custodians of this unique building; namely, the British Rail Property Board, which does not have the taste, inclination or the resources to put that building into the state of repair which would be proper? While he is there perhaps he would take the opportunity to visit the higher floors where he will find that pigeons have made a home. He can say "Hello" to them and satisfy himself that the building is in fact not suffering that degradation to which he referred last time I raised this matter.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for railways has recently visited the chambers. I shall certainly find it interesting to visit them myself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the plans used by Gilbert Scott for this magnificent Grade I listed building, which must be preserved at all costs, were originally prepared for the Foreign Office building in Whitehall? Is the Minister further aware that that he used them for St. Pancras only because the government of the day did not accept those plans, their taste being for the neo-Palladian? Incidentally, I do not suppose that it would appeal to the Government to use the building for its original purpose and move part of the Foreign Office there—perhaps that part dealing with Europe—given that when the new line

1355
is built it will be necessary only to go downstairs to catch the train to Brussels. On a slightly more serious note, would not a private owner be likely to be landed in considerable trouble if he failed properly to maintain a building of this quality?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed he would. That is part of the consideration that the bidders will be taking into account in putting forward their bids, which will have to include their plans for the proper use of St. Pancras Chambers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend at least join with me in congratulating my noble friend Lord Peyton on his stalwart efforts in helping to restore the fabric of St. Pancras? Will he go further and agree with me that those efforts have been much more successful this afternoon than his earlier ones at restoring the decaying fabric of the European Union?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hate to intervene in a private argument, but I believe that it has been considerably to the advantage of the House for this Question to be aired this afternoon.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Gilbert Scott's Grand Midland Hotel was, and still is, under the dust and the scaffolding, a masterpiece of Gothic Romanticism and that it is quite inappropriate to pass this building to a private company, even within the constraints that he has announced? Do the Government agree with English Heritage that this treasure should be restored to its former glory and use as a great hotel at the gateway to the Continent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is entirely proper that a private undertaker should be involved in this matter. Of course, the fabric of the chambers will be needed to a certain extent to provide the terminus. The parts of the building which are not required will be subject to the normal planning legislation. We believe that a proper long-term future needs to be established for this building. That will be achieved through a proper commercial environment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I was interested to hear from my noble friend that his honourable friend the Minister for road and rail, I think he said, had visited the building. Will he let me know whether his honourable friend reached any useful conclusions or made any judgments about the state of the building; or did he keep his eyes tight shut?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that my honourable friend, as a result of his visit, determined that the Government's policy and proposals were entirely appropriate for the building.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, while I obviously have no prejudice against such a building going into the private sector, nonetheless will my noble friend remember the tragic fate which Battersea Power Station suffered when it went into the hands of a wholly unsuitable private developer?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, and County Hall!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have put considerable safeguards in place. There is a special heritage agreement as regards this site.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood set down for this day shall each be limited to three hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Child Support Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 30,

Schedule 3.—(Lord Inglewood.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Parties: Funding
3.7 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the case for an independent inquiry into the present arrangements for the funding of political parties; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that there are few more disturbing aspects of our present-day national life than the low and falling esteem in which politicians are held. That was obviously a revelation which much struck Nolan—I say brusquely, "Nolan" rather than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to indicate that I am referring to the collectivity rather than the individual—and to some considerable extent that thought infuses his committee's report.
This view may be exacerbated by the exceptional unpopularity of the present Government. But I believe that the causes go a good deal deeper than that. Ministers, despite—to put it at its most charitable—their recent run of ill luck, do not score in the Nolan table all that much worse than the rest of us. In any event, I have a strong feeling that self-righteousness is often as dangerous as it is always unattractive, and that we should all be careful to avoid,
"Compounding sins we are inclined to,
By condemning those we have no mind to".

1357
Nevertheless, it is clear that strenuous efforts have to be made to retrieve the desperately low current standing of the political class, and indeed of the political process, because if that cannot be done, there are grave national and social dangers there involved. The key to such retrieval is thought, hopefully and probably rightly, to be transparency. When the Prime Minister appeared to stand against that current of opinion for a few brief days after the publication of Nolan, he found the wind distinctly uncomfortable, and, like a sensitive feather, quickly moved in response.
The first Nolan Report did not cover the financing of political parties, although it, and associated pronouncements from its members, managed to leave the strong impression that the committee's inability to deal with it left it with a deep hole in the middle. That is my strong view.
The recent actions of a number of Members of Parliament who have provoked the excitement, are squalid and wholly unacceptable if there is to be any chance of the public again looking up to their legislators and representatives. But the events which provoked the excitement have not been likely seriously to pervert the course of government. Parliamentary Questions asked for gain, or even amendments tabled in someone else's name, are offensive peccadillos, but the answers to one are unlikely to divert the course of administration, and the amendments would probably not be carried.
Any malfeasance as a result of the corrupt financing of political parties could be of an altogether different order of magnitude. I hope and think that it is rare that Ministers ever alter their decisions in accordance with an awareness of those who subscribe and those who do not. If there is a danger, it will be more subtle than that. Where a decision is marginal, a desire to please those whom it is helpful to please is a natural human reaction. Beyond that, there are other dangers and disadvantages in the present semi-secret arrangements for the financing of political parties and, above all, of one of them—the Conservative Party—because it is, or at any rate has been until recently, overwhelmingly the greatest beneficiary of company and large individual donations.
There are some undesirable aspects—if I may say so—to Labour Party finance. The dependence upon trade union subventions and those of two or three large unions are proportionately bigger than any individual contributions which the Conservative Party receives. Set against that there is the fact that the Labour Party shows considerable signs of being anxious to get away from such dependence, and that even if undesirable, it is at any rate open and not secret. There are also one or two small pools of obscurity in Labour Party private financing, and indeed in Liberal Democrat financing also.
We have offered to clear them fully up on a reciprocal basis. We might be wise—Labour and Liberal Democrats alike—to do so even on a unilateral or, I should more accurately say, a bilateral basis. So we come back to the Conservative Party. Two features stand out from the reading on this issue that I have done in the past week or so. First, the Conservative Party remains dedicated to secrecy. Secondly, it is mostly uncomfortable and defensive about it.
I had not until recently studied at all closely the proceedings and report on the funding of political parties of the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, which sat in 1993–94. The proceedings were frankly a revelation to me. There was none of that spirit of cross-party objective inquiry which so often characterises the work of Select Committees.
Every contested decision was taken on a strict party basis and went to the casting vote of the Conservative chairman. Furthermore, the taking of evidence—it is impossible to read it without seeing this—was done much more on a point-scoring than on an information-seeking basis. It was adversarial politics at their worst. It was a striking example of what produces Nolan's starting point—the low esteem for politicians.
I hope therefore that there will be no question of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, or anyone else, arguing that this Motion is otiose because the matter was fully investigated last year. You cannot dispose of a serious issue of national importance on the casting vote of a chairman after a straight party vote. You can bring the proceedings to a close by that means, but that is different. You cannot settle it.
However, the reason that I brought in the Select Committee of the other place at this stage was to illustrate the point I was making about the defensive uneasiness which sits alongside the Conservative devotion to concealment on this issue. That was splendidly illustrated when there was a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, as a former treasurer, should be invited to give evidence, particularly as Sir Norman Fowler had several times said that he could speak only for the previous 12 months, because his period of office had only then begun. That proposition for an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, was defeated—again, only on the casting vote of the chairman—with all Conservatives voting unanimously no, which indicated either a great respect for the time of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, or a considerable lack of confidence in his discretion if he appeared before the committee.
Apart from that lack of frankness, there are other worrying features to the issue. There is inherent unfairness. It is far from that over-used cliché—as I think—of a level playing field. There is the difficult issue—and it is a difficult issue—of overseas gifts. There is the fact that there have undoubtedly been several big donations from those who have turned out to be very unsavoury figures. There is the entanglement of the issue with honours lists.
I do not want to make too much of that last point which has a certain tradition, although not a high one—in British politics.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that comes well from a member of the Liberal Party!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, no, there is a common misapprehension about that. I believe that at the time when Lloyd George was Prime Minister certain issues of that sort arose. But that was not when he was Prime Minister of a Liberal Government; it was when he was Prime Minister of an overwhelmingly Conservative coalition, with the Conservative Chief Whip being every bit as much involved in those arrangements as anyone

1359
else. However, we are not debating 1921 to 1922. I shall leave that aspect of the matter, but not the matter itself, there.
I said that I do not want to make too much of it. There is thought to be the safeguard of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. But there is a considerable coincidence between the generosity of companies and the advancement in rank of their chairmen or managing directors. There are also the striking, the memorable, words of the late Lord Shackleton. He was a member of that small committee for many years, and, as I think will be generally agreed, a notably unabrasive, and, in a slightly different sense of the word, generous Member of your Lordships' House.
He, in 1993—quite recently—was worried about roundabout donations through Conservative-front organisations, not to the party itself. He said:
"There is an obvious gap here. It is highly likely that these secret donations are by-passing the scrutiny system and that honours are effectively being bought".
So, there are a lot of complicated and difficult issues here. There is plenty to inquire into.
No doubt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will seek to hold the line and will do so rumbustiously and maybe ingeniously as well. But I would ask him and his supporters to take one thought away from the debate. They are defending a perimeter which will not hold even over the next five years. It will clearly not survive a change of government. But even without such a change, and everything is possible, I have sufficient faith—just—in the eventual responsiveness of the Conservative Party to an overwhelming current of opinion to believe that, nonetheless, there will be an inquiry; there will be a change; there will be a reform.
The question is: how and when? The Prime Minister is one of the most experienced evacuators of untenable positions. The trouble is that he often evacuates tenable ones as well. But how much better it would be for him, and maybe ultimately for his party, if for once, instead of waiting to be pushed by the eruption of some new scandal into a panic setting up of an ill-thought-out inquiry, he were to be ahead of the game and with proper deliberation either, preferably, let Nolan look into this field or, if he preferred, set up another appropriate body. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate today. Clearly, the funding of political parties is an important issue and it is most relevant in a democratic society; therefore, I welcome the fact that he has raised the issue today. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with the purpose of his Motion, which is, of course, to set up yet another inquiry on the subject.
When I first looked at the Motion and considered what the noble Lord might say, I believed in my innocence that he would offer alternatives to the present situation. Having listened to the noble Lord, I realise that he has made a good party political speech designed to do down the Conservatives. Now that we all know exactly where we stand we can have a good go at the subject.
1360
I was delighted that the noble Lord complained about the present Government because, after all, at the time of the last Liberal Government everyone knew the old adage, "Lloyd George knew my father and my father knew Lloyd George", and what fell from that. However, people then lived in a much more fortunate society because, although I am the first to say that, as Prime Minister, Lloyd George did many good things for the country, no one would believe that he had an impeccable private life. Before we start criticising everyone we should recognise that everyone is human and is prone to sin. We might all remember that.
I was most surprised that the noble Lord's speech boiled down to a criticism of the Select Committee which reported in March last year. In preparation for the debate, I read that report, as I am sure have all noble Lords who are to speak in the debate. It goes into a great deal of detail about the funding of political parties, including the possible state funding of parties, and makes a series of recommendations. All of them have been accepted by my party. If the committee behaved as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, described I cannot imagine why those who did not agree with the result did not provide a minority report, which they have not done—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I allowed the noble Baroness to go on with her fantasies about Lloyd George presiding over a Liberal Government when it was 80 per cent. Conservative supported, but I cannot allow the last comment. There was a minority report, which appears in the report of the Select Committee. That was voted upon and defeated by the casting vote of the chairman—and only by the casting vote of the chairman—as was every single decision of that non-partisan committee.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the minority report was not from a Liberal member of the committee—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there was no Liberal member on the committee.
Baroness Young: My Lords, there is nothing undemocratic about exercising a casting vote; it is done frequently in committees. If we are going to pick and choose which aspects of constitutional procedure can be used, we can criticise any report at any time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that politics and politicians have been denigrated generally. He is right about that and makes a serious point. It is a very serious situation. Democracy is being downgraded the whole time and I believe that the result of the Nolan Report will be a worsening effect on political life because we shall increasingly find that people will not want to stand for Parliament. That will be a most serious outcome, but I hope that I shall be proved to be wrong. It is certainly a possible conclusion to draw.
One must ask oneself why Parliament is being denigrated—and it is not just Parliament and politicians. When one looks around society one can see that it applies to the Royal Family, the Church and so forth. Every British institution is now subject to denigration of one kind or another. It is a serious matter for this country that all those well-established institutions are held in such disregard.

1361
Much of it stems from the media. As regards Parliament, one of the great tragedies is that within living memory—I cannot remember the exact time—Parliament was reported fully in what was then called the "quality press". The House of Lords was reported fully. What do we get now? We get at most some clever political correspondent giving us about 10 inches of column saying, "Wasn't it clever that so and so knocked off the Minister and the Minister knocked off the Back-Bencher?". The whole thing is reduced to the level of farce. Therefore, is it surprising that politicians are denigrated? It is a most serious matter. On that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
I turn to the setting up of the Nolan Committee. The reason that it came about was that two Conservative MPs were, in fact, set up. All right, they behaved foolishly, unwisely and, quite possibly, very wrongly. I accept all of that and I do not intend to defend it. But what is equally wrong is to set people up. I well recall that when I became a Minister one of the first things that happened to me was a visit from members of MI5 warning me of the dangers of talking to communists. There was a little more to it than that but that was the purport of the visit.
It so happened that at that time my husband was about to attend a conference in East Germany and I was told to warn him about the dangers too. People were set up, which was regarded as despicable. Why it should suddenly become less despicable because the press does it I simply do not know, but it is a good example of today's double standards. No wonder that young people in particular see Parliament and politicians as appearing to be endlessly arguing with one another, self-seeking and usually self-righteous. The only people to gain from all that are those who want to do down democracy. The point of today's debate is to discuss the funding of political parties.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Young: Noble Lords may well say, "Hear, hear!", because it is important. The alternative way to fund parties will be some form of state funding because nobody has reached any other conclusion. Of course, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in 1976 recommended that there should be a certain amount of state funding but that was not taken up by the then Labour Government. There was a subsequent report in 1981 by the Hansard Society which took a slightly different line but, again, that was not accepted. The Nolan Committee is not looking into that matter because it is outside its terms of reference. There is now the latest report from the Home Affairs Select Committee which makes various recommendations about the funding of political parties.
It is just as well to rehearse the reasons why people are concerned about state funding of political parties. It seems to me that the most important reason is that it will undermine the voluntary principle in British politics. That is an extremely important matter. Voluntary organisations of any sort function when individuals contribute to them. Although it is useful to have some state money, once there is too much, the organisation ceases to be voluntary and becomes something quite different.
1362
It is very important that the thousands of people who contribute to different political parties should do so. That is the measure of the strength of democracy and it is one of the few measures which shows that democracy is still strong in this country.
Quite apart from that, many taxpayers would resent deeply paying taxes to parties with which they do not agree. Some would even feel that it was a waste of taxpayers' money to be spending it on political parties rather than on policies which they wished to see implemented. But there is no evidence that I can find that either controls on political contributions or state financing of political parties prevents political corruption. Indeed, in some countries where there have been elaborate systems of control and state funding, widespread allegations of political corruption have occurred. Therefore, there is no evidence that such measures improve matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, very unfairly and unkindly attacked the Conservative Party and what it is doing. Therefore, it may be just as well to remind the House that in the financial year 1992–93, which is the last year for which there are full accounts, 70 per cent. of all Conservative Party income was raised in the constituencies. I am quite certain there is no one sitting on this side of the House who has not been involved in that activity many times over. Of the remaining 30 per cent., 60 per cent. came from companies. Those donations are subject to statutory disclosure under the Companies Act 1985 and it falls to the company, not to the party, to make that disclosure. Individual donations and direct mail make up the remainder. The fact that individuals choose to support a party is, after all, a matter of private choice.
I have been involved, as I am sure have all your Lordships, in a great deal of fundraising for many causes. No matter what the cause, there are always many individuals who wish to remain anonymous; and why should they not do so? We are free to give our money to the causes of our choice, but we do not necessarily want everyone to know that. I see no reason why that should not apply in party politics as in other areas of life.
It is extremely important to note that the Conservative Party has accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee, including its code of practice. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of that because there seems to be some doubt about it. First, it provides that money does not buy or influence honours; illegally obtained money should not be acceptable and, if discovered to be so obtained, should be returned; substantial anonymous donations should be refused; donations from foreign governments and rulers should be refused; and benefits received in kind and income over which the party has control, such as sales and fund-raising events, should be itemised; and there should be published accounts and an independent audit.
Anybody who has been involved, as I have, for a long time in the Conservative Party, knows that at local level, where most of the money is raised, accounts are published and audited independently. Anybody is welcome to go to an annual general meeting and wade through them. There is nothing secret about that.

1363
I deeply resent the purport of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was saying; namely, that there are many people who are somehow conniving to defeat the system and who are taking bribes of one sort or another. There is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The noble Lord has not produced a shred of evidence, but has just made a lot of unpleasant allegations which I think he should withdraw. I think that they are a disgrace.
One of the most dangerous aspects of politics now-a-days is that such allegations are made unsubstantiated by any evidence whatever and they are then assumed to be true. In my view, that is one of the most dangerous things that is happening today.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying something about what I personally believe to be very important. One of the most significant statements made by the committee is:
"We accordingly conclude that trust in the integrity of the party concerned must suffice and that there is no need for precise and binding rules to be laid down for the contents of a party's accounts".
Once there ceases to be a measure of trust in people, society becomes involved in a very dangerous position. Individual responsibility is undermined by suggestions that everybody is on the make in a way that I do not believe they are. If such unnecessary suggestions are accepted, they further damage democracy.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating the debate. On these Benches we fully support the need for an independent inquiry into the funding of political parties.
Democracy depends crucially on the vitality and real and perceived integrity of political parties. The principle of transparency in the financial affairs of politicians and political parties should not be controversial in a mature democracy, and it is a great shame that it is necessary to have this debate today.
The Government argue that politics is a private affair; that donating to a political party is a personal matter; that disclosure of corporate or individual donations is not necessary. Politics can never be a private affair. Political parties are vehicles for political and social action and are for people who wish to effect change. A representative democracy cannot function well without political parties and political parties cannot survive well without money.
The aim of any independent inquiry would not be to prevent political parties raising money; it would be to ensure that it is raised in an open and democratic way. The Labour Party has made it clear that the Nolan Inquiry should have had the opportunity to look at how political parties raise their funds and there should not have been left the hole that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. But we should not be surprised that that was resisted by the Government, considering that the Prime Minister, in response to a Question for Written Answer on 31st October on whether the Nolan Committee should look at political funding, gave a categorical "No", referring rather to the investigation by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
What was important and what worries me about the findings of the Select Committee is that the committee had to accept that there was a lack of openness and that
1364
that lack of openness feeds suspicion; that the current legal position is both unsatisfactory and unfair; that the electorate is entitled to expect accountability by political parties for their sources of funding; and that all parties should have an adequate level of funding consistent with their level of popular support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, it would appear that it did not identify areas of cross-party agreement and rejected a number of key and fundamental factors which would have satisfied those anxieties. The committee's terms of reference included the question of state funding. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Houghton will elaborate on the detail of the 1976 Houghton Report, which is still the definitive work on state funding.
I shall confine my remarks to indicating that the Labour Party believes that there should be an extension of state funding, particularly in the area of political education. That might assist with some of the problems that the public currently experiences in understanding politics and politicians. It would not in any way detract from the voluntary principles mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which are absolutely crucial.
The principle of state provision was introduced by the decision to draw up electoral registers, to fund political party broadcasts, to build into election law the production and distribution of polling cards, free post and the free use of public halls.
There is also financial assistance to Opposition parties in order to help them pursue their parliamentary functions; and the state provides an estimated £1.2 million to political advisers of Ministers. The question has been asked as to how far we wish to push that principle. An independent inquiry would help to solve that problem. There are questions that need to be asked and answered, which is why an independent inquiry is so important.
In 1989 your Lordships' House passed an amendment to equate the position of company donations with that of trade unions. That was unfortunately rejected in the other place. The Select Committee also saw no reason to change the rules. I should like to compare that situation with the accusations that are levelled at trade union support of the Labour Party. Those accusations have not been made, I hasten to add, by any noble Lord who has spoken today.
Pejorative and misleading statements have been made and they are used as a political ploy. The reality of the situation is that the affiliated trade unions are an integral part of the federal nature of the Labour Party. The monies that are received are subject to the established rules and are disclosed by the unions in their accounts and by the Labour Party. The often deliberate attempt to mislead ignores the fact that every delegate to conference—I am referring to 70 per cent. of the trade unions—must be an individual member of the Labour Party. Under the new rules every delegate will vote individually.
The open and above-board relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions contrasts sharply with the obscurity of Conservative Party finances and the very limited regulations of company donations as compared with those applying to trade unions.
The political involvement of trade unions is more highly regulated than any other institution and is strictly supervised by the certification officer. The unions are

1365
required to hold a ballot to create a political fund, which is reviewed every 10 years, and members can opt out of that fund. They are required to have separate accounting. Union donations derive from decisions made by their members.
Company donations are subject to no such restrictions and, therefore, that is something that should be looked at. The only requirement under the Companies Act 1985 is that donations are post facto reported in the directors' report if they are over £200. There is no political fund; there is no reference to shareholders; there is no ballot; they do not have an opt-out facility and the donations are not recorded in Tory Party accounts.
Lord Chelmer: My Lords, I should have made a speech but I am not well. Directors refer the donation to the shareholders and that appears on the agenda of the meeting. I gave evidence to the committee to which the noble Baroness referred as producing the standard work on this subject. With two exceptions that Committee consisted either of Labour Party members or trade union members.
I was a treasurer of the Conservative Party for 17 years. During that time no one person gave me any money in connection with some benefit that he or she might receive. One man—and it is greatly to his dishonour—entered into a deed to give me £1 million under certain circumstances, which I was not able to fulfil. When he died, on his gravestone he was still "Mr".
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. It is correct to say that directors report to their shareholders, but that is after the event and not before it; therefore they are not taking the decision. It was a matter of humour in the newspapers recently that the Labour Party turned down a proposed donation of £5 million because there were strings attached to it, and the Labour Party is not prepared in any way to allow strings to be attached to a donation in the way that has been mentioned.
There is no political fund and no reference to shareholders, no ballot and no opt-out facility.
Even this minimal requirement is rendered ineffectual by the provision that company accounts can take up to two years before they are lodged at Companies House. If shareholders were to challenge the decision of the directors, they would no doubt be defeated by the block proxy votes of the institutions.
Occasionally, however, voices can be heard. A donation by Thames Water of £5,000 to the Conservative Party before the last general election caused a major outcry and a considerable negative response from customers and shareholders alike. That raises the issue of whether or not there should be a period of time between privatisation and the ability to make donations.
A survey in the Sunday Telegraph of 7th May indicates that the boards of many of Britain's top companies are providing cash to alleviate the Conservative Party's overdraft, ignoring calls from active investors that donations be subject to shareholder approval. In the past five years that money has amounted to £10.85 million, with virtually all of it going to the Conservative Party or organisations that channel funds to it.
1366
However, there are indications of change. The Local Authority Pension Funds Forum, which covers 15 schemes, is stepping up pressure to make donations by boards subject to a shareholders vote. Local council funds are now drawing up a hit list of companies that make big donations but refuse to allow them to be put to the vote. The latest move comes from the GMB union which has launched a campaign to challenge that abuse of democracy.
Although I suspect that I know the reason, I should like to ask why the Government cannot accept that trade unions and companies should operate to democratic parallel positions. Why should there not be ballots of shareholders? Why should companies not have to establish a political fund?
The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that all donations over £5,000 will be disclosed and that political parties should refuse any donations from individuals who are neither British residents nor British nationals. We shall take unilateral or bilateral action to achieve that aim.
The Conservative Party takes a different view, as did the Select Committee, which did not believe that a case had been made out for requiring disclosure of the identity of donors or see any reason for refusing foreign donations.
Labour Research, a trade union research organisation, in an analysis of Conservative Party funding, found that the fall in corporate donations to the Tory Party means that an ever increasing proportion of the party's funds come from undisclosed sources. The £2.5 million traced as donations represents only 27 per cent. of those shown in Conservative Central Office accounts.
Where do those mysterious donations come from? Some of them will be from foreign countries. Some have been identified as coming from individual supporters of the party. However, there must be many more that remain anonymous. Those donations certainly do not come from cheese and wine mornings.
It is interesting to note that the figure of £7 million that the Labour Party received from trade unions is exactly the amount which foreign bankers are reported to have donated to the Conservative Party before the last general election.
Another matter of particular interest are those areas raised by witnesses to the Home Affairs Committee, but which were not followed through in either the conclusions or the recommendations. They include, for example, the question of offshore accounts, donations from privatised utilities, the role of Ministers as fundraisers while on ministerial visits abroad, or the use of Downing Street for fundraising events. If the allegations raised are correct, surely there should be rules governing such ministerial conduct. If they are not, then we really ought to have an independent inquiry to prove that that is the case.
It is also surprising that the Select Committee failed to address the question of a national, maximum expenditure for elections—first, because it is the time of increased activity in fundraising and expenditure by the political parties; and, secondly, because it has been the subject of a considerable number of studies.
In 1991, following a consultation initiated by the then Home Secretary, of which I was part, the Home Office said that all parties, with the exception of the

1367
Conservative Party, agreed that consideration should be given to a system of controls on national expenditure. The arguments against are that it would be difficult to monitor and difficult to control; it would also be unavoidable to give political parties statutory existence which they at present lack. However, I would ask: what have the Government to fear from the registration of political parties? Is it that it would be easier to introduce financial controls and procedures for disclosure of both income and expenditure?
Finally, all those issues remain outstanding, are a source of concern and need to be addressed; and addressed by an independent inquiry unfettered by ideological interests. The lack of transparency and unequal distribution of party funding undermines the democratic process and it reduces the confidence and trust of the electorate in the political system. Is it not in the best interests of all political parties, and perhaps especially those of the Government and the Conservative Party, to support an independent inquiry and some further form or measure of state funding?
3.52 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Motion before your Lordships' House is quite explicit: it calls for an independent inquiry, neither more nor less. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to rehearse the convictions held by some of us that a strong case has already been made out for such funding; nor, for that matter, to endorse the strictures, elegant and balanced though they were, of my noble friend about the present position. The only need—and I thought that it was put very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in her closing remarks—is to recognise that there are issues to be discussed and examined. I should have thought that enough has been said already in today's debate, and certainly more will be said before it is closed, to justify the argument that something should be done. My noble friend said that there is plenty to inquire into. Moreover, whether it was said in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or in that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, or, indeed, whether it will be said in the following speeches, the issue is there. It will not go away. Therefore, why not examine it now?
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, started her speech with a very spirited and partisan attack on my noble friend, which she was entirely free to do. At the end of her remarks, she returned to a rather partisan defence of the status quo. However, in between those two stages, the noble Baroness referred to a consensus and used the word "denigration". I have to say that I do not believe that there is a consensus, unless, of course, the noble Baroness would like to explain herself further.
I believe that the noble Baroness was arguing that the problem with which those in public life are faced today is entirely external to performance. In other words, it is something thought up by the press: it is a deep worm in the wood of society which makes people sceptical about all institutions. Of course, we recognise that social change means that institutions must be examined. If Parliament cannot accept that fact then who can? In my view—and this is where I certainly depart from the noble Baroness, Lady Young—we have brought that, at least in part, upon
1368
ourselves. Therefore, to pretend that no problem exists is simply a form of self-deceit. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am much obliged. I entirely agree with the noble Lord's interpretation of much of what I said. However, the serious point that I was making is that, so far as concerns the public perception of Parliament, what actually goes on—the real work of Parliament, the hard slog on legislation in Committee, and so on—never gets reported and is not heard of. Therefore, the picture which people have of parliamentary life is neither a complete nor a full one.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not wish to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; indeed, I can certainly meet her halfway in that respect. I believe that there are matters about which we should complain. However, if they are beyond our control, then surely we should at least look at those matters with which we are able to deal. That is the context within which we should discuss the Motion before the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that an "unfettered" independent committee would surely be able to look into such matters. I suggest that only those who are afraid of what such an inquiry might discover and recommend can be worried about the appointment of such a committee. We heard my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead refer to the view of the Select Committee in another place. I would strongly support the idea of a committee made up of men and women who have not previously expressed a view on the matter; and, indeed, men and women who are not Members, nor have been, of either House of Parliament. It would still be for Parliament itself—that is, the House of Commons and the House of Lords—to decide, but the inquiry would be independent, unfettered and free from any ideological influences.
We are not discussing a radical new departure; we are discussing a further step in what is an incremental process designed to enable political parties within a parliamentary democracy to function more effectively. That is the main point that I should like to make to your Lordships today. In 1937, for the first time we had payment for the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. In 1975—and I shall return to that later—we had the payment of what is now called the "Short money" which amounts to some £2 million in the current year. In that same year, additional allowances for Members of Parliament were introduced which led to what is now called the "Members' office costs allowance" and by which MPs in the current year receive something over £42,000. Then, 20 years ago, we had the referendum on Britain's membership of the Common Market when the sum of £ 125,000 was paid to either side in that debate. Moreover, as has already been mentioned in our discussions this afternoon, at general election time there are free postal deliveries on behalf of the political parties and of candidates and free television time.
Therefore, it is a fiction to say that what we are suggesting such a committee might look into is something entirely new rather than an extension of a principle which has previously been accepted. The fact is that for political parties, as indeed for individual Members—and, more obviously, Members of another place—parliamentary

1369
work and wider political activity are seamless. A research assistant paid out of public funds prepares speeches for an MP to deliver in Parliament and speeches to be delivered outside in the political campaigning. A secretary paid out of public funds sends letters on behalf of a Member of Parliament to his constituency party, to Smith Square, Walworth Road or Cowley Street.
As we all know—and there is no reason to be embarrassed about it—telephones in the Palace of Westminster are used by MPs and their staff, and no doubt by Members of your Lordships' House, to make calls which are essentially of a political rather than a parliamentary character. All that is inescapable. There is no way of avoiding it and there is no point in pretending that it does not happen. Similarly—I refer to the Short money—financial aid to the political parties that is designed to help them in their parliamentary activities seeps out into the wider political arena. It may be used directly to employ more staff in parliamentary work, working for the leaders of opposition parties, but there is no way of segregating strictly parliamentary business from political activities outside. To put it at its least, state funding for opposition parties in Parliament recognises that if those funds are available other funds can be released for activity elsewhere.
Reference has been made to the Select Committee. However, I must say that my own text—because I think it is a most serious text—is that of the Houghton Report published in 1976. I am sure that the whole House is anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has to say through the perspective of time. There was another report—again that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of the Hansard Society in 1981. But a great deal has happened, certainly since the Houghton Report, although it is fair to ask whether there is anything new to be said or discovered. The very passage of time, taking the Houghton Report as the text, suggests that there are new facts to be discovered and new arguments to be rehearsed.
I shall give your Lordships one example. The key question of the report—I hesitate to interpret the Houghton Report in advance of the remarks of the noble Lord, but this is from the text of the report itself—on state aid was as follows:
"assuming that the parties needed money, would you be prepared for some of it to be provided by the state from public funds"?
That was a question asked in a survey conducted on behalf of the Houghton Committee. The result was an almost equal division of opinion. Some 45 per cent. said "Yes" and 44 per cent. said "No". Given the question that was asked, 45 per cent. seems to me to be a high figure of people saying "Yes". That question included the words,
"assuming that the parties needed money".
There was no reference to the public interest or to our parliamentary democracy. There was no reference to the problems which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. What if the question were different? What if the question were,
"If it would reduce the financial dependence of political parties on business and the trade unions, thus helping to raise standards in public life, would you be prepared to see an increase in the funding currently available to political parties"?
1370
If that were the question, I think we would see a much more positive response, not only to the original question of 20 years ago but also a more positive response than the present question would have elicited that long ago. I make that point because I believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this would be acceptable to public opinion. What I am seeking to put before your Lordships is: given the issue we are facing surely there is at least a very good chance that the public might be persuaded that this was one way of safeguarding our democracy and was a worthwhile route to follow, given that it would only be an incremental stage in the funding of our parliamentary democracy.
I do not believe that we should expect or should contrive to bring about an absolute equality of resources available to parties. My own view is that they should bear a relationship to the ability of the parties themselves to win members and attract electoral support. It is also the case—which all of us know—that there is a diminishing return from expenditure over a certain limit. Therefore an absolute equality is not, I think, what we should be looking for. What we should be saying is that the funding of political parties prima facie, and subject to the work of the independent inquiry, would free political parties from an unhealthy dependence on corporate donors and a handful of rich people with, as a result, the public interest substantially safeguarded.
I was looking the other day at the defence estimates. We spend £21,720 million on defending Britain and our democracy from those who might endanger it. We spend a large sum trying to restore peace and perhaps a democratic way of life in Bosnia. Surely it would be a small price indeed to spend £10 million more of public money to continue strengthening the processes of our own parliamentary democracy.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accompany the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this subject. I think, frankly, it is a pity that he decided to do so, not least from the point of view of the very sensitive issue of our relations with another place. Another place is much more concerned with this matter than we are. After all, election expenses are directly in this category and they are, of course, of direct and continuing concern to every Member of another place. This is therefore a subject which it is natural that another place should be concerned about.
Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, told us, another place has already had a committee of inquiry into this issue and has had a perfectly clear and comprehensive report. Therefore I find it difficult to see that there is any argument why we should go further and set up yet another independent committee to inquire into this matter. I start, I must admit, with some bias against the setting up of more and more committees of inquiry. They are of course enormously expensive. When one sees the actual figures of their cost, one is generally quite horrified. Therefore I would suggest to your Lordships that unless there is an overwhelming case on merit for setting up a committee of inquiry on a subject, we should not do so. Is there such

1371
an overwhelming case here? What useful purpose in fact would be served by so doing other than meeting some of the political prejudices of certain noble Lords opposite?
I hope that we shall decide that we do not want to set up such an inquiry and that we regard it as unnecessary. What is it in fact to do? Is it intended that it should recommend public expenditure in support of election expenditure? I do not know whether it would do that. I profoundly hope it would not. I think it is essential that the funds of political parties should in general be raised by public subscription, by people who believe in the views that that party is expressing and who therefore desire to subscribe to it. Surely that is the wholesome democratic basis for the financing of political parties in our democracy. That approach is entirely inconsistent with the approach of one or two noble Lords opposite who seem to think that this is the sort of matter that should be raked over by a public committee of inquiry, which will of course take a year or two, will spend a lot of public money and at the end of the day is very unlikely to produce anything of real public value. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not be convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, although of course I am the first to admit—
Noble Lords: Lord Jenkins of Hillhead!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, because of course mention of Hillhead may be rather a sensitive matter for him. I certainly beg his pardon. It is indeed Hillhead, with all that did involve for him. I am therefore all the happier that we should reject his proposal quite firmly.
It think these contributions should be essentially voluntary and that those of us who want to should subscribe to the support of the political party of our choice, give it the full financial support which we can afford and see to it that it succeeds as a result of that and, perhaps still more, as a result of the work that we put in. Therefore the idea of a formal inquiry, with all the public expense, all the trouble and all the fuss which is involved, seems to me to be one which we should reject. Is it likely in fact that such an inquiry would get at any real facts which are not normally available anyhow to any of us with any public or political experience? What is it intended to discover? What is it intended to do which would be of any real practical help to the working of our democracy?
If there is a doubt about that—and I suggest to your Lordships that there is at least a doubt about it—then surely to goodness in this day and age, when so many committees of inquiry have been sitting and spending public money in a very substantial way in the course of their work, it really would be the greatest mistake for us to take this step and to suggest to the Government that they should appoint a committee of inquiry.
These political contributions are essentially voluntary. They are given because the individual concerned wants to see the party to whom he is subscribing effective and victorious, because he or she believes that it is in the national interest that that party should gain strength and should obtain a majority. That is the whole basis on which our democracy works; and to go setting up further inquiries of this sort where there is no real subject matter of essential public importance to investigate seems to me
1372
not only a waste of time but also a waste of money. Therefore, it seems to me that we in this House should not, particularly in view of what I have already said about our relations with another place, spend a great deal of time discussing or considering this proposal, but we should say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, "No, thank you".
4.13 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I will begin with two propositions. One is that far too high a proportion of the funding of political parties in Britain today is tarnished money coming from sources which are serving a self interest, sectional or collective, of one kind or another. I will also assert that the undue dependence of the two major political parties in Britain upon the traditional sources of support for funds has done them both a great deal of harm in the estimation of the public about the purity of their intentions and the disinterested approach to political affairs that is desirable.
There is not the slightest doubt about it—I speak from personal knowledge of 30 years—that the Labour Party has suffered from being tied too closely to the trade unions and being dependent upon the political levy for 80 per cent. of its funds. I believe Labour would have come to office years ago had it been freer of dependence on the trade unions. I am glad of the references that have been made to the report of a committee of which I was chairman. I should have liked to hear more about the committees, both of them in their way an important addition to this inquiry made in 1975–76. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is in his place. Surely he was chairman of a committee that went into this matter at great length on behalf of voluntary organisations.
Why am I so far in advance of my time? Here it all is. Why are we worried about a further inquiry? All the spadework has been done and the basic facts and philosophy of the matter under discussion were fully examined in this report. What do you think is in this?— 18 months of very hard work and study, interviews with people, travel abroad, looking at the effect of the funding of political parties in other countries. I can tell your Lordships a few things about the evidence we heard on this committee. Some of it was from representatives of the Conservative agents in the Conservative movement. They were tired of the amount of time they had to spend in money raising. That was the note they struck when they came to see us, and they were very much in favour of some degree of public funds going into the working of our parliamentary and democratic system.
However, we are not proposing to fund politics; we are not proposing to fund political parties for their party political purpose. We are funding the system to enable the democratic process to function properly and to give those engaged in active work the opportunity, free from some of the worries of their present activities, to look at national and political issues from a more detached point of view.
This report had one simple aim—a modest aim indeed: to reduce the dependence of the two major political parties upon their traditional sources of money. That is what it started with, and it finished with that. There was, however, special aid for parliamentary candidates, for those of any political party or of none, standing for

1373
Parliament so that they should get reimbursement of some part of their expenses if their poll was a respectable one and they saved their deposit.
When we first published our report in August 1976, the Labour Party was a bit afraid of that suggestion because it feared that the candidates of the British Union might arrive at Westminster having been funded in part by state money. When we went to Sweden as a committee to look at what was happening there, we found an extraordinary phenomenon: that 19 members of the Communist Party were members of the Swedish Riksdag. We asked, "What are you doing in this galley?" They said, "We are here because we are working the system; we are prepared to work the system and we are going to use what facilities are offered for us to come into parliament". That was how they saw it there, but apparently we were still afraid of British Union candidates in this country.
What does it matter? If they go to the electorate, they will do the sorting out, and if the candidates get a certain minimum measure of public support at the ballot box, then I think we are entitled to reimburse them for part of the expenditure in order that politics shall not be a rich man's playground. However, the report made little impression, as is the case with many reports. I have been chairman of other committees and a member of other committees which have helped to frame reports. Usually those committees are appointed at a time of rising public interest; but by the time the committee reports, that interest has passed. Something else has caught the public ear or interest and the report is neglected.
All that is now required is to consider what the authoritative reports which have already been produced look like in the context of the current situation. Is what we proposed relevant today? Is it desirable to study the matter further having regard to the fact that 20 years have passed since that report and that there is no reason why that experience should not guide us for the future? That is the proposition that I put forward on the Motion today. Noble Lords will be surprised how relevant much of the report is today. That is my message to your Lordships' House. All noble Lords have to do is read the report. If they cannot be bothered to read the evidence, just look at the summary of recommendations. I think that our decisions and recommendations are wise.
I conclude on this note. We travelled throughout Europe and Scandinavia, and sent representatives to Canada and the United States, to see what other people were doing about state aid to political parties. They were all providing it. I submit that, irrefutably, ours is the only country still relying on what we call the voluntary effort. I may be wrong. However, some curious forms of corruption were replaced by state aid in some of the countries we visited. We found in Austria, for instance, that it had long been the tradition that the ruling party in Parliament should have a rake off on all government contracts. That was the way political parties were helped. In Germany, gifts to political parties were tax free. That was the way the parties were helped in Germany. However, all the countries came round to the view that it was better to have the injection of a reasonable amount of public funds in order to enable the party political and parliamentary process to be continued free of any
1374
suggestion of corruption by money. That is the proposition that I leave with noble Lords. I have left a few minutes for other people to take it up.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in view of the sternness of the instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to read his report, I hasten to say that I have read it. The reason for that will become apparent in a moment. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord and to hear in this House the clear, principled voice of youthful radicalism coming from him which we all so much appreciate.
I was struck by the robust debating speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She made an extremely important point on the disrepute into which public organisations and institutions have fallen. It is a matter to which my noble friend Lord Rodgers, referred. However, I put this point to her. Is not one of the reasons that public institutions have fallen into disrepute in this country that we find it peculiarly difficult to find a position of public interest as opposed to partisan interest on which to advance some of those great issues? Although the issue has partisan implications for each party, it should be accepted that in the end it is a matter of the public interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us. It is a sensitive issue throughout the world, not particularly in Britain. Democratic parliaments are elected everywhere. Wherever there are democratic institutions, sensitive issues arise as to whether people seek to use money to acquire special influence or special access to those democratic institutions. We should not be defensive about that; we should recognise that it is a proper sensitivity. As parliamentarians, we are bound to take the issue seriously.
The reason that I read the Houghton Report—although not alone, I suspect that I am among a select number to have done so—is that I was a member of the Hansard Society to which several noble Lords have referred. That body looked into the matter in 1981. I note with interest the vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, considered that inquiries of this kind were a waste of time. I recall the outstandingly valuable contribution that his daughter, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, made to that commission, and how much pleasure we had in her contribution to the unanimous report that we were able to achieve on that occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I believe that he has misunderstood me. It was simply because that report was so full and excellent that I regarded it as a waste of time to have another.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord said that because I shall remind the House of a few conclusions of that report and ask why nothing has been done.
One of the best ways of approaching these tricky matters is to consider what principles are involved. One of the conclusions of the Hansard Society report, and its successor report—it was a joint report between the Constitutional Reform Centre and the Hansard Society—

1375
was that large companies should seek the positive approval of their shareholders on a basis comparable with that which now exists for donations for trade unions.
It is interesting to note in parenthesis that most large companies are now giving up political donations. The arrangement is becoming less common; the trend is not to do so. Large international companies with headquarters in Britain increasingly do no make political donations. The reason sometimes appears in their statement of corporate ethics. Sometimes they do not do so because they do not wish to establish a precedent by donations in this country whereby every politician in every country in which the companies operate will solicit for funds. That is one of the reasons why multinationals on the whole do not make political donations.
Perhaps I may refer to the scheme that I should like to adopt, and outline the general principles. First, I shall refer to what an economist might call the supply side, then the demand side, and the process. By supply side I mean income donations. Let us consider what is involved in the supply side of the equation and what principles might be desirable. Perhaps some of those issues will find agreement across the House.
The first principle reiterates what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. It would be in the interest of our parliamentary democracy at least to reduce institutional dependence. The second principle—I believe that it will find agreement—is that on the whole British people and British institutions should pay for British politics rather than foreign people and foreign institutions. The third principle is that democracy is healthier if there are many small donations rather than a few large donations. There are ways of securing that. In Canada, for instance, matching tax relief is given to gear up the donation of the small donor. Incidentally, if we go down the route of state funding—I have great reservations about that; I shall say a word on it in a moment—matching tax relief to small donors is surely an intelligent way to achieve that. It accelerates something that is desirable: participation in the process.
I believe that the massive subventions, for instance, in the Federal Republic of Germany have done great damage to its political system where virtually the whole of the political class is sucking off the teat of the state. If there were to be some state funding "in the mix", it would be far better for that to be achieved through the tax system. It would be an expansion of the principle of Short money: that money is applied, and meant to be applied, for parliamentary purposes.
Those are a few thoughts on the supply side. Let me now move to the demand side. What is the money needed for? We must not assume that the political parties necessarily should have vast sums of money. Why should they? What will they do with it? It is a striking paradox that we limit expenditure for constituencies, for good reasons. Those were introduced in Victorian times to stop the basic corruption and sleaze of people buying beer for everyone in the constituencies. Therefore we have constituency expenditure limits but no national expenditure limits. There is a very interesting book written about the Conservative campaign, I believe two elections ago, by a Mr. Tyler discussing the decision whether at the last moment to spend vast sums of money
1376
on advertising. The conclusion was that the money was spent but did no good at all. One of the questions that parties ought to ask themselves is whether they really need to spend tens of millions of pounds on general elections. That is what the money is raised for.
In this country we have one great boon and blessing compared to the United States, where every political office has a price tag on it and all those who stand for office know that they have to raise massive sums of money and are indebted for the whole of the time that they serve as a senator or congressman. The boon that we have is the inability of people to buy television and radio time. That boon is inestimable. It is one of the great merits of the British system. I have one question for the noble Viscount who will reply, one which I believe will interest him. It is whether in the new liberal and deregulated era of television, and extra-terrestrial television of one sort and another, he sees it possible to hold the line on the very important principle that people cannot buy radio and television time to fight elections.
To return to the nub of my thinking, we should have limits on national election campaign expenditure. There is no logical reason not to have it. People will object in this way. They will say, "What about the period running up to the election? In our system, where the Prime Minister can choose the date of the election and nobody else knows what it is, would not the governing party spend money in the period before the campaign, and therefore how could you limit it?". It would be perfectly easy to deal with that difficulty. It could be stated that expenditure during the campaign, and for three months or six months before, would be caught by whatever the limit was.
Finally, I said that I would talk for a moment about the process rather than the supply and demand equation. The key issue on process, one that the Hansard Society recommended and which I believe is unanswerable on democratic grounds, is that parties should declare the source and uses of their funds. It is an extraordinary anomaly that a party can organise itself to become the Government of this country, and is yet not subject to the basic reporting requirements to which every club, association and company is subject. I do not think that the voters, the people of this country, understand why it is that political parties are somehow special and should not have to present accounts which declare in full where they received their money and how they spent it.
I suppose that a case could be made that there are shy, shrinking violets who do not want their goodness revealed to the public. Then in that case, let us say that the report would relate to donations over £5,000. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right and people are giving because they believe—not because they hope for influence or access but because they believe in the cause of the party—then why on earth should they be ashamed of having their names revealed in the accounts? What is there to be ashamed of? Why should the issue of secrecy be allowed to outweigh the public interest; namely, for people to see in an open way where the money comes from, and what it is spent on?
Having tried, at great strain, to be relatively non-partisan—because I believe the issue of public interest to be important—I would mention one aspect that causes particular problems. As I understand it, one of the

1377
difficulties for the Conservative Party is that it is not in the fullest sense an identifiable organisation. There is the national union, there are Conservative MPs and there is the Leader. But the party itself is slightly difficult to get hold of. Is there a party? And if we were to say that accounts should be produced every year, what would be the party that produced them? I find myself thinking about this issue in the context of the most regrettable overdraft which I understand company opposite hold with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I understand that the sum is not unadjacent to £16 million. It is an extraordinary thing that a government committed to fiscal prudence should allow themselves to get into debt to the tune of £16 million. They must have an exceptionally friendly bank manager. The first thing that any bank manager I have ever come across says is, "I'd like to see your article of memorandum, your constitution and who the accountable officers are"; and that is quite apart from trivial matters such as security. So we must assume that the Government are very blessed in their banking relationships to be able to have such a massive overdraft.
In summary, three points are important if we want to keep our eye on the ball of public interest. First, there must be more small supporters of our political system, more individuals of modest means, fewer companies and fewer millionaires. Secondly, it is in the public interest that we reduce the limits on expenditure at elections. Thirdly, it is incontestable, particularly in the present atmosphere of reduced confidence, that we should open the system up to the light of day and to fresh air.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a great deal that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I shall have to read Hansard to make sure that I got it right. That agreement does not, however, extend to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I agreed only with his first sentence; namely, that there was a declining respect in the public at large in our political institutions, and particularly our Parliament. The trouble is that I could find no relation between that statement and any concentration on the subject of the financing of political parties.
On the contrary, I should think that one would have to look at other matters, unsusceptible to committees of inquiry, however powerful, such as the observed decline in the calibre of many Members of another place. Those who remember the Parliaments of the inter-war years know that they made many errors. But one has only to occupy one's seat in the Peer's Gallery in another place to see that they were a great deal better than much that is on offer now. Many reasons could be adduced for that. But the one that has not been referred to, although it is relevant in broad terms to the subject of our debate, is the growing influence and importance of political parties themselves—and in particular of their central organisations.
The Parliament that we knew, which grew out of changes in the 19th century, was a locally based Parliament. Members of Parliament either had their own financial resources or—and many great statesmen owe their origins to this—were in receipt of private patronage.
1378
It was possible to make one's way without the assent of whatever then corresponded to Smith Square, Walworth Road or Cowley Street.
On the contrary, it seems to me now that we have come to a pass in which political careers are largely dictated and determined by service to central political parties. There is a sort of apprenticeship, a ladder towards office and leadership, which is political in the narrowest sense. That would seem to me to be the case whether or not the political parties are supported financially in one way or another. My own hope would be that if there were to be changes—this is where I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme—they would be concentrated on assisting in the constituencies and on assisting individual Members of Parliament or those who wished to become Members of Parliament; that any change would not go to fill the coffers of the central organisations. Once they have power, the officials, executives, or whatever name they may go by in different parties—our three parties are so different in character and composition that it is very hard to talk about them in a single context—begin to feel the need to exert their authority.
We have at the moment a prime example of this in the Labour Party. It may or may not be a good idea that there should be more women in another place. But the idea that that should be achieved by forcing constituencies to nominate only women for winnable seats is a departure from democratic principle of any kind which would have horrified politicians a generation ago.
It must be enormously galling for someone who has fought his way up through active politics, let us say in a trade union or a local council—a genuine horny handed son of toil, which is what the Labour Party was meant to be about—to be replaced by one of the perfumed denizens of the salons of Islington. It is that kind of thing which makes me feel that we should be discussing not how we should get more money to political parties but how they should be deprived of it.
As for the way in which political parties raise their funds, in this case I do not share the strictures against the Labour Party. It is perfectly natural and sensible that the Labour Party should receive the bulk of its finance from trade unions. After all, it came into existence as the political arm of the trade union movement. It has no other rationale. It is impossible, and ought to be impossible, to distinguish between the trade union movement and the Labour Party, in the way that it is almost impossible to distinguish between Sinn Fein and the IRA. There are examples of organisations in which the overlap is fundamental. Therefore, I was very surprised to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who appeared to believe that what was an asset to the Labour Party was in fact a handicap.
Turning to the Conservative Party, there appears still to be a measure of surprise that men of business consider that it is a good idea from time to time to give some money to the Conservative Party. Surely, that is a natural form of insurance. No businessman who had at heart the interests of his own pocket or his shareholders could possibly do anything but blench at the thought, let us say, of Mr. Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, a small contribution, anonymous or public, to

1379
the Conservative Party is no different from any other form of insurance that a businessman might take out for any of the risks which the world of business normally entails.
To me, it is a perfectly understandable reaction. It used to be the case that other interests were represented. In Disraeli's time it was the landed interest. That has now shrunk, for all the efforts of Brussels to put more money into it. Parties are parties of interest. If they were not parties of interest, they would fade and die.
The problem for the party led in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is that it is not a party of interest. It is a party of individuals. Obviously, therefore, to raise finance or to get people to stand for office it depends upon exciting a degree of ideological sympathy. It is perhaps understandable that, with the wise exception of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the idea of a certain amount of state money should be appealing to a party of that kind. I keep remembering that, like the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was born under a Liberal Prime Minister. I want to see the Liberal Party, the party of my youth, retained for what may remain to me of this life.
So I am in favour of the parties going on. I see no great reason for asking that anything should be changed. The only thing in favour of having a committee of the great and the good, which would look at finance, is that, like all committees, there would no doubt be leaks from it. One can image the kind of leaks that would occur: the committee—it is said—has discovered that there is a body called the Transport and General Workers' Union, which appears to pay a great deal of money to the Labour Party; and so forth. The leaks would keep the press going and the committee could sail on its way, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, spending a great deal of our money but doing no great harm. There is something to be said for tying up those people who like to sit on committees and look into things to which, in the end, they can make no difference.
I do not know what, if any, Papers will be moved for at the end of this debate. I am in favour of letting the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, have them.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He introduced a new note in mentioning interests as basic to funds for the Conservative Party. Before he spoke we had a different picture of the average donor to the Conservative Party from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We were introduced to the Conservative supporter who is a humble individual; one who wishes to see the party that he prefers flourish and succeed; and who does not want other people to know that he supports it. There must be many people like that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to give way. I should like to make an important point. Seventy per cent. of the money that comes to the Conservative Party comes through the constituencies and, I can assure him from many years of personal experience, from a lot of people of relatively small means.
Lord Mayhew: That may be true between elections, but not at a general election at all. We should not argue about this. We entirely agree about the individual contributions of a man who supports the Conservative Party but does not want anybody to know. He has a right to privacy. There are probably increasing numbers of people like that at the present time. However, if the size of the donation increases sufficiently, there comes a time when the donor's right to privacy comes into conflict with the elector's right to know.
I do not know where that precise point comes. My noble friend mentioned the sum of £5,000. In my view, in a healthy democracy, any donation of a five-figure kind, either to a political party or to the private office, party leaders, an MP or a Peer, is a matter which should be in the public domain.
What is more, there is another picture, which has not been mentioned, of the donors to the Conservative Party. We might contrast the picture given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with the description which I read a few days ago in the Sunday Times, written by a former editor:
"We now know, thanks to the investigative reporting of this newspaper, that the governing party has been at various times secretly bankrolled by a nefarious collection of foreigners, from dodgy Greek shipping millionaires, to shady Arab middlemen, to dubious Hong Kong tycoons, to fugitive Cypriot business men".
Those people are donors to the Conservative Party and we know about them not because the Conservative Party told us, but simply because their rather energetic efforts of secrecy have broken down. For example, we know that Mr. Asil Nadir paid £440,000 to the Conservative Party, not because it appears in the party's accounts, but because the tell-tale cheque stubs were found by the Fraud Squad during its investigations. Is that the kind of secrecy which noble Lords opposite support? It seems impossible to me.
I venture to ask something of the noble Viscount. We know that he will not tell us the names of donors; we know that he will not tell us how much the donations are; but perhaps he will tell us what proportion of major donors to the Conservative Party are wanted by the police. That would help. It may take him a little time to work out but we should look into that. It is not a matter of indifference. Whether or not Mr. Asil Nadir contributes huge sums to the Conservative Party is not a matter for secrecy. The electors are entitled to know. Indeed, in relation to Hong Kong businessmen, important tycoons such as Mr. Li Kashing and Mr. See Sin Tong are major donors to the Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party says that that is no affair of the British electorate; that it is no affair of the Hong Kong electorate or the Hong Kong Government. It does not matter that those people are critics of the government and members of the shadow government for Hong Kong which the Chinese Government prepared. That is also part of the problem to which noble Lords opposite have not addressed their minds. But it is a matter of grave importance. The Government are incapable of taking decisions without affecting vast companies and huge interests of that kind in one way or the other. As the Conservative Party keeps the whole question of donations secret it is not possible to judge whether a government decision is taken strictly on its merits or because of warm feelings towards a major donor. The donations are secret

1381
and in my view that situation is quite improper and must be reformed. We know that some donors to the Conservative Party have gone sadly unrewarded. For example, the poor Al Fayed brothers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Poor?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, they were not even asking for a peerage or a knighthood; they were only asking for British citizenship. One would have thought that they had earned it. But no, presumably the Conservative high-ups thought the donations were not high enough or well enough concealed, so they go without. To achieve results donations to the Conservative Party should be not only large, but also discreetly advanced.
I have a question in relation to the Labour Party. Labour Party members will agree that if substantial donations to a political party should be made public, so also—even more—should substantial donations to the political work of individual political leaders. That goes without saying. Noble Lords may remember that many years ago eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that the private office of the late Lord Wilson was being bankrolled by a secret trust. I know that Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown and Mr. Cook are fully aware of the need for complete openness about the Industrial Research Trust in which they registered an interest. In my view they would be wise to let the public know the names of the trustees and major donors, and also of another institution called Common Campaign Limited.
However, it is the secrecy surrounding donations to the Conservative Party which is rightly the main focus of public concern. Secrecy is the mother of sleaze, which is the mother of corruption. That has been the experience of Italy, France and many other countries. While the Conservatives stick to their doctrine of secrecy at all costs, that experience may spread to this country as well.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, reference has been made today to the fact that parliamentarians, political parties and politicians generally are in disrepute. One of the reasons for that, in addition to those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is that our political system is so partisan. I have said this about the legal system and I say it about the political system. The essentially adversarial system that we follow in both spheres has outlived its usefulness.
The general public is amazed that intelligent people cannot find consensus to resolve many of the acute problems that face our country today. That is why I say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is right to raise this subject here. Whether there are overtones or undertones of partisanship in this debate, they are as nothing compared with what would have been raised in another place. Of course, if effective action is to be taken, it must be taken in another place. But this is the right forum to ventilate feelings and have a slightly more detached debate than would be available in the other place.
I shall not go over the arguments about the present funding system, save to say I cannot understand why any party could possibly object to insisting that every
1382
contribution to a party over a certain sum should be disclosed. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and his noble friend Lady Young that probably the majority of contributions to the Conservative Party come from individuals who are voluntarily contributing. I accept totally that it is probably true that the Labour Party has more individual contributors today than it has ever had in its experience. But why should contributions of the size about which we heard from my noble friend Lord Mayhew not be disclosed to the public? There cannot be a case for that at all.
Likewise, I do not believe that a public company, in particular a privatised public utility, has the voluntary sense to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred. It is investing in its own public interest, as it sees it, and it is wrong that it should do so. I would incline to ban all contributions from publicly accountable companies.
I want to make, briefly, the case for change. Political parties play an essential role in a democratic society, though I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that they receive much ill-informed abuse, as do all parties. It was in 1872 that Disraeli said,
"I believe that without party, Parliamentary Government is impossible".
I agree with that. Over the past 25 years or so the responsibilities of political parties have increased dramatically both with the expanding politicisation of local elections, which I personally deplore, and the advent of European elections. If we have elected assemblies in Scotland and Wales that would also add to the responsibilities where they come into existence.
The need for efficient and adequately funded political parties has never been greater. None of the political parties, including the Conservative Party in Britain, has sufficient income to perform all its responsibilities adequately. The strain on resources is aggravated by the fact that political costs have risen far faster than inflation. The traditional solutions of a membership drive or seeking greater support from institutional backers, produce patchy and sometimes highly risky results and divert the attention of party workers from more important matters such as policy formulation. It is also in the nature of such funding to be erratic, while many of the administrative costs of running a political party are fixed costs.
The most immediate consequence of inadequate funding is that staffing levels are too low and that those who are on the payroll tend to be overworked and underpaid. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that in fact political parties at headquarters have become too strong. In many ways I would far rather see any state finance advanced to the parliamentary parties and possibly into the constituencies, rather than to the headquarters.
The cost to the British people of the underfunding of political parties is either seen in avoidable mistakes made by every incoming administration because it has not prepared sufficiently—there is a lack of detail in policy, and so on—or in the excessive dependence of Ministers on the Civil Service for advice on policy.
The advantage of state subsidy in some form is that we would have more competition because state funding of political parties should lead to more and fairer

1383
competition. However, equality of electoral opportunity can only be achieved if the mechanism chosen for such a scheme includes safeguards against a misuse of power by the governing party.
Both the Labour and Conservative Parties would be freed from institutional dependence, either completely or at least to a large extent. It is the extent of the dependence which is the fear. That is the governing fear exercising the minds of the public at the moment in relation to the Conservative Party. There is nothing wrong with the principle of interest groups financing political parties provided that the payments are made transparently and voluntarily, with the proviso that public limited companies do not indulge in it at all.
There is no evidence in this country that payments made by interest groups are generally made with a view to a specific quid pro quo. I do not believe that we are that kind of country. Naturally, for example, business has, rightly or wrongly, traditionally expected a general bias in its favour from the Conservative Party. Similarly, the trade unions quite naturally expect a natural bias from the Labour Party when it is in government. Thankfully British politics is free of the corruption endemic in many countries around the world. However, what also matters is the appearance that such sponsorship generates. Parties should feel completely free to act independently and to be seen to have such freedom.
Perhaps I may take the position of the Prime Minister in the "winter of discontent". He was faced with the enormous problem of his financial backers indulging in the most irresponsible behaviour. He was leading a government that was largely financed by the very unions who were causing the trouble. Therefore, stability of income would be very important because a system of party political subsidy would ensure that income would not fluctuate wildly with varying economic conditions and with the ebb and flow of a party's political fortune. Also, party leaders would not have to waste their time attending fundraising events when they could employ their time more fruitfully elsewhere.
Perhaps I may now refer very briefly to the drawbacks of state funding because there are, admittedly, drawbacks to a system of public funding of political parties. It could maintain current parties in existence after their support had long diminished. It could lock out new or emerging parties and most systems have a bias towards the status quo. However, all these defects can be mitigated or avoided by the careful construction of the system.
I refer very briefly to foreign experience. In the past few years there have been not only reports in this country. There was a report from the Council of Europe on the financing of political parties in 1989. There was a list published in the House of Commons Hansard of 17th July 1990 at col. 496, with the information then available of funding in different parts of the world. There was the Congress Report prepared by the staff of the Law Library of Congress in 1991 on Campaign Financing of National Elections in Foreign Countries. There was the European Parliament report called The Funding of Political Parties in European Community Member States in 1991. The Home Affairs Committee published in one of its indices in its second report in House of Commons Paper 301, a list of 19 countries, including three Commonwealth
1384
countries, 13 European and an additional three elsewhere, of the funding arrangements in those countries. So the problems are not special to this country, but in every democratic country in the world at the present time.
I suggest to noble Lords that whatever partisan background we have—and it is natural in our democracy that we indulge in it—nevertheless there is a case for consensus here. There is a case for an inquiry no doubt developing from a report made 20 years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I read that report 19 or 20 years ago and I cannot recall its precise terms now, but it was a very important report. It is in the interests of all parties to investigate this matter now and to see whether a more sensible arrangement can be achieved.
At the end of it all I say that the bulk of support for any political party should come from the individual subscriptions of those who believe in the policies of that party. But that is not to say that there is not a very good case now for investigating the importance of a state contribution at certain levels.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Prime Minister announced on 25th October the establishment of the Nolan Committee of Inquiry. In the course of the Statement he made in the House of Commons he said,
"It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods in making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority and the financial and commercial activities of public figures".
He added:
"In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life, and I have concluded that action is imperative".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/10/94; cols. 757–8.]
Yet it now appears, as we all know, that the one area in which there is most clearly public disquiet about standards in public life is not to be investigated by the noble and learned Lord's inquiry. That is the subject of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. As a result of the fierce opposition of Ministers, the issue of the manner in which political parties raise their funds will not be examined by this committee until certainly the next general election.
The Leader of the House who will be replying in a few moments is, I believe, required to justify that decision by his colleagues. He can hardly deny that there is public disquiet. Indeed, it would be remarkable if he made any serious effort to attempt to do so.
Let us consider what has been revealed in recent months and years. First, it has been estimated that between 1984 and 1992 there were £71 million of unexplained donations to the Conservative Party. If the object of the exercise is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us a few moments ago, to deny money to central party headquarters, he must, I am sure, be disappointed that quite such a large sum was raised during that period for the party of which he is of course a member. No one knows, of course, from where that £71 million came; the exception being a small group of people at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square.
One of the people excluded from having any knowledge was Mr. Eric Chalker who was a member of the Conservative Board of Finance between 1989 and

1385
1993. He told the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place that while members of his board received a partial breakdown of donations by UK region, value and number, more complete information was kept from him. He added that when press reports were published of specific and very large individual donations, including some from abroad, he asked the chairman of the Conservative Board of Finance for detailed information. Despite the fact that he was a member of that board of finance he was denied that information.
Secondly, we have the revelations concerning the Conservative Party's offshore bank accounts. Mr. John Strafford, another former member of the Conservative Board of Finance, said in a letter to The Times:
"everyone is now clear that the Conservative Party uses offshore accounts … and that a large amount of funds raised on behalf of the Conservative Party goes into accounts which are not in the name of the party".
The noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, a former treasurer of the party, is quoted in the minority report of the Home Affairs Select Committee as saying on ITN that the party had tons of offshore accounts. Before the debate I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, indicating to him that I proposed to refer to him. I am sure that many of us are deeply disappointed that we have not had the good fortune of having the noble Lord assisting us during the course of the debate.
We then come to the consequences of that climate of secrecy. As the result of the investigations of a number of national newspapers, and due also to disclosures in the civil and criminal courts, we have begun to learn of the identity of some of the donors of party funds. There is for instance Mr. Octav Botnar, a former head of Nissan (UK) who channelled donations of £150,000 through an offshore account in Jersey. Mr. Botnar is now wanted in this country on allegations that he was involved in large-scale fraud. However, he is presently resident in Switzerland, and showing no immediate sign of being anxious to return to the UK.
There is then Mr. John Latsis, a Greek shipowner, associated closely with the military regime which destroyed democracy in Greece—a regime which, as the House will recall, thought it appropriate to torture its opponents. He is said to have contributed £2 million to the Conservative Party.
There is also, as my noble friend Lord Mayhew mentioned, the Hong Kong connection. A number of very large donations have been reported in the press as coming from named individuals. That is a matter which should awaken some interest in us. That indeed no doubt explains why no fewer than 14 Ministers of the Crown who travelled to Hong Kong on public business and at public expense took time off while in Hong Kong to involve themselves in political activities, including fund raising.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is worried about keeping down the level of public expenditure. It might be a good idea if the Conservative Party repaid some of the assets of those gentlemen to the taxpayer who had the privilege of financing those trips to Hong Kong.
I come now to a number of other cases which have attracted a fair degree of public interest. First is another case referred to by my noble friend Lord Mayhew—Mr.
1386
Asil Nadir, the former head of Polly Peck, a fugitive from justice who fled to northern Cyprus while awaiting trial on charges of theft and false accounting. As has been indicated, cheques of £440,000 were sent by Polly Peck to the Conservative Party between 1985 and 1990. None of them appeared in the accounts which were submitted by Polly Peck. In addition, further donations were sent by Mr. Nadir to overseas firms, presumably using some of those offshore accounts.
There is also the case of the Fayeds, to which my noble friend Lord Mayhew again referred. It is unnecessary to go through that but it seems to be a matter of some passing interest. I assume that the Conservative Party would not have received money from those gentlemen if it had any doubts about their moral character. That being so, it makes it even more puzzling that they have apparently been denied British citizenship by Ministers who belong to the same political party which was perfectly prepared to accept their money.
There is then the question of political honours to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead referred. That was dealt with in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to that report, if I may say so, a slight note of reverence crept into her voice. It was as though the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place was a cross between the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and the United States Supreme Court. Unhappily, it was not quite like that, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead pointed out. The report was passed by that committee only on the casting vote of the chairman.
In the course of that report—my noble friend referred to this, and I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will reply to the point—comes the comment made by Lord Shackleton, a distinguished former Leader of the House who was of course chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. He referred to secret donations to Conservative Party front organisations which he indicated could enable honours to escape scrutiny by that committee. He is quoted as saying:
"There is an obvious gap. It is highly likely that these secret donations are by-passing the scrutiny system, and that honours are effectively being bought".
That in my view requires a specific reply from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. There is no way a charge of such gravity from a former chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee can possibly be ignored.
The cases I have raised this evening demonstrate an overwhelming argument for an independent inquiry into the fund-raising of all British political parties. I would emphasise, of course, all political parties. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who has been involved in any way to any significant extent in the management of British political parties over the past 35 years or so could possibly suggest that they had never received a donation which, looking back on it, made them feel altogether at ease. The difference between us in this House is a clear one. The opposition parties believe that there should be an independent inquiry, and Ministers are determined that there should not be. Given the sort of evidence that has been put before the House this evening, it is fairly obvious why they take that view.

1387
Yet if the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about the level of public disquiet, and about standards in public life, as I am sure he is, how can he possibly believe that that will be diminished without an examination of those issues by the Nolan Committee? Consider, for a moment, the views of a distinguished member of the Conservative Party, and former Leader of the House, Mr. John Biffen, who said:
"In the present mood of scepticism about British politics the Conservative Party should open its financial books and demonstrate that its accounts are not padded by big business and shady entrepreneurs".
In my view, that is absolutely right.
That being so, what is the Government's case against an independent inquiry? First, we have the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, writing in the Independent, that in Britain people have the right to give money privately to the political party of their choice. He also stated that to change that would be an affront to democracy. That sounds a little odd because today we are talking not only about the rights of British people to give their money away privately but about the rights of foreign companies and individuals from outside this country to make secret donations into offshore accounts held on behalf of the Conservative Party. Those money are not even disclosed to their own central boards of finance.
Secondly, there is the claim of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, that to introduce transparency would be an affront to democracy. Perhaps on this occasion the noble Lord has been guilty of a slight degree of exaggeration. I suspect that it would be a matter of surprise to the United States to discover that it had apparently connived at just such an affront to democracy, because there all significant contributions to campaign funds must be declared. And why? It is because of the scandals of the past; because of the consequences of secret donations to candidates for public office, which affects the integrity of public life. What is true of the United States is true of every advanced industrial nation in the world.
All I say in conclusion is that an inquiry on the lines suggested today is inescapable. The Government should be under no illusion that ultimately an inquiry will take place whether they want it or not. As my noble friend asked at the outset of the debate, why do they not just for once behave with good sense and allow the Nolan Committee to undertake its work forthwith?
5.22 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had an interesting and on occasions entertaining debate. I greatly appreciated the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It reminded me of a report that I once had when I was studying biology at school. I was not a good biologist and at one stage I received a report which read, "Sets himself a lamentably low standard and rarely manages to attain it". I received a subsequent report which came to my mind when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It read, "As an entertainer he is much appreciated by the form, but as a biologist I fear that his work is somewhat negligible".
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, entertained us greatly and I enjoyed it. However, it is interesting to note that the one issue to which he did not refer was disclosure. According
1388
to the noble Lord, everything in the garden is lovely and we can get people to beaver away on things that do not really matter. But the one issue more than any other single issue with which the debate has dealt has been disclosure. On that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was silent.
I fear that I shall upset the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who was upset by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I fear that I may do the same. My noble friend Lord Houghton made a remarkable speech. His report is now some 20 years old and it may be that all we need to do is to reinstate the Houghton Committee and give it powers of revision and the job will be done. That is one possibility but I have no doubt whatever that at some stage the job will be done. There will be an inquiry and as a result there will be greater transparency in relation to the funding of political parties in this country.
Let us first see whether we can agree about anything and then see where we disagree. Broadly, we can accept the terms of the Motion. There is a case for an inquiry of some form into the present arrangements for the funding of political parties. I am open as to the precise nature and scope of such an inquiry, but I have no doubt that one should take place.
I believe that everyone can agree with two basic propositions. First, that anyone in our democracy should be able, if he wishes, to participate financially as well as practically in the working of that democracy. In other words, people should be perfectly entitled to support political parties if they so wish. But the corollary of that argument is that the support should be given in such a way that it does not call into question the integrity and validity of the very political process that is being participated in. Therefore, the second proposition, which I suspect not quite so many people will accept, is that that participation in the political process, if it is of any major kind, should be publicly acknowledged and therefore transparent.
I believe that the present system is flawed in that, first, those who participate are not always stakeholders in our democracy. Several noble Lords—and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Mayhew—have had something to say about foreign participation and foreign donations to the Conservative Party. I do not propose to go over that ground again. However, I believe that there is an inherent danger in having major contributions to a political party from people who do not have a basic interest in our democracy. The danger is that they are not participating in the democratic process but are buying government policy. I hope that most Members of this House will agree that that is wrong.
Secondly, the system is flawed because it is not transparent and it is therefore not accountable. I can see no reason why that should be so. For the sake of precision, perhaps I may state precisely the Labour Party's position on the matter. I shall quote from the text which was part of the Labour Party's evidence to the Nolan Committee. We stated that we were in favour of:
"a new regime for the funding of political parties to include: full disclosure of their accounts".
I hope that that deals with the point made by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The new regime should also include:

1389
"proscriptions on overseas and large secret donations; limits on election spending at national as well as constituency level; new requirements for shareholder agreement, and contracting out, in respect of donations by companies".
I have listened to the whole debate but I have not heard one word from the other side that is capable of justifying the situation, which my noble friend Lady Gould set out at the beginning of the debate. It is that a trade union donation must go through a whole series of hoops which are designed to ensure, first, that the members of the trade union are in favour of it, because the political fund must be set up after a ballot and, secondly, that the donation is public and everyone knows about it. I heard from the other side not one word of justification that trade unions should be under those burdens but companies should not. Why on earth not? Why should not the shareholders of a company have just as much right to know what the company is doing in relation to the political activities of that company as a trade union member has the right to know what his leaders are doing in relation to his trade union's political activities? There exists a basic unfairness which ought to be dealt with.
As regards transparency, what is the position of the Conservative Party? I can give many figures, some of which are well known. Some of them have had to be ferreted out from perhaps 150 or 200 different company accounts. We can trace donations of £2.51 million to the Conservative Party in the financial year ending March 1994. From the latest accounts for Conservative Central Office, we know that donations from companies and individuals totalled £9,372,000 in the financial year ending March 1994. One knows where £2.5 million came from but one does not know where the remaining £7 million came from. Therefore, we can account for about 27 per cent. of what the Conservatives have revealed as donations and contributions. That compares with being able to account for 36 per cent. in 1991, 54 per cent. in 1990 and 52 per cent. in 1989. Therefore, there is a shortfall. In a democratic society I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the Conservative Party where that money has come from. People know where Labour Party cash comes from and they also know that in relation to the Liberal Democrat Party. It is not unreasonable to demand the same degree of transparency from the Conservative Party. Otherwise, there is bound to be suspicion as to the way in which the money is obtained; secondly, the way in which it is used; and, thirdly, the pay off for those people who are making contributions.
I have managed to extract some figures of the top 10 corporate donors to the Conservative Party to date. I shall merely give the list and your Lordships can draw the necessary conclusions. At the top of the list is United Biscuits which donated £1,004,500—one peerage and one knighthood went to the leaders of United Biscuits; Hanson donated £852,000—two peerages; Taylor Woodrow £837,362—one peerage, one knighthood; British & Commonwealth donated £823,560—one peerage; George Weston Holdings donated £820,000—no peerages and no knighthood but I am told that he is Canadian and is therefore not in this country; P&O donated £727,500—one peerage, three knighthoods; Western United Investment donated £620,900—no peerage but the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, is with us
1390
already; Glaxo donated £600,000—two knighthoods; and Trafalgar House donated £590,000—one peerage, one knighthood.
It may be that if I were a man with a suspicious mind, I should think that there might conceivably be a causal connection between one side of that balance sheet and the other. But being the generous-minded, naive individual that I am, who, after all, has only been involved in British politics for some 35 years, I am quite prepared to accept that all those who came to this House from the list that I have just read are well qualified and would have come to this House had they been giving donations to this party or the party of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am quite prepared to accept that all those who received knighthoods received them because of the shining qualities of their characters and that it had nothing whatever to do with the fact that their cheques arrived on that side of the House rather than any other.
Of course I am prepared to accept that, as is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; and even his suspicious colleague the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might be able to accept that. But I can tell the House that the general great British public does not accept that and does not believe that that is pure coincidence. That rubs off not only on the party opposite, which frankly I do not really care about, but it rubs off on all those who are engaged in politics. If sleaze is pouring over that party, some of the stench unfortunately falls on the rest of us.
Therefore, there is a problem which needs to be solved. The present position is not satisfactory; it is unreasonable. Question-marks are raised over the way in which the governing party of this country raises its money; where it comes from; and what is the pay off for the people paying it. In those circumstances I believe that the demand for an inquiry is more than thoroughly justified.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for introducing what we can all agree has been a useful and important debate.
In passing I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that for a man who tells us that there is inadequate transparency in the matter that we are discussing today he seems to be remarkably informed. Indeed, I should say to him further on the question of honours that it might be worth asking himself a further question in all his innocence and mere 35 years' experience; namely, what is the contribution to the national prosperity made by the names that he has read out? Indeed, I go so far along the road of the advocacy of the Liberal Democrat Party that when I return to this matter I shall not do so on a sheet of lavender writing paper.
We can all agree about one matter. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Holme, my noble friend Lady Young, who made a remarkable speech, and even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, agree that the authority and respect for MPs and all those who take part in British political life has increasingly been called into question in recent years. Therefore, it seems to me that a vacuum of authority has begun to appear and people like

1391
the noble Lord increasingly turn to one source to fill it. That source tends to be one-headed and composed of the great and the good.
It is as though we are beginning to live in a rather crude neo-Platonist age in which the country relies on a race of disinterested guardians to resolve matters of ethics, government and public morals. I have noticed that the Liberal Democrat Party is particularly addicted to that approach, as we have heard this afternoon. Not so long ago, a much higher proportion of those matters would have been decided by Parliament, often with the guidance of the Church, although that is less fashionable in places other than your Lordships' House. Those guardians may nominally report to government or Parliament but my, how the press howls if an individual or institution dares to reject those recommendations.
Now, of course none of that means that I do not have the greatest respect for the great and good, or indeed that I hold that inquiries conducted by the great and good are not often useful. However, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hold that we must be careful in general that inquiries conducted by committees, however eminent, do not become so much of a habit that they begin to usurp the proper functions of Parliament. That danger became all too apparent in the 1960s when the government of which the noble Lord was such a distinguished member, in their desire to avoid taking a decision about anything, spawned Royal Commissions like a rabbit on the South Downs. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have resisted that temptation to the great benefit of the common weal. We should be especially careful to preserve the role of Parliament when addressing matters that concern the nature and organisation of Parliament itself and of those who organise the sending of Members of Parliament to Parliament. In our system the funding of political parties is surely and emphatically such a matter.
So, if the inquiry which the noble Lord is calling for is a Select Committee inquiry by either House of Parliament, of course I have no objection in principle to what he advocates. If, on the other hand, he is advocating the appointment of a commission of neo-Platonist guardians—and I coiled from what he has said this afternoon that that is what he has in mind—then in principle I am against him for the reason I have just given.
Even if the noble Lord were advocating a Select Committee inquiry, I am not sure that I could support him at this moment. It might not be a wholly suitable subject for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, although I am open to persuasion on that score; but even if it were, a Select Committee in another place produced a thorough report on this very question as recently as 16th March 1994, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out. We try, as your Lordships know, not to duplicate the work of Select Committees in another place in this House—and, of course, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, even on such an important subject as this, it may be a little much to expect from another place an annual inquiry of this kind.
Nevertheless, I am aware of the suggestion from some quarters that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his committee should undertake an inquiry on this subject
1392
as part of its next phase of work. As the House will know from answers I gave after my Statement to the House on 25th October last, my right honourable friend specifically excluded the funding of political parties from the noble and learned Lord's remit. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, cross-questioned me most assiduously on the subject. For the reasons I have given noble Lords this afternoon I continue to think that my right honourable friend was right to do so. The more we undermine Parliament's ability to regulate matters which most closely concern it, the more we lessen the authority of Parliament and the respect in which it is held. It is for that reason that I was relieved to read the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, that his parliamentary commissioner for standards should report to a sub-committee of another place rather than be independent and free-standing with no responsibility to Parliament or another place.
Nevertheless, I recognise what motivates the noble Lord in initiating the debate. His concern above all is to try and ensure that the votes that elect Members of another place are secured in as unbiased and equitable a fashion as possible. I and the entire House would expect no less from the noble Lord.
Furthermore, I am sure that in the present atmosphere, when allegations about standards in public life abound, the noble Lord feels that now is not a bad time to remove all taint of interest from politics and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, advocated, free from ideological influences.
If that is what both noble Lords would like, that strikes me as a dangerous ambition. We agree that the authority of Parliament must derive ultimately from the ballot box. I hope that neither noble Lord feels that it is either possible or even desirable for interest, whether charitable, commercial, moral or sectional, to be divorced from Parliament and politics. What is politics about other than ideology and interest? The whole of the Liberal and socialist case today has been based on ideology and interest, and that has been the inescapable conclusion of at least all noble Lords who sit beside and behind me. If we attempted so to divorce it and succeeded we would be divorcing politicians from those very matters which should be their constant concern. It would be more difficult for Parliament to act as the forum where ultimate power must rest and where interest should be controlled when it becomes overmighty.
I would be worried if the great interests, commercial or sectional, did not want to support political parties, and I would be equally worried if they were forbidden to do so. We have seen the rapid growth in recent years of single issue pressure groups which, if they become too powerful, can unbalance the entire political debate. Parties in our system are, almost by definition, coalitions. That may be said about the Liberal Democrat Party, which is the result of one of the most recent and obvious open coalitions of political post-war times—mould breakers. They have a bias towards balance which helps control interest.
I do not have the time this afternoon, and I am sure that your Lordships do not have the inclination, to rehearse all the elements of a highly complex subject. I do not think that the noble Lord's Motion encourages any of us to do so.

1393
I am more than a little tempted to follow my noble friend Lord Beloff down the extraordinarily attractive and entertaining road down which he tempted us. When we return to these matters we shall explore a little further the importance of interest of Lord George Bentick and of Disraeli.
However, I should like to touch on two matters which are relevant to what the noble Lord had to say: state funding and the anonymity or otherwise of donors to political party funds.
The Home Affairs Select Committee in another place discussed the question of state funding of political parties in some detail. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which reported in 1976, the committee in another place was not attracted to the idea of any extension of existing subsidy. As did the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the committee acknowledged the existence of the "Short money" and the value of benefits in kind in the form of party political broadcasts, free postage at election time, and so on; but in terms of straight cash they remained sceptical.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I understand that he would not support the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there should be a new inquiry on the grounds that his was perfectly sufficient for the purposes. Our experience of the noble Lord's thoroughness and capacity to understand the nub of any matter, whether or not we agree with him, leads us to suspect that that is not bad advice.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that I hope it will be possible to hold the line on free political broadcasting, although I am not sure who watches the broadcasts apart from the entire political classes and aspirant boy racers at various central offices.
I share the scepticism of the committee. It is true that other countries subsidise their political parties from public funds. As the table on pages xii and xiii of the Select Committee report makes clear, there is no distinct pattern or practice.
A large number of the countries listed there do not give state funding and a number of them would appear to all of us to be entirely democratic in their theory and practice. It is tempting to wonder to what extent public political funding encourages the proliferation of small parties. Except for the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that most noble Lords feel that that is an undesirable development that is already encouraged by certain kinds of proportional representation. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, one could argue that state subsidy encourages corruption rather than the reverse.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out that in this country political activity is voluntary. The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who appears in this instance to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the leader of his party in this House, believes that it should remain so. Raising money for parties and devoting time to political parties is an activity of civil virtue and one that is to be encouraged in a state whose government is based on representative
1394
principles. We all know that such activity involves, above all, hard work and demands great enthusiasm for the cause at the expense of shoe leather and sometimes one's digestion. Should that enthusiasm flag, it seems curious and perhaps socialistic to argue that the state should make up for the deficiency by public subsidy. It reminds me of the nationalised industries. We know that the private sector had to rescue them and restore them to prosperity. It is no wonder that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, supported the idea of public funding, just as they in their party have supported every measure designed to increase national prosperity and to reduce individual self-reliance, which is the secret of national survival.
Even those systems of subsidy, for which such learned commentators as Dr. Pinto Duschinsky argue and which link the level of subsidy to the number of votes cast, risk institutionalising political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, acknowledged, they thus preserve them beyond their sell-by date. In view of what has happened to the Liberals since 1917 I can understand the noble Lord's enthusiasm for state subsidy in that context. His magnificent biography of Asquith demonstrates his mastery over the period.
In parenthesis I should like to remind the noble Lord that his interpretation of the history of the time was not universally shared by Lloyd George's political opponents. I quote from the memoirs of Mr. J. C. C. Davidson who was a most distinguished political fixer in his time in the Conservative interest. Mr. Davidson's attitude to the matter of raising party funds was in marked contrast to that of Lloyd George, who was endearingly frank about his methods. In a memorandum written in 1927, Davidson recorded:
"In the course of a conversation with Mr. Lloyd George yesterday in which the use of Party funds for philanthropic purposes came under discussion, I"—
that is, Davidson—
"dropped the remark that Mr. Lloyd George was fortunate in being much better situated with regard to Party funds than the Conservative Party. He laughed at the remark, and with his characteristic flair for altering his ground, burst into an enthusiastic defence of the system of raising Party funds by the sale of honours. 'You and I', he said, 'know perfectly well it is a far cleaner method of filling the Party chest than the methods used in the United States or the Socialist Party'. He complained that the Socialist Party was a trade union party solely because of the power of the trade unions to withhold funds. 'In America the steel trusts supported one political party, and the cotton people supported another. This placed political parties under the domination of great financial interests and trusts'.—
I believe that the noble Lord would agree with that.
"'Here', said Mr. Lloyd George 'a man gives £40,000 to the Party and gets a baronetcy. If he comes to the Leader of the Party and says I subscribe largely to the Party funds, you must do this or that, we can tell him to go to the devil. The attachment of the brewers to the Conservative Party was the closest approach', said Mr. Lloyd George, 'to political corruption in this country. The worst of it is that you cannot defend it in public, but it keeps politics far cleaner than any other method of raising funds'".
I wonder how a measure which would begin to nationalise political parties would appeal to an earlier and more laissez-faire school of Liberalism.
Finally, my Lords, I would like to say a word about donations to political parties. As far as I can ascertain no one has suggested that the individual small donor should not be encouraged. Some have argued that donations

1395
should be tax allowable in other fora. I believe that one noble Lord—and I hope he will forgive me because I cannot remember who it was—mentioned that during today's debate. As noble Lords will know, that is the position in the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, in Germany. It is an idea which might be worth exploring. But, ultimately, it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and another place.
The difficulty arises when we consider contributions to political parties from commercial enterprises, trade unions and other bodies corporate or unincorporate. I find it difficult to argue against allowing such bodies to make donations to political parties. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, why they should be at a greater disadvantage than any individual?. Some corporations are not as rich as individuals. The fact that they are corporations does not seem to me to be an argument for disbarring them from contributing to the political party whose interests they think most closely represent their own. They have their interests like individuals and the present rules of corporate disclosure seem to me to be perfectly adequate; indeed, the remarkable catalogue put forward this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, provides evidence to support that claim. A company giving more than £200 in aggregate must disclose the donations under the Companies Act 1985—legislation passed by a Conservative Government—and its actions are open to challenge by shareholders.
Incidentally, I should emphasise the fact that my party has accepted the code of practice set out in Recommendation 15 of the Select Committee's report.
As my noble friend Lady Young emphasised, my party has been the recipient of sustained innuendo this afternoon. In that context, I would merely draw your Lordships' attention to the line on page 35 of the Select Committee's report where the code of practice makes it clear to donors that illegally obtained money would not be acceptable and, if discovered to be so obtained, would be returned. My party subscribes to that view; and, indeed, puts it into practice. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does that mean that the Conservative Party will return the money contributed by Mr. Asil Nadir?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if that money is proved to have been secured as a result of an illegal donation of funds secured illegally, the answer is: yes, of course, if that is so.
The position with trade unions is equally clearly regulated through the 1984 Act, although I cannot resist pointing out that the Labour Party is the only British political party which arguably trades policies for political support. However, from the point of view of my noble friend Lord Beloff, that may not altogether be a bad thing.
The question of anonymity has also proved to be a contentious issue. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, waxed extremely eloquent on the subject this afternoon. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that attitudes have changed substantially since the 1930s, when one donor insisted that the Conservative Party should not know that he was the source of a munificent donation in case it was thought that, as a result, he would exercise undue influence in the councils of the party. Nowadays,
1396
openness is regarded in some quarters as the ultimate virtue. Just as the virtue of physical modesty suffered a decline under Labour Home Secretaries in the 'sixties, so financial modesty seems to have suffered a similar decline in the 'nineties. To reveal all is now the ultimate virtue, financially as well as physically. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, lauded the virtues of transparency with some warmth. With his traditions of advocating transparency in other fields, I can understand why he did so.
There is a difficulty here, which I think we should not underestimate. There are those like the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Harris, who advocate complete exposure and who do so for the most honourable and disinterested of reasons. There are others who advocate that course in order to satisfy their's and the public's prurience and in order to blackguard honourable but modest people, who do exist despite what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. I believe that such pruriently inclined people are dangerous. That is why they have supplied a rich cast of villains for the English novel from Thwackem and Square to Obadiah Slope. They are what we dislike about puritanism. The reason that they are so dangerous is that they play on our legitimate hatred and fear of corruption. There is no easy solution to the dilemma in our imperfect world. As in so much else, we must endeavour, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, implied, to strike a balance between privacy and exposure. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I believe that our present arrangements do so. On the whole, the Select Committee supports that view.
We should be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the debate with his customary elegance. I am sorry that we do not agree. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the noble Lord made a party political speech under the cloak of righteousness and the alleged desire for consensus. I certainly know now that, for all his past political history, spiritually the noble Lord has finally come to rest under the cloak of the Liberal Party. However, I suspect that this is not the last that either this House or the public will hear of the matter. I much look forward to our further exchanges on the subject.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I was never a great believer in second bites in speeches, especially when debates are drawing to a close. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. In my opening remarks, I said that I had no doubt that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal would give us a rumbustious and probably ingenious reply. I thank and congratulate him on having fulfilled those two criteria. Indeed, the noble Viscount introduced almost fantastical notes into our proceedings at times. It was certainly highly ingenious. The noble Viscount also set my mind at rest on one point. I thought that I was becoming a little too obsessed by historical matters, but after hearing the noble Viscount's long eloquent passage on 1921–1927 I shall lose all inhibitions in that respect.
The noble Viscount's reply was good humoured and, if I may say so, a little in contrast with some of the opening speeches from those Benches. I have rarely participated in a debate in which noble Lords showed more ill-tempered and defensive sensitivity than we heard from

1397
the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She really got into a great lather of indignation with me. Indeed, the noble Baroness is quite entitled to do so, and, of course, she may be quite right. However, I am perfectly entitled to point out that she showed remarkable defensive sensitivity. Moreover, even the normal lucidity of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, deserted him at times, so overcome was he with the impropriety which really both speakers raised in differing ways about our having such a debate at all. I thank the noble Viscount for having distanced himself from that by saying that the debate was invaluable and for thanking us for raising the matter.
Nobody takes the view—I do not believe that he does for a moment—that people should not be allowed to express an interest in politics. I do not take the view—certainly I do not—that people should not be allowed to contribute large sums of money, if they wish, to the party of their choice. Nobody takes the view that it can be other than a horrible development if parties become entirely the creatures of state funding. I believe that there are considerable difficulties about state funding. I believe that some measure may be desirable, but it is not an easy solution by any means. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I do not want parties to be too rich or party machines to be too powerful. However, this debate asks for and is primarily concerned with honesty and transparency, no more and no less.
I am perfectly sure that, for all the ingeniousness of the Lord Privy Seal's arguments, until there is transparency this subject will rumble on. He said that what was wanted was nothing but inquiries. It is not this party, or even the party opposite, that has produced a position where for almost the first time in history there are two major constitutional inquiries running at exactly the same time. My complaint is that the Government lurch into inquiries at the last moment when scandal forces them to do it as a short-term reaction without thinking out the consequences. If they were wise they would see that this was something that had to be inquired into. Transparency will come. For once they should be ahead of the game rather than following it weakly and without due consideration. We have had a useful debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Transport Policies and the Environment
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to call attention to the case for transport policies for the United Kingdom and Europe which will be sustainable in the long term, as set out in the Eighteenth Report entitled Transport and the Environment of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Cm. 2674); and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion is broadly phrased and time is short. Your Lordships will not expect me to cover the whole range of the issues that can be raised. There will be another debate next week in which some of them may be aired in greater detail. I am aware that many of your Lordships will also
1398
speak and no doubt give added emphasis to one aspect or another of the topic. In this context, I welcome the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to intervene in this debate with his maiden speech. He brings to the debate great experience and knowledge of the transport industry.
In preparing for the debate, I have been inundated with material from a wide range of different interests, much of it very useful. I wish to concentrate on the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the six speeches made in the spring by the Secretary of State, Dr. Mawhinney. For many of us, the RCEP report has come as a most welcome confirmation, from an authoritative source, of much of what we have been thinking, saying and trying to do for some years. For example, the desirability of equal assessment of road and rail infrastructure projects and the need for an integrated transport policy that should be sustainable has been a "given" of my party's policy for many years.
I take one of many examples that can be chosen to indicate how far local government is ahead of central government in these matters. Some years ago Surrey County Council, then under Conservative leadership, wrote a transport plan. It is now being revised with a Liberal-Democrat as chair. By comparison, Dr. Mawhinney's speeches dealt with issues of sustainable transport almost as though they were totally fresh to his listeners and readers. He asked many questions and provided relatively little indication of his own attitude, or that of the Government, beyond referring to such things as the Government's statement on sustainable development, PPG13 and steadily rising petrol taxes. All of these are useful but they do not constitute a comprehensive policy that, for example, can be used by businesses and local authorities to assist in the determination of their approach.
Dr. Mawhinney seemed to suggest on more than one occasion that business should take transport decisions in the light of their impact upon the environment and possibly modify and change such policies as the just-in-time method of supply or long-distance sourcing of goods. But it is the relatively low cost and ease of road transport—a situation that has developed, at least in part, as a result of actions by various governments over the years—that has made these policies financially and commercially attractive.
My last point about Dr. Mawhinney's speeches concerns his constant reference to the conflict between economic and business needs on the one hand and the need for environmental protection on the other. I believe that this conflict is to some extent artificial. Not only will failure to improve and preserve air quality cost us huge amounts in healthcare—for example, a recent Liberal-Democrat publication has highlighted the rapidly rising cost of the treatment of asthma—but a degraded atmosphere and general environment can never be a desirable background for a successful economy.
We welcome the RCEP report and, in particular, its approach in defining what its authors believe should be the main objectives of a sustainable transport policy; the key targets that that policy should aim to achieve, such as percentage modal transfers between one method of

1399
transport and another; and the main policy options/changes in practice and research projects that they think are necessary to achieve those objectives.
I take one example. Compared with the somewhat chaotic way in which infrastructure projects are currently assessed—this methodology has been criticised for its inaccuracy and lack of proper financial targeting by the Audit Commission and other authorities in that it fails to assess equally between road and rail, or to compare projects on trunk roads or other roads, or even to establish an overt order of priority amongst trunk road proposals themselves—the suggestions of the RCEP on such matters seem a model of clarity and good sense that may greatly improve the quality of decision taking and the accurate targeting of funds. I believe that that is an objective that we all wish to take on board.
Another useful attribute of the report is that it firmly establishes the need to ensure that the real costs of different modes of transport, including environmental costs, are borne by the particular mode or those who operate within it and use it. So often attempts by local government to encourage people to use public transport ale thwarted by the apparently high cost at point of use by comparison with the motor car that waits outside the house.
I also welcome the attempt, albeit not wholly complete, to quantify these costs so that they may be correctly assessed and assigned during project planning. I do not agree with every suggestion for that allocation. For example, the report proposes not only that tax on petrol should rise sharply—a matter with which we are broadly in agreement—but that there should be a variable excise duty to reflect fuel consumption. That is a good idea, but only if it can be set at a low level for the smallest and most efficient cars; otherwise, the combination of increased vehicle excise duty and sharply increased fuel prices will be too punitive for those who live in the countryside.
I also welcome the suggestions for joint research with other countries in the European Union and beyond, and indeed with companies—for example, oil companies and motor manufacturers—with the objective of ensuring equal levels of duty on heavy goods vehicles across the European Union that reflect the polluter pays principle. Another example is a worldwide tax on air fuel. Not only does atmospheric pollution not respect national boundaries, so it is extremely important for nations within the European Union to act together to protect the environment, but it is undesirable to impose higher levels of taxation on the United Kingdom than on other EU hauliers.
So how should we take the principles of the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution forward? I hope that the Government will at least commit themselves to the general approach adopted by the Royal Commission even if some of the individual recommendations prove to be unacceptable. A co-ordinated approach to sustainable transport planning is long overdue and this Government—any government—have a key role in achieving it. No other party to transport policy: employer, commuter, shopper, road haulier, traveller by air or sea or on foot or bicycle, has the same duty as the Government to think in the long term,
1400
although many can no doubt be persuaded, in transport as in recycling, to think globally and act locally. And no other party has the financial clout.
At this point I must pause to say what a disaster in terms of sustainable transport policy I believe the sell-off of Railtrack to be. If we are to achieve a transfer of trips from the motor car to rail and from the HGV to rail, it is of the highest importance that the Government can continue to exert at least some influence on, in particular, the investment decisions of Railtrack. There are a number of projects sitting about in people's back pockets requiring relatively little financial investment which would, for example, enormously improve rail access to Heathrow. It would in my view be a tragedy if the Government were left unable to exert any influence in that direction.
We have already expressed our intention, should we get the chance, to buy back at least a share in Railtrack, should it be sold before the next general election. I look forward to hearing comment from the Labour Party on this matter during the debate. Our objective would be to enable government to influence rather than manage—I stress that comparison—a semi-public company which was also able to borrow in the market. If that requires a change in Treasury rules, all I can say is that that change sounds to me as if it is long overdue. We cannot allow rules which were made by men to become an enormous limitation on the actions of subsequent men and—I should add—women.
The Government must make their transport policy intentions clear and explicit. It will be desirable, if the long-term approach recommended by the Royal Commission is to be effective, for there to be a certain level of consensus between political parties so that that approach can be carried out over time. We also need co-ordination and clear understanding between local and national levels of government, and government must make their direction and purpose clear to local government. At present, for example, criteria for funding road schemes through transport supplementary grant and the TPP process can change more than once during the process of project design, causing waste of time and resources.
Even the package approach, welcome though it is, has been established with no indication of the future level of funding it might receive or even its relative importance in terms of financial support in the eyes of the department. As very few schemes can now be taken forward without being part of a package, this means that the new approach could actually be used as a new means of rationing funds for transport projects even more strictly than in the past.
Within the overall guidance of national government local authorities should be left to deal with the small scale projects—which the report assesses as often more capable of yielding a good environmental rate of return—without too much interference. I am sure I do not need to add that from our side we would prefer to see those local authorities capable of raising their own finances for such projects. We also support the emphasis given in the report to the regional level of activity, both in assessing projects and also in encouraging public

1401
transport, although we would of course prefer regional authorities to be directly elected rather than based on the existing groups such as SERPLAN.
Finally, there needs to be a partnership between government at all levels, industry and individual citizens. We—many other transport authorities are doing the same—are already exploring how we can encourage employers to alter the commuting habits of their employees so that they cause the least possible impact on traffic and congestion in the surrounding area. A good deal of interest is being shown by employers in this. To take something on a much bigger scale, if, for example, the Government could negotiate with the British Airports Authority, which operates the largest generator of traffic in the whole of the United Kingdom at Heathrow Airport, to ensure that it put together a plan for enabling its employees to get to work without getting into their motor cars, much of the congestion at peak hours on the M.25 would be considerably alleviated. There are 50,000 employees at Heathrow Airport and most of their journeys occur at peak hours. That is another partnership that we should seek to establish.
As for the partnership between government and individual citizens, it seems to me to be of the greatest importance that we should carry forward a traffic awareness campaign similar to—and with the same long term and steady intentions—that which has been done for drink/driving. When I was a young woman it was common for people leaving a party to be pressed to take "one for the road". Not only does one never see that any more, at least not in the circles in which I move, but one also notices that, if partners arrive at a party together, one will drink but the other will not. That campaign has had an enormous effect and the Government could stimulate a similar campaign both as regards the environmental consequences of individual traffic decisions and—perhaps this is even more important as a first step—to discourage excessive speeding. Nothing in my view is more destructive of peace and quiet in local areas than a combination of congestion and speeding—congestion in one area leading to speeding in another. I read your Lordships' spirited debate on an earlier occasion on the commission paper on sustainable mobility to which I gave evidence as part of the ACC group. I look forward to the next few hours with keen anticipation of other people's contributions. I beg to move for Papers.
6.17 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I wish to begin by saying how grateful we all are to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for introducing this debate. It is an opportunity that we all greatly welcome. It will be a pleasure for me to listen in a moment to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, not just because I have known him for over 40 years but also because I know what an expert he is on transport matters. I suspect that he will tell us something about the Channel Tunnel in which he has been closely involved.
I must make it quite clear that I am a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Noble Lords will not be surprised therefore to hear that I think
1402
it has produced rather a good report. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in replying to the previous debate suggested that some Members on these Benches had spoken with defensive sensitivity. I hope that I can be acquitted of that if I refer to one or two of the criticisms which have been made of the Royal Commission's report and try to address them. With a report of this length—it is a long report—I am bound to be repetitious if I try to summarise, which clearly should not be my role in this debate anyway.
The first criticism is the length of the report itself. The second criticism I wish to address is the assessment, or rather lack of assessment, of benefits for the economy and the fact that the report appears to be heavily biased towards environmental impacts. I also wish to discuss whether targets are appropriate in the first place and, secondly, if one can accept targets, whether the targets which have been chosen are appropriate.
As regards the criticism about length, I am sure the Royal Commission would plead guilty. It is a long report, but then this is a large subject. The terms of the Motion, which refers to,
"transport policies … sustainable in the long term",
demonstrate just how important it is to take an all-embracing holistic approach to this extremely complicated subject. Transport impinges on all our lives in any number of ways.
In paragraph 1.12, Chapter 1, the report refers to the sustainable development strategy of the Government. The Royal Commission points out that:
"Transport provides a crucial test of the commitment to sustainable development which the UK and other countries made at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992."
The thrust of the report is to make in advance what can really only be termed a preliminary attempt to define what is meant by "a sustainable development strategy". That phrase was used in the document that came out in 1994, the Government's own strategy for sustainable development, which has a chapter on sustainable transport. From that document there are quoted in paragraph 1.13 four parts of the framework which the Government themselves have suggested it would be sensible to have in mind when framing a sustainable transport policy. I will quote just the last sentence from that paragraph, and it comes itself as a quotation from the government document:
"To ensure that users pay the full social and environmental cost of their transport decisions, so improving the overall efficiency of those decisions for the economy as a whole and bringing environmental benefits".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, reminded us, the Royal Commission report seeks to put figures on the decisions that we make every time we choose a mode of transport and tries to assess not just how that might improve our competitive position within the economy but who is picking up the bill at the end of the day. That is a very important consideration, and it is one which has been sadly lacking in the past. The Department of Transport has until recently been accused, I think with some justification, of a policy of "predict and provide". You predict what the traffic movements will be and you provide for the requirements. It is as simple as that. Also, local authorities tended to agree or even to

1403
encourage out of town developments without measuring the impact of people's transport options. Clearly, the further out of the cities you go the greater the dependence on the car; and so there has been a failure in the past to quantify both the benefits and the environmental impacts, or indeed other disadvantages.
This Royal Commission report is not a blueprint, whatever it may be, on how to produce a transport policy. The Royal Commission, by its nature, has a requirement to try to give advice on environmental pollution, and transport is a major source of pollution. Therefore it is clearly a report which is biased towards trying to assess these impacts and to make some recommendations. Because it is not a blueprint, it is perfectly correct that others will have a different slant to contribute, and in the debate in which we are engaged it is important that all these views be given due consideration.
Moving on to some of the objectives and targets, the objectives which are listed seem on the whole to be pretty uncontroversial in the sense that objectives seek, for example—I will not quote them all—to improve the quality of life, reduce noise nuisance from traffic and the like. That we all accept is, on the whole, a desirable objective of any transport policy. Where it gets much more contentious, as I said before, is in the use of targets and, once you have determined to use them, deciding what they should be. For example, take the target on carbon dioxide emissions from transport. It is a highly controversial one because if you accept, as I think we all do, that personal mobility makes an essential contribution to the quality of life and we would not wish o be without it, it is then asking an awful lot to say "But, by the way, we wish to see the carbon dioxide emissions reduced by 80 per cent. by the year 2020"—and that is from 1990 levels, not today's.
Nevertheless it is inevitable, if you think about it. As a consequence of the climate change convention, we have agreed already to try to reduce our emission levels by 2010, and the Berlin conference recently sought to do the same for future years. Carbon dioxide from transport is about one-fifth of the emissions, so either we say that transport is exempt and is too important so we will make the rest of industry and other sectors contribute more to these reductions, or transport simply has to make its contribution.
There are in fact practical alternatives. It does not mean the end of the car. It certainly means that some other fuels become much more attractive and we deal with the alternative fuels, and it also gives a great incentive for the motor manufacturers to go for ever more efficient engines. That of course helps the consumer. It does not mean that you put safety at risk and it does not mean that these targets are unobtainable. If you think of some of the difficulties, as some motor manufacturers have said, you have only to recollect that some of these cars are already in existence: there are cars being made which would achieve these average objectives.
In a strange way, we still reward those who behave in an anti-social way. Take, for example, the company car. That is still the most astonishing facet of our renumeration and reward system. The report again
1404
says—there is a box that I should like to draw your attention to—that were the Chancellor to be able to tax the cash equivalent for these company cars, the tax yield would be about £2 billion. If you could only revise the company car fiscal opportunities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better off by £2 billion and the individual in the company, who very often does not use the company car (6 per cent. of company cars use no mileage at all) would be better off and the company itself would be better off because it would have more flexibility.
My time is almost up. I simply want to make the point that this document repays careful study, long though it is, and it is certainly a contribution to a debate which needs to be taken very much wider than our debate today. I am sure this debate will have made a very useful contribution in bringing this whole very important issue to public knowledge.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to make a small contribution to what I believe is a subject of absolutely vital importance to the sustainability of our environment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on initiating this debate on the contribution that transport can make. I should also like to thank her for her kind words of welcome.
In researching the maiden speech of my aunt, Lady Berkeley, in 1970 I found that she also spoke on transport—on rural bus services—and said that the unsatisfactory nature of those services was causing great concern to country dwellers. How true then; and it gives me no pleasure to suggest that it is very much worse today, 25 years on.
I first declare my interest in that I am employed by Eurotunnel, the Channel Tunnel operators. I have had the privilege of working with many of your Lordships over the years and I should like to record my thanks for the support that many of you have given to the project. To see this very great engineering achievement and transport link completed—I hope that some of your Lordships have used it—makes one realise that it is after all a connection by means of which some 60 per cent. of our exports can go to the Continent. I think it is also appropriate to record congratulations to the Department of Trade and Industry, which over the years has probably achieved a unique success in getting 90 per cent. of production orders, after competitive tendering within the European Union, going to British firms. That compares very well with the other side of the Channel.
The tunnel is now open. Eurostar recently took its first millionth passenger, if that is the right word. Every week 100 freight trains pass through the tunnel, and traffic on the lorry and car shuttle is building up. There it is: it is a transport link, and I would not like to say more at this stage. It connects the transport networks of Britain and the Continent and therefore makes its contribution to a sustainable transport policy, which we are talking about today.
I am also chairman of the Piggyback Consortium, the objective of which is to create a system of putting lorry semi-trailers on trains within the British Rail loading

1405
gauge width, and there is a target of getting half a million lorries a year off the roads. They do not have to go through the Tunnel; they can go anywhere where road bridges are slightly raised; but it is an objective which I think is useful.
However, today I would like to explore some matters of wider interest in the debate on implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission's excellent report. I want to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions and to discuss means of reducing them in respect of the road-rail interface within the European framework. I should like to give a few examples of how that might be achieved.
As we have already heard, the target in the report is to limit carbon dioxide emissions in the year 2000 to the 1990 level, and to reduce it to 80 per cent. of that value by the year 2020. That is quite a challenge, given the national road traffic forecast of a growth in demand of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent.—maybe 100 per cent—between 1988 and 2025.
For passenger travel the report states that in 1992 12 per cent. of passenger-kilometres were by public transport. To meet those targets the Royal Commission recommends that the figure should be increased to 30 per cent. by 2020, 2.5 times the present figure for passenger travel by public transport. The report also compares Britain's current 12 per cent. with 18 per cent. in France and 21 per cent. in Germany. One could argue that those countries are halfway to that target. Why is there the difference? Can we learn something from those countries?
I believe that we need both the carrot and the stick approach. The sticks are easy to describe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to some of them. They are not too difficult to implement, given sufficient political will. The Government are already looking at tolling motorways and charging for driving in city centres, and are already committed to increasing fuel duty by 5 per cent. above inflation each year. Perhaps they should also consider imposing more rigorous speed restrictions on other roads to discourage diversion from tolled motorways. That would also contribute to road safety and reduced pollution. The report states that pollution would be dramatically reduced if speeds were reduced. Such sticks may look unpopular on their own, but, linked to a carrot, they become more acceptable.
The carrot in the short term is a coherent, integrated public transport service, safe, secure and accessible to those with small children or who have mobility difficulties, or whatever, and with well designed interchanges between buses, trains and taxis. Those facilities must be cheap enough for people to want to use them. We have been saying that for a long time; it deserves repeating again and again. That may seem an impossible goal, but the report states that in the Netherlands the share of passenger-kilometres by public transport increased by 22 per cent. in 10 years, largely due to a government policy of developing and encouraging an integrated and accessible system. You can even order a taxi to be at your destination when you buy a ticket. Some noble Lords may have been to Amsterdam. The trams and cycles, and the absence of the combustion engine in the
1406
centre, make one wonder why we do not have the courage to try that concept in London. The quality of life outside this place on a smoggy, polluted day leaves much to be desired.
For longer journeys, there is the French TGV. Some noble Lords have travelled with me on the TGV. I do not say that it is better because it is French, but the TGV is a good example of how passengers have been attracted off road and air on to rail. In the first 10 years of its life, the TGV from Paris to Lyon—it is roughly the same distance as from London to Manchester—caused rail traffic on that route to increase by 80 per cent. Air traffic on that same route was halved, and the adjacent autoroute, or motorway, experienced a smaller growth in traffic compared with motorways without comparable TGV lines. It also helps that fares per kilometre in France, and I believe elsewhere, are considerably less than those in the UK. I calculate the figure to be about half.
To achieve those objectives, we must recreate our integrated network of bus and train services. Those services are, after all, really competing with the private car, not with each other. It is ironic that buses are specifically forbidden to discuss through-ticketing for fear of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In contrast, the rail regulator, after considerable nudging from this House and another place, is committed to retaining some network benefits and through-ticketing. Why is there the difference between bus and rail through-ticketing? Should not they be working together?
I believe that the regulator of the future should be the regulator of the public transport network with the specific objectives of making it more accessible and user-friendly—in short, of attracting (I emphasise the word "attracting") more passenger traffic to the overall network. The debate must continue, but we must beware of all stick and no carrot. I believe that we may be seeing that situation already. We must ensure that the additional revenue from those extra penalties, or sticks, on the private car, and so on, is not gain for the Treasury which is not transferred to public transport.
I turn to freight. The Royal Commission estimated that freight by rail would have almost to treble in 25 years. I cannot cover the issue in detail now. But I believe that with an attractive freight facilities grant—it is certainly not that at present—competitive track access charges, and aggressive new management in the rail freight industry (which I believe that we are beginning to see), there is real possibility that the rail freight targets can be achieved.
The Royal Commission has warned us of the severe consequences of doing nothing. We must heed them. I should like to see the Government propose clear new policies within transport, the environment, health, and trade and industry to achieve the targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, called for an integrated transport policy. Transport, as with pollution, knows no boundaries. Those policies must be developed and implemented with other member states and the European Commission. If we do not do so, we shall have technical incompatibility. That is becoming evident already. We

1407
start from behind. We have much to learn from other member states; and we have something to contribute. Let us for once take the lead in that process.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for instituting the debate. It was not so long ago that we debated the issue. We have debated it quite regularly in the past and there is no harm that we debate the subject again today. The great advantage about today's debate is that we hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We welcome him and have listened attentively to what he said because, as the noble Baroness said, the noble Lord is very experienced in the transport sector. There is, I think, a clique of transport enthusiasts in this House. We welcome the noble Lord to that clique and are grateful for the added expertise that he brings to our debates. We hope that he will come to the House often.
I thank the commission and in particular my noble friend for all his hard work. It must have been an enjoyable and stimulating commission. Pollution covers a number of areas—local, national, European and worldwide. Naturally the committee considered all those areas. For example, the report refers to local 20 mph zones; nationally, it refers to annual excise duty European-wide, and road pricing technology; and worldwide it refers to aircraft emissions.
However, I then become somewhat worried. The first sentence of paragraph 107 of chapter 14 states that,
"Our recommendations complement and reinforce each other, and must"—
I stress the word "must"—
"be viewed as a whole".
Therein lies the great difficulty regarding the excellent work of the commission. Some of its recommendations are peaks of ambition rather than realistic medium-term targets. It is difficult for a country of the size and shape of ours, with the Channel Tunnel its only link to another country, to influence much that goes on in Europe, let alone worldwide. Therefore to have the maximum effect, I should have liked the commission to have subdivided its report into the recommendations that could have coherently hung together and which we in this country could have implemented by ourselves.
We must also be careful that we do not take action that will be detrimental to ourselves and from which others can benefit, as the noble Baroness pointed out. If we tackle pollution it must be for the most part on a European-wide basis, and a worldwide basis.
I wish to touch on two important factors. First, the Government must be involved in the discussion, as must all of us. There is no doubt that our way of life will change. The commission pointed out ways in which it is likely to change. If we do not take part in that debate and come forward with our own ideas we cannot blame anyone else for taking action in the future.
I am slightly worried as to what some of the commission's recommendations mean in the way of an increase in government interference in our lives. I object to that, and hope that there might be other ways of achieving the same ends.
1408
The second point that concerns me is the massive cost of the recommendations. As I have said many times before, protecting the environment is a very expensive exercise. We must not do anything that is detrimental to our industries and economies, which are needed to generate wealth to enable us to protect the environment. The two go hand in hand. There was a suggestion in the committee's recommendations that an increase in fuel duty should double the price of fuel for cars within a period of 10 years. That would have an enormous effect in the countryside and would change the way of life there. The cost of fuel might increase dramatically under the Government's proposals, but under the commission's recommendations the change would be quicker and more severe. There are not the public sector utilities in the way of trains or buses to compensate for that dramatic increase in cost in the areas where a lot of low-income people already live. These are the kinds of knock-on effects that need to be thought through and debated as a result of the committee's hard work.
I should like to touch briefly on two other points. The committee quite rightly raised the question of noise. People's perception and their interest in noise has been growing for many years. I blame some local authorities for aggravating that position. There are cases, for instance, where the Government have put in a road scheme, and then the local authority has allowed development right up to that road. It may have been a bypass, or a new road, that has increased traffic in a particular area and the local authority has allowed development up to that point.
Similar cases have occurred with some of our airports. They are vital communication links for this country. The airports were there long before some of the present development grew up. Quite naturally, as people become more concerned about noise, so they complain from the very houses that are part of the development that took place when the airport was already there. That does not stop the problem, but it could perhaps have been alleviated by better decisions on the part of some local authorities in the first place.
I touch briefly on airports, which are a matter of concern to me. It is vital that Britain maintains its link as the hub of the European air system. We are very fortunate to have the network of airports that we do have, with Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton around London. It is vital for our prosperity that these airports are kept and maintained, and that every opportunity is given to develop them, bearing in mind the constraints that the commission recommends.
For that reason I was disappointed by the recent decision of the Government on Redhill airport as a feeder relief airport for Gatwick. With the congestion that already exists at Heathrow and Gatwick, it seems logical that we should use existing sites such as Redhill and Northolt to enable our main airports to flourish. The sadness in regard to Northolt, which is very much under-utilised, is that it could be of enormous benefit to Heathrow and to the regions by taking some of the traffic out of Heathrow to allow bigger planes in and thereby maintaining the important position that UK Limited has in the world aviation market.

1409
I am grateful for all the commission's hard work. As my noble friend said earlier, the report is lengthy. It is impossible to do it justice in the short time that we have. I urge the Government and all who are concerned about this matter to take this debate forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this short step on its route.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming this debate, and particularly in welcoming the report and the opportunity that I now have to support it. Reading the report, one realises that it is not dogmatically anti-car. It is the more authoritative, compelling and convincing for its balance and calm tone. The question of balance is vital, because one must win the hearts and minds of the public in the debate on dealing with pollution and their choices of transport mode.
The issue seems to be moving up the public agenda very fast. One has only to read of the action taken by families in Greenwich during the recent incidence of high pollution to realise that. But there is still a wide debate to be realised. We must not overlook that—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made this point—or the need for easily understood and easily accessible information. Some measures may appear to bring disadvantages to individuals. Unless they are understood in the short term and are seen to be for good reason, they will not succeed. We need to help the public to link the issues, and to link the causes and effects. That was a point to which the New Scientist drew attention in a very blunt editorial on 13th May. Referring to summer arriving in Britain and bringing with it the worst air pollution of the year—at a time, I have to say, when I was lucky enough to be breathing clear mountain air and was able to stop coughing for the first time in two months—the editorial went on to say:
"Coincidentally, last week also marked the utter humiliation of the Conservative government at local council elections … These two events are presumably not linked directly for there is no evidence that voters who walked to the polls decided that the Conservative government should pay the price for the foul taste of the air. But the government's lack of success in dealing with air pollution says much about its current political weaknesses".
I am not one who calls for a rigid blueprint in these matters. But I believe that the Government have failed in not helping to provide an appropriate framework to deal with transport and pollution. We know that the Government favour a light touch. But it must be the right touch. We need the right government structures at every level; and we need especially the recognition that transport cannot be isolated from land use planning matters. We need to recognise the environmental impact of policies. For instance, if bus deregulation proceeds in London, how are the Government easily to encourage the greater use of public transport? My noble friend Lady Thomas referred to rail privatisation and the disposal of Railtrack. Already, it is difficult even to get information as to how to make any but the most straightforward journey by rail. And that is at the very start of the process of privatisation. It is difficult for the Government to say that they are promoting public transport hand-in-hand with some of their other policies.
1410
If the Government will not accept the need for an integrated transport policy—and we have seen no evidence that they do—perhaps they will accept that each individual traveller is an integrated person. Instead of regarding, for instance, car drivers as distinct from rail passengers, as distinct from cyclists, we should encourage each individual to choose the appropriate mode for each particular journey. In particular, car owners need not only be car drivers. We have not reached the point of having a culture in which leaving the car at home is one obvious option.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned sticks and carrots. We may have to accept that some of the carrots will need to precede some of the sticks. The accessibility of less environmentally damaging forms of travel needs to be available before tougher policies are applied; otherwise, the public will resent and resist what is being done. That means investing in what we have. London Underground is an obvious example. Its use is an increasingly unpleasant experience. I am told by users of branches of the District Line, other than the Wimbledon branch, that, most unhappily, delays, cancellations and overcrowding on those branches are increasing noticeably. It has to be said that the Wimbledon branch seems to have improved. That may or may not be because the new head of London Underground uses the Wimbledon branch.
Let us take the separate, and quite different, example of regional airports. There are environmentally sound reasons for expanding regional airports. I may not agree with the whole of what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, may say about airport policy, but on the matter of regional airports, I do agree with him. There are very good reasons for expanding them instead of directing the great majority of flights to the South East and requiring passengers from, say, the North-West to travel to Heathrow to connect with international flights. It also means ensuring that what we have is as acceptable as possible. Let me mention here the new A.14 in Cambridgeshire. The road surface noise from that trunk road has proved more intrusive than the worst fears of local people had envisaged. We need to invest in research and development, which is vital to make sure that, where there has to be development, we understand the impact on the environment and on local people.
Finally, to ensure public information and public understanding there has to be openness. For instance, monitoring of pollution must be open and understandable. That is especially important in a very complex scientific and technical area. The London Air Quality Network, which has been commended by the Royal Commission, recently called for an easily understood format for reporting air quality and pollution levels to the public. One must welcome openness. After all, it is at the heart of an accountable democracy. One must encourage all agencies to be free with information and to use plain language in its presentation. Among those agencies, I include the Cabinet Sub-committee for London. The argument that transport is a major issue for London and that strategic land use planning and transport in London need to be linked was won years ago. It seems that only the Government are not convinced and deal with these matters out of the public eye in a private Cabinet committee.

1411
The issues of transport and pollution are not isolated. There are many good reasons to take them seriously. I shall end by mentioning only two of them. The quality of life is an important criterion for overseas companies considering where to locate. In other words, air quality is important in attracting investment. Secondly, the environment is vital to health. My noble friend Lady Thomas, mentioned the work undertaken by our colleague the honourable Member for Montgomery in drawing attention to the costs of treating asthma which have risen by over 20 per cent. in the past two years. There are those who say that we must do more, we must get bigger and we cannot afford environmental measures. It may be trite but it is true to say that we cannot afford not to implement them.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this 18th report of the Royal Commission is significant not only for its length but also, perhaps more importantly, for drawing together so many of the issues which dominate the debate on transport and the environment. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we have discussed many of the issues on many occasions over recent months. Certainly those issues have often been discussed in my time in your Lordships' House and as long ago as 15 or 20 years. We do not seem to get on very much faster. That is not to deny that the Royal Commission is not right in reminding us of those self-same issues.
But I do not believe that the report has taken on board nor paid sufficient regard to those measures that have already been taken and are already in prospect to lessen the impact of land based transport. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I am more inclined to congratulate my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport for having taken measures quite recently on fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and other matters. One problem with emissions is that only a few years ago we were urged internationally to move from petrol (gasoline) to diesel fuel. The motor manufacturers rejigged their plant and produced motor engines, particularly small diesel engines, to meet that need. Within a matter of a few years, we have heard that diesel particulates are in fact more dangerous than petrol emissions. What chance does the motor manufacturing industry have when we keep moving the goalposts. In this regard, what we need is a more consistent approach to some of the problems.
The problems are not only a matter for the Department of Transport. The report talks about planning and that involves the Department of the Environment and indeed other departments also. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said—I hope that he will forgive me if I do not quote him exactly—that gains for the Treasury should not be kept there but should be spread around. Too much of what is happening in the motor and transport industry is Treasury dominated. A lot more could be done if some of those funds could be released. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
I return to the commission's report. Notwithstanding the preface to the report, which states that:
"An effective transport system is vital for economic well-being and the quality of life",
1412
many of the report's 102 recommendations run quite contrary to the economic growth of the United Kingdom, the international competitiveness of industry and indeed the natural aspirations of the people of this country. Of the 102 recommendations, 31—one third—say that the Government "should". That will all cost money. From where will that money come? I shall return to that issue in my concluding remarks.
Having started in that fashion, the report concludes with the suggestion that:
"unrelenting growth of transport has become possibly the greatest threat facing the UK".
I do not believe that that suggestion can be maintained.
My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke about the international pollution. Chernobyl is just one example which he did not mention, although he gave other instances. The growth of transport is not the greatest threat facing us. Let me say—I mean it quite critically—that by far the weakest aspect of the report is the total and absolute failure to address the economic and social impact of its recommendations. Some can be accommodated in the natural consequence and natural advancement of things. But I have not read any response to the report which does not draw that conclusion.
Let me pick just one example—not quite out of the air, because I happen to know a little about freight. To suggest increasing road costs to make "rail more attractive" is a nonsense. It will merely increase costs to industry without effecting a significant shift in the mode of travel. Anybody who runs a heavy goods vehicle at £35 per hour does not run it for fun. It is there to meet the proper and legitimate demands of its customers, without whom we should not have the quality of life that we enjoy. It is perhaps of interest to your Lordships to note that there are today fewer heavy goods vehicles—commercial vehicles over, for example, a Transit van weight—on the roads than have been recorded since records began.
The commission talked about compulsory transhipment depots to serve communities. In my view, that is a practical nonsense. One will simply substitute one heavy goods vehicle for six or eight light vehicles. They will add to the congestion; they will add to the pollution. If heavy goods vehicles were denied access to the urban areas it would add another £1.5 billion to industries' costs. That would be reflected, for example, in the cost of a packet of cornflakes and other things.
Road transport contributed £24 billion to the Exchequer in 1994–95. Road users paid 12 per cent. of all tax revenues and less than one-third of that was spent on roads, whether on the environmental impact, road building or improvements. That is a point that I wanted to pick up from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the Treasury. That money must be spread around better. It is no good adding more to the Treasury coffers.
Levering up fuel costs as the report suggests would seriously damage the rural community and fall disproportionately upon the lower income groups. Having said that—a fairly condemnatory statement—I have no doubt that most people will accept some use restriction and possibly some cost increase in relation to cars (an individual pays around £815 a year in direct motor taxes). We must influence the car culture and take the balanced

1413
view, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, remarked, to reduce the impact of transport. Actions in that regard must be practical, cost-effective, widely supported and, above all, offer freedom of choice within the framework of people's lives.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Berkeley on his maiden speech, not only for its content, but also bearing in mind his great contribution to Eurotunnel over the years and his excellent liaison with the inter-parliamentary Channel Tunnel group over that same period.
The report pursues this subject in massive depth, but I shall confine myself to a few short remarks on the railway aspect of it. That fits in rather well with a long-term view of the recent history of transport. As we approach this new century that seems to be a legitimate way to measure the time. If we think of the 19th century, that was obviously the age of steam traction fuelled by its old ally, coal. The 20th century has undoubtedly been the age of the internal combustion engine with its energy source coming from oil. The question is: what will the future be in the 21st century?
I suggest that the key element will be electricity. If that occurs it will have profound repercussions on the subject dealt with by the report. Although at present we are ultimately dependent upon fossil fuels, electricity is suitable for generation by alternative sources such as wind, tide and so forth. In my belief—a very fond one—it may ultimately be generated by cleaned-up nuclear fission, or in the 21st century, by fusion.
In transport terms this source of traction is not very suitable for road transport—notoriously so—and perhaps never will be; but it is ideal for railways. I draw your Lordships' attention to what the report says on that subject. It said that there is a compelling need to transfer to rail as much traffic, both passenger and freight, as possible if the world is to meet the reduced pollution targets for the next century. There are signs that railways are already moving to meet that need.
If we consider the question of urban passenger transport, it is notable that there has been a worldwide move towards rail. Many cities are building tramways, light railways or main-line extensions to meet the pressing need to reduce urban air pollution. In this country we have seen recent examples in Manchester and Sheffield. Generally speaking, since the low point of Beeching, British Rail has opened no less than 250 new stations, which shows that at last it is moving in the right direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the Eurostar train puts a new dimension on rail transport and I urge anyone who has not yet experienced it to do so. It provides extremely strong competition for air travel to Paris.
The way the freight situation has developed is also interesting, again perhaps in the European context. As the noble Lord said, there has been a rapid build-up. At present around 100 trains a week run at night through the tunnel. That is an interesting development because it demonstrates that it is possible to concentrate sufficient traffic at collecting points to run daily scheduled freight
1414
trains to a number of destinations. I believe that three trains a day leave Glasgow and Mosside, some of them taking traffic to Northern Italy and points beyond. That may be extended to more key routes on British Rail, provided they were modified to accept nine-feet containers or trailers by piggyback. There is urgent need for that to be done.
The next time the Government are urged by the ministry for road transport to spend a few billion pounds on new roads, I urge them to put a few hundred million into upgrading rail instead. I am certain that the environmental and social gains will justify the expenditure.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this is a provocative and stimulating report and I wait with bated breath for my noble friend's reply to see whether the Government have been mainly provoked or stimulated. I should like to put forward four points from the report. They are not money-spending points; in fact they are money-saving points.
First, in relation to the road programme, we all recognise that there is no way in which we can build all the roads which would be filled if we were to build them. That means a lot of roads must be cut out of the programme, but not all roads. In rural areas, in which I have a specific interest, it is clear that people's quality of life in many rural villages such as mine in Suffolk have been made intolerable by the build-up of traffic on trunk roads, and bypasses are needed there. On the other hand, in rural areas it is not desirable to make improvements to very minor roads in order to stimulate or speed traffic on its way. I would prefer traffic calming measures such as speed limits and traffic humps to slow down the traffic. It is also a great deal cheaper to do that.
We have to make better use of the roads that we have. One obvious way referred to in the report is by the use of tolls. I should like to make a modest, practical suggestion as to how we could introduce tolls straightaway on the M.25 in an inexpensive manner. We should bear in mind that for quite a lot of most days the M.25 is choked full. I suggest that we introduce a single-price toll of £5 for entering the M.25. You would pay with a smart card, and without one you would not get on the road. After all, if you try to start your car in the morning without petrol you cannot drive, so there need be no sympathy for people who try to join the motorway without a card.
You would pay to get on the road, and you would pay £5 whether you went so far as one junction or the lot. But—and this is important—it would be free to enter the M.25 between midnight and 6 a.m. I suggest that would make much better use of the M.25, and that would not be expensive to introduce. Sophisticated road pricing is a great idea, but it is still years ahead.
We need to make much better use of the cars we already have. I believe that the Government's policy over the decades has probably been wrong regarding vehicle excise duty. I believe that the current vehicle excise duty is £135 a year. In 1968 it was £25 a year, and if one multiplies that for inflation, today that figure would be £225. In 1975 the road tax had already started to fall in

1415
real terms. It was £40 a year, which is equivalent to £176 today. I would settle for £200 a year, and by my calculation, that would give the Chancellor an extra £1.3 billion, which is well worth having. It would make people think twice about having too many cars. To reinforce that, I suggest that we consider that individuals having second cars should pay double the road tax, which will be £400. If one has better use of cars, then one needs to build fewer roads. Noble Lords may think that is radical, but it is a perfectly sensible approach to dealing with a real and urgent problem.
Finally, I come to a subject which I am very keen about; namely, bicycles. I am delighted to see that the report gives them extensive cover. As I am sure all your Lordships know, National Bicycle Week starts on Saturday. On Tuesday of next week there is what is called, the "Great Parliamentary Bicycle Ride", which is from Covent Garden to the Palace of Westminster. I hope that many Members of both Houses will attend. Indeed, it would be quite fun to have a competition to see which of the two main parties can produce most Members on bicycles. The Liberal Democrat participation can be measured on the basis of proportional representation!
What is quite serious is that bicycling is jolly dangerous, particularly in London. It is 10 times more dangerous to be a cyclist than it is to be a passenger or driver in a motor car. One of the points proposed by the Royal Commission Report is to ask the Government to produce specific proposals for making bicycling safer. That is most important.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords a few figures which really show why bicycling is such a good thing. I believe that it is Paragraph 6.39 of the report which gives complicated sums about the mega joule per kilometre of the cost of moving people around in different ways. I have reduced those sums to a rather simple form and I believe that the arithmetic is right. My noble friend Lord Selborne will correct me if I am wrong. If it costs one unit for a person on a bicycle, four times as much energy is used to walk; 50 times as much energy is used to move someone in a car on an ordinary urban road and 80 times more energy to move someone in a car in the commuter rush hour. That strikes me as a good argument in favour of the bicycle. It is also a great deal healthier.
It is stated somewhere in the report that a large proportion of people of our age—I am referring to the average age of noble Lords—are not fit enough to walk even at three miles per hour. I do not think that applies to most noble Lords; but it is a pretty awful condemnation of the state of health of the British nation. It may be that we are not representative. I am told by actuaries that Members of this House live a decade longer than the rest of the community.
Quite seriously, London is an ideal place for bicycling. The total number of journeys in Britain by bicycle is about two per cent. In Germany it is about 10 per cent; in Holland about 30 per cent.; and in the city of Delft it is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. We should have targets greatly to increase the number of bicycle trips made in this country.
The first requirement is proper bicycle lanes, particularly in cities and in London. There is a very simple way of doing it. If one considers one-way streets—I am
1416
not about to suggest going down them the wrong way, because I said that once before and got into trouble—where there is parking on both sides, if one of those lanes was taken away and turned into a cycling lane, then at no extra cost—hey presto!—one has a perfectly good bicycle lane!
I hope that the Government, if they are really taking this subject seriously, will draw up a plan and not just leave it to local authorities because they will not do it. Some will and some will not. There is no point in having a chain if some links are missing. I end there. I believe that there is a great deal that can be done and I should like to hear the Government's response to some of my ideas.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in my particular case for drawing my attention to the material which is in the Royal Commission's report on environmental pollution and transport. It is a fascinating document.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in tandem, almost, in that I shall be devoting most of my remarks to cycling. I have to declare an interest: I am a fair weather cyclist. I quite often travel to your Lordships' House by bike. I also admit to using my car rather too often for longer journeys rather than using my bike or public transport, despite the fact that I am entitled to a rail card. We use cars because of their comfort, convenience and ability to carry luggage, shopping and other paraphernalia, so easily in the boot. A hatchback or an estate car enables us to carry furniture and sometimes a bicycle—or even such other items as sacks of manure—around town or country with ease.
I admit that cycling can never be the major mode of transport in the country or the solution to all the environmental impacts which methods of transport have. But for short journeys, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, pointed out, especially in urban areas, the bicycle is extremely efficient and often the most rapid form of transport. I can reliably reach your Lordships' House from home in 25 to 30 minutes on a bicycle. By Tube it takes 35 to 40 minutes; by bus it takes about 45 minutes. Car journeys are very unpredictable, taking anything from 20 minutes to 40 minutes depending on the traffic. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, the fuel efficiency of riding a bicycle is enormously superior to that of a motor vehicle. The car burns up 40 to 80 times as many calories per person/kilometre travelled, depending on the traffic, as a cyclist. Also, the car produces 40 to 80 times as much CO2 as a cyclist. The cyclist uses no fossil fuel and emits no nitrogen oxides or particulate matter in exhaled breath.
Although the precise mechanism is not fully understood, there is little doubt that vehicle fumes play a part, perhaps a major part, in the recent worrying increase in asthma. That was referred to by the noble Baroness. Diesel fumes which contain more minute particulate matter are a suspect with regard to asthma, because it appears that the hydrocarbon particle acts as a nucleus or nidus to which allergens or other irritants can stick.

1417
Cyclists, as compared to motorists, do not just contribute to a healthy atmosphere, they improve their own health. I spelt that out, possibly in some boring detail, in a contribution I made to the Unstarred Question on cycling tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, almost two years ago. To sum up, the beneficial effects on health of cycling occur mainly in the cardiovascular system (the heart and the arteries). The likelihood of a heart attack (a myocardial infarction) or angina, high blood pressure or a stroke is measurably decreased by exercise. Osteoporosis, also a major cause of problems in middle to late life, especially among women, is greatly reduced by exercise.
There is now no scientific doubt about those findings, which are recognised in the recent report of the physical activity taskforce set up under the Health of the Nation initiative entitled, More People, More Active, More Often.
As the Royal Commission report points out, although cycle ownership has risen from 25 per cent. to 36 per cent. in the past 20 years, the percentage of the population which uses bicycles regularly has decreased by a third over the same period. Cycle mileage per person per year has fallen from 51 miles to 41 miles. The Royal Commission report, as the noble Lord pointed out, takes cycling seriously and devotes 21 paragraphs in six different sections to cycling. It makes four recommendations and puts forward one major objective in relation to cycling, (target C2 in paragraph 14.96) which states that the target should be:
"To increase cycling use to 10 per cent. of all urban journeys by 2005, compared to 2.5 per cent. now, and seek further increases thereafter on the basis of targets to be set by the government".
The decrease in cycling use is due partly to the increased convenience of cars, as I said, and the vast increase in the percentage of the population which owns a car, and partly to the perceived danger of cycling in present traffic conditions. There are about 250 deaths and 25,000 injuries among cyclists per annum, as the report points out. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned that the death rate per 100 kilometres travelled is nearly 10 times higher on a bicycle than it is in a car. In Britain the death rate from cycling is two or three times higher than it is in the Netherlands, Sweden or Denmark.
As an important step towards increased cycling safety the report recommends that,
"comprehensive networks of safe cycle routes which do not involve the use of heavily trafficked roads should be built up in all urban areas."
Further,
"the government should make available to all local authorities the relatively modest resources required to support a 10-year programme to create high-quality cycling facilities; the new appraisal method of cycling schemes be reviewed in the light of the 1995/96 TPP round".
In statements over the past year or two, the Government have accepted that an increase in cycling is desirable. In June last year the Department of Transport issued a cycling friendly statement entitled A Blueprint for Cycling Policy, advocating some of the cycling measures put forward by the Royal Commission, but it put the onus of operating those on local government, the private sector and individuals themselves. Of course local authorities are the proper people to construct safe cycle ways and provide other measures recommended in the report, but they need the "relatively modest"—as the Royal
1418
Commission puts it—resources required to carry out those schemes. Local authorities have had their duties increased and their budgets decreased regularly during this Government's lifetime. Exhortation from central government is not enough. Action in the form of resources is essential.
I should like to ask the Minister a question which I put to him two years ago. Deaths and serious injuries to cyclists are due usually to head injuries. Although the cost of cycle helmets has come down over the past few years, they are still much too expensive for some, especially children and adults from poor families. They represent about 25 per cent. of the cost of the bicycle itself. That is partly because they are VAT liable, as are the bicycles themselves and bicycle spare parts, although motorcycle helmets are exempt. We cannot exempt pedal cyclists' helmets, pedal cycles or pedal cycle parts without a cross-European agreement to do so. That would seem a desirable aim right across Europe. I see that I have overrun my time. I believe there may be another tandem coming along after me and so I shall now finish.
7.27 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was referring to me as a third tandem—no, we have another cyclist here. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I shall concentrate upon our inland waterways, but I should like to start with two quotations from the report. The first is:
"We do not regard this cycle of continual road building facilitating continue growth of road transport as environmentally sustainable".
The second quotation is:
"Unrelenting growth of transport has become possibly the greatest environmental threat facing the UK and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving sustainable development".
I am grateful to Dr. David Hilling of the Department of Geography at the University of London for providing me with most of my information. On an island such as Britain, it is brought home to us that land itself is a finite resource. That is one of the reasons not to open up more and more large aggregate pits even if the land will ultimately be available for a limited number of alternative uses. Connected to that is the fact that road building removes from other possible uses both the land from which the aggregate is taken and the land to which it is taken to make the roads.
In taking the best practicable environmental option as the basis for decision-making, the Royal Commission suggests that not only industrial pollution—the original target—but now also transport policy should be based upon that principle. In that context, I should like to see more use made of water transport. The objection often raised to water transport that it is so slow. If you look at the life history of many industrial products you see that they spend a long period in a warehouse, a short period moving quickly in a lorry, and another period doing nothing in a warehouse. It should not take a great deal of forward planning to provide for the goods to spend a certain amount of time that they would otherwise spend doing nothing in the warehouse travelling more slowly by

1419
water. In that way a huge tonnage of different products would pollute far less in their journeys to their eventual customers.
The stated objective of the Royal Commission is to increase the proportion of freight carried by less environmentally damaging modes and to make the best use of the existing infrastructure, which of course includes the man-made and the natural inland waterways.
I return to the slowness of water transport. Perhaps the Royal Commission overestimates the deterrent effect of this disadvantage. Certainly the amazing growth of container traffic on the Rhine from Rotterdam to Antwerp suggests that an extra few days is of no great significance as regards goods that have already travelled a long way from the Far East and other distant places.
In Germany there is a weekend lorry ban on motorways. That is undoubtedly helpful to the waterways. We could see more of that type of restriction in the future. Tweddle and Nash recommended—I am not sure of the name of the report—that British waterways should be included in the European masterplan for inland waterways. This would ensure that Britain gets a share of any infrastructure grants that may be available. As recently as 1994, and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the British Government were arguing that countries' waterways were not a part of the mainland—that is the European—waterways system. Yet before railways were even invented ships provided direct connection between inland ports in Britain and those in the mainland of Europe.
To illustrate the possibilities for increasing the tonnage of freight carried on water, I should like also to draw on two other reports which refer specifically to the Thames. The Financial Times, in a report dated 6th January 1989, described the Thames as the:
"most under-utilised stretch of natural infrastructure in Europe".
Any policy based on the BPEO must make more use of London's river.
In 1992 the Government set up a River Thames Working Group to examine the present use of the river, the factors which inhibit the growth of traffic and the potential for developing freight and passenger transport on the river. Its report highlighted the huge quantity and wide variety of products which are carried on the river.
The Royal Commission report examines the now well-known benefits to the environment of a greater use of water transport. Barge transport in connection with the Jubilee Line extension is reducing lorry transport in the city by 300 journeys a day and waterfront industries create local employment and economic benefit.
Waterside industry in general must be in the context of proper landscaping, attention to design and the reduction of environmental conflict. Please remember that for those who use the waterways for pleasure in particular the view from the water needs to be considered. Too often planners are steamrollered into developments which exploit cheaper waterside land and result in nothing but slabs of wall facing the waterway. It will never have the charm and the interest even of the older industrial areas through which many canals pass.
1420
I wish to conclude by passing on a comment which friends of mine made when they flew back from France in early May during some very hot weather. They told me that as they flew over the Channel and inland the colour of the air became a dirty yellow-grey and looked very sick. Certainly during those days, and for the first time ever in my life, I found the air in London difficult and distasteful to breathe.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too welcome the Royal Commission report. I welcome its analysis of present travel patterns and transport trends; its review of policy options; recommended objectives; targets; and, finally, the importance that it gives to cycling. I realise that there are many issues to be discussed tonight and I hesitate to overplay the cycling aspect of our debate. However, many of your Lordships will know that in the week I cycle in London in all weathers. It is my intention to confine my remarks to that subject tonight. The economic health and environmental benefits of cycling were fully discussed in your Lordships' House on 21st April 1993 and are now increasingly widely recognised. I believe that that debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
Since then there have been a number of changes. The bicycle is no longer viewed as just the vehicle of the poor—or, perhaps in our case, that of the eccentric—but increasingly as a symbol of modern and healthy living. Bicycle ownership continues to increase. Sales are running at more than 2 million per year and the industry calculates that ownership is now close to 20 million.
However, this cycling revival is not reflected in national or regional use statistics. In London, usage is said to have dropped by 30 per cent. between 1981 and 1991, although local commuter counts indicate an increase since 1991. Certainly during the 15 or 20 years that I have been cycling I have seen a marked increase. The decline may well be attributable to a decline in the levels of child cycling where escort trips account for roughly one-quarter of all peak hour traffic in West London. While motor traffic growth has increased the gap both in perceived and real danger between those who travel inside a motor car and anyone outside, now nearly 30 per cent. of London schoolchildren are taken to school by car and less than 1 per cent. cycle.
Cycling is more important for commuting. On some inner London arterial roads cyclists can account for 17 per cent. of all vehicles during peak hours. Generally there is a shortage of reliable information about cycling and travel patterns, although cycling has now been included in the Department of Transport comparative study journey times. In central and inner London—even under present conditions—cycling is quicker than going by car, even for journeys up to six miles, and in outer London only slightly slower. The London Cycling Campaign's commuter challenge from Camden Lock to St. Paul's will be illustrating this tomorrow as part of Hovis National Bike Week.
I cycle each day from home to work. It takes about 20 minutes. Then at the end of the day I cycle from my surgery to your Lordships' House, which takes between

1421
12 and 15 minutes. My journey would be much more comfortable if there were a recognised safe way to cross Park Lane. Even in roads such as Park Lane, Bond Street, Sloane Street and St. James' Square it is impossible to get away from double-parked traffic, fumes, potholes and refuse—particularly glass—which are so much a feature of central London cycling. Westminster councillors have once again rejected proposals for a Park Lane crossing, fearing that such an improvement would increase congestion and pollution. The parking attendants seem to have little effect on vehicles parking in bus lanes. The refuse collection lorries have an inherent design fault which allows glass to fall onto the road when rubbish containing glass is being compressed.
On my journey to your Lordships' House tonight I counted 24 cars illegally parked on my side of Bond Street. In several of them drivers were sitting in the driving seat so that they could drive away if a warden appeared. Two of those cars contained chauffeurs who were keeping the engines idling, I imagine to keep the air conditioning in good order for their owners when they arrived back from shopping.
Old habits die hard. Until very recently the message from the Department of Transport to transport planners and the general public alike was that cycling was too dangerous to encourage and it was not its role to promote any particular mode of transport. The Government, to their credit, have begun to take cycling seriously and encourage it as a valuable and flexible means of transport.
Safety remains the chief deterrent. A recent television programme about new London cyclists found that inner London was not as bad as they had expected, although the potholes were much worse. In their submission for the London Cycle Network, London boroughs identified a number of factors which contribute to cycle accidents. I would hope that adoption of the Royal Commission's cyclist fatality reduction target—I say to my noble friend Lord Selborne that that is a good target—would help to focus road safety effort on addressing these issues and reducing the dangers at source.
In Planning Policy Guidance 13—PPG 13—which has been taken further in the subsequent strategic Guidance for London, the Government recognise that policy decisions rather than immutable trends shape individual travel patterns and recommend that walking, cycling and public transport are given advantage over travel by car. The package approach, introduced in 1994, offers a more sustainable framework for local authority funding. Previously cycling featured only as a minority interest among safety schemes. The Cyclists Public Affairs Group reviewed the 1994–95 bids and allocations in its report, Trust Pedal Power. Provisional results of a similar study for 1995–96 show an increase in bids which include cycling schemes and some significant higher awards—most notably £3 million towards development of the London Cycle Network. However, 75 per cent. of UK local transport funding last year was committed to major schemes.
I believe that the Royal Commission's proposed objectives and targets provide a much better basis for sustainable transport and land-use planning, and would help to release funds for local transport networks and
1422
improving the relative attractiveness of walking, cycling and public transport. However policy develops, government must ensure that there is adequate finance to build coherent local cycle networks. I am told that the cost of implementing on-road measures is not high but, for complex and congested locations, often involves as much time and expertise as much more costly junction schemes. Adjustment or restriction of traffic flows and re-allocation of road space may well be necessary, but it is a small price to pay for making cycling easier and safer and much more widespread in urban areas.
There is an enormous potential for an increase in cycling; in particular, substituting for the shortest and most environmentally damaging car journeys. According to the National Travel Survey 1989–91, 73 per cent. of all UK trips are shorter than five miles. The Cyclists Touring Club, in its report Bikes Not Fumes, showed that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of all non-walking journeys could be undertaken by bicycle without greatly increasing the average length of bike trips. That would displace up to one-sixth of all car mileage, up to half of all car trips, saving up to three-quarters of a million tonnes of carbon monoxide each year, 100,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide and 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere each year.
National levels in European countries—Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands—are far superior to ours. Many towns not traditionally associated with cycling have increased use by more than 10 per cent. of all trips over a 10 year period—notably Munich, Stuttgart, Hanover, Basle and Munster. In a total reversal of cycling's negative image, those tend to be the most prosperous and progressive cities.
The Dutch have made serious efforts to combine cycling with public transport—35 per cent. of all rail passengers arrive at the station by bicycle. The Cyclists Public Affairs Group has produced useful guidance for rail operators on improving the connections between bicycles and trains. I am therefore pleased that the Royal Commission has made specific recommendations on this. Increased cycle carriage on trains and convenient cycle hire facilities can also encourage tourism in rural areas and reduce the impact of motor traffic on rural roads and environmentally sensitive areas.
The Government forecast that car ownership in London will increase by about one-third between 1991 and 2011, with congestion and motor traffic also increasing alarmingly, though at differing rates, throughout London. Recent draft strategic planning guidance recommends that boroughs should review their policies to avoid congestion and air pollution reaching unacceptable levels.
Measures which reduce the worst pollution are of course useful. But I believe catalytic converters are not effective over short distances and do not reduce global warming gases. I read in the Evening Standard on Monday that, according to reliable estimates, most of the pollution is caused by 12 per cent. of the vehicles—the major factor being poor vehicle maintenance. Many drivers do not know the problem their car is causing. I am aware that Westminster council has been targeting these "gross polluters" with its roadside emission tests, but I should be interested to hear from my noble friend whether the testing is having any effect. I should also like to ask

1423
him whether it is possible for a cyclist or pedestrian to report a vehicle that is obviously emitting dangerous fumes.
In conclusion, I am delighted that the Government are at last beginning to take cycling seriously. There is no doubt that the conditions in which we cycle are affected by government policy. Much can be done immediately and without significant cost. An individual's decision to travel by bicycle will be affected by perceptions about the volume and mix of traffic, the amount of road space available, the local availability of goods and services and the relative convenience and security of parking. The Royal Commission's report shows how these issues interrelate and makes a great many useful recommendations. I hope that the Government will give it the highest priority.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on introducing the debate. I believe that there is real hope that we can adopt most of the recommendations of this report because the human race is so adaptable. It was pointed out to me the other day that, for example, no one would have forecast 20 years ago that generally we should have given up cigarettes, but we have done so as a nation. That is a colossal social and medical change. If that sort of change can be made, we can do anything.
But to highlight our dilemma, I should like to give your Lordships three quotes from the Royal Commission and from the earlier report on sustainable mobility of Sub-Committee B, on which I had the privilege to serve. The first quote is:
"It is not the Government's job to tell people when and how to travel".
The second quote is:
"No politician hoping for election could ever mount a platform and say, 'I plan to ban you from driving from London to Birmingham'".
The third quote is:
"To avoid gridlock on that section of the M.1 between Luton and the M.25 we will need a motorway 20 lanes wide in as many years".
Thus, not surprisingly, the dilemma which existed when we debated your Lordships' report last October is still with us today and is, if anything, greater.
I doubt whether many noble Lords heard the speech I made last October. In it I produced a solution; namely, prohibitively expensive parking in our city centres. As proof that that works, I gave as an example the island of Manhattan where not even the chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank could afford to park. Therefore, he was spearheading the swing back to rail. Alas, my hopes have proved premature. Only last Sunday I learnt from a Morgan Stanley banker that those very expensive car parks are full again and that traffic density in New York is as bad as ever.
I am also a little dismayed to learn that at our latest development at Canary Wharf, public transport is quite inadequate and will remain so even after the completion of the Jubilee Line. Moreover, there are no main line stations. Thus, the employees of the Daily Telegraph and the merchant banks already there generally drive. What a pity that is; and whatever happened to the river bus?
1424
The swing back to rail becomes ever more urgent. The Royal Commission points out the scale of the problem. In this country we have 16,500 kilometres of rail but we have 360,000 kilometres of road. It points out too the frequency of the chained journey; that is, a trip to work, dropping one's child off at school and then on the way, popping into the Asda superstore to buy the groceries. Nowadays, we take that sort of journey for granted. We could never make such a journey by public transport. Increasingly we rely on our cars. One generation back, only 1 per cent. of children went to school by car; now, 30 per cent. do. In 1980, only 5 per cent. of us shopped in out-of-town megastores whereas now 37 per cent. do. Some drive a surprising 40 minutes each way to reach them.
Perhaps the reason that I appear rather pessimistic is that I produced solutions in my October speech and some of them seem already to have come a cropper. The Royal Commission has tackled that unsustainable descent into chaos with great imagination and makes no fewer than 110 recommendations which are eminently sensible but potentially unpopular—to increase fuel duty, to increase road tax, to decrease speed limits and to reduce the number of bypasses. For example, recommendation 58 states:
"Planned expenditure on motorways and other trunk roads should be reduced to about half its present level".
But irrespective of popularity, the Government must take the bit between their teeth and implement those recommendations. We cannot continue to pollute our land with asphalt and our air with greenhouse gases.
In addition I have singled out two rays of sunshine from the report. The first is the internet and the second is walking. With regard to internet, it must be true that as electronic communication becomes faster and more comprehensive, there will be less need to travel to work. The numbers of people working from home will increase. Another interesting factor is that an average car journey is under five miles, which is an easy distance for most of us to walk. I say "most of us", because, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out, and as I have learned to my horror, one-third of men and half of the women between the ages of 55 and 64 are not fit enough to walk at 3 miles per hour on level ground. Fortunately, I do not belong to that group. During the week I live in Notting Hill Gate. To ensure that I arrive here in time for a meeting, using public or private transport, I must allow an hour. Alternatively, to walk the four miles here through the parks takes an hour and it puts me in a good mood.
I recommend that means of propulsion, as does the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Three bicyclists have spoken in the debate, the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Rea and Lord Colwyn. I still regard the bicycle as pretty dangerous and not much faster. I am a little worried that one of the three bicyclists is my dentist.
The most important question raised by the Commission has been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: do we need to travel so much? It emerges from the statistics in the report that train passenger miles have not decreased; rather, they only represent 6 per cent. of the total miles travelled. Are we travelling hopefully rather than arriving? Are we confusing activity with achievement? Many of us may yearn for the rustic days of

1425
Hardy's Wessex when most people never even travelled to Dorchester, but is that mere romantic nostalgia or is there a grain of truth in it?
Last week I went to Liverpool. A verger showed us the baptistry in the Anglican Cathedral. I asked him about the Roman Catholic Cathedral which is nicknamed Paddy's Wigwam. "Oh, Paddy's Wigwam", he chuckled, 'To tell the truth, I never journeyed that far". That verger was a happy man. Perhaps the Church has something to teach us about sustainable mobility.
I agree with the concluding paragraph of the Commission's report where Burke's dictum is quoted:
"Society is not only a partnership between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born."
We must think of the unborn. We must provide for them a green and pleasant land. If we implement the Royal Commission's recommendations we will do so.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, correctly warned the House that a tandem was following him on the subject of bicycling. It is because the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, made such a formidable speech that I regard him as being in the engine room of the tandem, which I think is the back. I shall delicately steer the front.
We have all been encouraged by the mention of National Bike Week that starts on Saturday.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on an articulate and formidable speech. Some of us who have been involved with bicycles for some time are still waiting with interest to see how his company will implement a very small requirement in the Channel Tunnel Bill. I tried to enlarge that requirement in this House but failed, and it was put in in another place by Sir George Young. That requirement was that the shuttle should be able to carry bicycles from shore to shore.
I hope that in the Government's response to the report they will confirm their whole-hearted commitment to two wheels. Can the Minister say whether the Government are going to make a proper response to the report and give an indication as to when that might be? He has been asked very specific questions on cycling which I do not expect him to be able to answer in the context of this very abstract report, but I hope that he will be able to regard the diversion we have caused on cycles as a case study to bring an abstract report down to earth.
Having stated that I should like to speak also about motor cycles, I was surprised that I could find no reference to motor cycles in the index; it is as though they were deemed to have a similar environmental impact to any other combustion-engined vehicle.
As someone who invariably cycles or motorcycles through traffic, I am regularly astonished that more people do not spontaneously take to two wheels to beat the congestion and the ever-decreasing traffic speeds. I get the impression that in this complex report bicycling features as only an afterthought. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who talked about extensive coverage in the report. The relevant cycling conclusions
1426
are summed up in two objectives and four recommendations. Recommendations 100 and 101 relate to facilities that could be provided by British Rail and Railtrack. There is an apparent obvious conflict between the immediate short-term aims and problems of those organisations and the longer-term perspective of the Royal Commission report.
There is a medium-term economic case to be made that it makes sense, as other countries find, to encourage extra rail passengers by providing secure station parking and uncomplicated carrying of cycles by train. However desirable and likely that seems at present, it is useful to note that the report keeps those ideas in play for the future.
Recommendations 98 and 99 advocate safe cycle routes and schemes, claiming that only relatively modest resources are required to support a 10-year programme to create high quality cycling facilities. Those recommendations tie up with the stated objectives to increase cycle use in the next 10 years for all urban journeys from 2.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. That is ambitious but possible, in my opinion. It is partly based on usage levels in similar countries. I hope that those recommendations can form the beginning of a national cycling strategy.
As a long-standing member and officer of the all-party cycling group in this building, I feel that we have in a sense been here before. I am also encouraged by the recent significant shift of attitude at government and sometimes local government level.
In the recent paper that was produced by the former cycling Minister, Mr. Robert Key, changing perceptions of cycling was highlighted as being a most important feature. I was pleased to hear the Minister, Mr. Steven Norris, say in an adjournment debate in another place today that in this country we have hugely undervalued cycling. He stated that targets have their place as long as local variations can be recognised.
The apparent changes of attitude, while valuable, should also be reflected in actions.
I should like to quote a paragraph from the press release given by Mr. Steven Norris today, which I find encouraging:
"There is a need to take drastic action if we are to move to a position where cycling is seen as an integral part of a sustainable transport policy. Our intention is to ensure that cycling is placed more centrally in planning local transport strategies. One such action is the creation of a National Cycling Strategy."
Those are good intentions and I hope that they will be followed up energetically.
I understand that progress is slowly being made in London, sometimes using funds that are ring fenced for the purpose. In the area that I know well, Kensington and Chelsea, new cycle lane signs and dedicated parking stands are in evidence. There is a very welcome profusion of "Sheffield" stands in the borough. At first they appeared to be unused, but as they became noticed, over a period, they were more regularly used. A valuable incidental effect of positively providing parking stands for cycles is to welcome officially and approve the cyclist who would normally not take any great pleasure in having to padlock his machine to someone's railings or a lamppost. It is in such small ways that the improved status and perception of the bicycle is reinforced.

1427
It is encouraging that motoring organisations now take cycles seriously. In particular, the AA has done so in its response to the report of the Royal Commission in which it signifies its support for all the recommendations relating to bicycling. In that response, the AA also refers to its admirable booklet called, Cycling Motorists. How to Encourage Them.
In the cycling field, we should be grateful for the continuing enthusiasm of the three organisations making up the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group. I know that the group is ready to play its part in the massive public education about, and encouragement of, cycling. It certainly agrees with the principle of targets and objectives and the scope for a substantial long-term increase in bicycle use.
Finally, on the subject of motorcycles, I hope that the Minister (who is well known for his interest in the field) will not allow his department to forget the contribution of motorcycles in framing its response to the report. In just about every measure relating to environmental pollution, motorcycles are substantially better than cars: on fuel efficiency, on resources consumed and on road space, for example.
I believe that motorcycles have a much larger role to play in the future which the report addresses. They need to be encouraged, sometimes, as an acceptable substitute for the car, perhaps even for those who find a change to the bicycle too drastic. As well as their national cycling strategy, I hope that one day soon the Government might also try to develop a national motorcycling strategy.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, while travelling here today from the New Forest in my electric train, I thought how marvellously clean such a train is, both to those of us who use it and to those who live nearby. However, I also thought how very foul it is for those who live downstream at the power stations in Yorkshire and get the acid rain. When I arrived here I looked at our palace. As many noble Lords will remember, the external fabric was severely damaged by effluence from coal combustion, be it household fires, industry or the steam engine that was the mainspring of the Industrial Revolution. Over the past decade, much work has gone into refurbishing or restoring the exterior, but now it is the car that is doing the damage; indeed, it is the exhaust from the internal combustion engine. That leads me to think, as many speakers have said today, that our needs for transport and the environment are uneasy bedfellows.
Nonetheless, it is a pleasure to be the last Back Bench speaker in tonight's debate and to share the compliments paid to the Royal Commission for a provocative report. When I say that, I mean one that provokes thought and reaction, and not one that incites violence. It is also a pleasure to join in with the compliments that have been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the report. It is of course a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to our debates.
1428
As ever, I declare a railway interest. Therefore, I should like briefly to explore the passenger dimensions of some of the conclusions of the commission. It is also nice, when you are speaking last, to realise that you have actually chosen a topic that no one else explored.
If we are to make greater use of our public transport services we need to make them, and information about them, as accessible as possible. Hence I strongly support the commission's recommendation—I believe it is number 43—that additional PTAs and PTEs should be established outside the former provincial metropolitan county areas; and, indeed, in London. It may not sit easily with local government reorganisation, but I believe that there is a strong case for a shire county PTA-PTE structure—not one massively buying transport through the mechanism of subsidy, but one spreading information and seeking to co-ordinate the various disciplines and modes.
I believe that such a structure can in fact still be established under the railways legislation of 1968. I do not think that that spoke specifically and exclusively about the metropolitan areas. The structure has served us well, in the metropolitan areas in respect of its support for rail— and I believe that that support will become more locally focused as the passenger train operating units gather strength—but especially as regards inter-modal (the bus, the train, the tram or even the boat) transfer tickets and information provision.
Perhaps I may take information first. Timetable and fare information must, I believe, be readily and easily accessible if the car is to be left at home. It was most interesting for me to listen earlier this week to a solicitor who lives in Portsmouth but who works in Southampton. He had been persuaded to take up the Government's option—namely, "Leave the car at home for a day. Don't choke Britain". That solicitor was amazed to discover, first, that there was a very convenient bus and train which would take him to work; secondly, that it was actually cheaper, if one took seriously the annualised costs of one's car, than motoring was; and, thirdly, that he did not, as he put it, waste time because time on the bus and in the train could be spent working whereas time in the car must, for safety reasons, be spent concentrating on the job in hand. The solicitor was not aware how cheap the train would be. As I said, he was not aware of how simply and easily the two modes connected.
What that solicitor needed was timetable and fare information which was readily and easily available. In London, we have London Regional Transport's excellent telephone inquiry bureau. I believe that it fulfils an essential role for anyone, motorist or non-motorist, who is thinking of using public transport. "Yes, inquiring customer, there are trains. There are tubes and there are buses, or whatever. These are their times, their fares and their routes". That is the information that a potential user needs before deciding to use public transport. I believe that is an essential plank regarding anything that we set out to do to make more use of our public transport.
The second stage in which PTAs have excelled is through ticketing across the different transport modes— not, as in London, with just a travelcard for the frequent traveller, but also in respect of single journeys where one changes routes or discipline modes. In fact, that is a

1429
particular weakness in London in terms of the traveller who is making a single, perhaps discretionary, journey. "Is your journey really necessary?" Surely we do not make journeys that are not necessary.
In the old days, I could go to the Treasury Building of an evening and get a through bus from there to Regent's Park on one single ticket. Now my route has been divided and I have to purchase two single tickets. Therefore, my fares have increased and so, indeed, has the hassle. I have to wait for two buses instead of one. If I had a car I would be inclined to use it and, given some of the persuasiveness used this evening, I might even consider buying a bicycle if I was really brave.
I strongly endorse Recommendation 85 of the commission on multi-modal ticketing and Recommendation 86 on information provision. However, I would go further and ask the Government to look at best practice abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, Holland has a publicly-owned railway and a mix of public and private road transportation, publicly-owned trams and a mix of public and private shipping companies to serve the off islands and to cross some of the water gaps.
If I go to a station in Holland, I can buy not only a train ticket, but I can also buy a strip ticket that enables me to ride on any bus, tram or boat anywhere in the country. If the Dutch can do that, surely we should not renounce it. We should consider whether we can do it so that a Londoner could buy a strip ticket here and then use it on the Tyne & Wear Metro or wherever. Not only that, as was mentioned, I can also book a taxi at my destination; I can even hire a bike.
I believe that I should stress the word "connecting". In Norway, all public transport is listed in a national timetable called Rutebok for Norge. Not only does it list all the schedules, and so on, but every railway timetable shows where bus services inter-connect with the trains. If one looks at Stockholm, a suburban or underground train crosses from one side to the other—let us say the south to the north. On the south, on its way in, it is fed by buses. In the centre it does its business. On the north, it feeds into buses. One arrives at the terminal station and five minutes later eight or 10 buses cascade over a wide area of the county of Stockholm. I believe that that is also best practice that we should look at. In addition, at the point where one boards one can buy a ticket that takes one right the way through to one's destination, whatever other transport modes one may use.
I believe that we can learn from the Dutch, the Norwegians, Swedes and the Germans. When we have learnt I believe that the PTA/PTE mechanism spread nationwide will prove to be an apt operating vehicle, not to buy service through subsidy, but by way of information provision and through user-friendliness. As we all know, outside the absolute peaks rail and bus have vast amounts of spare capacity. PTAs have the knowhow. Put them together and one will make a modest contribution towards reconciling transport needs and those of the environment.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am delighted that we have had an extremely good debate, particularly as I was the Peer who put down this subject on the Order
1430
Paper. I believe that we have injected a great deal of wisdom into the subject. As the Secretary of State for Transport is widely known as a thinking Minister—why it should be necessary to pick out a thinking Minister from the rest of Ministers is not entirely clear—it is to be hoped that what has been said in the debate will be taken up. The quality of the speeches has been extremely high. Having become slightly deaf in my old age, I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that we all had an extra decade or that we were all extra-decayed. Whichever it is, I believe that we have taken advantage of the first and denied the second.
We have discussed a large number of subjects. We have taken the recommendations of the commission and subjected them to considerable examination. It has been said that the cost of putting them into operation will be enormous. One of the interesting points to emerge from the debate is that a number of the speeches have included recommendations for how that money is to be raised. A number of Peers referred to large savings that could be made by following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, not least taxation of company cars, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Of course, we very much welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In particular, I welcome his call for a regulator for the whole public transport system. I believe that that is something we most have, together with the information required for the whole public transport system. That is one of the reasons why we on these Benches deplore the privatisation of the rail system.
I very much welcome Eurotunnel, if that is the noble Lord's achievement. I travelled on it recently. However, I was slightly disappointed to find that when travelling from London to Brussels the only part of the journey which was conducted at speed was that which took place in France. In both England and Belgium it was very slow, though pleasant. I speak as someone who in his youth cycled from London to Paris and used the Dartford Tunnel, which was an appalling experience. I do not recommend that to anyone. I welcome the fact that we have Eurotunnel. I do not know why this should apply to the French. I suppose that we have got into the habit of thinking of the French as somehow a fast nation and it is not, very seemly for us or the Belgians to proceed at the same kind of speed.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the report hung together and rather wished that one could separate out the British parts. If I may say so, that is typical of the attitude of his Government and party at this time. They appear to be dissociating themselves from Europe as fast as possible. We cannot and should not do it. The more we can integrate our systems the better.
The noble Earl raised the important topic of the country motorist. There are answers to this problem. One of them in which we on these Benches are particularly interested is the taxation of cars according to size and speed capability. On the whole, one does not need a very large car in the countryside, although a large number of Members of this House appear to drive enormous four-wheel-drive vehicles. However, the people who need transport and about whom we are speaking do not need to do that. They do not cover great mileages in most of the

1431
countryside of Britain, although that may not be true of the county of Caithness or one or two of the more distant areas.
We have dealt with the whole range of transport. We have touched on air and airports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that the person who used the train was also the person who drove a car and was a cyclist. She did not mention that he was also a pedestrian. Other people have spoken about pedestrians. We have dealt with internal waterways. My noble friend Lord McNair dealt with that very well. I do not believe that we have spoken about coastal transport in connection with goods, but that is a very small omission from coverage of a very large area.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the costs of all this had been underrated. He said that the cost of a packet of cornflakes would go up if all of the recommendations of the commission were put into operation. That is true. If we are to come to terms with a sustainable environment and economy in future, it is essential that we take into account the costs which at present are spread about in different places. Over the weekend I attended an all-day conference of Friends of the Earth. Mention was made of a win, win, win solution. That is a solution where economically, environmentally and socially one wins. It is very good to have a solution where one wins on all three, but one must win on at least two of them in order to have worthwhile transport. If one wins socially and environmentally one may have to put up with rather more cost. That is something that all of us have to face.
There are all sorts of ways of dealing with the various immediate transport problems. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that we have a £5 fee for entering the M.25. I think that may be a good idea but I was not quite certain whether he wished to introduce it to raise money or to deter people from going on to the motorway, certainly at certain hours of the day. I do not think it would have much effect in the second instance because if the extent to which the M.25 is being dug up now does not deter your Lordships and the rest of the general public from using it, I do not know what will, certainly not £5!
We have dealt with cycling at great length. I wish to add one small point. I think that cycling is tremendously worthwhile and that it is worth encouraging. I usually come to your Lordships' House by public transport, but when I drive I travel through a part of Lambeth where there are quite a few signs, one of which states,
"Kill your speed not a child".
Another states,
"Mind cyclists when you turn".
We have already heard about the death toll of cyclists. Some of your Lordships will know that I have lost a child who died in a cycle accident in London. The question of cycle safety is tremendously important. Of course we must pay attention when we turn left to ensure that there is not a cyclist coming up on the inside at 20 miles an hour. But there ought to be rather more education of cyclists so that not many cyclists come up on the inside at 20 miles an hour. We need to pay attention to that matter.
I am a vice-president of the Pedestrians Association and I am not given much to cycling myself. I very much welcomed the comments of those who have talked about the virtues of walking. It is important that we take all these methods of transport into consideration.
1432
In conclusion, I wish to sum up what I, and I think we on these Benches, believe. The most important thing that we need to take to heart as we move into the era of a sustainable economy is that transport is neutral on the balance sheet. If it enables one to have access to desired goals without undue expenditure of resources, especially non-renewable ones, and without pollution, it is a good thing. If not, it is not. The object of transport and planning policy should be to provide as much access as possible at minimum real cost. Transport, like trade, is a means not an end and if we are to have a sustainable future we must realise that.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like so many noble Lords I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for introducing this debate, although I have to say that I believe that it should have taken place in Government time. It is an issue which has been ventilated with great care in this report and it deserves more than a debate on a Wednesday evening.
A number of your Lordships have spoken from great experience, notably of course the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who sat on the commission and who spoke with great authority about the matters that were raised. We all welcomed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who said that he was delighted to welcome him to the clique. I want to assure him that it is not so much a clique as a sect. We have some pleasant times together, and that includes the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also speaks from great practical experience and he will certainly give us more grounds for enlightenment in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, encouraged us all to participate in a cycling event. I think he was a little unwise to do that as boldly as he did in the environment of this House. The noble Lord then explained how perilous that activity was. I suppose that is one way of abolishing the House of Lords. The noble Lord then said that on average Members of your Lordships' House live 10 years longer than the rest of the population. I suppose that depends from where one starts. All that, of course, the noble Lord intends to end with a great degree of suddenness. He was reinforced in those views, a little more moderately in some ways, by my noble friend Lord Rea and others who are interested in cycling issues. I believe that the whole House was interested to hear those views.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, had some interesting things to say about the railways, as he always does. He also made a plea to enable the PTAs and the PTEs to remain. I hope that the Minister will give firm consideration to that matter. This debate is based on the report but it has been wrong not to draw attention to the Green Paper issued by the commission in 1992 entitled The Impact of Transport on the Environment—a Community Strategy to Sustainable Mobility. It is not surprising that there are a number of important common denominators which emerge in relation to both documents. I give praise to those who were involved in enabling those documents to see the light of day.

1433
It is not surprising that because both documents have been radical they have given rise to a good deal of criticism, which has been to some degree articulated in this House this evening. Somehow or other the task before society is to secure the right balance between economic and transport activities which sustain our people in work and also enable improvements to enhance our standard of living. On the other hand, how do we protect the environment which is essential for the quality of life of this and future generations? It is an enormously difficult problem. Too often the debate affecting transport and indeed industry as a whole and the environment is seen in a wholly adversarial light whereas I believe that the two should be viewed in terms of their advance in complementary terms. That is what the notion of sustainable mobility is all about. That is why modal shifts will be required on an increasing scale and why we need to encourage combined transport, or "piggyback" transport—which was of such great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—and the greater use of coastal shipping which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
This debate also has the singular advantage of enabling the House to try—I think unavailingly—to tease out from the Government what is their transport policy and how the Government see transport and the environment developing together. Of course they have done something of a U-turn on road building but they remain on the horns of an ideological dilemma over the role of public transport and are finding some obvious difficulties with regard to their absurd rail privatisation proposals.
Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, especially in industrialised countries, undoubtedly lie at the root of so many of our environmental problems. Back in May of 1990 the Bergen ministerial declaration on sustainable development in the ECE region stated:
"The attainment of sustainable development … requires fundamental changes in human values towards the environment and in patterns of behaviour and consumption".
The document then highlighted the need,
"to reduce the harmful effects of the transport sector on the environment by promoting fast, safe and convenient urban and regional transport services and reducing urban car traffic".
Five years later, that remains the problem: hardly tackled.
No one can doubt that transport is a major contributor to energy and environmental problems. It is, after all, one of the main consumers of fossil fuels and has much responsibility for nuisance and damage to the environment. Transport can never be environmentally neutral, and I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in that regard. The fourth and fifth environmental action programmes of the European Community began to identify transport in this light, focusing on the interaction between transport and the environment.
There is a growing consensus, though the issue was hotly disputed not so long ago, that the high atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is having a deleterious, and perhaps irreversible, effect on the earth's climate, causing a warming of the globe and an ensuing rise in average sea levels. Transport is seen as one of the main sources of carbon dioxide, which is the main man-made
1434
greenhouse gas. So it is with regard to the emission of CFCs and halons; acid deposition owes much to the problems posed by transport. Urban degradation, too, with noise emissions, atmospheric pollution, congestion and inconvenience, again owes much to a failure to deal with these particularly difficult transport and environmental problems.
We cannot fail to address these problems in the years ahead. On the other hand—one has to maintain a balance about these matters—transport in all its modes, including those which carry responsibility for so many of the problems I have underlined, is vital to our economic and social well-being, to the production and distribution of goods and services, as well as to trade and regional development, which are so vital to our economic activities. Transport has given us a wide range of choice, and that applies to the producer and consumer alike. So, directly or indirectly, it affects the quality of life of all our people, not least in peripheral areas.
The question is: how do we go about seeking solutions? I agree with so much of what has been said in a brief issued by the CBI today. It says:
"The Commission is also right to argue that ways must be found to make the longer-term development of transport environmentally sustainable".
That goes without saying; but it also went on to say this in commenting upon Missing Links, which was a document the CBI produced earlier in the year:
"this difference has arisen from other countries' ability more successfully to integrate strategic economic and environmental objectives for transport, supported by broad consensus about those objectives and long-term investment".
Until very recently we have not even tried to obtain that consensus. I remember that Mr. Brian Gould, who was then shadowing this portfolio some years ago in the other place, called for that. The call was repeated by John Prescott, but the calls fell on deaf ears. It is sad that that should be the case because consensus is the only way that we can tackle radical problems requiring radical solutions.
It is true that the Secretary of State has now called for a national debate. I think it is a little overdue—by something like 15 years, which is the period during which this Government have been in office. It requires the abandonment of some of the ideological shibboleths which are currently invading the whole question of transport policy.
I also read the observations of the Freight Transport Association. It is right to stress the importance of the job that its members do. It is right to stress how they have contributed towards resolving a number of environmental problems by intensifying their research and development and by ensuring that older lorries leave the roads. The FTA calls repeatedly for an integrated transport policy because it is concerned with all modes of transport. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his successor probably do not like the words "integrated transport policy", but it is amazing how many people use the phrase: people who know, people who are in the trade, and among them members of the Freight Transport Association. It is not only the Labour Party. I believe that this report from the Royal Commission has concentrated on vital problems. I do not think that anybody, including the Royal Commission, would claim

1435
that it has managed to produce what might be called a blueprint: not at all. It has produced a number of recommendations which demand intensive study, and I praise it for the intensity of its work in that regard. I very much agree also with the CPRE in its view that strategic environmental assessment at all stages of decision making is vital. It is vital for Britain and vital in terms of planning trans-European road and rail networks, and in ensuring as best we can the best practical environmental options, as recommended by the Royal Commission.
We shall have to consider all these matters in greater depth at some time in the future. I have run out of time, although not quite to the same extent as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I propose to resume my seat on this note. Some of your Lordships have concentrated on the cost of the proposals. Not too many of those who have been critical of the report have concentrated on the cost of not approaching environmental issues which society may well have to bear in the future.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, may I, like other noble Lords, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the important issues that are raised by the Royal Commission report. If I may say so, this has been a debate in the best traditions of the House of Lords in that, apart from a very small amount of ritual posturing on such issues as rail privatisation, I believe there has been a consensus to a considerable degree in the House on the problems to be faced on the environmental issues that are associated with transport. There has also been a similar recognition that the methods proposed carry considerable costs, be they economic or in terms of the possible restriction of choice.
I was particularly interested to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I welcome the experience that he has brought to the debate as a member of the commission. I also particularly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who brought his own considerable experience in the field of transport to the debate, particularly in connection with the magnificent achievement of the Channel Tunnel.
Good transport links are vital to the country's industrial competitiveness. Transport holds the economic machine together and keeps it running. Changing patterns of transport have shaped today's social and recreational lifestyles. People want ever-wider access to job opportunities; to shops; to leisure activities; to schools; and to other people. Yet this demand for transport services has a profound impact on the environment. Our aim is to continue to improve the quality and range of transport provision in the country. However, we must recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the environmental, economic and social consequences of transport. With that, we realise there are some extremely difficult decisions to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to "Win, win, win" situations and solutions, but I suggest that they are rare indeed. Whatever measures we have to take to counter the problems posed by the environmental effects of transport are going to give rise to costs of one sort or another. The issues were brought sharply into focus by the
1436
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report on Transport and the Environment. The commission did a thorough job in assessing the scale and nature of the environmental problems posed by today's transport and by the forecasts of traffic growth. Their report set us a number of challenging targets which they believe should assist us to deal with those threats. However, we cannot deal with those targets without giving consideration to the measures needed to implement them, for it is clear that some unpleasant measures would be necessary if we were to strive to meet them.
I welcome the statement of my noble friend Lord Selborne that this report should not be taken as a blueprint but rather as an indication of very important issues to help us to provide choices and to illustrate what can be done in order to combat the problems that we face. An example of the difficulties I have described—for instance, to achieve reductions in road use and an increase in public transport share which the commission recommended—may lead to measures to restrain car use. The implications of such measures would need to be thought through very carefully indeed. The evidence is not available which suggests that people are yet ready or willing to change their lifestyles in ways which would be required. No detailed assessment has been made of the costs although it is clear that they would be substantial.
We have had a considerable debate on the issues of cycling. I was pleased to hear the contributions of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, who described the perils of cycling in London and the advantages they felt that it brings. I believe that there has been a recognition of the Government's positive attitude towards cycling. We do not forget the contribution that cycling can make. It often offers an economic, environmentally friendly and realistic means of transport for a great number of people in particular for the short journeys that we have heard described. We are keen to encourage more people to adopt that mode. In 1995–96 we are providing some £3 million for the London cycle network. Local authorities are encouraged to consider the potential for cycling in planning and traffic management strategy and through the package approach.
However, I believe that we are referring here to local decisions involving local circumstances. One often faces criticisms that local authorities should be given more power to do this, that or the other. But I believe that we are talking about a situation where local decisions are best taken at the local level.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also referred to the issue of motor cycling. He realised that I have a certain sympathy with the issues involved. As with the cycling issue, there are real concerns about safety. Those have to be taken fully into account. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, regarding the discipline of cyclists themselves, be they of the motorised or leg-propelled version.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked how one reports smoky diesel goods vehicles. I can forward to him a pamphlet produced by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport entitled How to Report Smoky Diesels. It involves communication

1437
with the vehicle inspectorate which then takes up action on the complainant's behalf. Some 12,000 reports have been made to the smoky vehicle hotline to date.
There is still a belief that all the problems we face could be solved simply by switching investment from road to public transport. Public transport can play a valuable role in safeguarding the environment and our spending plans for the next few years focus on public transport and making more efficient use of the existing road network. Investing in rail, bus, trams and light rail can have a tremendous impact on certain areas. That is why we have invested some £15 billion in national railways since 1979 and £7 billion in London Transport.
However, research and practical experience has demonstrated that improved public transport in itself is not enough to solve the problems of traffic growth. In his maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was quite right to say that if one wishes to take cars off the roads, the clear conclusion of what can only be described as common sense, as well as various pieces of research on the subject, is that sticks and carrots are required. That is the theme which ran through the debate in your Lordships' House today.
Some way of making car use more difficult or expensive would be necessary, as well as ensuring that alternatives are available. The issue for debate is how far such measures are justified or acceptable.
As I mentioned earlier, these are not easy issues to face. They are complex, emotive and fundamental to our way of life. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State initiated recently a national debate on transport policy. As a start, he has made a series of six speeches aimed at focusing attention on the key issues and has invited comments from a wide range of interested parties.
We have been heartened by the response to the debate so far. A number of organisations have taken it upon themselves to organise events to follow up the questions raised by the Secretary of State in his speeches. For example, Transport 2000 has hosted a series of seminars. The Ashden Trust has organised a two-day event to discuss transport and the environment. Oxford University has a conference planned for next week.
In debating the way forward, we should not lose sight of the significant achievements that have already been made in reducing environmental damage. A good example is the efforts made to improve air quality in our cities. We have already made considerable progress in reducing the contribution that transport makes to air pollution through the introduction of improved vehicle emission standards. The first round of improvements introduced in 1993 has effectively required all new petrol engined cars to be fitted with catalytic converters which reduce harmful emissions by over 75 per cent. Already some 5 million cars and vans are fitted with catalytic converters.
The effect of these and other standards is already evident. National emissions of pollutions have stabilised or are falling. Even if no further measures were taken, emissions would continue to fall well into the next decade as a result of older vehicles being replaced by newer, cleaner models.
1438
However, further measures will be taken. A second round of the reductions of limits for 1996–97 was announced as part of the air quality statement, Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge launched by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment in January of this year. We have taken firm steps to address the problems of carbon dioxide emissions from road vehicles in the context of our international obligations arising from the 1992 Rio Summit, a subject which has been discussed in the debate today.
The duty on road fuel has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. We have made clear our strategy of increasing road fuel duties by an average of at least 5 per cent. above inflation each year. That will encourage motorists to conserve fuel and will give long-term signals to manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles.
Another important issue involves noise. Again, considerable improvements have been made as a result of new technology. It is said that three modern cars will make less noise than one 1978 model, while 10 of today's trucks will make the same amount of noise as one single 1978 equivalent.
That has also been the case with air travel. One should not just consider the issues of surface transport. Modern jets are considerably more efficient in reducing the amount of noise that they produce, producing fuel economy, and reducing the amount of harmful emissions that they put out.
We are also paying increasing attention to the interaction between transport and land use planning, another of the major themes which noble Lords addressed this evening. That develops around the issue of reducing the need to travel. We have heard some descriptions of teleworking, and the use of new technology and Internet, and how that could affect the issue. Nonetheless the question of the journey to the supermarket, the provision of car parks and out of town stores have all had a significant impact on the desire of people to travel. Local authorities have a very important role to play in that area as different measures will be appropriate in different areas. Our aim is principally to ensure that they are given the right guidance and necessary powers. Again I believe that good progress has been made. Last year my department and the Department of the Environment jointly published a new planning policy guidance note on transport (PPG 13) which has as its key aims to reduce the growth in the length and number of motorised journeys, to encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact, and hence to reduce the reliance on the private car. I believe that that guidance has been widely welcomed; and that welcome has been reflected by the contributions of your Lordships this evening. Added to this we have introduced a new approach to funding local transport investment. The so-called "package approach" allows local authorities to take a broader view of local transport problems and to come up with solutions not based solely on road-building.
We are investing significant amounts to improve public transport and we already have grants available to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail: some 150 freight facilities grants have been awarded since 1979. The new track access grant was introduced in

1439
April last year, and we have also been looking at measures which might stimulate the transfer of freight from road to water. That is an issue upon which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, concentrated. It comes within my particular portfolio as Minister with responsibilities for shipping and internal water transport. I have been looking at the matter extremely carefully. I have talked to ship owners and those who have cargoes that would be suitable for movement by inland waterways or coastal shipping, to try to determine measures that would increase the attractiveness of water-borne transport.
However, it is not easy. There are no easy buttons to push which would suddenly make the issue of water-borne transport more attractive. We have had some success with the freight facilities grant; but again, that has been on a limited basis. Where companies need help to create infrastructure on the quayside that is more acceptable to the type of business that they run, we have been able to help. We have had considerable success with a chemical company in Manchester, for example, which now saves a significant number of road journeys that would otherwise be causing a great many problems.
In addition, the Government are prepared to consider funding for different types of public transport where it makes sense to do so. We made significant contributions to funding for the Manchester Metrolink and the South Yorkshire Supertram, and we have set aside resources for the Croydon Tramlink and the Midland Metro schemes.
Last year we undertook a wide-ranging and in-depth review of the roads programme. The newly prioritised programme that resulted seeks a sensible balance between the different economic and environmental considerations. We are now concentrating resources on making the best use of the existing road network by focusing on the removal of accident, congestion and pollution blackspots. But it is important to note that the days of making large-scale additions to the network are gone.
We have heard a few contributions, notably from my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the issue of air transport, and particularly on the question of regional airports. We fully support the valuable role that regional airports can play in providing transport links for people nearer to their point of departure; in environmental issues; in relieving congestion at the major airports in the South-East, and so on.
However, a crucial consideration must be that commercial realities are fulfilled, that airlines actually want to operate services to regional airports. The other consideration is that they are able to operate services to regional airports within the scope of air service agreements. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year the unilateral liberalisation of access in terms of transatlantic traffic to our regional airports. I was very pleased to see, for instance, that a service started recently between Binningham and Chicago. That is a fruit of that particular policy. But I do not believe that it is possible to direct people to fly to a particular destination. That
1440
was what lay behind the traffic distribution rules. They have been shown not to be an economically efficient way of distributing traffic.
I hope that I have shown that the Government take very seriously the need to strike a balance in transport policy. We do not pretend that the balance is easy to find. Apparently simple solutions tend to fall apart on closer examination. We had an interesting discussion on the question of integrated transport policies and the emotions that are created by the use of the term. Those who believe that the greater integration of transport policies is a sufficient answer must be required to say exactly what they mean and what an integrated transport policy entails. That is the difficulty that the Government have had with those who on occasion have used the term by way of a throw-away explanation on the basis that "everything will be all right". What we have sought to say is that a centralised planning strategy whereby people are directed when and where to travel and things are done on a grand scale, is not the solution to the problems that we face. We believe that a better combination of transport and land use planning, for instance, with our planning guidance, smoother links between different modes and easier availability of information are all worthwhile, and they are aims that this Government are pursuing.
The toughest questions we face are all about attitudes. The research I referred to earlier illustrated how current attitudes make it very difficult to achieve significant changes in behaviour, even after spending large amounts of money. So how can we change attitudes? What mechanisms do we need to use to encourage people to change their transport decisions? If we seek to introduce painful measures to encourage change, how much pain is our society prepared to bear?
What is very clear is that there are no magic wands, no quick fixes and no easy answers. The "Win, win, win" options are very few and far between. We are all agreed that we are faced with a rising demand for travel, and that transport is of key importance to our economic well-being. But with it, come major economic problems. The RCEP report, and today's debate in this House, will play a major part in furthering the wider debate about transport and the environment that affects us all.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is now nearly 9 o'clock, and I shall be brief. First, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. Many of them told me things that I had not thought of or heard before. That is always a pleasure for somebody like myself who has spent 10 years thinking and doing things about transport policy. They were very welcome news to me. I thank particularly my noble friends who supported me with their speeches. Perhaps I may single out one other speech, that of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who, in his extremely cheerful and amusing remarks offered me some reassurances that the kind of measures for which I was looking might be on their way.
I cannot say that I was satisfied with the response given by the Minister. But then I do not suppose that he expected me to be. As to some of the other interventions, particularly those from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness,

1441
and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I rather hope that perhaps we can discuss some of the points that they raised over a tea cake or some iced coffee in the Members' Dining Room. But the mention of dining reminds us once again that it is nearly 9 o'clock and we have not had any. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sports (Discrimination) Bill [H.L.]
9 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Astor of Hever.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, perhaps I may say that I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
Report received.

Treasure Trove
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that there is a need for treasure trove and portable antiquities legislation to preserve the nation's heritage.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I note that, in asking this Question, I am expected to speak for only 10 minutes. I beg your Lordships' indulgence if I slightly exceed that time limit. I shall be as brief as possible. I shall divide the first part of my speech—perhaps all of it—into three parts: the past, the present and the future.
The past starts eight years ago when I asked the Government Questions about treasure trove and their attitude to that subject. I received a very encouraging reply. Indeed, it looked as though something was going to move. Since then, there have been three or four debates and Questions from Members in various parts of the House. Once, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked a Question, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replied, saying, "We have no intention to change the law."
The situation has changed since then. But I go back that far just to make clear that this subject is not new and indeed has become more and more important.
Starting with the past, I was encouraged on all sides last year to introduce my Private Member's Bill. It went very well and I received full support from all sides of the Chamber. Even better, the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate this evening—I owe her a deep debt of gratitude—announced in Committee that the Government would support the Bill. That was splendid news for us all. Indeed, the Government took over the Bill and, with the help of many of those present this evening, it went through this House. But then the story became less good.
Sir Patrick Cormack, to whom I give my thanks, tried four times to introduce the Bill in the other place. There were four objections to it. Extraordinarily enough, the first objection was from a Government Whip. After Sir Patrick Cormack had tried, Peter Brooke himself, who by then had retired from his post as Secretary of State for National Heritage, tried and had the same result; namely, the Bill was objected to. So the question arose of what to do next.
I was told to try the ballot. I lined up three potential sponsors who came rather high on the ballot list. The first one whom I saw said, "If you will promise that I shall be given the Bill to take, I shall take it." So I rang up the other two potential sponsors and said, "I don't want your help. I have a firm promise from a Member, who shall be nameless". The next day that Member went back on his word. There again, in some way, Government Whips were involved. None of that makes a very happy story. But there was one thing left to do: try to get the Bill into government legislation.
There was much lobbying to that purpose. I want to pay tribute to the Leader of the House and thank him because he tried extremely hard to achieve that end. I must say that

1443
during that battle I had the feeling that the Secretary of State himself was perhaps lukewarm about the Bill. I can illustrate that. I asked him three times if I could have a talk with him and three times he said that it was not necessary and that he was supportive. He left it at that and I shall leave it at that at this time.
I come now to the present. The other day there was a meeting at which the museums of England and Wales and all the archaeological societies passed a resolution urging that the treasure trove Bill should be passed because, as things stood now, the situation was "a shambles". Those were the words that were used, and how right they are.
Let me explain why the word "shambles" is right. A little while ago, there was a case at Heathrow Airport when the Customs and Excise—more credit to them— stopped a large number of coins from being exported. The exporter fought the case before a coroner and a jury. Sadly, the outcome was that the exporter was allowed to go ahead. The decision of the coroner and jury was that it was not treasure but rather votive offerings. They are not covered by the Treasure Bill. That means that the whole system, even that now in place, is unworkable. It is a charter for anybody who wants to acquire certain items and get rid of them, to do so. Indeed, it is a sort of "finders-keepers" game and must stop.
We must also remember that today metal detectors are much more efficient than they were. To that extent again we need action. In relation to metal detectors I must mention the metal detector council. My Bill of a year ago was in no way hostile to metal detector users, but there was a virulent and violent campaign against it by certain of the council members. Others in the council understood better what we were trying to do, and that was good. Now I learn that they are attempting to introduce one or two changes to the last Bill which will make them less worried about everything. I am all in favour of that negotiation so long as it does not interfere with the Government getting on with the job. In other words, it must not be used as an excuse for delaying a Bill.
I turn now to the future. As I have said more than once, we must get on with it. A Bill must be introduced in the next Session; but not, as has been suggested, a Private Member's Bill which will go through the same sort of process as my Bill went through. "Somebody was lucky in the ballot" is not the way to approach it. My experience was unfortunate and I would not recommend any other Member of either House to go that way.
What is the way to proceed? The Government must take this Bill on, ideally in this Session. They must certainly do it in the next Session. When I say "the Government" I refer particularly to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, Mr. Stephen Dorrell. He may find things like the arts, sport or even the lottery more glamorous, but none of them is nearly as important as this Bill. Indeed, it bears the name of his department. I beg him and his department to take it on. If it is to include portable antiquities, then that will be all to the good. I have nearly finished what I wanted to say.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I do not know whether it is in order, but I shall be happy to offer five minutes of my time to the noble Earl because he will use it far more effectively than I.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, that is a kind gesture, but I am glad to say that I have compressed much of what I intended to say. It may give the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, a chance to say a little more.
To conclude, the Government have dragged their feet for eight years on something which is of great significance to the country. I am quite clear that if the department undertook a publicity campaign to explain what is happening, they would receive all the backing necessary from the media. The media have been a great help to us up till now. They understand what is involved. England and Wales, and perhaps Northern Ireland—I am less clear about that—stand alone in having no laws to protect them. Southern Ireland and Scotland are wise, but our history is slipping away. I ask and beg that we have action now. If Mr. Dorrell goes ahead, then he will redeem his past record and that of his department. He will even earn the thanks and gratitude of our museums, archaeologists and all who care about our treasures and our past.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has done this country a considerable service by emphasising the inadequate, careless and shoddy way we deal with our cultural heritage, in particular with the portable antiquities, which, along with our ancient monuments, are often the only source of information about Britain's early past.
His Treasure Bill won the support not just of the Surrey Archaeological Society which helped him to draft it; it won the support of the entire archaeological community. It won the acceptance not only of the landowners, but also of the principal organisations representing those who use metal detectors to hunt for antiquities. I believe that that was a significant achievement of his Bill. It even won the support of the Department of National Heritage, although only at Report stage. I am afraid that the subsequent passage of the Bill, as we have heard, was less happy and it was actually torpedoed, I believe, by two junior members of Her Majesty's Government in another place. So I believe that nearly everyone in this House shares his regret that that is the position in relation to his Bill.
We regret also that it did not find a position in the current legislative programme, as announced last November in the gracious Speech. There was—I think I am right here—no single legislative proposal from the Department of National Heritage in that programme. If we are grateful to the noble Earl, we are fortunate also in the department's representatives in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Astor, who has Stonehenge among his administrative responsibilities, has been unfailingly helpful in relation to the Treasure Bill. And it was my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who will be speaking this evening, who gave the Bill such a constructive reception in this House last time and who was able to announce at Report stage,
"we have concluded that the Bill … deserves the Government's support.—[Official Report, 20/4/94; col. 235.]
If only the Bill had been so well served in another place we would not be holding this melancholy autopsy here today.

1445
But there are positive indications in relation to the future. I was happy to receive last month a very helpful letter from my noble friend Lord Astor, who has kindly allowed me to quote the relevant paragraphs. He wrote to me:
"Stephen Dorrell announced in March his intention to publish a Heritage Green Paper later in the year. We intend to take that opportunity to raise the issue of the adequacy of current arrangements for the reporting of portable antiquities generally—an issue which, of course, goes much wider than the Treasure Bill. We hope that the Council for British Archaeology's current working party will make a significant contribution to public discussion of the issues.
Any proposals emerging from the Green Paper which require legislation would in the normal course have to wait until time could be found in the Parliamentary programme for a Heritage Bill. However, we would hope to proceed much faster with the Treasure Bill: the need for reform of Treasure Trove is already generally agreed, and we would not want to reopen that issue in the context of the Green Paper consultations. We shall therefore be looking for an opportunity to secure the Bill's reintroduction next session, either as a Private Member's Bill or as a non-controversial government Bill".
That is indeed a helpful statement, but I would remind the House that it was one of my noble friend's predecessors, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who in reply to the Starred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on 25th January 1990—that is to say, more than five years ago—announced,
"when we have a suitable opportunity for legislation we shall take advantage of it".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1162.]
So we have to conclude that suitable opportunities are rare indeed.
The world's cultural and historic heritage is being plundered at a devastating rate. From Italy to China; from Russia to Cambodia; from Mexico to East Anglia, illicit excavations are ripping antiquities from their contexts and devastating the past on an unfortunate scale and sending the loot on its lucrative path to the salerooms of Geneva, New York and, I am sorry to say, of London. Ultimately, it is less the transfer of ownership that is regrettable, but the destruction of context; the loss of information.
To give an example, a cemetery of Anglo-Saxon graves, properly excavated and published, can write a whole new page in our island history. Subject, however, to looting, it will yield a few handsome Anglo-Saxon brooches for the saleroom, but contribute nothing at all to our study of the past.
That is why England so badly needs not only intelligible and workable legislation on the finding of valuables of gold and silver—that is what the noble Earl's Treasure Bill would do, and, I hope, will do—but also a system for the reporting of finds of portable antiquities so that the information is not lost. In some counties such as Norfolk, a voluntary system is already in place and works well. There is, I believe, wide agreement that a voluntary system would work best. I hope that the forthcoming Heritage Green Paper will set up the options by which a voluntary system could be made to work with a minimum of fuss and with very limited expenditure, perhaps on the Norfolk model, which works well because it commands the support of just about everybody, including the responsible majority of the metal-detecting fraternity.
At the Society of Antiquaries last month, as the noble Earl has already mentioned, the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities at its first meeting, representing a
1446
wide range of archaeological interests, reached a unanimous agreement under the chairmanship of the president of the Council for British Archaeology. Its resolution of 24th May reads:
"This Conference deplores the continuing loss to the nation's heritage which is a direct result of the failure on the part of successive Governments to introduce coherent statutory provision for the management of the UK's archaeological inheritance of portable antiquities; we
1 affirm support for the Statement of Principles on portable antiquities, issued in April 1993 by the Society of Antiquaries"—
and other bodies. We,
"2 welcome the Government's acceptance that the law of Treasure Trove is archaic and in need of reform, and in consequence
3 urge the Government to proceed urgently with the passage of the Treasure Bill (Treasure Trove is currently in a shambles, and leading to the loss of many archaeological artefacts and consequently our knowledge of the history of England and Wales);
4 also urge the introduction of a reporting scheme for archaeological artefacts where no reporting is currently obliged. We recognise that such a scheme, to be effective, must be accompanied by a sustained campaign of education".
Moreover, I hope that the UK will take a lead in supporting the draft Unidroit convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, who will be representing this country at the important discussions and negotiations on that theme which will be shortly under way? May I express the hope that we shall give those proposals our full support, for it is Britain's antiquities which are now being plundered—not just those of Greece and Rome, or of China and Peru.
We need that protection. My noble friend will not need to be reminded of the sad case of the Icklingham bronzes which I believe are currently in New York in the hands of collectors better known for their acquisitive zeal than for any scrupulous reticence when it comes to unprovenanced and therefore probably looted antiquities.
This country's natural heritage is at risk. It is not currently well protected, either by our legislation in regard to treasure trove or by any national system of voluntary reporting. We have a Department of National Heritage. Why does it not do something about it?
9.22 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, the debate gives the noble Baroness who will reply a remarkable opportunity to assure the House that the Government are persuaded, first, that legislation is needed to reform the law; secondly, that such legislation can only be carried out by the Government, and by no one else; and, thirdly, that action is urgently required.
I know that it is difficult for any government to pluck up their courage to do something which is both popular and useful, but I hope that those inhibitions will be cast aside, and that the Government will embrace with enthusiasm the opportunity to repair the very real ravages to our culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred. This is a case where we are losing ancient articles of outstanding, historical, archaeological and cultural importance. They can never be replaced, and irreparable damage is done if they are

1447
torn away and dissipated, either at home by private collectors or abroad. There must be some system which puts that right.
We are in a mess—in a shambles, as has been said—because, I am afraid, of the lawyers. I am bound to say that the lawyers to blame go right back to the 12th century at a time when the only interest in treasure trove was that of the Crown, which was short of money. Originally treasure trove was simply gold and silver coin which had been found and to which the King laid claim. In fact, in those days it was said:
"Seeking for treasure is an offence and no one ought to seek for treasure with the help of serfs or dig the earth for treasure which is the property of our lord the king".
There are not many serfs looking for treasure these days. They have been replaced by metal detectors. That would not have been too bad, but the law then drew a distinction between treasure which had been hidden and treasure which had been lost. Treasure trove—that to which the Crown was then entitled and to which the nation is now entitled—was limited to treasure that had been hidden away with the object of retrieving it. It was not applied to treasure that had been lost by accident. That distinction was made in order to protect the serfs. In those days it was not only a crime to search for and to conceal treasure but it was a punishable crime. There were only two methods of punishment; one was hanging and the other was decapitation. That is not an attractive choice. It was partly for that reason that lawyers limited the scope of treasure so that it was narrowly confined.
Your Lordships have heard of two recent examples of coins pre-dating the Celts being held by the jury not to be a treasure trove because of the theory propounded by counsel that they might have been donated by the Celts as a votive offering and had not been intended to be hidden away from the king. The other case was of Saxon coins. The jury was persuaded that the coins were not treasure trove because they were not found in a container. Apparently, the absence of a Saxon money box was fatal to the claim of treasure trove. Clearly, those distinctions must go and they must go quickly. As the noble Earl said, in the absence of any rule to the contrary, they can be exported and they are then lost to the country.
As your Lordships will know, there is already a Bill afoot that has met with the approval of this House. I believe that the Bill would have met with the approval of another place had it been allowed to consider it. The only reason why it is a Bill and not an Act is because the other place was not allowed to consider it.
There are other necessary reforms in the Bill; for example, to expand the meaning of treasure trove to include artefacts subject to control. They must be two or three hundred years old and they must be artefacts of the time approved by the Secretary of State and both Houses of Parliament. There is no danger in the reform and a great body of good will urges reform.
I have come here tonight as a lawyer to confess that the law is in a mess. This is a great opportunity for a law-reforming Government to do something not only to improve the law but to improve our heritage and our
1448
culture. I know that the Minister is well disposed. I hope that she will prevail on the Government, as she often prevails on this House, to do that which is right and good.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity of returning to this subject. I hope that the Government will give a commitment to allow the Bill which the noble Earl took through your Lordships' House last year to proceed.
Perhaps I may make one or two points in passing. First, I was most interested in the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, about the origins of treasure trove. I understand that it was originally introduced by the kings because they were worried about the diminution in the money supply. For that reason they thought that it was bad for a great deal of money in the realm to be unavailable for currency. That is why the Crown laid claim to it; it was not Royal avarice that lay behind the origin of the measure.
Secondly, I must make a confession; I am a collector. After all the wicked things that have been said about collectors by previous speakers, I am a little ashamed to admit that. Nevertheless, I believe that collectors play a valuable part in the process of archaeological discoveries. In the area in which I am interested—that is the medieval coinage of this country—it is fair to say that collectors who have been students of the series have contributed as much as anyone to the knowledge that now exists.
However, having got that confession off my chest, I can say that from the standpoint of a collector, I believe that the noble Earl's Bill should be revived and that it should not only receive government backing but that they should facilitate its passage through this House and another place.
The way in which the noble Earl has phrased his Question goes a little wider than his Bill in that it refers to portable antiquities and the preservation of the national heritage. That could cover a rather wider area than he set out to do in his Bill, which dealt with treasure. I hope that the Government do not take that widening of the discussion as an indication that there should be a delay with regard to the noble Earl's Bill in order to find some much broader form of legislation which would cover all those other areas. One consequence of that would be infinite delay because most of the other areas involve a great range of issues which have not been discussed by your Lordships' House and which might be very much more contentious to take through this House and another place.
Of course, there are a number of problems in relation to treasure trove which will remain if the noble Earl's Bill is enacted. One of those problems which worries me greatly is the unwillingness of those who discover hoards to provide information as to what has been found and where, because, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew emphasised, context and association are absolutely decisive in the interpretation of such evidence. Without context and association, a very high proportion of the information which the discovery is capable of providing is inevitably lost.

1449
The two areas where that is most likely to arise are where searchers or detectors have been looking for treasure on private land without landowners' permission and therefore they do not wish to acknowledge that they have been trespassing in that way; and secondly, when they have been on scheduled archaeological sites where they should not have been carrying out the activity in the first place but where there is inevitably, statistically, because of the historical associations, a higher probability of finding articles of interest and value.
I do not say that it is a deficiency in the noble Earl's proposed legislation that it does not provide a solution to those problems, but they need to be addressed in some way or other. I was particularly interested in what my noble friend Lord Renfrew said about records and encouragement to keep them on a county or local basis. I do not know how that could be extended to deal with cases of illicit discovery, but that is clearly an area with which we need to deal.
As the noble Earl said, the current arrangements for treasure trove are chaotic because they are subject to capricious decisions by coroners about the motives of those who deposited valuable objects in the ground centuries ago. The idea that because treasure was not contained in a purse or container it would not have been deliberately buried is absurd because, probably, it was originally wrapped in cloth or some other perishable material which has disappeared. Equally the idea that the number of discoveries of gold or other valuable objects and coins from the iron age period can all be taken as votive offerings is in my view a complete fantasy. It is not inconceivable that a discovery could fall into that category but most of them demonstrably could not. The issue is frequently raised as a red herring in relation to those discoveries.
Please let us have the noble Earl's Bill. If there are any practical obstacles, I hope that my noble friend in responding to the debate will spell them out plainly. If it is purely a matter of parliamentary time, perhaps I may plead with her to do her best to ensure that the Government find a gap in the parliamentary timetable when legislation of this kind could be included. On that basis the legislation could go through your Lordships' House with very little consideration because it had been thoroughly dealt with last time.
9.36 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the law of treasure trove was initiated to preserve the Crown's interest in Saxon times. Today, after nearly 1,000 years, it is utterly anomalous both in its effect and because it has become a legal nonsense.
Most people in this country had hoped that in the latter years of the Government's office they would concentrate on improving existing law and procedure, which the proposed Bill, for example, sets out to achieve. Instead, they are still embarking on so many new and unthought-out pieces of legislation that they claim they have no time for simple reform. The Bill is simple and after much discussion it has been, broadly speaking, agreed by almost all of those concerned,
1450
including the Government. It is of considerable importance to the preservation of the nation's heritage and yet we seem unable to bring it to fruition. It should be a first step towards more comprehensive legislation in the future. It should not prevent the Bill going forward now. I press the Government to take the Bill on now rather than much later when even more of our heritage will have been lost to the nation.
9.37 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise as a new boy to this subject but with great enthusiasm. It is always a pleasure to make new friends. I do not exaggerate because so far everybody has been in agreement that behind Lord Perth's moderate and carefully argued case, there is a real gap in our country's legislation in regard to the protection of the nation's heritage.
Anybody who reads the broadsheet newspapers will realise that losses of treasure throughout the world are enormous. There are great profits for well organised and unscrupulous gangs of criminals who, sadly, often do not understand the damage that they do for the short-term monetary gain that they seek. The huge losses in this island alone can amount to several hundred thousand individual finds a year, and a very small proportion of those find their way onto the records through a museum. That is a disaster.
The technology that is most favoured as a subject in the debates has been that of metal detectors, but I read the other day that there is a capability from satellite to detect areas where probable finds can be made. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that well-organised and well-financed groups of treasure seekers will be using that technology at an increasing pace.
The treasure trove limitations are well known. Indeed, noble Lords argued about them during debate on the 1994 Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Moreover, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, described the treasure trove legislation as a nonsense. It is certainly a nonsense today, but it may not have been a nonsense when it was a means of providing income from treasure finds for the treasury of monarchs. However, today it is certain—and I apologise for reiterating what other noble Lords have said, and probably not as well—that it is the understanding of our heritage which is important, not the monetary value of the items which may be the major concern for those who go out with metal detectors. I do not wish to label all such people as being ignorant, greedy and self-seeking enthusiasts; but it is certainly the understanding of our heritage which is important.
For example, a piece of armour, a piece of clothing, a piece of pottery, or whatever, need not have been there for 200 or 300 years; indeed, it could have been there for only 150 years. However, when such an item is taken out of the ground without being recorded, the exact location, the time and the conditions in which it was found are soon forgotten. That leaves a sad gap in our knowledge and in the total picture that we have which was so well described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, both today and, as I read the Hansard report, in the 1994 debate.

1451
I do not wish to speak for too long because so much has already been said by other speakers and I personally agree with most of it. However, should the Minister in her response tonight give us further encouragement, I would say to her that not only my colleagues on these Benches here would support her to the man—and I believe that I can say that quite safely; and it is rare that I can say such a thing from these Benches without first confirming the thoughts of certain people—but also all Members of another place who sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches would support legislation of a kind which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, sought to bring forward last year when he was so sadly and miserably let down.
On the latter point, I must say that I believe that it is an extraordinary argument—and it was one of the reasons for opposition in the other place; and there were echoes of it in this House if I read the Hansard report correctly—when people say that any interference with the current position is an attack on the rights of owners of land. In other words, that they should in some way be liable to hand over for examination, and possibly hand over title to, articles found on their land. It is felt that that is some kind of enormous attack on their ownership of property. I find that strange. Sadly, although my family has had some antiquity, I do not have land which contains any of those treasures. However, if I did, I would look upon it in the same way that I look upon my title: I am a lessee of that title and I hold it for future generations, whether or not I sit in this Chamber and argue as I have the privilege to do this evening. I feel that those who have the privilege of sitting on discovered treasure that adds further value to their land owe it to posterity to bring it forth and have it registered and properly inscribed in reports of finds of articles, whether they be of porcelain, bronze, silver or gold.
I very much look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness. As I read the report in Hansard in 1994, her response was extremely encouraging. If I were the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I would be extremely exasperated. I thought that his speech tonight was moderate and good tempered and was a good example to us all. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take that remark as a relaxing of the pace. I believe that the views expressed tonight in your Lordships' House show how fervent is the wish that this problem is dealt with quickly. Time is running short. We shall have nothing left.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for putting this question again before the House. I had hoped that that would not be necessary. His patience with the ducking and diving of a weak government is remarkable. What has been said on all sides has made clear that the existing law of treasure trove is inadequate. The vast majority of the growing flood of antiquities that are being found fall outside its scope. The Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was quite modest, but it dealt with the worst anomalies. It passed through this House with support from all sides, but was lost in the Commons. It was introduced five times by two distinguished Conservative Members but
1452
opposed by four miserable Conservative Members, one a government Whip and three who are now junior Ministers. I hope that it was not their appalling behaviour that qualified them for office. There has been no success in the search for a Conservative to reintroduce this matter in the Commons. What is lacking is serious government support and initiative.
All events since and before have demonstrated the need for action. Expert assessments suggest that hundreds of thousands of archaeological objects of great value to the history and the collective memory of our nation are taken each year. Only a few are reported to museums. The current law has proved to be virtually unenforceable and irrelevant to the problem. Since the passing of the noble Earl's Bill this huge loss to the national heritage is the direct result of the Government's inertia and refusal to follow the express will of this House. I say that despite the excellent support of the noble Baroness who will close the debate tonight. A great responsibility rests on her ample but beautiful shoulders.
In our debates on the noble Earl's Bill Government Ministers accepted the case put, recognised the problem and accepted his remedy. They accepted that the existing law of treasure trove is quite archaic and that there is need for urgent reform. That was the ministerial position put before us. The Treasure Bill, as passed, offers some of that reform. No one pretended it was a solution to the vast scale of the problem. It was a modest Bill that offered a remedy to some of the worst abuses. It has the support, as we have seen tonight, of all sides of this House. In another place there need be no problem, if only the Government will take action.
I have stated before, and I repeat, that Her Majesty's Opposition in the Commons will give official formal support to this Bill if it is put by the Government to them. Therefore the Government have no excuse. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has said the same for his party in the Commons. Therefore the Government have no political excuse. We can guarantee that there will be support on all sides in the Commons, as there has been in this House, if only the Government have the guts to act. Those Tories who opposed the measure before are now, sadly we may feel, in the Government ranks and will presumably toe the line. Sir James Kilfedder, who opposed by proxy, has sadly passed on, so there is no further problem there. He has joined the antiquities which we all respect.
There should be no problem in this House. This House is united in favour of what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has proposed. Another place will be supportive as the Opposition are committed to support the measure. The Government must initiate this reform. There will be no political problems. The Bill has been refined; the support has been arranged and guaranteed and the measure will require little parliamentary time. The result would be legislation which goes some but not all the way to resolve this terrible problem of the haemorrhage of our heritage. It would be a rare and almost unique success for the Secretary of State and for his supporters, although there are not many of them. Only indolence and cowardice would explain a failure to act. I look forward to hearing a positive statement from the

1453
Minister. Only a commitment by the Government to introduce this measure as a non-controversial Government Bill is acceptable.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this serf, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, would say, would first like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his principal supporters, my noble friends Lord Renton, who I am sorry to see is not in his place this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for their untiring advocacy of a reform of the law of treasure trove.
As I said just over a year ago at the time of the Second Reading debate of Lord Perth's Bill, archaeology is indeed fortunate to have such untiring champions in this House. As on that occasion, I wish to express my great admiration for the energy and determination which the noble Earl and his colleagues have shown in pursuing this matter. It was certainly refreshing to hear the support given to a future Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on behalf of his entire party. I must rise above some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but it was also good to hear of his party's total support. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that it is up to him and not the Government to get publicity. I would add that the noble Earl has not done too badly up to now.
Perhaps I may explain why we are in the position in which we find ourselves. When the Department of National Heritage took over responsibility for treasure trove just two years ago it was for the first time possible to bring together in a single government department policy on treasure trove, together with the wider responsibility for archaeological policy in general. I believe that this has been a real gain and I can assure your Lordships that we have not been idle. We quickly appointed an official to work on policy on portable antiquities in general and on treasure trove reform in particular and to liaise closely with the noble Earl, Lord Perth's, team. I believe that the noble Earl and his supporters will agree that this arrangement has worked well, and I mention it to underline the Government's real commitment to making progress in this area.
As it turned out, the Bill which the noble Earl introduced into this House in the last Session was not successful, and that is a matter for regret. We had hoped that it would be possible for the Bill to be reintroduced this Session. However, none of the honourable Members with a place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills chose to take it up. Then, because of other pressures on Parliamentary time, it proved impossible for the Government to find a place for the Bill in its own programme. Nevertheless, I think that some good will come from this, because the extra time has enabled us both to consider further amendments to the Bill which would help to resolve objections from the metal-detectorists and also to give more thought as to how the Bill could fit in with measures to deal with the wider question of portable antiquities.
1454
Following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I would also like to take this opportunity to stress that my department has actively been pursuing a number of other initiatives to improve the current administration of treasure trove which do not require legislation. We have, I believe, demonstrated that we take the responsibility very seriously. First, my noble friend Lord Astor agreed that we should release the valuation evidence for the Hoxne hoard. That demonstration of open government helped to show finders that the system is indeed fair and it has received favourable comment in the metal-detecting press.
Secondly, a recent case from Northern Ireland highlighted the anomaly that rewards for treasure troves found in the Province are not valued independently. We are most grateful to the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee for agreeing to consider that find, and for its recommendation which will result in a substantial increase in the reward. We now hope to place that arrangement on a regular footing.
To return to the Treasure Bill, at the end of March we received a detailed critique of the Bill from the National Council for Metal-Detecting. The NCMD had been the one interested organisation to oppose the Bill when it was introduced into Parliament last year and we have looked at what it had to say very carefully. With the co-operation of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his supporters, we are considering whether it is possible to frame amendments to address the concerns that the metal-detectorists have raised. We are progressing as rapidly as we can. Given that there are other government departments which need to be consulted, such as the Home Office and the Treasury, it is a bit too early to say exactly what proposals will emerge. However, we do believe that the Bill will be improved and that as a result it will command even wider support. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that this is a good thing.
In addition to that, there have been developments on the wider issue of portable antiquities. In March, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to publish a heritage Green Paper later in the year. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew mentioned when quoting from the letter of my noble friend Lord Astor, we intend to take that opportunity to raise the issue of the adequacy of current arrangements for the reporting of portable antiquities generally. It is worth remembering that, although we believe that it does offer some very significant improvements over the current law of treasure trove, the Treasure Bill is limited in scope to coin hoards and other objects of gold and silver, together with associated finds. Therefore it will not include the great majority of objects of archaeological significance, which are not made of gold or silver. I know that archaeologists will agree that such objects, although often of little commercial value, form just as significant a part of the national heritage as much more glamorous precious-metal finds. My department is taking an active role in a working party which has been established by the Council for British Archaeology, with the support of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, to examine those issues. We shall look with interest at the results of its deliberations.

1455
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised the case of the inquest which was held in November 1994 on three groups of Iron Age coins which were seized by Customs at Heathrow Airport. As he said, the jury found that they were not treasure trove, partly, I understand, because the jury felt that they might have been a votive deposit and thus would not have been buried deliberately with the intention of being recovered. We are aware of the facts of the case. I can assure him that we are currently discussing some aspects of the case with the British Museum and our legal adviser.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew raised the question of the UNIDROIT Convention. It might be useful if I were to explain to your Lordships what that is. The draft UNIDROIT Convention aims to provide a mechanism for signatory countries to request the return of cultural objects which have been stolen or illegally exported. There is a forthcoming conference in Rome to finalise the draft of the convention at which the UK will be represented by the head of the cultural property unit and our legal adviser. I understand that that is not a ministerial conference, but it is at official level at this stage. There is still much work to be done on the draft convention and a final text has yet to emerge from the conference in Rome. Therefore I cannot anticipate whether the UK will become a signatory, although we shall certainly be actively engaged in the process of discussion.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew also asked whether it would be beneficial if the UK benefited from the return of objects which originated in the UK. I am grateful to him for giving advance notice of both those questions. We already have in place an EU directive which provides the opportunity for us to request the return of nationally important objects. By that I mean those of Waverley standard where they have been illegally exported from the UK and are located in another member state.
In addition, there is, of course, a mechanism via Interpol to recover stolen objects. The objectives behind the draft UNIDROIT Convention are laudable and we shall continue to work constructively with other countries participating in the forthcoming conference to achieve a convention which could be a mutually acceptable compromise to as many states as possible, both importing and exporting.
Perhaps I may return to treasure trove. Of course any proposals emerging from the Green Paper which require legislation would in the normal course of events have
1456
to wait until time could be found in the parliamentary programme for a Heritage Bill. However, I can assure the House, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in particular, that we would hope to proceed much more quickly with the Treasure Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said, the need for the reform of treasure trove is generally agreed. The provisions of the Bill have wide support and we do not believe it necessary to reopen this issue—as distinct from the wider issue of the reporting of antiquities—in the context of the Green Paper consultations. I can assure my noble friend Lord Stewartby that we shall therefore be looking for an opportunity to secure the Bill's reintroduction in the next Session.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask her just one question. On the matter of publicity, she said that that was my job. I shall certainly take on any job, but it seems to me that it is essentially the work of the department if it believes in the Bill at all and in getting the legislation through this House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is not usual for governments to try to sell their Bills through publicity. There are, indeed, many occasions when they would rather not have publicity. If the noble Lord is promoting a measure that he very much desires and which is supported on all sides of the House, it is for him to raise the matter in order to gain publicity more than it is for me or any Minister.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she confirm that right at the end of her remarks she said that the Government will be looking to introduce such a Bill in the next Session?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Children (Scotland) Bill
Second Sitting
Wednesday, 7 June, 1995
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 25 [After-care]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("nineteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Earl said: This amendment to Clause 25 is one of the more important in the Bill. The aim of Amendment No. 86 is to guarantee and fund the provision of aftercare on a mandatory basis for ex-care young adults up to the age of 21. The experience to date of these generally vulnerable young people is that they arc effectively abandoned by the local authority. The Bill can be praised for extending the period of mandatory aftercare to age 19 from age 18 as previously. This still leaves a very young person to rely on his own resources at a time when studies show that the usual age for leaving home is around 22 years. The instability and contradictions of growing up in care and the disintegrating family life that preceded it are not a stable platform from which we can really expect ex-care young people to be able to accelerate to independence.
I do not want to encourage a culture of dependence but I do want to ensure that the children brought up by the local authority are subsequently treated realistically. The fact that ex-care children are found to be 70 times more likely to become homeless is the regrettable evidence which backs up this amendment.
I shall conclude with some remarks about cost. Although it was suggested by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in another place that the cost of extending the duty to assist ex-care young adults up to age 21 might be £4.5 million, we now have three estimates to consider. The Child Care Law Review report said £965,000; the Association of Directors of Social Work has said £1.7 million, and Shelter has said £1.3 million. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. However, I cannot of course speak about Scotland; I can only speak on what we have experienced under the Children Act 1989 in England. During the passage of the Children Bill through the House of Lords I moved an amendment which very much resembles this amendment but unfortunately it was turned down and was not accepted. As a consequence, we have spent much more in England than we would have spent had the amendment been accepted. I say that because of the young people one sees sleeping on the streets. Research was done by the Salvation Army, the Church Army and the University of Surrey. They found that a great proportion of those children sleeping on the streets were
CWH 68
children who had been in care. Some of them had gone home and could not settle and the parents would not have them and they left home. They had been in residential accommodation or perhaps in unhappy foster homes. As a consequence, they were sleeping rough and at the end of the day they were costing the country the most enormous amount of money. Finally, Centrepoint. had to set up particular accommodation for them with the approval of the Department of the Environment and that was very costly. It was costly to the health departments because so many of them were ill later and it was very costly because, without accommodation, they could not get a job and without a job they could not get accommodation. So the situation was an extraordinarily difficult one. I can only speak of the English experience, but the English experience leads me to think that it would be more cost effective to accept the amendment than to put it to be rejected.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have some reservations about this. I take on board what the noble Baroness has just said. The use of the words "shall" and "may", which we discussed yesterday at some length, carries with it the fiscal implications which the Government might not be able to take on board and indeed the local authority might not be able to take on board.
At Second Reading we mentioned that there should be an availability for young people—indeed another amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, will suggest the age of 25—to have advice and guidance, but it should not be a compulsory matter for the local authority. I find it difficult to construe subsection (1) of Clause 25:
"A local authority shall, unless they are satisfied that his welfare does not require it, advise, guide and assist any person in their area over a school age",
and so on. How is the local authority to find out who needs the advice, guidance and assistance, unless that person comes to it?
I would like the Government to take another look at this and say that a local authority "may" provide that help to persons who seek it. I may be misreading this clause completely. I appreciate the reasoning behind the Bill, but I would not like to see local authorities, particularly since the re-organisation of local government in Scotland, which we have discussed at length on many other occasions, being saddled with this burden of seeking out people and asking whether they would like advice, guidance or assistance. It seems to be placing an unnecessary burden on the local authority. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord the Minister may say about that, but I shall listen with interest.
Baroness Faithfuil: In answer to the noble Lord, may I say that in the English debate on this subject, I asked for the word "shall", and the Lord Chancellor then gave in to me half way by saying "may" in the Bill. As a consequence, I regret to have to say that the treasurers said that this is only "may" and the social services departments then could not spend the money because it was only "may" and not "shall".
Secondly, from the point of view of seeking out, I can only say that the children know perfectly well where to go when they have been in care. They do know exactly

CWH 69
where to go to ask for help. However, if the social services departments do not have the right and the finance to help them, then of course they cannot help them. I do not feel that they would not know where to go for help if they needed it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): Like the noble Earl who moved the amendment, I am keenly aware of the importance of aftercare. Indeed, that is why there is such specific provision for it in the Bill. There is, however, 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.
We are committed to seeing improvements in the existing arrangements for young people leaving care, but to my mind the key point is that services—the advice, the guidance and assistance—should be improved and not simply extended to people who are slightly older. I hope that if we get the services right at the early stage, we will avoid some of the difficulties which exist at present.
There clearly is an issue of resources here and the indication we had from the noble Earl in moving his amendment was that there is quite a wide range of estimates of what the cost might be, but all three of them are significant sums for local authorities to take on. I should like to make it clear that it is not simply a question of resources which leads me to take my view. We want to improve the services but I do not want to bring about any diminution in the quality of the services that might be introduced.
There is indeed a difference, if I may say to the noble Baroness, between what we are proposing in this Bill and what is to be found within the Children Act 1989. That provides at present only a power of assistance up to the age of 21. This Bill for Scotland provides a duty of aftercare up to the age of 19 and then a power to provide services for those aged 19 to 21. In those respects, I think we go some significant way to meeting the point that the noble Baroness would make, and while she may want to go yet further, I am sure that she will view what we have introduced as an improvement on what is provided on this side of the Border.
It is important that the services and the support should be carefully tailored to meet the needs of the individuals involved. I hope that we will set young people off on the right track and have good supportive services available for those vulnerable age groups which require it. Putting it simply, more of the same is not enough; what I hope we shall achieve and bring about are real improvements in aftercare where they will do most good.
Finally, I should stress that the clause provides the power for the local authorities to continue assisting young care leavers until they are 21. I am sure that providing that flexibility rather than creating an indiscriminate duty is the right way forward, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he reconsider the use of
CWH 70
the word "shall" in the light of the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull? Should it be "may" or should it be "shall", or even "maybe"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sure that Her Majesty's Treasury would be delighted if I were to delete the word "shall" and retreat to the use of the word "may", but I think it is important that when young people first leave care at up to the age of 19, the local authority should be under a duty to provide this assistance to them. As they become older, the provisions should be merely permissive, and the use of the word "may" is then more appropriate. Although there may be some who would like to go a little further, generally speaking, there is agreement that we have the balance about right.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may take issue with the noble and learned Lord. I am keen that such children—I suppose that I should not say "in care" but those who are growing up on a "looked-after" basis—should know that the local authority gives them the right to ask for services. I take the point that over the age of 19 someone who is vulnerable and needs services will be able to demand them by approaching the social work department in the same way as anybody older, but I would prefer such children to know that they have the right to approach the local authority rather than have to argue the case for services. However, I have listened to the Minister's argument, 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. 87:
Page 19, line 16, leave out from ("at") to ("was") in line 17, and insert ("any time subsequent to his fifteenth birthday").
The noble Earl said: I want to establish in the Committee's mind the fact that the Bill puts a rather high starting point for eligibility for the mandatory provision of aftercare. I cannot grumble about the Bill's current provision of aftercare. What I hope can be achieved by this amendment is the inclusion of a larger but equally vulnerable group of ex-care adults who returned to their homes from care in the last school year. Many will have been in care because of school attendance problems. Their return home will usually have been made on a trial basis, with the hope that the child's increasing maturity will stand him in better stead, but there is no guarantee that the situation in the family home will have changed much from that appertaining before the child was received into care. There is the reasonable possibility that the family home may yet again disintegrate.
I believe that lowering the age of eligibility will have the beneficial effect of ensuring that fewer vulnerable young people are left outside the mandatory safety not. The costs of homelessness, mental ill health, destitution, unemployment, delinquency and possibly imprisonment far outweigh the increases in costs that this amendment may generate. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I recognise that the provision as presently drafted will mean that a person seeking to be looked after by a local authority

CWH 71
immediately before reaching school-leaving age would not be eligible, in terms of the definition, for aftercare. But there clearly has to be a cut-off point at some point. The noble Earl's amendment seeks to lower that cut-off point a little. Again, I am not so much concerned about the issue of resources in principle. Clearly, however, the amendment could increase the number who would be eligible and accordingly there is the prospect of a greater imposition of costs. What is more important is that if the amendment is accepted, someone could leave care at the age of 15 years and one week and get on fine, surviving satisfactorily back home all the way up to a week before his 19th birthday when he could then come back and demand or require those services of the local authority. The period is becoming too extended. It is right that we should have restricted it in the way that we have from the 16th birthday through to the 19th and that we should not extend it in this wider fashion. However, I recognise that this is an issue of cut-off points and that there will always be arguments about whether a cut-off point is too high or too low.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am a little worried about the fact that many children go home between the ages of 15 and 16. I would not like the situation to emerge whereby people were actually staying in care for a couple of extra months in order to qualify. I appreciate that a cut-off point will always create that problem. I am just wondering how we can avoid it. I am tempted to say that I do not mind the additional cost; that statement had better be taken as it is meant!
On the noble and learned Lord's analogy of the person who has lived successfully up to 18 years and 11 months and then his life disintegrates, I would argue that that is exactly why the social services department is there. It is there to help such a person, so we should not be too worried about that possibility. However, I accept that that example was given as analogy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 19, line 19, leave out from ("least") to ("years") in line 20, and insert ("twenty-one but is less than twenty-three".).
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 89, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 90. These two amendments clearly seek to extend the ages to which the local authorities may, on request, provide ex-care young adults with advice, guidance and assistance. The Bill at present is quite generous in extending the right to help and interest up to the age of 21, but I believe that it should go further. Earlier I established that the normal age for leaving home proves to be 22 years. That does not mean that families normally lose all interest in their children as soon as they have flown the nest for the first time. My personal experience as a step-parent of five and grandparent of six confirms for me that the continuing and developing relationship with one's adult children is ongoing. Even
CWH 72
the Government recognise that. Parents are required to support their children up to the age of 25 in their higher and further education.
It would be eminently reasonable to extend that interest to young adults who have endured the need to be received into care. What is more, they should know that they have a right to such interest and assistance and should not have to plead for it with the intake and assessment team.
I would finally say that the costs of the extended provision of advice, guidance and assistance to this older group by right will not be very large as the numbers will taper off with increasing age. However, this provision by right will be highly valued by the small group of still vulnerable young adults who I persist in believing are worth more than the money. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder if I can ask a question at this stage. Do local authorities have facilities to assist adults in need of care? Although the Bill deals with children, Amendment No. 90 raises the age to 25. At that age the child has definitely become an adult. What is the relevant Act in that case? A reply would help me to understand the extension of age proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The amendment would, I believe, be greeted with some approval within the community. There is no compulsion on the local authority. We are now seeing the effects of the so-called policy of care in the community. As the noble Earl said, a person who requires care in the community may be aged 24 but possibly lacks the mental capacity to be able to look after himself or herself. I have not discussed the matter with the noble Earl, but the reasoning behind the amendment may be that we have to provide some kind of community shelter for people who have been pushed out into the community so that they have a safe haven to go to. They can say to the local authority, "Here is my position. Can you help me?" I wonder if that is perhaps the reasoning behind the proposal.
It is of course, ridiculous to describe someone aged 25 as a child, but we have to strike a balance. To that extent, and given that the amendment does not impose any mandatory duty on the local authority but merely makes a facility available, I support the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I knew there was some advantage in this new arrangement for discussing matters in Committee. I can answer the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, by telling him that there are indeed powers given to local authorities in Scotland to provide assistance to those who are adults. Those broad powers and duties are to be found in Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
As I said, it is almost inevitable that in our approach to aftercare there will be criticism that we arc not being generous enough or that there are cut-off points that arc too low. I reiterate that, in my view, the aftercare provisions we are introducing are considerably more generous than those provided under the 1968 Act. I believe that that is acknowledged. They are also more generous than those on this side of the Border including, as they do, a specific duty for local authorities to help

CWH 73
young people until they become 19 years of age.
I do not believe that we need to take aftercare beyond a young person's 21st birthday. Of course, there may still be a need for continuing help and assistance, but that I see as coming through mainstream social work provision and not tied to the fact that a particular individual, now an adult, had at one time been in care while he was a child.
This is essentially a children's Bill, and while we certainly want to ensure that it deals adequately with an individual's transition to adulthood, we would not want to extend that transition indefinitely. So with that balance between the specific provisions in the Children Bill and the more general social work duty, I hope the noble Earl will accept again that the balance is about right.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that he has been referring to aftercare'? But if care does not precede aftercare, if the children are not cared for children but are looked after children, the term "aftercare" does seem a bit of a contradiction in terms.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think I would understand that point better if "looked after" was a term that was going to be adopted to deal only with those children who have at some time in their childhood been looked after in the sense of being accommodated by the local authority during that period of childhood.
However, what I sought to explain yesterday was that the term "looked after" is a much broader term and embraces a wide range of different duties and obligations imposed upon the local authorities. It is to avoid confusion between this very specific type of care and the broader range of obligations that we have selected this terminology.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This is a children's Bill and we are dealing with children who will have been looked after by the local authority. I persist in being keen that children who are being looked after should know that the local authority will continue to be interested in them until approximately the same time in their lives as could be said of children who are fortunate enough to have remained at home.
I should have liked the provision to be extended to the age of 25 in order to establish that right, so that social workers could confidently say to the children they were involved with that the local authority was there for them until they were well into adulthood.
I do not think that would have imposed too much of a problem on the local authority, because it was, after all, a duty to provide advice, guidance and assistance on request, and I suppose I hoped that that would be happening anyway. I am thinking mainly about briefing the children as they leave care and return home and being able to reassure them that the local authority will not abandon them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Financial assistance towards expenses of education or training and removal of power to guarantee indentures etc.]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Registration and inspection of certain residential grant-aided and independent schools etc.]:
4 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("without his being") and insert ("only if he is").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 93 is to bring all grant-aided and independent schools within the registration scheme. When we are considering comprehensive provisions for children in Scotland, I can see no reason why we should not have a licensing system for all schools. Attending any school, and a boarding school in particular, has a major impact in any child's life. One of the merits of having a licensing or registration scheme is that it would also act as a complaints system. A duty to investigate complaints would meet the need of parents who seem to be increasingly unhappy about the performance of the schools their children attend. 1 do not accept that the approach of caveat emptor—that is, if you do not like it, take your child away—is the best way of dealing with problems in the organisation of a school. The child is treated as the product in that scenario. The child who is removed from the school on that basis will subsequently be thought to have been at fault and thus stigmatised.
Secondly, independent schools should have nothing to fear from such a system. It will provide a guarantee of the maintenance of minimum standards which should be a plus factor in their advertising. Similarly the prospect of refusal of registration or subsequent de-registration would no doubt be helpful in focusing the minds of all managers of independent schools. At present, managers who might not qualify for registration can opt out because the scheme is a voluntary one.
This amendment would act as a sound quality assurance measure and would be welcomed by all parents considering independent school education for their children. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: On this side we support the amendment. We are talking in terms of grant-aided and independent schools. It cannot be right that even if a parent or parents want to give their children away to a grant-aided or independent school, they should be entitled to diminish the rights of the child.
We are speaking at a time when the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is very much to the fore of social thinking. The thinking about this particular clause seems to be that the parent can just throw away any responsibility for his child, put it in the hands of the headmaster or the headmistress and the child has no escape. If I interpret correctly what the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was getting at, to use a colloquialism, there should be an open-handed approach to all

CWH 75
children's rights in Scotland or indeed the United Kingdom, and they should not be locked away in a fortress where their rights are being denied to them and where they have no means of exercising their rights by complaining.
I have no doubt that the Government have received some representations from a person whose child was severely, or allegedly, severely abused at a Scottish public school, so called. I shall not go into the details of that, but if we are going to have an open society where children have rights, then there is no reason for anybody to close the door. The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has opened the door and no-one should have any reason to fear anyone coming through that door and allowing any child in any school to speak to them. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I very much support what has been said on the amendment. I would appreciate some guidance to enable children at such schools to know to whom to appeal if they feel thoroughly unhappy about whatever it may be at the school: the bullying, the accommodation, if they feel they are being unfairly treated, and so on. They must be protected.
I have written to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser voicing my concern about children being educated in this country whose parents hold down a job overseas or who may be foreign citizens. Those children can be very lonely. They must have somebody they can turn to within the local authority structure, for a want of a better word.
Baroness Faithful: I support Amendment No. 93 which, in England and Wales, is already enacted. It was enacted because of a very serious case that was brought before the courts. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened carefully to what has been said about the need to introduce compulsory registration under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for both grant-aided and independent schools which provide a measure of care. I agree that there will be circumstances where independent schools should be registered under the 1968 Act but this amendment takes that rather too far. The extent to which a school provides personal care and support would be irrelevant. The amendment would require all schools, I emphasise all schools, to be registered under both the 1968 Act and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
I am bound to say that it is very difficult to justify extending compulsory registration in the way proposed. It would place too heavy a burden on the schools. It would be over-bureaucratic and would carry serious resource implications for local authorities. For schools providing no social care and support the whole process would have no practical value at all. I believe that what we have in the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance. We require registration of residential grant-aided and independent schools, the whole or a substantial part of whose function is to provide personal care and support, and we allow the voluntary registration of other schools. With that explanation of why I consider that the amendment goes too far, I hope that the noble Earl will
CWH 76
withdraw it.
A number of other observations were made. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is perhaps aware of the provision to which we shall shortly be coming in Clause 31. It has regard to the welfare of children and young persons in residential accommodation within a school. That is the more appropriate point at which his concerns can be registered.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, does he make a distinction between a grant-aided school and an independent school for the purposes of the proposition which he has just advanced to the Committee?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Not at all. What I have indicated is that this is a clear alternative as the drafting says,
"a grant-aided or independent school".
The difficulty here, as I am explaining, is that all schools, grant-aided and/or independent, whether or not they provided any degree of social care, would be required to register if this amendment were to be carried. I understand why it is desirable for some where that care is being provided, but that is not the effect of the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This is a children's Bill, and we are considering the fate of children who arc committed to something that a sociologist would describe as a total institution. For eight months of the year, the child is totally within the bounds of the private school. I reflect on my own prep school in Scotland where we rarely ever came out of the area within the walls, though I may say that they were not that close. However, it was a total institution. I wonder therefore how it can be said that such a school did not supply a social care. It certainly supplied education but it also supplied care because it was looking after us.
By not having a registration scheme, I fear that people may get the message that using an independent school means that the parent perhaps wants different standards for the child. One of the reasons why I wish to see a registration scheme is just to prove that that docs not happen.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I draw the noble Earl's attention and also that of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, sitting next to him, to this fact. Clause 31 relates to schools which have to be registered under the Education (Scotland) Act. If I advance towards Clause 31, this provision seeks to ensure that in that context the inspectors of schools will have a duty to have regard—first to ensuring that the authority, the managers in question, fulfil their duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. If accepted, the provisions would mean that the noble Earl, as a prep school boy, would know that someone was promoting and having regard to his welfare. When Her Majesty's inspectors of schools tarry out their inspection under Section 66 of the 1980 Act, this provision would mean that they shall have a power to inspect the place to determine whether the welfare of that prep school boy is being adequately safeguarded and promoted there.
I do not disagree that it is desirable to have a degree

CWH 77
of safeguarding and promotion of such welfare, but that seems to me the appropriate arrangement and not to provide for an unnecessary duality of registration and inspection.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the distinction, and since we seem to be tangled up with the next amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [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. 94:
Page 23, line 40, leave out from ("accommodated") to end of line 43 and insert—
("() The local authority of the area where the accommodation is provided—

(a) shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable at annual intervals to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school; and

(b) shall, where they are of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with the duty to ensure a child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school within their area, they shall notify the Secretary of State.

() Any person authorised by a local authority may, for the purpose of enabling the authority to discharge their duty under this section (provision of accommodation), enter at any reasonable time any school within their area which provides accommodation for any child.".).
The noble Earl said: As has already been mentioned, this amendment concerns itself with the inspection of residential accommodation provided for school attendance. The Bill amends Section 125 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and says that the owners and operators of all schools providing accommodation,
"shall have the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child or young person while he is so accommodated".
The Bill goes on to provide that there will be powers of inspection to ensure that this duty is being carried out. I understand that inspections are already taking place, but that on average those are being achieved on a quinquennial basis. As a lot of change can occur in a short time, inspection on a five-year basis is barely adequate.
The amendment lays down that the inspection shall be on an annual basis. The local authority will inspect the school each year. The local authority will have the power to report the school to the Secretary of State if the local authority believes there has been a failure to safeguard the child's welfare. The local authority would have the power to enter the school at any reasonable time to inspect the accommodation and to establish that the children's welfare is being satisfactorily, safeguarded.
The amendment would ensure that all children are subject to the same standards of care, irrespective of the type of education selected for them by their parents. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that using the words "annual intervals" may be defeating a lot of the object that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has in mind. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the bottom of page 22, where we have within the Bill the proposed new Section 67:
"A person duly authorised by a local authority may in the area of that authority, at all reasonable times, enter",
so he can inspect as and when required and not on an annual basis.
I also feel to a great extent that what the noble Earl is saying is covered within the proposed new Section 67 and also in the proposed new Section 125A under Clause 31 which deals with the accommodation side. I do not think the amendment is necessary.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In the light of what the noble Earl has just said, if I may say, with respect, he missed out an important part of new Section 67(1), which is that:
"A person … may … at all reasonable times, enter, for a relevant purpose".
When we look at the definition of a relevant purpose on the next page in subsection (2) we go back to the question of the rights of the children. New Section 67(2)(a) states:
"the purpose of making such examinations into the state and management of the establishment or place, and the condition and treatment of the person in it, as the person so authorised thinks necessary".
Those words might, in a broad scale of events, cover what the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised—the question of access by children to people who enter for a relevant purpose. The interests of the children do not seem to be specifically covered by that definition of a relevant purpose. It may be that at Report stage we should look at the definition of "relevant purpose" and perhaps include any person who enters the premises at any time to receive complaints from any person within the establishment, including a child. I may be misreading it, but it is quite an important point.
As I have said repeatedly, the theme of the Bill is children. Sometimes the children disappear out of the scene altogether and it becomes an administrative convenience as opposed to looking after the rights of children. That may have consequences in years to come in the European sector.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There is just one thing I want to say about these amendments. Sometimes you would think that we are talking not about children but about angels. All children are not little angels. Children go to school and find that they do not like the food. They find the accommodation is not anything like they have been accustomed to. I certainly did when I was at school, and I was educated in what nowadays would be considered to be slum conditions. But it did not do me any harm. And it does not do an awful lot of them any harm. You have to be very careful about encouraging children to grumble and complain and to continually think they are being unfairly treated and hard done by. I just want to make that point.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I doubt if any member of your Lordships Committee would claim to have been an angel when they were growing up.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I reiterate what I said in relation to the previous amendment. We have two separate sets of arrangements here, some of them falling under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and some of them falling under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. This amendment would alter the proposed Section 125A in Clause 31, amending the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
There have been new arrangements applied in relation to the whole passage of this legislation. When the Standing Committee of another place met on 13 February in Edinburgh, I gave evidence, to it. I explained in response to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith that I was anxious to avoid having unnecessarily bureaucratic arrangements for the inspection of schools to ensure that the welfare of residential pupils was being safeguarded and promoted. There is no doubt about the desirability of ensuring the promotion and safeguarding of that welfare, but we wish to avoid anything that is unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic. I hope I can assure the Committee that Clause 31 as it stands will ensure that the new welfare duty is regularly and thoroughly inspected to ensure that it is being complied with.
It is envisaged that HM inspectors of schools would undertake the inspection of the welfare of residential pupils with input as appropriate from the social work services inspectorate at the Scottish Office. The two inspectorates co-operate now and they will continue to do so. Indeed, a number of your Lordships will possibly recollect that Her Majesty's inspectors were recently commended publicly for their speedy and positive response to certain welfare matters at the Camphill Rudolf Steiner school in Aberdeen, and that work was undertaken with considerable support from the social work services inspectorate at the Scottish Office. We envisage that inspections of welfare provisions for residential pupils would be led by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, in close association with the social work services inspectorate.
But I do not feel that it is possible to lay down firm operational guidelines dictating precisely the role of each inspectorate. Much would depend on the circumstances at the individual schools and the background to particular inspections. Her Majesty's inspectors have a rota of general inspections of all schools and, as at present, welfare matters would be a specific and significant element of such general inspections. The Clause 31 provision will give this added focus. In addition, a welfare inspection may be considered appropriate should a school wish, for example, to expand its residential provision or to make some change which would have an impact on its optimum role.
An inspection may also be necessary should a school be the subject of a complaint to the Secretary of State as regards its welfare provision. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is reassured by that. Dependent on
CWH 80
whether specific concerns are identified in the preparation for an inspection or during the actual welfare inspection of a school, a greater involvement by the social work services inspectors may be appropriate. What I can assure the Committee is that there will be close association in the planning and conduct of these welfare inspections.
I note that the noble Earl has a particular concern about the frequency of inspections to ensure compliance. We propose that a maximum interval between such welfare inspections should be five years, but within that period there would also be scope for additional inspections, should that be appropriate, for the reasons I just outlined. We consider this to be both a reasonable and manageable frequency when added to the other contacts which Her Majesty's inspectors have with these schools.
Having separated out the two sets of provisions and given those reassurances, I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied that we share his real concern for the welfare of children. We hope that the arrangements for inspection that we now provide will adequately safeguard and promote them.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I was suggesting that the social work department should have a power to report an incident to the Secretary of State. What I have learned is that at present anyone could lay a complaint to the Secretary of State if they so wished, and the complaint would be investigated by Her Majesty's inspectors. I am certainly grateful for that information. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Short-term refuges for children at risk of harm]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 25, line 1, after ("child") insert ("seeking refuge").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 101. Amendment No. 95, which is in my name, and Amendment No. 101, which is in the name of the Minister, meet the same response to some extent. With the insertion of the words proposed the clause would read:
"(1) Where a child seeking refuge appears—
(a) to a local authority to be at risk of harm, they may at the child's request".
I accept that the Government have accepted that as being a reasonable way of looking at it.
The purpose is to make sure that the child can go physically to the local authority. At the moment it is open to interpret "at the child's request" that the child might have to go to see a solicitor, for example, whereas we know that the reality of life is that children do run away from home; that they arc put on to the streets. The Minister was talking about it earlier—or perhaps it was the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. People have

CWH 81
nowhere to go. The reasoning behind inserting the words "seeking refuge" is to ensure that any child can go to a local authority at any time, without having to go to anyone else, and can walk through the front door of a local authority building and say "I have just been abused by my father" or "I have just been struck by my mother" or whatever the case may be, and the local authority will then look after that child without going through any formalities.
On that basis, and with thanks to the Minister for accepting the "at the child's request" part, I hope that the amendment might find some favour with the Government if the point is appreciated, as I am sure that it is.
The Earl of Lindsay: In responding to Amendment No. 95 which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 96 and 101. At the outset, I assure the noble Lord that any child can indeed go directly and physically to a local authority and does not have to go through or via any other party.
The amendments seek to make it quite clear that refuge can be offered to a child only when the child so seeks it. There is no question of children being offered refuge as a fast track into residential accommodation, or as a way of enabling a local authority to look after a child. Refuge is very specifically a short-term provision which is made available to a child to help him or her over a period of particular problems or difficulties when the child would otherwise be at risk of harm. The initiative for seeking refuge must, therefore, lie with the child and the provisions make that clear. Government Amendment No. 96 has the same effect as Amendment No. 95 and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in the interests of consistency of terminology. In due course I shall move Amendments Nos. 96 and 101.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that reply and in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 25, line 2, after ("may") insert ("at the child's request").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 25, line 3, at end insert ("both").
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee it might be helpful if I could speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 104. This group of amendments serves an important function. They amend the refuge provision to limit the local authority residential establishments which may operate as refuges to those specifically designated for that purpose.
As your Lordships know, we see refuges as offering a high quality specialised service for a limited period of time for those children who are at risk. We do not expect all residential establishments to be able to accommodate children who might normally be expected to need refuges because of their particularly pressing problems. Therefore, we believe it important that refuges should be carefully selected in advance and staffed appropriately.
The amendments achieve that end. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask my noble friend the Minister for guidance? For how long would those children be allowed to remain in the refuge? As I understand it, it can be from seven up to a maximum of 14 days. I wonder whether that is an adequate length of time and whether it should not be 14 days to 21 days. If one has a very difficult child with difficult home circumstances, perhaps not living in the area where the child presents itself, the assessment does take time. I am wondering whether the question of timing should be dealt with in regulations or specified here.
The Earl of Lindsay: As the noble Baroness has noticed, the normal timing involved in such cases is that the child should be able to stay in the refuge for seven days and, in exceptional circumstances with permission from the Secretary of State, that can be extended to 14 days.
The important point to make is that the refuges offer instant and expert shelters for children in emergencies. The intention is that the staff in such refuges should be able to relate quickly to such children, get to the root cause of their problems and ensure that appropriate long-term arrangements can be made.
One problem in extending the timing is that you make these refuges less flexible as you begin to clog up their resources. It would be rather similar to patients being allowed to stay in a casualty ward for longer than they need before being directed on to the right service. The importance is that those facilities should be ready to receive at all times. Therefore, children should be cleared on as soon as possible.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for his reply, but having had to assess these children myself, I know that it is sometimes very difficult to do so within 14 days. In a very few cases, one sometimes needs 21 days, particularly if the parents cannot be found.
The Earl of Lindsay: I would add that the children in these refuges can be referred to the children's reporter. So there is a facility to continue considering all the circumstances of the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 25, line 4, after ("them") insert ("and designated by them for the purposes of this paragraph").
Page 25, line 8, at end insert ("and is designated by them for the purposes of this paragraph,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 25. leave out line 10.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 100 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 102, 106 and 108. It is an attempt to bring before the Committee the time period which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The purpose of the amendment is to get more flexibility

CWH 83
into the system. In particular, looking at Clause 34(5) on page 26 of the Bill,
"References in this section to the relevant period shall be construed as references either to a period which does not exceed seven days or, in such exceptional circumstances as the Secretary of State may prescribe, to a period which does not exceed fourteen days."
In dealing with these matters, flexibility and time is of the essence. On the other hand, unnecessary detention of a child is at the opposite end of the scale. As I understand it, in the Children Act 1989 relating to England the flexibility area is 14 to 21 days. For consistency within the United Kingdom I cannot see why north of the Border should have flexibility between seven and 14 days while south of the Border it is 14 to 21 days. The Government might wish to reconsider the matter and see whether consistency should be the order of the day.
The Earl of Lindsay: I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I would question whether they are appropriate and particularly so if they are proposed solely on the grounds of consistency. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that there are plenty of occasions where Scottish statutory legislation should specifically reflect Scottish circumstances.
I think it important to recall the provisions elsewhere in the Bill—particularly for child protection orders and exclusion orders—which confer powers to safeguard children in danger of significant harm. However, a small number of children run away from home, from foster carers or from residential care. In doing so they may put themselves at risk. We propose to empower local authorities to designate short-term refuges to meet the immediate care needs of runaway children. These should provide the opportunity for them to receive counselling with support to discuss their longer-term needs. Refuges are therefore deliberately designed to meet a short-term need.
Refuges are afforded a special status in the Bill by virtue of their nature. Should the strict time limits attached to the maximum period of residence in such establishments be removed it would inevitably bring with it a far greater degree of regulation and prescription than applies at present. This would undermine the special role and effectiveness of refuges.
I would also refer the noble Lord to the response which I gave to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. It is important that refuges react and respond to the children who come to them as quickly as possible, if for no other reason than they can then clear their facilities for further children who might be on their way to them.
On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that very expansive explanation of the Government's reasoning, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 25, line 16. after ("may") insert ("at the child's request").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when
CWH 84
I moved Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 25, line 21. at end insert—
("(c) to any person to be at risk of harm, that person may, with the child's consent, keep him there subject to immediate notification to the Principal Reporter and the Principal Reporter, on receipt of the notification, may—

(i) if he considers that the child does not require refuge, direct that the protection afforded by subsection (3) of this section cease forthwith;

(ii) direct that the protection afforded by subsection (3) of this section be extended to a total maximum period of eight working days, to cease upon the commencement of a children's hearing in terms of section 60(2) of this Act; or

(iii) assist the child in taking advantage of the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection by the provision of advice and practical assistance, and prescribe the time at which the protection afforded by subsection (3) of this section shall cease to have effect in response of the person making the notification;

and where the Principal Reporter decides in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii), he may refer the case to the children's hearing in terms of section 60(1) of this Act, and section 60(2) shall apply as if a child protection order has been implemented on the day on which the child took refuge; provided that the Principal Reporter may at any time before the commencement of a children's hearing arranged under section 60(2) of (his Act substitute a direction under sub-paragraph (i) for his direction under sub-paragraph (ii).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 105. There is a slight defect in its framing. On page 25, line 33, the words "the procedure whereby any person may be prohibited from giving refuge" should be there, otherwise it does not fit. However, that is a minor matter which can no doubt be corrected.
The main amendment is Amendment No. 103, which brings into the picture of the child's welfare the role of the principal reporter, so that the child in a short-term refuge has someone to go to. Informing the principal reporter means that he can take an active part in investigating why the child is in a refuge and what steps should be taken, and indeed gives him power to direct that the child should be released.
It is a very comprehensive amendment, but it is important in that it gives a safeguard to the child who is in the short-term refuge—whatever "short-term" means—that there is someone who will take an active role in looking after the child's welfare and make recommendations which he would be entitled to do in terms of this amendment.
I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government; perhaps not in the precise wording in which it is framed, but I hope that the principle is acceptable and that they can consider it again at Report stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: We have considered very carefully these comprehensive amendments to the clause. It is worthwhile reflecting on the background to Clause 34. Its genesis is in part the Children Act 1989, which included refuge provisions because of concern

CWH 85
expressed by voluntary agencies working in the centre of London with homeless young people, many of whom had run away from residential care or supervision. Indeed, many of these young people had come from Scotland.
The organisations which offered accommodation to any of these young people who were under supervision requirements were at risk of falling foul of the law. Harbouring such children is illegal. I think that it is fair to say that the original intention was as much to safeguard organisations as to allow specifically for the creation of refuges.
As time moved on, the concept of a refuge to which children could turn when they faced particular difficulties had a considerable attraction in its own right. Such a place, however, could not be seen as other than a temporary step-over, aimed at allowing the children involved to get help with the problems they faced.
We therefore see refuges as being rather special in the field of childcare. Ideally, their staff should include workers who are able to get quickly to the root cause of the children's problems, to help any given child face up to his difficulties and to work with colleagues to ensure that the child is brought back into mainstream services as quickly as possible. Those are heavy demands and suggest a high level of skill. Indeed, my noble friend, Lady Faithfull has already referred to that.
The noble Lord's amendment appears to shift the balance away from a limited number of approved refuges or foster parents to allow any person irrespective of qualification to provide refuge for a child. The noble Lord's paragraph (c) includes safeguards to the extent that the child should be allowed to stay only if he consents, and the principal reporter has to be informed, so I must question whether we really want to introduce such a general power. We have considered the amendments carefully, but, on the basis of the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the Minister sits down, I must admit that I had the idea that a refuge was somewhere that the child would determine; for example, the child may find home impossible and go to his grandmother's house. Does notification by the grandmother of the fact that she is looking after the child mean that the grandmother's home would constitute a refuge?
The Earl of Lindsay: In the instances described by the noble Earl, the answer is yes, if the child is already subject to compulsory supervision.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: What if the child is not yet subject to temporary supervision? If the child has simply run away from home, what is the system?
The Earl of Lindsay: I was perhaps unclear. It is an offence, if the child is already subject to compulsory supervision, and not otherwise.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I listened with some interest to what the noble Earl said in response to Amendments Nos. 103 and 105. I wonder whether the
CWH 86
Government have had any consultations with the Association of Children's Reporters in Scotland to see whether this amendment might commend itself to them? Will the Government perhaps take the opportunity of entering into consultation with the Association of Children's Reporters to see whether it thinks this would be an additional safeguard to the welfare of the children? If the reporters come back with a negative answer then that may be the end of the matter, but it would be interesting if the Minister could take it up with the reporters and perhaps write to me on the subject before the Report stage of the Bill. In the meantime, having raised the issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 25, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) designation, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, of establishments and households;").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 104 when I moved Amendment No. 97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 25, line 43, leave out ("sections 75 and") and insert ("section").
The noble Earl said: The amendment relates to the deletion of a reference to Clause 75. This sets out the offence provisions in respect of a person who intentionally obstructs a person or a constable acting under various provisions of the Bill. We have to acknowledge that some children seeking refuge may well be running away from a supervision requirement or from some other form of appropriate intervention in their lives. In such circumstances the workers involved will not necessarily know the full background, and consequently their ability to help the children face up to the situation will be limited.
Initial security for the child will have a key part to play, but ultimately if people are acting under the provisions listed in Clause 75, there should be no question of the person running the refuge concealing the child or obstructing constables or persons exercising their duties. The amendment simply ensures that refuges, despite the difficulties, work within the general framework of the law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Safeguarding child's interests in proceedings]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 27. line 8, leave nut ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Lady said: Amendment No. 109 is consequential on Amendment No. 112. The deletion of Clause 37(2) would allow for a safeguarder to be

CWH 87
appointed at the time when a child protection order is being considered. When an emergency child protection order occurs, children often feel afraid, vulnerable and guilty, all at the same time. To deprive them of the opportunity to have someone who is specifically allocated to them in order to protect their interests and to listen to their views is not kind. Children need support at this very difficult time. The amendment would require the sheriff to consider providing that support at the same time or immediately after he considers the emergency protection order.
If safeguarders had been appointed to the children in the Orkney abuse cases at the time of issuing the emergency protection orders the damage to the children might have been greatly reduced.
Amendment No. 111 is an extension of the proposed government Amendment No. 113 requiring the sheriff to specify in writing the reasons not only why he has appointed a safeguarder, if he has, but also the reasons why he has not appointed a safeguarder if he has not. The government amendment requires him to give the reasons why he has appointed a safeguarder if he has.
In another place, much was made of the idea that requiring the sheriff to appoint a safeguarder would somehow delay the making of the emergency protection order. I simply cannot understand this because it seems to me that you make the emergency protection order first and as soon as possible afterwards you appoint the safeguarder. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I sympathise with the intention behind Amendments Nos. 109 and 112 but doubt if in practice they would have the desired effect. Child protection orders are indeed to be granted in emergency situations and there ought not to be any scope for postponing the making of such an order until a safeguarder can be appointed, make the necessary investigations and report back to the court. That is the part of it which would bring about the delay which would be undesirable.
What I would emphasise, though, is that the child's case will, after the making of any child protection order, very soon come before a children's hearing which is empowered to appoint its own safeguarder from a panel of persons who will be trained for that specific purpose. In addition, the sheriff, soon after receiving an application to set aside or recall a child protection order, may appoint a safeguarder. As the noble Lady will recollect from earlier discussions of the Bill, there are two routes that can be followed through once a child protection order has been granted. If one follows either of those routes very quickly after the granting of it in emergency circumstances, a safeguarder can be appointed. There is provision for the appointment of a safeguarder as soon as the sheriff or the hearing sees a role for the safeguarder. The child's welfare will be adequately safeguarded by the existing provisions and, accordingly, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 111 will indeed go further than government Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 in that it would require a children's hearing to state the reasons for a safeguarder not being appointed. Again, I recognise the intention behind the amendment. I can
CWH 88
foresee real difficulties of implementation.
The decision to appoint a safeguarder should not be a matter solely restricted to the first sitting of a hearing. It should be an ongoing consideration in the light of the changing circumstances of the case. It would therefore be unrealistic to envisage the decision not to appoint as occurring at any particular time. Indeed, it might have the undesirable effect of inhibiting the hearing making such an appointment subsequently.
Under the provisions of the Bill, a children's hearing must consider whether a safeguarder should be appointed. It is felt that where the hearing decides to follow that course of action its reasons for so doing should be stated in writing. As the noble Lady appreciates, government Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 make such provision.
I shall be moving those amendments but, for the reasons given, I hope that the noble Lady will feel she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask what type of person the safeguarder will be? Will it be a guardian ad litem, a trained person, or just someone who is friendly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I certainly hope it will be the latter.
Baroness Faithfull: Just friendly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, it would be more than friendly. I would certainly wish to indicate that one of the desirable features is that the safeguarder should be appointed from a group who are trained and who understand what is required. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has raised an important point. There may be circumstances where what is coining before the courts is such that the appointment of a curator ad litem might be the appropriate way to deal with such a matter.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. Can he say how soon he would expect the hearing to take place?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The hearing has to take place within two days, if you are following the route which many of us hope will be followed after the making of such an order. But on the alternative line. which is described as the more traditional judicial route, I cannot give a direct answer to the question because it would depend upon the sheriff knowing that the application had been made to him to vary or recall the child protection order. Such an application could, of course, be made almost immediately after the initial granting of the order.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 27, line 11, after ("is") insert ("reasonable, appropriate or").
The noble Lord said: This is a very short amendment but it may be regarded as being tautology or semantics.

CWH 89
or whatever the appropriate word is. It is to insert into the safeguarding of children's interests and proceedings, that the sheriff of the hearing shall consider it, as the Bill reads at the moment at Clause 37(1)(a):
"shall consider if it is necessary to appoint a person to safeguard the interests of the child"
This amendment proposes to insert the words "reasonable, appropriate or" before the word "necessary". This would give the person making the decision a wider discretion, because what is necessary might be appropriate but what is appropriate might not be necessary; indeed, what is reasonable might not be necessary in the particular circumstances. So, although in the course of yesterday's hearing I raised this stage of it, the Committee complained about unenforceable or unintelligible pieces of legislation being forced upon the courts, and people have to make these very important decisions in the life of a child. The word "necessary" is too restrictive and perhaps the Government would like to consider widening the scope of discretion given to the person making the decision by saying that it is "reasonable, appropriate or necessary". That opens all doors to take into account everything that is presented to the person making the decision. As long as the person is restricted by the word "necessary", we can see all the legal arguments. It might be fun for lawyers but not much fun for the child. If we expand it to "necessary, reasonable or appropriate", perhaps we shall be doing justice to all concerned and cutting down the legal process which might follow on the definition of the word "necessary" in particular circumstances.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord has accurately anticipated my response. I believe that both "reasonable" and "appropriate" are contained within "necessary"; or, to put it the other way round, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances where something was unreasonable and inappropriate but might be necessary, which is what his alternatives would allow for. For the sake of simplicity, I think we should just stick with the one word "necessary". I am sure that in the context of it any sheriff having to apply his mind to this issue would identify the circumstances in which appointment of a safeguarder would be desirable.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is a very interesting exercise in the use of various words. I suppose I could say that government is necessary but that this Government are not reasonable! Indeed, I would even go to the third option and say they are not even appropriate. With that side observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 115:
Page 27, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) Where a children's hearing make an appointment under subsection (1) (b) above, they shall state the reasons for their decision to make that appointment.").
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("and").
Page 27, line 27, at end insert ("; and
CWH 90
( ) the recording in writing of any statement given under subsection (2A) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In responding to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 113 to 115. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Power of Secretary of State to make rules governing procedure at children's hearing etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 28, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) the making available by the Principal Reporter, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules, of reports or information received by him to—

(i) members of the children's hearing;

(ii) the child concerned;

(iii) any relevant person; and

(iv) any other person or class of persons so specified;").

The noble and learned Lord said: Under the current provision in relation to children's hearings, the child and parents are not allowed sight of any reports which may have been provided to panel members conducting the children's hearing. It is the duty of the chairman of the panel to advise the family of the substance of any report which may be referred to by the hearing when considering the case. This amendment to Clause 38 indicates that the rules regarding the conduct of proceedings at and in connection with children's hearings may make provision for the issue of reports by the principal reporter to persons specified. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings at children's hearing]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 29, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 relate to the prohibition of publication of proceedings at children's hearings. I think Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 are rather redundant because Amendment No. 117 seeks to leave out subsection (5) altogether. It would appear that the whole purpose behind children's hearings is to give the child the anonymity and the care of the children's hearings proceedings. To give these powers to the sheriffs and the courts would be going contrary to the spirit of the children's hearing system in Scotland.
I could go on at some length about it but that is the basic point behind the amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 117 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 118 and 119.
The Earl of Lindsay: As the noble Lord, Lord
Macaulay of Bragar, has explained, Amendment No. 117 seeks to remove from all of the sheriffs, the Court of Session and the Secretary of State the power to dispense with the prohibition on publication contained in this clause.
A dispensing power is necessary to provide for exceptional cases in the interests of justice—and I stress that it is exceptional cases that we are dealing with in the interests of justice. The 1968 Act already provides a general dispensing power for the Secretary of State. That comes in Section 58. The Children Act 1989 provides a similar power for both the court and the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 118 seeks to remove the dispensing power from the sheriff and the Court of Session in respect of proceedings before them. That means that there would be no dispensing power in either the sheriff court or the Court of Session, but the Secretary of State would still be able to dispense with the prohibition in relation to any proceedings at a children's hearing. If it is accepted in principle that a dispensing power is required, one should be available in relation to proceedings, both before the sheriff and the Court of Session.
Amendment No. 119 seeks to remove the power to dispense with the prohibition from the Secretary of State in relation to proceedings at children's hearings. That would mean that only the sheriff and the Court of Session could dispense with the prohibition in respect of any proceedings being considered by them. The Secretary of State would not be able to do so in respect of children's hearings proceedings. For the same reasons as previously stated, if there is to be a power for dispensing with the prohibition, that should be extended to the Secretary of State in relation to any proceedings relating to children's hearings as well as the power which is granted to the court. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is interesting to hear that the Secretary of State does have dispensing power, if that is the correct phrase. I wonder whether there are any figures to show how often the Secretary of State has actually used that power in the past five years, for example. Perhaps the Minister will write to me in due course. Subject to that query, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: To save a letter, I can say that since 1968 the Secretary of State has not used that power of dispensation at all. He has received only one application.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Attendance of child and relevant person at children's hearing]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 29, line 40, after ("shall") insert ("have a right to attend and").
The noble Lord said: Three amendments run together, Amendments Nos. 120 to 122. I have had the opportunity
CWH 92
to discuss them with the Minister and my understanding is that the Government will be taking this matter away to think about. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. If that is so, I do not want to take up the Committee's time by addressing the reasons for the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord's amendments raise important points of principle. I shall give an explanation. Amendment No. 120 would confer on a child a right to attend his own hearing. This is entirely in line with the increasing emphasis on children's rights.
At present, under the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, a child has an obligation to attend his own hearing but, unlike his parent, no statutory right to do so. It seems only just that the child should also have the right to attend his own hearing. The difficulties arise on Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 which would then give the hearing the power to remove that right and simply exclude the child without any safeguards.
I fully appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord has made provision for the exclusion of the child in order to protect him from information or situations which would be detrimental to his interests. However, a right to exclude would infringe the child's civil rights.
Although we are providing for the exclusion of the parent under Clause 42, that is only to enable the hearing to obtain the views of the child or to spare the child significant distress. Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 go much wider than that and I cannot advise noble Lords to accept them. I would, however, point out that the power of the hearing to proceed in the absence of the child, which is in the present legislation, would remain. That would allow hearings to proceed without the presence of very young children, such as babies, or young children who might be distressed significantly by the hearing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward these three amendments. We are agreed on the need to recognise the rights of the child and I would be willing to accept in principle Amendment No. 120, but not Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. On that basis, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I will give some careful thought to what the Minister said. We all recognise that within the children's system of hearings we are dealing with a very delicate area of human relationships where children are perhaps not mature enough to understand what is going on, or even why they are there. I am grateful to the Minister for the co-operation the Government have given in accepting Amendment No. 120, and we will see what happens between now and the Report stage. We may, like General McArthur, come back again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Government are accepting the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thought that Amendment No. 120 had been accepted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The amendment was withdrawn as the Minister indicated that the Government would take action. It was my

CWH 93
understanding that all three amendments were withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved amendment No. 123:
After Clause 44, insert the following new Clause—
(".Sections 170 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (age of criminal responsibility) shall be amended by substitution of the word "twelve" for the word "eight".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is put forward with some degree of reservation because it is a very serious matter which has to be given very deep consideration. The amendment proposes that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland should be raised from the age of eight to the age of 12. The purpose of the amendment is not that of responsibility, but the current theme throughout the Bill is the age of 12 and the proposal is to bring the age into line with the other provisions in the Bill.
I am not completely happy about the amendment as drafted, but I thought it right to move the amendment in order to give the Committee an opportunity to make its own observations.
In Scotland we have the youngest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. I am advised to that effect, and no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. There is a difficult balance to strike. I formally move the amendment without a great deal of conviction, but it will give the Committee the opportunity to put forward matters for consideration by the Government between now and the Report stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I do not want to interfere with what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has just said, but I thought that he was going to move it with Amendments Nos. 137 and 154. Is that right?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The other two amendments are consequential to the first one.
The Earl of Balfour: Then I suggest that if these amendments are to be considered, Amendment No. 123 should be put into Schedule 3, if it is go to into the Bill, and not go in as a fresh clause. It is basically an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
On Amendment No. 137, I just wonder in that sense, and considering Clause 48, whether the effect of this amendment would be to extend the power of the children's panel in any way? Also, Amendment No. 154 should read "section 48(2)(i) and (j)" because paragraph (j) brings in the drugs side of it. Looking at Clause 48, I felt that that was perhaps what was intended. I am sorry to be rather technical on this point, but it is something which I had time to look at this morning.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: These amendments have been moved by the noble Lord and it is not for me to correct them for him, but given the drafting victories already behind the noble Earl and, shall I say, the victories yet to come, I certainly advise the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to look at those points very carefully if
CWH 94
he intends to return to the matter at a later stage.
As has been said, Amendment No. 123 raises an important issue. Perhaps I might take a moment or two to explain the thinking on it. It concerns the age of criminal responsibility which, as has been said, is eight in Scotland. The issue was fully considered by the Kilbrandon Report back in 1964, and I think it is worth quoting the conclusions of that committee on this issue. The report concluded:
"It is clear therefore that the 'age of criminal responsibility' is a largely meaningless term and …. essentially the expression of a practical working rule determining the cases in which a procedure which may result in punishment can be applied to juveniles".
In short, the Kilbrandon Committee took the view that it was pointless to debate the age at which a child could form criminal intent. What was important was what happened to the child in terms of procedure.
The committee then went on to recommend the establishment of children's panels which have had the effect of taking virtually all children out of the court system and dealing with them through a welfare-based system which is familiar to us all as the children's hearings system in Scotland. Under the present arrangements, no child below the age of eight can be prosecuted in the criminal courts for the commission of an offence; nor can any such child under eight be referred to a children's panel on the grounds simply that he or she has committed an offence. Any child of eight of over may be prosecuted or may be referred to a panel on the ground that he or she has committed an offence.
However, provision is made in Section 31 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which will of course be retained, that no child may be prosecuted without the consent of the Lord Advocate.
The practical effect of a direction issued by the Lord Advocate is that virtually no child is prosecuted except those who have committed that most serious type of offence such as murder or rape. However, a child of 15 who has committed a motoring offence which might lead to disqualification may also be prosecuted as may children who have committed offences along with adults.
In practice, the prosecution of children under 12 years of age is very rare indeed. The majority of child offences are dealt with through the children's hearings system. In the past three years, the total number of children prosecuted in the courts under the age of 12 is likely to be in low single figures. Such cases involved the most serious offences and are very rare. Almost without exception, children under 12 are dealt with by the hearings.
There would, however, be major implications for the way in which we deal with young people if at one move we were to increase the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 as is proposed by this amendment. Would offences committed by this age group—those between the ages of eight and 12—he ignored entirely? If not, would they be dealt with as matters involving parental control and referral to the reporter under this ground of referral? In such cases, any proof hearing would be on the civil standard of proof. Would that mean less protection for the child offender? What

CWH 95
messages would be sent to young people if the age of criminal responsibility were to be increased by four years? I invite your Lordships to bear in mind that some 13 per cent. of offence referrals to reporters are in respect of those who are under the age of 12.
Those are some of the major issues which would arise if such a change were to be made. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter and for the opportunity to spell out how difficult it may be.
As I have mentioned, the vast majority of children over eight and under 12 who commit offences are dealt with by the children's hearings. They do not come before the courts. Instead they come before a children's hearing which can look at the child's needs and take appropriate action.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. As he has correctly said, the further amendments, Amendments Nos. 137 and 154, are effectively consequential on the raising of the age from eight to 12.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that full explanation. As I said when I introduced this amendment, it was tabled for discussion purposes in the meantime rather than as a positive amendment. It will be interesting to see, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, what response we receive from the various people with an interest in these matters.
I am equally grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for sorting me out on Amendment No. 154. He is known, as the Minister recognised, as a great scrutineer of Bills and amendments. I will look at that again.
I suppose to a certain extent we are lucky in Scotland with the children's hearing system: young people can be contained within the children's hearing system unless, as the Minister has already said, they commit some heinous offence such as murder or rape. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Referral or remission to children's hearing On conviction]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 32. line 8, leave out from ("court") to ("shall") in line 10.
The noble Lord said: The effect of these amendments, Amendments Nos. 124 and 125, is to ensure that the courts of solemn and summary jurisdiction are obliged to obtain the advice of a children's hearing before disposing of a case brought against a child. The reasoning is that allowing the clause to stand as it is usurps the whole principle of the children's hearing system and overrides the system. The amendment was a probing amendment to see what the Government's view on this might be.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Amendment No. 124 would make a referral to a children's hearing mandatory where any child is found guilty of an offence or pleads guilty to an offence under Section 173 of the Criminal
CWH 96
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. In the light of the seriousness of an offence which merited a child appearing before the High Court under solemn procedure, it is questionable whether a children's hearing could always offer appropriate advice as to disposal. As we have just discussed, cases appearing before the High Court involving children and solemn procedure are likely to be of the most serious nature and, in many cases, will require a severe disposal.
Children's hearings might not be able to offer advice on disposals which would meet the gravity of the offence. It is for that reason that the High Court has given an option of referring the case to the principal reporter in order to have advice from a children's hearing, rather than making that mandatory. That would seem to be a more appropriate way of dealing with matters.
In relation to the amendment with which this is grouped, which I believe is Amendment No. 125, it would introduce a similar change in Section 372 of the 1975 Act. The noble Lord will appreciate that the High Court is not involved in such cases dealt with under summary procedure and the reference to it in this clause is accordingly incorrect. Amendment No. 126 rectifies that error, and in due course I shall move that amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I will have another look at these matters and in the meantime I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 32, line 40, leave out from ("case") to ("shall") in line 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 124 I spoke to Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Appeal against decision of children's hearing or sheriff]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 33. line 23, leave out from ("sheriff") to end of line 24.
The noble Earl said: This is a minor amendment. As currently drafted the provision repeats the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 that when an appeal is made to the sheriff against the decision of a children's hearing, the sheriff shall hear the reasons for the appeal. On further consideration this wording is not necessary and indeed could even be taken as a restriction on the sheriff's power to hear an appeal. The amendment ensures a provision that the sheriff shall simply hear the appeal. I urge noble Lords to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 33, line 29, at beginning insert ("The sheriff may, on appeal

CWH 97
under subsection (1) above, hear evidence from, or on behalf of, the parties in relation to the decision; and, without prejudice to that generality—
(a)").
The noble Earl said: With the Committee's permission, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 128 to 132 together. Amendments Nos. 128 and 130 to 132 make it clear that in an appeal the sheriff may hear evidence and otherwise restructure the subsection for clarity. Amendment No. 129 revises Clause 47(3) to make it clear that the intention is not for the principal reporter personally to be examined by the sheriff during his consideration of an appeal but the relevant reporter to the child's case. The term "principal reporter" is defined in Clause 84(1) and will include the reporter dealing with the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 129 to 132:
Page 33, line 29, leave out from ("Reporter") to ("may") in line 30.
Page 33, line 30, leave out (";and") and insert (";(b)").
Page 33, line 32, leave out ("and") and insert ("; and (c)").
Page 33. line 32, leave out ("the sheriff") and insert ("he").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 129 to 132 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 3, leave out from ("case") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to delete the power of the courts to substitute their own verdict for the disposal by a children's hearing. We have had an amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that the sheriff is entitled to hear additional evidence. No doubt Clause 53 is a reflection of the fact that the sheriff can reconsider the case in the light of additional evidence.
The reason for the amendment, as I have mentioned previously, is that the Bill seems to override the principle of the children's hearing system. If the sheriff has taken a view, having heard additional evidence, it might be more appropriate and within the spirit of the scheme if the sheriff were to make his findings of fact, report back to the children's hearing on what his findings are, and leave it to the children's hearing to dispose of the case rather than adopting what is included in the Bill.
That is the problem the amendment is intended to confront. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I speak with diffidence because I have not worked with the panel system. I have, however, visited three panels, one in Edinburgh and two in Glasgow. May I seek information from my noble and learned friend on this question? As I understand it, the panel system is the welfare system, whereas the sheriffs are the judicial system. If a case is referred to the sheriff, surely it is his business to see whether the law has been rightly carried out or whether there has been something
CWH 98
left out from a legal point of view. The sheriff is not dealing with the welfare side. I have had representations made to me by chairmen of panels in Scotland who say that when a case goes to the sheriff he takes the judicial view but not the welfare view and that if a welfare view is to be considered it should be referred back to the panel.
I understand that any sheriff could deal with a matter, not really understanding or knowing the child care side. In England and Wales, we have the judicial studies board. Judges in England are instructed—if I can put it that way—or attend courses on child welfare. Is it not right that the case should be referred to the sheriff only on the judicial side but should be referred back to the panel if there is a welfare concept to be dealt with? I ask for further information.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I also ask how the sheriff would manage to come up with a different, or what presumably must be a better, decision without conducting a full hearing. I do not see how that could happen because I do not believe the sheriff court would have time effectively to reconvene a hearing in the sheriff court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Behind this relatively small amendment rests a very important point, one that I take very seriously. The amendment would remove the new power of a sheriff to substitute his own decision for that of a hearing. One of the main strengths of the children's hearings system is its informality. It is part of the welfare model, if that is the terminology you wish to use. But it does leave hearings' decisions open to the challenge that while a person's rights are being determined, and are determined, by it, it is not a judicial body following judicial procedure. This is a consideration that we are bound to take very seriously because of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore see the need to provide for a wide range of disposals on appeal. Far from being an attempt in any way to weaken the children's hearings system in Scotland, our clear view is that this is a necessary provision to safeguard the position of the hearings system should challenge be laid to it in Strasbourg.
I understand that there may be those who have offered legal opinion to the opposite effect. If I am requested to, I can indicate in some detail why I consider that legal advice to be wrong. But I hope that what I have said is for present purposes sufficient. It is no part of my intention in bringing forward these proposals to attempt to destroy the children's panel system. On the contrary, I want to ensure that it is safeguarded, but we have to look very carefully at what arrangements we have in place in the light of the developing jurisprudence of the European Court in Strasbourg. It is with that in mind that this change is proposed.
I understand very clearly the kind of concern that the noble Earl has that the sheriff might find it difficult to get himself sufficiently advised in all cases to substitute a decision of his own. Nevertheless, if we are to safeguard the position and make sure that the judicial aspects of it are properly covered, this change should be made.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, for information perhaps I may ask whether, if the case remains with the sheriffs, they simply make a legal decision or bring in people, relatives and others, as are brought in in the panel? Does he see a wide circle of people dealing with this case, as does the panel?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I would envisage that if he were to substitute a decision of his own for that of the panel, he would do so after taking a clear and careful view of what was available and appropriate. It is important to recognise that he is a judicial figure and, if necessary, could substitute his own decision. How frequently that would be done, I do not know. In many respects I hope it is a substitution that occurs very seldom indeed, but we must at least leave that option open to the sheriff.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This provision raises a matter of some importance in the administration of justice in Scotland in relation to children. As I said initially, it seems to override the function of the children's hearing which has been expressed in the past. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the whole idea behind the Kilbrandon proposals, which set op the children's hearings, was that the children who were brought before them would be dealt with by a lay body. That is the essential commonsense feature of the children's hearing. That is what makes it so attractive to people in that the children and their parents can come before the panel and be dealt with in the light of admitted facts. The only judicial role up until now has been that the facts presented by the reporter against the child has been the reason why he or she was before the panel. These were then sent to the sheriff for a judicial decision on what facts he found proved and then he had certain powers. If he found the facts not proved, then that was the end of the case.
What seems to be happening here is that we are getting a two-track system of justice for children. I am not trying to excuse them in any way. People who do wrong obviously must be dealt with within the judicial system, but that is not the only thing the children's panel actually deals with.
It was said by the noble and learned lord, Lord Hope, in a case in 1991 that:
"The genius of the reform"—
referring to the Kilbrandon proposals which brought about the children's hearing—
"was that the responsibility for the consideration of measures to be applied was to lie with what was essentially a lay body, while disputed questions of fact as to the allegations made were to be resolved by the sheriff sitting in chambers as a court of law".
What is happening now appears to be that the sheriff can not only hear the appeal, but he can hear evidence and then make a decision which overrides it. As I read this clause, the children's panel will never hear about it again; it will not know what the sheriff has decided and it will have no jurisdiction to challenge it.
I have seen the legal opinion referred to by the noble and learned Lord. Unfortunately, it arrived on my desk
CWH 100
by fax at about lunchtime so I have not had time to "digest" it, if I may use that word. If the Minister has indicated that he is quite happy to contradict the opinion which was given by the counsel consulted, it would certainly be of some value to those interested in this particular aspect of the administration of justice in Scotland if he were either to place a paper in the Library saying why he disagrees with the opinion or to write to me. Subject to that, I shall, of course, seek to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, it may be appropriate if I respond on this matter as it may mean that we need not return to it at a later stage.
Perhaps I may make this point first. It ought to be recalled that Lord Kilbrandon always envisaged that there would be a right of appeal to the sheriff against the decision of a hearing on the merits of a case. I repeat that we have given very careful consideration to this matter in the light of the requirements of the European convention. It is well established case law of the European Court of Human Rights that a procedure which does not comply in all respects with Article 6(1) of the convention can be regarded as consistent with the convention, provided that there is provision for subsequent full control over that procedure by an independent judicial body.
The sheriff court is considered to be a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6(1) for these purposes, and the new provision in the Bill is intended to provide the judicial control over decisions on civil rights required in terms of the convention—that is, in respect of decisions by children's hearings. We do, of course, consider children's hearings to be independent and impartial tribunals. However, procedures in children's hearings are not intended to comply with the requirements of Article 6(l) in all respects. For instance, there is not a legal chairman.
Our aim is to ensure a fair and, as the noble Lord has already indicated, a relatively informal tribunal, in which the views of the child can be heard and where decisions about his future can be taken in an informal atmosphere.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the opinion which I understand is in the noble Lord's hands. It seems to me that it is to be questioned in a number of respects. First, while it notes the Commission's decision in the McMichael case, it does not take account of the Commission's view that a children's hearing could not be regarded as a tribunal for the purposes of Article 6(1); nor does it take account of the fact that the court decision in the McMichael case was given in February 1995. The status of children's hearings under Article 6, irrespective of the McMichael decision, is not given any proper consideration in the light of Article 6 requirements on the nature of a tribunal for the purposes of the article and the type of proceedings required before such a tribunal.
Finally, we consider that that opinion needs to be questioned as no account is taken of the well established jurisprudence of the court with regard to the acceptability of a procedure which does not comply with

CWH 101
Article 6, where the proceedings viewed as a whole provide for subsequent determination of civil rights by the court which exercised full jurisdictional control over the prior procedure.
That may be somewhat technical for those who are not immediately familiar with Article 6, but it is important that no-one should be under any misapprehension about this. We are not trying in any way to do anything difficult or damaging to the children's hearing system, but we have to be very careful about how it is to be safeguarded in the context of our international obligations.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was interested to hear that dissertion and I shall read it with care in Hansard because it is a very complicated issue. I have no doubt that the counsel who gave the opinion will also read the Minister's observations with care and we may come back for another shot at it. The whole of this Committee is agreed that we must be very careful to protect the system of the children's hearing, but within that context we still have to protect the rights of the child within the European Convention. I shall read with some care what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 35, line 8. leave out from ("hearing") to end of line 16 and insert ("continuing a child protection order under section 55(4) of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 47 at present restricts the numbers of decisions of a children's hearing which can be the subject of an appeal to the sheriff. To allow a right of appeal in a wider range of circumstances, and to meet European Court of Human Rights obligations, it seems appropriate to remove those restrictions so that all children's hearing decisions can be appealed against. The exception is a hearings decision to extend a child protection order, which is already subject to its own separate appeals provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 35. line 20, leave out ("supervision") and insert ("care").
The noble Lady said: In moving Amendment No. 135 I beg leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 143, 150 and 156. These amendments would allow children dealt with by the children's hearing system to benefit from "compulsory measures of care" as opposed to "compulsory measures of supervision'', as the Kilbrandon Report recommended.
Many children referred to the children's hearing system are in need of care and protection. Some may remain in care through the children's hearing for longer than they have in the past due to the proposed extended
CWH 102
systems of appeal. Supervision does not mean care and care must form part of the provision offered to children in residential and secure accommodation. Two of the Government's reports, the Skinner Report and Scotland's Children recommend that a child should receive "good basic care" when in residential accommodation.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton stated in Committee in another place that he wanted the Children (Scotland) Bill to harmonise with the Children Act 1989 in England. However, when the term "in the care or disappears from Scottish legislation, the same term remains in the Children Act, in relation to care orders, in both Sections 22 and 31. These amendments would achieve greater harmony, if that is what the Government want. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: The purpose of these amendments moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is similar to that the Committee considered yesterday in relation to Clause 17. During that debate my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser suggested that the use of the "care" terminology has contributed to the uncertainties about where the responsibilities for children lie when they are the subject of local authority care. The same uncertainties arise where children are subject to supervision requirements—and they are confusing for children and their parents.
The vast majority of children subject to supervision requirements live at home, where they are cared for by their parents. The local authority's role will largely, if not wholly, he one of supervision. The revised terminology more accurately reflects the essential effect of the requirement—that is, supervision.
Even where the child is not living at home, it is expected that the parents will continue to have significant responsibilities over the child and exercise them. In this respect the position is similar to a child who is "accommodated" by the local authority, and the same arguments already advanced in favour of the revised terminology will therefore also apply.
I do stress to the noble Lady that we are seeking the greater harmony which she referred to, but we are convinced that this is the right way to approach the subject. On that basis I hope the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I add, at the risk of re-opening it, to this debate on terminology? It occurs to me that we need a new word for those children who are looked after on a voluntary basis, which would currently come under Clause 15. We need a new name for them as opposed to those who are on compulsory measures.
The Earl of Lindsay: I think we already have a new name—it is "accommodated".
5.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have to say that I cannot see that this does in fact achieve greater harmony with the Children Act. I am not really very happy about where the children are in residential and secure accommodation. However, having said that, I beg leave

CWH 103
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay move Amendment No. 136:
Page 35. line 25, leave out from ("any") to end of line 28 and insert ("relevant person").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. The clause as currently drafted details those to whom the provisions apply or do not apply. As the term "relevant person" is already defined within the Bill and includes those to whom the provision applies, it is easier to refer to "relevant person" for this purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Provision of information to the Principal Reporter]:
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Reference to the Principal Reporter by court]:
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 37, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("—

(a) make such investigation as he thinks appropriate; and

(b) if he considers that compulsory measures of supervision are necessary,").

The noble Earl said: This is the amendment to which we intended to refer, and is connected to Amendment No. 140, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The noble Lord's amendment sought to introduce the reporter's discretion to decide whether or not a child should be referred to a children's hearing rather than placing on him an obligation to do so if the child is referred to him by a court considering a family matter.
It has the same purpose as the amendment I am now moving to Clause 50, which clarifies the situation and allows the reporter to make enquiries and obtain reports before exercising his discretion over whether or not the child should be referred to a children's hearing. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In the temporary absence of my noble friend, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I have looked at this carefully and it seems as though there is a great deal of semantics in the Bill generally. I believe that Amendment No. 141 probably makes things marginally a little more clear than the amendment that was tabled by my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Child assessment orders]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved amendment No. 142:
Page 37, line 32, after ("authority") insert ("or Principal Reporter").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to bring in the principal reporter as well as the local authority. It is a matter that concerns me in various following parts of the Bill. I regret to say that I have not
CWH 104
been able to write to my noble friend about Chapter 3 onwards. As the principal reporter is mentioned in the previous clause I suggest that it is included in Clause 51. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may support the amendment. It is a fact that the reporter system can receive information from anyone; it does not have to come from the local authority.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The child assessment order is a new provision introduced in the Bill. At present, if a local authority has reason to suspect—having information from any sources, as the noble Earl points out—that a child is being neglected or is failing to thrive, it may not be able to see the child in order to assess the situation because the relevant person will not allow the authority access to the child. This clause introduces a facility whereby the authority may apply for a child assessment order to ensure that it is able to assess the child's needs and to assess whether there is any need for compulsory measures of supervision.
I would tell my noble friend Lord Balfour that it would not be appropriate to extend this order to the principal reporter for this reason. Referrals to the principal reporter should only be on the basis that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in need of compulsory measures of supervision. The assessment order is very much an investigative measure and rightly falls on the local authority, which is charged with that responsibility under Clause 49. In other words, they have separate functions and the function that is imposed upon the local authority comes at a prior investigative stage. It is for that reason that the principal reporter is not included within it.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I had not appreciated the difference. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Initial investigation by the Principal Reporter]:
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Child protection orders]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 39, line 35, leave out ("significant").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 144 has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 145 and 160. I am again posing the question: what does the word "significant" mean in the legislation? It is as simple as that. Perhaps the Minister could let me know what test there is of the word "significant". On that basis, I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: The quick answer to the noble Lord is that the definition of the word "significant" will belong to the discretion of the judge. He would have

CWH 105
to judge within the circumstances and with the details available exactly where the significance lay. However, I would just make a wider point on the noble Lord's amendments.
They seek to lower markedly the test for the removal of children from their home in emergency situations to a test of "harm" rather than "significant harm". I would remind the noble Lord that Lord Clyde in his report on the Orkney inquiry indicated that it would only be appropriate to remove children from home under a child protection order where the child is likely to suffer significant harm. I would add that the standard of "significant harm" also applies to emergency protection orders under the Children Act 1989, an Act which the noble Lord himself has prayed in aid in some of his other amendments.
The amendments would allow immediate removal of the child, and without any prior notification, in a far wider range of circumstances where there was no danger of significant harm to the child. They represent, I suggest, an unjustifiable lowering of the test against which such applications should be determined.
I hope I have answered the noble Lord's question. On that basis, I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Does it follow from what has been said that in Clause 53(1)(a)(ii) the words "such harm" are qualified by "significant" in subsection (1)(a)(i)? It is the same harm that we are talking about.
Does that mean that a child who is being so treated (or neglected) that he is suffering only harm will not get protection and the test has to be significant harm, whatever that might mean? Should not the test be that the child is being so treated or neglected that he is suffering harm? Would not that be better than putting superfluous words into the legislation? Should not the sheriff decide whether harm is being done to the child? If harm is being done to the child, in a way it does not really matter whether or not it is "significant". I have not had an opportunity to look at the Oxford English Dictionary to see what the definition of "significant" is in relation to harm as it relates to the way in which a parent treats or neglects a child.
I can see that including the word "significant" is a protection to the parent who can argue, "This is a lot of nonsense; this child has not been neglected and is not suffering harm". The parent can say to the court, "Somebody has to show that it is significant harm". Including the word "significant" might, as we discussed yesterday, create problems of interpretation for the sheriff who is to be asked to make the decision.
We do not have a Richter scale of harm. We do not have scale of one to 10 or of one to 20 as is the case for measuring post-traumatic stress disorder. If you are on the first three rungs of the ladder, then you are into the post-traumatic stress disorder. What meaning is to be given to the word "significant"? We have tabled the amendment to try to find out.
We are not trying to be clever in any way. As I have
CWH 106
said more than once, we are here to help the children and we recognise that there is an equation here. We not only have to look after the children, but we have to protect the parents. We are trying to achieve a balance. I suggest that perhaps the use of the word "significant" might be looked at again. Perhaps another word could be used, such as "substantial". I am not going to suggest that because I have no responsibility for drafting legislation, but the Government might want to look at the word "significant" to see whether it is appropriate in the context of this particular clause.
The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord asked me a specific question at the start and I confirm that, for the purposes of immediate removal, the harm must be judged to be "significant". Judging whether or not it is significant must be left to the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord must surely understand that, without knowing the circumstances, we cannot prescribe what will or what will not be significant.
My last point in response to the noble Lord is that the children's rights underlie much of the Bill but, at the same time, parental rights are also identified and safeguarded in this Bill, so the two are in equilibrium.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The Minister meets my point in that we are getting dual protection here of both the child and the parent or partner, but I think that there might be a more appropriate word than "significant". Perhaps we should all go back to the Oxford English Dictionary to see if we can find one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
6 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("rules") and insert ("regulations").
The noble Earl said: At the very top of page 70 you will see that rules are usually made by a court. This particular clause refers to Clause 58 under which the Secretary of State may make regulations. I am therefore suggesting that we leave out the word "rules" and substitute the word "regulations" in this clause. I shall be speaking later to Amendment No. 149. I would like to say that use of the word "rules" as the first word of Subsection (6) of Clause 53 is perfectly correct. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: We are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour. He was referred to this morning by various experts looking at the Bill as the Gavin Hastings of the Committee; he has a very high score rate. This will not be the only amendment from the noble Earl that we will accept today. Indeed, this amendment does correct a wrong reference to the regulations which are made under Clause 58 of the Bill. The reference contained in Clause 53(3) is to rules under Clause 58 and should of course be to regulations under Clause 58. Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept my noble friend's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 147:
Page 40. line 31, at end insert:
("() exclude from the child's family home any person named in the order").
The noble Lord said: The drafting of this amendment is slightly defective because it does not quite fit into the context of the Bill. I should like time to consider it. I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 40, line 32, after ("order") insert ("and full details of the application upon which the order was made").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it necessary to give fuller details within the context of the clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, felt that we were discussing grouped amendments. I do not believe that we are. The amendments were not grouped on the sheet I had. They were to be taken on their own.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: They are grouped on today's list.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sorry; I do not have it. I did not obtain the most recent one.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The groupings will have to be re-done.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have a set of government amendments which begin at No. 158, which might appropriately have been dealt with in the context of Amendment No. 147. We shall deal with them now at the appropriate stage.
In response to Amendment No. 148 I say immediately that I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Under the provisions of Clause 53(5), the applicant for a child protection order must advise the local authority and the principal reporter of the making of a child protection order by the sheriff. There is no reason for the two parties to be advised of the reasons for making the application in the first instance. I agree that it is important for both the local authority and the principal reporter to have such information but this is a matter which is more appropriate for rules of court rather than for primary legislation. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I accept that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Duration, recall or variation of child protection order]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("rules").
The noble Earl said: When we were discussing Clause 53 I referred to the fact that we were dealing with rules.
CWH 108
This may be the result of a slightly misplaced correction when "the Secretary of State" was removed from part of this clause at the Report stage in another place. I am suggesting that on this occasion "rules" should be substituted for "regulations". I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: It is with great pleasure that we see my noble friend back on the field with us again. He is absolutely right—this amendment corrects an error contained in Clause 56(7)(d) which refers to regulations made under Clause 53(6). The reference should be to rules made under Clause 53(6). Therefore, I urge the Committee to accept my noble friend's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Referral to, and proceedings at, children's hearing]:
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 48, line 26, after ("may") insert ("require any person named in the warrant").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 151, 152 and 153 are minor amendments and place a duty rather than a discretion on a person named in a warrant issued by a children's hearing to keep the child in a place of safety. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 48, line 27, leave out ("permit any person named in it").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 48, line 29, leave out ("require any such person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Application to sheriff to establish grounds of referral]:
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 50, line 38, after ("three") insert ("working").
The noble Earl said: Reference has been made in other parts of the Bill to three working days. On this occasion we should also consider whether to add the word "working" to the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour would provide that a child kept in a place of safety under an order issued by the sheriff after he has concluded that the grounds for referral to a children's home have been established shall only be valid for three working days commencing with the date on which the child was first taken to a place of safety.
I assume that my noble friend is concerned about the position where the child is taken to a place of safety

CWH 109
towards the end of the week. Emergency hearings, however, can be arranged at any time to meet the requirements of the children's hearing system and of the family circumstances. It is not necessary to specify three working days. This is a change to the existing provision in the 1968 Act. It would lead to the child being kept longer than is absolutely necessary if the hearing was not to be held until the third working day as against the third day. Even the Scottish warrior Gavin Hastings did not convert all his kicks in his last match, and I am afraid that this time my noble friend's amendment is one which should be withdrawn. So I would ask him to do that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister. sits down, I have some sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. Are we distinguishing between a working day and a dies non?
The Earl of Lindsay: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, working days are taken to be Mondays to Fridays. No doubt the noble Lord works all seven days of the week, but Saturdays and Sundays are not usually included.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: For legal purposes, and in the Criminal Procedure Act and so on, we have the dies non on a Sunday sometimes not regarded as being a vehicle for calculation of figures, and that is why I asked seriously whether a working day is being interpreted as Monday to Friday. What happens if a child is taken in on a Friday?
The Earl of Lindsay: I refer the noble Lord to Clause 84 and the definition of "working day". It means:
"every day except—

(a) Saturday and Sunday;

(b) December 25th and 26th; and

(c) January 1st and 2nd."

I hope that answers the noble Lord's query.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It has certainly answered the question but it is not very satisfactory from the point of view of the child. If "working day" means every day except Saturday and Sunday, and it does not mean Christmas Day or Boxing Day, and it does not mean January 1st or 2nd, it is not much consolation to the child that this has been built into the Bill. It might be something to look at again.
The Earl of Lindsay: I stressed that an emergency hearing can be arranged at any time to meet the requirements of the children's hearing system and the family circumstances. It is the amendment that is seeking to introduce "working" into this definition. The Government are intent on resisting this amendment so that the children's rights are properly protected.
The Earl of Balfour: I am glad I tabled this amendment. I am very pleased to know that there can be very short notice in calling a hearing and that it can take place within three days, regardless of what day of the week the child is taken into care. In that respect, I am very much relieved to know that it can be dealt with as quickly as possible, perhaps with just a day between. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindsay for
CWH 110
giving me that information and I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Continuation or disposal of referral by children's hearing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 63 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Subsection (6) states—and I am sorry that I have not managed to write to my noble friend about this:
"the day on which the subsequent hearing of the child's case by a children's hearing begins".
I wonder whether the Government might consider including the words "is completed", because on reading the clause I felt that the word "completed" would be more satisfactory. Exactly the same point arises in subsection (8):
"A warrant under subsection (7) above shall cease to have effect on whichever is the earlier of—

(a) the expiry of twenty-two days after the warrant is issued; or

(b) the day on which the subsequent hearing of the child's case by a children's hearing begins."

Again, I feel that adding the words "if that is completed" might be an improvement to the wording.
The Earl of Lindsay: Given the normal pedigree of my noble friend's amendments and suggestions we would like to consider what my noble friend proposes and write to him in due course.
Clause 63 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 64 [Disposal of referral by children's hearing: supervision requirements, including residence in secure accommodation]:
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 52, line 23, after ("may") insert (", without prejudice to the generality of that subsection").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor amendment to clarify that the conditions which may be imposed in a supervision requirement are not restricted to those set out in subsection (5)—that is, to require the child to submit to any medical or other examination and to
"regulate the contact with the child of any specified person".
The power to impose conditions is intended to cover a far wider range of specifications. The amendment will make that clear by removing a possible restriction on the imposition of conditions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: May I take this opportunity to ask a question? Clause 64(6) states:
"A children's hearing may require, when making a supervision requirement, that any place where the child is to reside in accordance with the requirement shall not be disclosed to any named person or class of persons."
That is fair enough. What concerns me is that we are in a way excluding whoever had parental responsibility for the child before that occurred. I just wondered whether

CWH 111
the person having parental responsibilities should be at least notified where the child is.
Subsection (8) states:
"A supervision requirement shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe by rules".
Surely the Secretary of State normally prescribes by regulation. I am sorry to bring this up yet again; and I am sorry that I did not have time to write to the Minister.
My last point is this: almost at the bottom of page 52 is a reference to the "relevant local authority". I just wonder again whether the principal reporter should not be brought in here, but I may be wrong. Those are the three questions that I wanted to ask. Again, I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to write to the Minister.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I did not quite grasp the third point, but I shall try to deal with the first two—in reverse order. First, as regards the provisions,
"A supervision requirement shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe by rules",
in relation to hearings, he does make rules rather than regulations.
The second point is a very difficult one, and I take the noble Earl back to a case some months ago with which he may be familiar. In very unfortunate circumstances a man who had been divorced from his wife, having had a very violent past with her, discovered her whereabouts because of the requirement that the address of the child should be given to him when the supervision requirement was being reviewed. Acting on that information, he went to his divorced wife's home, with the tragic consequence that she was killed, as you may recall. He has subsequently been convicted of murder. It is a matter which has aroused some controversy, and it is to meet that rather exceptional circumstance that this provision is there.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord says about that very unfortunate case. A degree of discretion is given to the hearing with regard to letting people know where the child might he. But, as we all know, with children who need to be taken into care, it is very often the parent who has caused the problem.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, raises an important point. I have just had a quick look at the Bill, and I do not see in it any definition in relation to the care of a child of a named person. We go back perhaps to yesterday's debate. Are we back to the natural parents, the genetic parents, or who are we talking about?
The noble Earl, if I may say so with great respect, raises a very important point of definition. We must have some definition as to who a named person is to he. That would be of guidance to the hearings. The Secretary of State may be able to lay down by regulation, hut there are so many people involved in children's upbringing these days that just to say "any named person" or "class of person" leaves it open. I should like to see more definition given to that part of the Bill. I suppose the way around it—if I may try to be helpful to the Government, which is not a habit of mine—is simply to add the words,
"shall not disclose to any person".
CWH 112
If that is the children's hearings exercising a quasi-judicial function, then no doubt they can be judicially reviewed in the courts for failing to tell the father, mother, or whoever it may be, where the child is. I just wondered whether the phrase "named person" or "class of person" is in fact not introducing confusion into this part of the Bill. I appreciate the reason behind it, as the noble and learned Lord the Minister has said.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think it is introducing any confusion or difficulty, but I shall certainly look at the matter further and if there are any difficulties we shall try and tidy them up. The noble Lord will appreciate that the value of having amendments is that we can give a more considered response to any detailed point and try to determine very quickly whether or not an amendment can be made without unintentionally altering the impact elsewhere in the Bill. I shall certainly look into the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Duration and review of supervision requirement]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 55, line 12, at end insert—
(" (10A) Where a children's hearing has taken place by virtue of subsection (4)(c) above and a decision has been reached in terms of subsections (8) and (9) above, the relevant local authority—

(a) may, within a period of 3 weeks beginning with the date of the decision of the said children's hearing appeal to the sheriff against that decision; and

(b) where such an appeal is made, shall be heard by the sheriff as to the reasons for the appeal.

(10B) Where the relevant local authority appeals under subsection (10A) above, subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 47 of this Act shall apply to that appeal as they apply to an appeal under that section.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very difficult amendment concerning adoption. Those of us who have had to deal with adoption are always faced with fearful problems. On the one hand, one does not want to place a child for adoption unless one is absolutely sure that it is a right placement. On the other hand, one wants to be quite sure that the people, and the mother particularly, asking for adoption will not change their minds. Very often there is conflict. It is very difficult: one wants to fulfil the principle that a child should be placed for adoption as soon as is possible and practicable. If a child is to be placed for adoption, it should be placed as early as possible after the request has been made.
Very often there is conflict. Sometimes the panel, having heard the situation, is very anxious not to make a mistake and give permission for the adoption order to go forward. On the other hand, the social services are very anxious to place the child as quickly as possible so that a change does not have to be made where the child is being brought up.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow a very limited right of appeal to the local authority concerned with the long-term and permanent plans for a child, where the child's hearing does not agree with the plans of the local authority, and there are no other means of

CWH 113
resolving the conflict of views. The amendment attempts to provide a forum where the matter can be argued before a sheriff and the final decision taken one way or another to prevent drift in a child's life.
I have known children waiting for adoption. The mother will give her approval and then she will withdraw it; the child will then have to stay in the home where it is; and the mother will change her mind yet again. The case can drift on and on. That is not in the interests of the child and we believe that the welfare of the child is paramount. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Camyllie: As my noble friend has indicated, this is indeed a difficult area. We shall be returning to adoption at a later stage in the Bill. However, while I recognise the difficulty, I am not sure that this amendment is necessary in the context of children's legislation in Scotland. A local authority will be able to bring to court any case in which it considers the appropriate course of action is for the child to be made the subject of a parental rights order or a freeing order. When an adoption plan is contested it would also be possible and probably prudent also to bring the matter before the court by way of a freeing application. The appeal to the sheriff which is proposed in this amendment is therefore unnecessary, since it is already within the local authority's discretion to bring the matter before the court.
Additionally, the amendment would import a major change in the children's hearings system in that it would empower a local authority for the first time to appeal a hearing's decision to the court. I do not believe that that change would be either appropriate or desirable. But I really rest my case, inviting the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on the basis that it is an unnecessary amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I should like to give consideration to what he has said. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 67 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Clause 67(7) says,
"give notice of that proposal in writing to the Principal Reporter".
Fair enough. But I wonder in this case whether we should not include the relevant local authority, at line 30 on page 54.
If I may refer back to the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that we are not angels, one of the things that concerned me in reading this clause was subsection (10). It states:
"Where a children's hearing vary or impose a requirement or condition under subsection (9) above which requires the child to reside in any specified place or places, they may order that such place or places shall not be disclosed to any person."
What concerned me here was that if it is specified that the child shall reside at more than one place, knowing how difficult some children can be, in leaving the first place he might get lost before he got to the second place and you would have an awful job to find him. Although
CWH 114
I quite understand that the word may need to be plural, I just wonder whether it is safe to do that, knowing how naughty children can be. That is my question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: On the last point, I suspect that the draftsman has included the plural as a matter of caution rather than envisaging that there will be frequent circumstances in which such a child might be required to live in more than one place. So far as the other points the noble Earl has raised with regard to the clause are concerned, I shall read very carefully what he has said and consider whether amendments need to be made to tidy up.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Powers of Secretary of State with respect to secure accommodation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 69 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: I refer to the last two lines of Clause 69 at the bottom of page 56, which states:
"make provision for the parents of the child to be informed of the placing of the child in secure accommodation."
I wonder whether the word "guardian" should be included. It is something of which I should have given my noble friend notice, but I just have not had the time to do it.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: We should like to consider the suggestion of my noble friend, Lord Balfour. On that basis, we hope that this clause will stand part.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Exclusion orders]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 56, line 43, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").
The noble and learned Lord said: There is a substantial set of government Amendments, Amendments Nos. 158, 165, 166, 168 and 169. I understood that the revised list of groupings allowed for those to be considered alongside Amendment No. 147. It might be helpful if I refer to that amendment first. Amendment No. 147 seeks to include among the conditions which may be attached by a sheriff to a child protection order a condition that a suspected abuser should be excluded from the family home. There are major complications in seeking to extend child protection order provisions which authorise the removal of a child to a place of safety to embrace the exclusion of a suspected abuser from the family home.
To empower the sheriff to make an exclusion order as a condition of a child protection order seems contradictory. Why seek to exclude the named individual from the family home when, in fact, application has been made for the protection of the child by removing the child from the family home?
What we have done instead is to provide separately for exclusion orders under Clause 70. I am bound to say that that approach is likely to be more effective since

CWH 115
it allows a clear range of means for the protection of the children.
While the Bill was under consideration in another place and when evidence was taken in Scotland, we received many representations from organisations in the field of childcare and from other interested parties seeking an extension of the arrangements for the exclusion of a suspected abuser from the family home to allow for an immediate exclusion of that suspected abuser.
As introduced, the Bill would enable exclusion to be effected only where the sheriff considered that the necessary conditions for the making of an order were met—they are set out in Clause 72—and the named person had been afforded an opportunity of being heard or represented at such a hearing.
The need to delay the exclusion of a person until after a hearing was seen by many as a flaw. A strong argument was made in another place to provide for immediate exclusion and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that we should consider making the necessary amendment.
We have achieved the necessary change through significant modification of the arrangements for interim exclusion orders and, given the level of interest that there has been in this, I might be forgiven for going through them in a little detail.
Amendment No. 168 deletes the existing arrangements proposed through subsection (7). In its place, Amendment No. 166 brings in new subsections (3A) to (3D). Subsection (3A) allows the sheriff to grant an interim order if he is satisfied that the necessary conditions have been met, even where the named person has not appeared or has not been represented before the sheriff and before any persons on whom notice of the application may be served have been able to make their views known.
Subsection (3B) provides that where the sheriff has granted such an interim order, he shall conduct a hearing within such period as may be specified in the rules made by virtue of Clause 74. It also provides that he may, before finally determining the application, confirm or vary the interim order or tenor or condition on which it is granted, or he may recall the order.
Subsection (3C) provides that where the conditions set out in subsections (3A) and (3B) have been fulfilled, the sheriff may grant an interim order before finally determining the application. And, finally, subsection (3D) makes clear that an order under subsections (3B) or (3C) shall have effect as an exclusion order pending the final determination of the application.
The provisions I have described will enable the immediate exclusion of someone suspected of abusing a child. There is certainly no doubt that child abuse is a very serious matter and local authorities should have as wide an armoury as possible in their hid to combat it. So too, however, is the immediate exclusion of a person from his family home without the opportunity of being heard a very serious matter. I am in no doubt that in some circumstances immediate exclusion would offer the right remedy, but there may be others where the threat to the child is so serious that a child protection
CWH 116
order alternative would be the only step guaranteed to protect the child's safety. An interim exclusion order which takes immediate effect in the way I have outlined is therefore another element in the range of measures at a local authority's disposal and should be seen as additional to and not just as a replacement or substitute for a child protection order.
The other amendments in this extensive group are essentially consequential. There may be yet further government amendments to come, but so far these are the most significant amendments the Government have introduced and for that reason I have taken some time to spell them out. They will indeed provide local authorities in Scotland with an important new power. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Can I formally place on record the recognition from this side of the Committee of the care the Minister has shown in taking on board the points raised at earlier stages of the Bill. I regard exclusion orders as one of the most difficult matters in the Bill. The Minister's proposals have gone a considerable way to protect the child and the alleged abuser. I note what he said with interest.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I was not at all happy about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, which he did not move, because it gave the sheriff carte blanche to make an emergency exclusion order without any of the caveats and considerations which he has to take into account under subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Clause 70 as it stands. Those caveats are very important.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will correct me if am wrong, but his interim exclusion order as proposed in Amendment No. 166 would be subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6) as set out on page 57 of the Bill.
If, for example, you remove a chap from his home on the grounds that he has been abusing his daughter, that is bad enough, but if, in the course of doing so, you exclude him from premises which he uses to earn his living, or prevent him from taking the tools of his trade with him so that he loses his job, you have possibly, in error, ruined his future, and very likely destroyed the family as well. This is something which worried me very much about having an interim exclusion order or an emergency exclusion order which was not governed by subsections (4), (5) and (6). I take it that I am right, and that that is the effect of the subsections.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am very grateful to the noble Lady for her observations. I can confirm that where such an emergency exclusion order is applied for, it would be subject to those subsections to which she referred. She has usefully highlighted the delicacy of the balance we have to achieve. Abuse of children is a very serious matter hut, as she has pointed out, a person who is to be excluded is at that stage no more than an alleged abuser, or suspected of it, and one has to be careful to ensure that he is not subjected to damage or circumstances which would make it impossible for him to continue in his employment.
Baroness Faithfull: I support this amendment. We have before the House of Lords at the moment the

CWH 117
Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill which covers this very point. I have consulted with the people who are dealing with that Bill and I understand that they consider that the exclusion clauses as drafted in the Children (Scotland) Bill are very well drafted. In fact they go so far as to say that they think they are better than the Bill applying to England.
The exclusion order applying to men is a very difficult thing. Most men have somewhere else to go and, in my experience, when a man is excluded from the home he goes to his mother, aunt, uncle, granny or someone who lives fairly close. However, it does not mean that the child can remain with the mother in the home. If you take a child away, as has been done in the past—the child may have suffered sexual abuse—it then suffers another abuse by being removed from the home and being removed from the mother. While it seems hard on the father or relative in the family to be excluded, it is perhaps the better of the two ways of dealing with this case. I support the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There are some cases where it obviously is better but there must be some cases where it would not be a good idea because you have to take into consideration the quality of life of the child if left in the home. If the alleged abuser was the mother's lover the mother may very well regard the girl, especially if she is an older child—a 12, 13 or 14 year-old—as a rival and be furious with her for being responsible for having her lover removed from the home. It is not just as straightforward as all that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may conclude on this by saying that that certainly is correct. It is far from simple and there are circumstances when the issue will be very fraught indeed. That is why we want—and I believe we have now achieved—to offer to local authorities in particular a wide range of options which can be considered and have the most appropriate one applied in all the circumstances. I am very grateful for the support that has been afforded to these amendments. There will be one very happy bunny draftsman in view of the compliments that have been paid to the drafting of his
CWH 118
provision.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 57, line 4, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 161 is in fact consequential upon Amendment No. 164 which is largely self-explanatory and a useful addition to the Bill. It brings in a further condition that must be satisfied before the sheriff can make an exclusion order The condition is that there will be a person specified in the application who is capable of taking responsibility for the provision of appropriate care for the child and any other member of the family who requires such care and is residing in the family home. It is possible to imagine the situation where a disabled elderly person relies for assistance on the person who was to be excluded. The amendment simply ensures that the safety and wellbeing of children and others in the family home will not be put at risk through the removal of a suspect abuser. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Having regard to the number of amendments that still have to be considered and the arrangements that have been agreed for this Committee, it would seem to me that it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for us to conclude the remainder of the amendments within the time considered as a suitable period for any sitting of this Committee.
I would accordingly suggest that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday next.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

  UK/US Aviation Agreement
  UK/US Aviation Agreement
  Unit Price Marking
  Unit Price Marking