Sitting of 8 June 1995

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

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 15 June.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    British Food
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to encourage the consumption of food produced in the United Kingdom. [25812]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): My ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity, through our marketing grants and other practical help, to encourage the industry to improve its marketing performance.
    Mr. Spring: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that support for home-produced British food, which is so excellent, also comes from the private sector? Can she also assure the House that she and her fellow Ministers will set a best-practice personal example by eating good British food at all appropriate opportunities?
    Mrs. Browning: On the first point, I commend to my hon. Friend and the House the excellent work of Food From Britain, which this year will receive £5 million from the Government and which also attracts money from the private sector. On the second point, I can confirm to the House that since I was appointed Minister for Food a year ago, I have done my best to eat British food, and have gone up one dress size as a result.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister acknowledge that the best way to assist home producers will be to prevent
    304
    unfair competition from exports from other states? In that regard, can she confirm that the Minister's statement that he found very powerful the case for restricting imports of foods and food products into this country from other member states of the European Union, where the same standard of hygiene and animal welfare do not apply, is one that she is examining carefully? Can she further confirm that, under the treaty of Rome, there is nothing to stop the Minister using his powers to prevent those foods from being put into the British market, which puts our consumers in an unfortunate position?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are strict rules on hygiene within the Community and also in the trade that we do with countries outside the Community. The Ministry would always take the necessary action to make sure that food that had a question mark against it in terms of hygiene was taken out of the food chain and that the necessary steps were taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister has demonstrated clearly his desire, against a free-trade background, to encourage both hygiene and welfare-friendly food. Obviously, the best way to do that within the single market is by Europe-wide agreement and enforcement.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. and slim Friend is far too young to remember that there used to be a "Buy British" campaign. Will she and her Department consider introducing an "Eat English" campaign? If she is clever enough, she may be able to think of a similar phrase for the Welsh and the Scottish. When is she going to promote Britain even more than she already does?
    Mrs. Browning: I accept the compliment from one so young, and thank him for it. It is interesting to note that "Produce of England" is a label that is now put on food sold in Paris by Marks and Spencer because the French and other nations seek out English food. In Paris, £40,000-worth of British sandwiches, made in this country, are sold. Throughout the capital of France, they seek out British muffins. Around the world, one can see the success of the British food industry.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: One way to encourage the consumption of home-produced food is to discourage imports. What does the Minister intend to do about the estimated 80,000 tonnes of Spanish lettuce which we believe is imported at below-cost price?
    Mrs. Browning: On discouraging imports, the answer is to encourage and support import substitution. Through the good quality, safe food which we have in this country, we can persuade UK consumers to seek out UK-produced food. The hon. Gentleman will know that the lettuce industry is currently jeopardised because of an absurd decision about nitrate levels in lettuces. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is working hard to ensure that the English lettuce industry survives, people eat British lettuces, and those European nonsenses that arise from time to time are batted away as quickly as possible.

    Farm Land
    Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to help make more rented land available to people who want to enter farming. [25813]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which comes into force on 1 September this year, will encourage landowners to let more land. This will be reinforced by 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for land in new tenancies granted on or after 1 September. That is good news for new entrants to farming.
    Mr. Key: That is indeed good news. Will my right hon. Friend now turn his attention to county council farms? Would it not be sensible to promote mobility across the whole farming sector? In Wiltshire alone, 13,000 acres of land are in public ownership with 127 tenancies, the average of which is 26 years. That hardly promotes mobility. Those are excellent farmers, but they need an opportunity one way or another. One way might be to sell the farms to those farmers in the same way as selling council houses; another way might be to introduce short-term tenancies. Will my right hon. Friend look at that problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is a matter for the counties concerned, but the figures that my hon. Friend gives show that, in his county—I suspect that other counties are the same—county farms do little to bring in new entrants because of the length of tenancies granted. If the new Act works in the medium term as we hope, it will do far more for new entrants even than county farms have done in the past.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that it is essential to ensure that the rural population of many areas is maintained? Does he accept that, if holdings are small, new incomers to farming may find it difficult to make a decent livelihood?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government will look at the health of the rural economy more widely when we publish a White Paper later this year. In some areas, farming still plays an important part in that, although we must widen the source of jobs available in the countryside. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the contribution his research and development budget can make to extending the availability of home-grown horticulture produce. [25814]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): An assessment of the Ministry's research and development budget shows that work on improved crop varieties and seasonal extensions will continue to improve the availability of home-grown horticultural produce.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he confirm that his R and D programmes are designed to make our domestic producers the best in the world, and able to compete with Europe and the rest of the world? Will he also confirm that research moneys which he is giving are used in conjunction with private industry's research funds?
    Mr. Jack: I confirm both those points to my hon. Friend. The work that we have been doing includes the £41 million
    306
    restructuring of the Horticultural Research Institute, which gives it an opportunity to become one of the best science-based aids to the whole of the United Kingdom horticultural industry and puts it on a good basis to receive money from the Horticultural Development Council. We can go further than that. With the "Technology Foresight" exercise on which we are embarking, on strawberries, mushrooms and apples, we shall look to the future technological needs of the industry.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the legal opinion obtained by the RSPCA on the export of veal calves and EC law; and if he will make a statement. [25815]
    Mr. Waldegrave: I informed the House of the results of my considerations of this matter in my response to a question from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on 22 May.
    Mr. Mullin: Would the Secretary of State like to publish the legal advice that he has received? He has had a rough time this week, and one way to clean up his image a bit might be to be a little more open on the export of calves to countries that operate the odious veal crate. Further to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), does he agree that there will come a time when we can ban unilaterally the export of calves to countries that use veal crates? That will make more impression on our allies than simply being nice to them.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude, which is very usual from him.
    Unfortunately, I am clearly advised that the argument used in the Barling advice, which we studied extremely carefully, does not justify any unilateral action. I believe that we are well on the way to winning the campaign to ban the veal crates, about which the hon. Gentleman and I share the same opinion—most people in the House share that opinion. It would be very unwise to take action that was then struck down by the courts, as that would remove the issue to the European Court of Justice, perhaps for years, just at the moment when we are on the way—if the veterinary report that is coming in to the Community says what I believe that it will say—to winning the argument.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward is not to ban veal calf exports, which would have a devastating effect on our farmers, but to ban veal crates in Europe, which is an initiative that we have already taken?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. If we are interested in the animal welfare outcome, there would be nothing especially smart about banning calves that come only from this country—even if we could do it—if they were immediately replaced in the same veal crates in Belgium, or wherever it is, by calves that come from somewhere else.
    The object is to get rid of that practice. We have powerful allies around Europe for doing so—Germany is alongside us on that, as are the Scandinavian countries and others—and I believe that we shall win the argument. That would be a far greater gain for animal welfare, without placing our farmers in jeopardy.
    Dr. Strang: I assure the Minister that we stand four square behind our commitment to give Europe a lead on that issue by stopping the export of veal calves from this country into continental veal crates. I also remind him that, in January, he declared that the days of veal crates throughout Europe were numbered—I remind him, days. Will he tell us when he now expects veal crates to be banned throughout the European Union?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, I have already explained why I believe that the hon. Gentleman's gesture politics in that respect would set the cause back, for the following reason. If he introduced his unilateral ban—which would be challenged, as the Commission has warned that it would be challenged, straight away—the whole thing would be in the long grass of legal dispute, perhaps for years.
    As I said in January, the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the Community will bring its report back to the Council, probably in September or October. We have a majority in the Council if that Committee recommends the banning of veal crates, as I believe that it will, so there is a good chance that the decision will be taken before the end of this year. That is a far greater outcome for animal welfare than the gesture that the hon. Gentleman recommends.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his EU colleagues to discuss the further reform of the common agricultural policy. [25816]
    9. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects of recent attempts to reform the common agricultural policy. [25820]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The next Agriculture Council is scheduled for 19 and 20 June. I will continue to press for further improvements to the common agricultural policy at this and every other suitable opportunity, in order to build on the achievements of the 1992 reforms.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend spell out to the House his vision of a reformed CAP? What would it look like? Does he, for example, favour the progressive reduction of support prices to world levels?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend knows, I shall produce a report on that very matter, setting out my opinions in detail. However, in principle I do not think that anyone doubts that we need a policy that moves far closer to the market, and that deals with the real issues of environmental and social support, where they are rightly to be supported in the countryside, explicitly and not by agricultural policy. It is expensive and inefficient to use high food prices for those purposes.
    Mrs. Gorman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend goes grocery shopping, but is it not true that the British housewife pays twice as much for her groceries as she needs to? Is it not true that, if she went to the United States—which I admit is a long way to go for shopping—she would find groceries on sale for half the price, in a country where salaries are generally almost double ours? Is it not true that the common agricultural policy is nothing more than a rip-off of the British taxpayer? It
    308
    cannot be reformed. Is it not true that we should repatriate those powers and return to a system of supporting our own farmers, as we used to do, with agricultural supports?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right: if one goes shopping in America one finds that food prices are very much lower than they are in Europe. As a matter of fact, the common agricultural policy is not only expensive for the British consumer but is now proving expensive for consumers throughout Europe. I doubt whether a single country in Europe is deriving net economic benefit from the CAP. It must be radically reformed. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that repatriation is the best way forward. Repatriation is likely to mean the re-emergence of competitive protection and competitive state aids, supports and subsidies, which would damage British farming as well as the consumer.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister spell out on each occasion that he proposes necessary reforms of the CAP exactly how much the salaries of British farmers will be reduced as a consequence?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The calculations are interesting but difficult. If we stop the artificial dumping of subsidised foods on to world markets, world prices will rise. Farmers have less to fear from a world where there is freer competition because of that increase in world prices. The drastic experiment of New Zealand, which was forced to abolish all subsidies overnight—no one is proposing that here—shows that competitive farming can come through, even when farmers are competing with subsidised farming elsewhere.
    Mr. Stevenson: When the Secretary of State has discussions with our European Union partners, will he raise the issue of the agrimonetary system? The Secretary of State will know that a significant proportion of the 6 per cent. increase in farm incomes is a result of the devaluation of sterling and the agrimonetary system. What specific proposals does the Secretary of State have in mind to reform that chaotic system, which costs the taxpayer a lot of money? How will he reconcile any reform with the need to ensure that there is no significant reduction in farm incomes as a result?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We talked about long-term reform in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold). The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, in that we face a real and imminent problem with regard to agrimoney. That issue will come up at the next Council meeting.
    Britain's additional green pound devaluations are caused largely by the refusal of countries with stronger currencies, such as Germany, to allow revaluations. That makes the system break down completely and adds to net costs. We are strongly opposed to that and we are arguing, on the same side as the Commission, that revaluation should be allowed to take place within the agrimonetary system. If that does not happen, British food processors will be severely disadvantaged, as is beginning to occur already.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is it not a fact that the size and structure of farms in the United Kingdom is very different from that in all other countries in the European Union?

    309
    Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that fact is taken into account very firmly when considering reform of the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. What is considered to be a small farm in the United Kingdom is a large farm in virtually every other country in the European Community. That is why we are opposed to what is called, in Euro-jargon, modulation—that is, shifting all the support to aim at small farms. Small farms in Europe are minuscule farms here, and that kind of policy would seriously damage British farming.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Minister realise that all the talk about the long-term and a further review of the common agricultural policy is not in his best interests? If he wants to see anything done about the common agricultural policy and get his name in the history books, he had better do it sharpish, before he gets sacked.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the all-party support that I am being offered. I will do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's time scale.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Minister or office in his Department is responsible for overseeing the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the level of possible savings. [25817]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Officials conducting the fundamental expenditure review are reporting to me. It is too early to say what savings might arise from the review.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that he will be in charge of the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department because, unless it is driven by politicians, it is unlikely that there will be much of a review at all. My question may be connected with the previous one in that, if we want to see a reduction in the costs of government, there may have to be a reduction in the costs of the agricultural policy in Europe as well as reform; otherwise, it is not really reform in the proper sense of the word.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the first battle is to get some sense into the agrimonetary system. That threatens to drive up costs in the short term, which would be really disastrous. The frustration for my Department is that those parts of our expenditure that are entirely under the control of Ministers answering to the House and are without the structure of the agricultural policy—our marketing grants and our environmental grants—would be genuinely supported on both sides of the House as being rather well targeted, but the pressure is always on them, because we cannot make unilateral cuts in the CAP fund.
    Ms Janet Anderson: Will the Minister tell us how much his Department spends every year on tribunals of appeal against Ministry decisions to close slaughterhouses? Does he believe that cleanliness and hygiene should be taken into account when determining those appeals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady has a particular case in mind in her own constituency and I shall write to her
    310
    with the answer. I do not think that we have had any expenditure on those appeals, because the tribunal has only just been set up alongside the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall write with more details to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the search for further savings in his Department's expenditure is important, it must not, under any circumstances, be achieved by a further reduction in the support paid to hill farmers through the hill livestock compensatory allowance? Hill farm incomes are falling and the HLCAs should increase, not reduce.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I hear clearly the message from my hon. Friend, and I am sure that we shall endeavour to take that into account in our discussions with the Treasury in the expenditure round.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what concerns have been expressed to him concerning the conditions under which farm animals are exported. [25818]
    Mrs. Browning: We continue to make a large number of representations expressing concern about the live export trade.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of people around the country are deeply concerned about the treatment of farm animals during export? They have been demonstrating peacefully at many ports, and some have been disgracefully treated and prosecuted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Department claims that it is trying to persuade European countries not to allow veal calves to go into crates. As that has been so unsuccessful, would it not be better to put a one-off ban on the export of live animals to force others to recognise that people in Britain take animal welfare seriously and are not prepared to see such barbaric conditions continue for calves reared in Britain?
    Mrs. Browning: I am aware of the concern in the country about the welfare of farm animals in transit. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since 2.30 pm and will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister explain clearly why unilateral action on our part is not only not practical, but not in the long-term interests of animal welfare generally. As for his point about people protesting, peaceful protests are the democratic right of people in Britain. However, I abhor those people who break the law, subject others to violence and quite rightly come before the courts.
    Mr. Garnier: May I assure my hon. Friend that, whatever the views of the window box owners of north Islington, the farmers of south-east Leicestershire are concerned that there should not be a ban on the export of live animals, although they fully accept that there is no need to have cruel exports? Will she reassure the House that she will do her best to ensure that the live animal export regime continues?
    Mrs. Browning: That is what my right hon. Friend has been doing in his efforts to persuade the Community to raise its standards to those of the United Kingdom. We believe that we have the highest standards in Europe, and this is an opportunity for other countries in Europe and

    311
    elsewhere to raise their standards to meet ours. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that, if his farmers and those people who transport animals abide by the regulations and codes of practice, they have nothing to fear and the trade will certainly continue.

    Children (Diets)
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to improve the diet of children. [25819]
    Mrs. Browning: We are preparing advice to parents about healthy diets for pre-school children and we are considering a version of our booklets written especially for school children. We continue to provide substantial funding to the British Nutrition Foundation for its teaching pack for schools entitled "Food: A fact of life".
    Mr. Williams: I am pleased to hear about the advice prepared for parents and children, but what about the manufacturers? A survey by the Minister's Department and the Department of Health published earlier this year showed that children under five consumed double the recommended intakes of salt and sugar. Children are daily bombarded with advertisements for chocolates, sweets, crisps and junk food, with the result that there has been a deterioration recently in their dental health. Every year, 25,000 children under the age of five have a tooth extracted. What is the Department doing to persuade manufacturers to cease some of their advertising of junk food for children?
    Mrs. Browning: I deplore the term "junk food", which implies that all convenience and snack foods are not healthy. That is not true. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, however. The Department is working hard, in conjunction with other Departments—especially the Department of Health—to make sure that we put the information in the public domain so that people can make informed choices.
    Children of school age have quite a bit of disposable income, in terms of pocket money and earnings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that the Ministry and manufacturers have worked with the nutrition task force to put information packs into schools, up to key stage 4, to ensure that children are taught about diet and nutrition. I hope that, in this way, we shall be able to influence the next generation to make informed choices.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of improving children's diets is to ensure that the prices of fruit, vegetables, cereals, fish and other commodities in the shops are kept as low as possible? Does she agree that that can best be achieved by discarding the nonsensical aspects of the common agricultural policy that cover those commodities?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend's reply about the task force which is looking at the best way of reforming the CAP. His point about fruit and vegetables is important. I suggest that people buy seasonal fruit and vegetables, rather than what are often the more expensive fruit and vegetables, now fortunately available to everyone but not necessarily the most economic. People should buy the more traditional
    312
    fruits and vegetables which are in season and which constitute good value for money, thereby contributing to children's and adults' diets.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister agree that one of the key aspects of the diet of children is keeping them safe from infections such as listeria? Is it therefore a sensible Government policy to propose the closure of the Torry food science laboratory in Aberdeen, which has a reputation of excellence in this and a number of other areas? Does she accept that the overwhelming body of opinion in the north-east of Scotland favours saving that vital scientific facility? On precisely what date did the proposal to close it appear on her desk or the desk of the Minister?
    Mrs. Browning: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to discuss that with my right hon. Friend. I cannot today give him the exact date, but he will know that the work carried out by the laboratory will be continued elsewhere, so there is no threat to human health or food safety. My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I shall ensure that he is kept informed as soon as a date is known.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to eradicate fraud in the common agricultural policy. [25821]
    Mr. Waldegrave: At the Essen European Council last December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a number of proposals to help tackle fraud, as well as waste and mismanagement. These are now being taken forward. They include a requirement for the annual reporting on national action to combat fraud and waste. The Government are giving the Commission full support in its efforts to take more effective action against fraud.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for that answer. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is relatively little agricultural fraud in the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the annoyance caused to our farmers when they see other countries—Italy, for instance—getting away with what is seen as large-scale fraud, particularly to do with milk quotas?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am strongly aware of those feelings, which is why we have successfully pressed the Commission to take more formidable action. My hon. Friend will know that, as a result of a wholly British initiative, Italy, Spain and Greece were taken to the court over milk quotas, and in the end £2.5 billion was taken off them in the form of fines—the biggest single disallowance in the history of the Community, I believe.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, despite the Government having had 16 years to try to eradicate fraud within the CAP, fraud is still a major problem? Why should we believe now that the Government, whose time is fast running out, will solve the problem in their dying months?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The level of fraud in the United Kingdom, where the Government have a direct role, is very low, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said. In the last year when the accounts were fully closed, which, surprisingly, was

    313
    1991, we had only £2 million of £1.2 billion-worth of fines. That shows that the British record is good. We have been making efforts—they have been increasingly successful—with other countries, such as the Scandinavian states that have recently joined the Community, to ensure that standards are raised elsewhere. That is beginning to happen.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst vice in the common agricultural policy is that the British are inclined to obey rules while most continental farmers are inclined to disobey them? Surely the best reform would be for us to get out of the CAP now and become self-sufficient in agriculture.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Much the best outcome is to maintain a single market with a proper, level playing field, which involves the avoidance of illegal state aids and of fraud, rather than asking British farmers to compete against farmers abroad who are subsidised by their Governments. That is what our farmers want, and that is the agriculture policy that we need in future.
    Dr. Strang: Has the Minister seen the Commission's admission that there is now proof that criminal organisations have been successfully claiming butter export subsidies when they have not been exporting butter? Will he admit that, every year, hundreds of millions of pounds of agriculture export subsidies are claimed fraudulently?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Not in this country. I am extremely pleased that the Commission is becoming far more realistic about the extent of fraud elsewhere. That is the first stage in stamping out fraud. We have been supporting the Commission's blacklist proposal—I believe that it was our proposal originally. When implemented, it will greatly toughen the handling of export subsidies. That realistic appreciation of the scale of the problem must come first if action is to be taken.

    Bull Fighting
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will urge at the next European Council of Ministers for the termination of European Union moneys for the rearing of bulls for bull fighting. [25823]
    Mr. Jack: The agenda for the next Agriculture Council does not include that item for discussion.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am hardly surprised. Waiting for an end to the European subsidy to the beef special premium is about as fruitful as waiting for the cows to come home. Would it not be much better for the Government unilaterally to stop subsidising the rearing of bulls for execution in the bull rings of Pamplona and Aragon? The qualities of these animals are hardly culinary; I would have thought that their qualities are much more combative.
    Mr. Jack: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the repugnant practice of bull fighting. He must take into account, however, the fact that British specialist beef producers gain, to the tune of about £119 million, from the scheme. In the way in which the scheme is constructed, it would not be possible unilaterally to implement my hon.
    314
    Friend's suggestion. We shall be asking the Commission, in appraising the effectiveness of the beef special premium scheme, to re-examine the matter.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If the Minister of State shares the concern of his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), why does he not raise the issue directly? If he did that, we would know that he is serious in what he says. We shall judge Ministers by their actions and not their words. It is appalling that we should be subsidising bull fighting. It is a barbaric activity. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in encouraging British tourists who go to Spain to stay away from bull fighting?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. Those considering holidaying in Spain—perhaps even Opposition Members—will listen to what he has to say.
    We have already had one go in attacking the practice by reducing the overall level of expenditure on the scheme. We have made it clear to the Commission that we would welcome its positive proposals on the issue. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, we shall urge the Commission to appraise the worthwhileness of the beef special premium scheme in this context.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what attempts he has made to involve the fishing industry in his CFP reform group. [25824]
    Mr. Jack: All sections of the industry have been invited to contribute their ideas to the common fisheries policy review group.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the conservation of our fishing stocks must be paramount in any future reform of the CFP? How does he intend to involve the fishing industry in plans to implement the December agreement?
    Mr. Jack: On both counts—the arrangements for the western waters and conservation—we have had many useful meetings with the fishing industry. It is fully involved in that work.
    On the new arrangements from 1 January next year, we have secured from the Commission an agreement that there will be, as part of its package of implementing regulations, proposals on conservation. I have also secured an additional benefit: it will review the minimum landing sizes. That, combined with good conservation gear, can make a big contribution to long-term fish conservation.
    Dr. Godman: Any reform of the CFP, or a campaign for such reform, should surely advocate a complete ban of all industrial fishing in the North sea and elsewhere. To that end, should not the reform of the CFP be looking at the regional management and regional preferences for fishermen who are based in the more fragile fishing communities?
    Mr. Jack: I always find it sad when somebody who follows fishing matters as closely as the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge the lead that the United Kingdom has taken on the whole question of industrial fishing.

    315
    It was we who got the Commission to agree to the scientific study—the results of which we are awaiting—to look into this whole matter. The science is complex. We are troubled and concerned by this issue and we keep the pressure up, as we will at the North sea conference, to deal with the matter.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have in fact invited Mr. Alain Laurec, in Directorate-General XIV, the No. 2 official in the Commission, who deals with this particular matter, to come to talk to us about some of the regionalisation ideas that are being discussed. It is a very important issue in the dynamics of Europe's future fishing policy.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a massive danger that, when the CFP comes up for complete review in 2002, we could have a repetition of the disgraceful events that occurred before Christmas over Spanish access to the Irish box, when we were outvoted because of the system of qualified majority voting? Therefore, will he take up my suggestion with other Ministers and look at the possibility of trying to get restoration of the veto for the final decision on the CFP review?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right in his own way to raise the question of protecting our vital national interests. He discusses it in the context of the veto. At least that is the kind of idea that comes from Conservative Members; Opposition Members would do away with vetoes left right and centre. I shall certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that, in any further discussions on reform of the CFP, Britain's vital national interests will be at the top of our agenda.
    Mr. Morley: Has the Minister had a chance to see the evidence submitted by Dr. Mark Tasker, of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, to the North sea conference, which suggested that, unless urgent steps are taken on fish stocks, North sea cod as a commercial stock will be extinct in five years? Are we to see some meaningful progress towards tackling pollution, tackling industrial fisheries and bringing in closed areas before fish and chips becomes a luxury food?
    Mr. Jack: As somebody who enjoys his fish and chips and grew up not far from Harry Ramsden's fish and chip shop, I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I have seen the evidence that Dr. Tasker has put forward, but I think that he may be exaggerating, shall we say, to make a particular point. The hon. Gentleman, who, again, follows fishing matters closely, will know that the scientists advised last year that there should be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort on cod, and that was in fact reflected in the cod quota agreed at last December's Fisheries Council; so Ministers do listen to that point. I do not think that there will be a total collapse of the cod stock in the North sea, because there are about 500 million cod there already.

    Rural White Paper
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to learn about the views of rural organisations, as part of the rural White Paper exercise. [25825]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Our consultation letter received over 360 responses from organisations and individuals. In
    316
    addition, my colleagues from the Department of the Environment and I have been conducting regional seminars with a wide range of rural interests.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is not easy, it is very important to strike the right balance between protecting the interests of those who live and work in the countryside and protecting and enhancing our natural heritage? Does he think that the recent review of agri-environment policy makes important proposals in that context, and deserves wide support?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. He has been a great campaigner for some of the conservation measures that we are now enacting—those relating to historic hedgerows, for instance. He has made an important point about the countryside. We must not view it as some kind of museum; it is a place where people live and work, and we must give them space in which to do so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25842]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Legg: Following last week's launch of the European Commission's blueprint for the introduction of a single currency, will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the lifetime of this Parliament he will not make any commitments, or support any proposals, for the United Kingdom to subscribe to a timetable for joining the single currency?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. I do not believe that the question of joining a single currency will in practice arise for some time, and I confirm my hon. Friend's proposition. Arguably, the circumstances may not ever be right, and it is for that reason that I have preserved the House's right to make its own decision as and when the practical time for a decision may arise. Even if that time does arise, we should need to consider not only the economic conditions but the political and constitutional implications.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept that, as a result of the withdrawal of mortgage help for those who become unemployed, the vast majority of home owners—particularly new home owners—will have to take out mortgage insurance? What is his estimate of the cost of that policy to a home owner with an average mortgage?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, any responsible Government must review the size of the social security budget—now running at well over £80 million of taxpayers' money. As for the cost, the right hon. Gentleman may have seen—as I have—the news that the Skipton building society proposes to introduce cover for all its borrowers without increasing premiums.

    317
    I believe that lenders should recognise their obligation to protect home owners, and I hope that others will do the same.
    Mr. Blair: I assume that the Prime Minister is holding that out as an example of what is going to happen. Does he say that there will be any additional cost? If so, what is his estimate?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my first reply clearly flummoxed the right hon. Gentleman. I was holding out what is being done by the Skipton building society as an example of best practice, and I very much hope that other people will have to pay
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who is paying?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Who is paying?" Despite what the Labour party has to say about holding down public expenditure, both he and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seem keen that the taxpayer should pay on every occasion.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has failed to deal with the fact that the vast majority of home owners will have to pay more for his policy. If he cannot give us an estimate of the cost, what does he say to this morning's reports that the insurance claims of many people who have cover are not even met? Would it not be sensible to reconsider a policy that is, in effect, a tax on every home owner, will mean more repossessions and will depress an already depressed housing market?
    The Prime Minister: One would hardly imagine, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as far as housing is concerned, a Labour study group, for example, threatened to abolish mortgage interest relief totally.
    On the particular point about insurance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made clear, we wish to have a high-quality, comprehensive system of mortgage insurance to minimise the danger of home owners losing their home through misfortune. In terms of best practice, I have already said what the cost might be. I hope that other people will look towards that best practice. My right hon. Friend has been working with the Association of British Insurers to develop guidelines for the best practice of mortgage protection insurance and many new, quality products are emerging. That is very much the reason why I welcome initiatives like that from Skipton.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25843]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one living in Herefordshire now need wait more than nine months for hospital in-patient treatment, and that that significant progress, along with much else, has come about during the first year of the operation of the Hereford hospitals national health service trust? Is that not a good example of the success of health service reforms, and does he agree that it would be crazy to reverse those changes, especially along the lines of the proposals espoused this week by the Labour party?
    Mr. Mackinlay: Assume that the answer is yes and let us get on with it.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that the answer is yes, but I very much doubt that he will ever be here to give the answer, either yes or no. I am pleased to hear of the success of my hon. Friend's local hospital trust. I recall that it was not all that long ago that the Opposition Front-Bench team was saying that every hospital trust was going to be privatised after the next election, and here is a hospital trust in the national health service performing as my hon. Friend has just set out. He is right about the Opposition's plans on the health service. They are now sharpening up a threat to the health service, not least by abolishing fundholding, which covers more than 40 per cent. of general practitioner patients up and down the country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: "Hear, hear," says the hon. Gentleman. What will he say to the patients of those fundholders when the extra facilities provided by fundholding are lost? He may say, "Hear, hear." He does not like it. He does not like the extra facilities. If he wishes to damage GP care, that is the way to do it, and that, he acknowledges, is his party's policy.
    Mr. Sheldon: In the week of the funeral of Lord Wilson, will the Prime Minister consider one of the most important aspects of Lord Wilson's premiership: his concern about manufacturing production, after the decline of which he called for the need to reinstate Britain as the workshop of the world? In his period, levels of investment in manufacturing were very large and much greater than they have been in the years of this Administration. In the light of today's decline in the index of industrial production, will the Prime Minister start to accord to manufacturing industry investment the sort of priority that Lord Wilson had?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, not only has there been in the past year or so a substantial improvement in the quantum of manufacturing and in manufacturing investment; there has also been, for the first time, I think, since before Lord Wilson became Prime Minister in 1964, a growth in the number of people with full-time jobs in manufacturing industry. When one considers our export figures and breaks them down, one sees the extent to which manufacturing industry—the management and work force in manufacturing industry—have begun to improve and sell their product with greater skill, both at home and abroad, so I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations for manufacturing and I believe that they are coming about.
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25845]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the recently renegotiated Anglo-United States air services agreement? In that regard, can he confirm that he will use the national veto if necessary on any attempt by the European Union to usurp our country's right to negotiate with other countries both the destinations for British airlines and the frequency of

    319
    services, because the EU has shown itself to be manifestly incompetent in curbing the gross subsidies to state carriers on the part of some of our continental partners?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that has always been negotiated as a national matter and we believe that that is the right way to deal with it. Our concern is to secure the maximum benefits for United Kingdom passengers through increased choice and lower prices. We believe that negotiation by national Governments is the most appropriate way to achieve that. It is precisely in that way that we reached agreement this week with the United States on a further deal to liberalise our air services.
    Mr. Hardy: The Prime Minister will be aware that, during the past few days, many of his colleagues have been trumpeting achievements on employment, suggesting that it is lower in Britain than in most other European countries. Does he accept that examination of the statistics shows that that is eyewash? Does he also accept that many jobs in Britain are filled by people who are paid wages that no one else in Europe would accept?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on any of his propositions. Not only is our employment pretty much the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Holland among the larger nations, on any basis that one cares to calculate, but the number of people in employment is growing. For example, if I look at the constituencies of hon. Members whose names are down to ask questions today I see that, from the peak, unemployment in Warwickshire, North is down 40 per cent. [Interruption.] I promise that the hon. Gentleman is not asking a planted question. Unemployment in Southampton, Itchen is down 25 per cent. and it is down 30 per cent. in Denton and Reddish and 24 per cent. in Sedgefield.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25846]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councillors in Mid Glamorgan recently gave themselves an allowance increase of 388 per cent.? Does he agree that that is an incredibly selfish and greedy example of how Labour councils work? They whinge about other people's pay increases but, given the first opportunity, they have their snouts firmly in the trough, they put themselves first and stuff everyone they are supposed to represent.
    The Prime Minister: I did indeed see those reports in the morning press and I would say to those councils and
    320
    others that they also have a duty to remember that they are spending local taxpayers' money. If that is an example of new Labour in action, it seems to have no advantages whatsoever over old Labour.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June. [25847]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: The House of Commons Library has told me that, since 1979, unemployment is up more than 100 per cent. in north Warwickshire. If the Prime Minister and his Government come forward with pre-election tax cuts, will those not be bought at the price of underfunding schools and the police? In my county of Warwickshire, we are losing 172 teachers and more than 50 police officers. Are not undermining the police and damaging the educational opportunities of children in Warwickshire too high a price to pay for this Prime Minister who is seeking to save his political neck and that of this discredited Government?
    The Prime Minister: I take it that that was—implicitly—a condemnation of the 388 per cent. increase in Labour councillors' allowances in Mid Glamorgan.
    Mr. Prescott: What about the Warwickshire 100 per cent. unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if the deputy leader of the Labour party would care to stop shouting—[Interruption.] The Labour party cannot have it both ways. Labour Members cannot criticise us week after week after week over alleged tax increases and then say that they would oppose tax reductions as well. They had better make up their mind whether they are in favour of high tax, low tax, no tax, or just taking every opportunity that they can on any issue to say whatever happens to be appropriate on the day for a cheap, short-term headline.
    As for education and other matters, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) will have seen right the way through the period in office of this Government an increase in resources spent on the health service—a dramatic increase in the health service, another £1.3 billion this year, a huge increase in 1979 in real terms over and above inflation year after year after year after year. In education, it does not matter whether one looks at primary, secondary or further education. That is why in 1979 one in eight of our young adults were getting into university and these days it is pretty nearly one in three as a result of the changes that we have made and the increased resources that we have made available

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 JuNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Remaining stages of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Insecurity in the Housing Market" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.
THURSDAY 15 JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents.
In the following week, I propose to provide for a further Opposition day on Monday 19 June. On Tuesday 20 June, I expect to take the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill. I anticipate taking Government business on Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 June. Friday 23 June is a non-sitting day.
[Tuesday 13 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Fisheries: Integration of Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-xvii (1994–95).
Wednesday 14 June:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Broad Economic Guidelines; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-xviii (1994–95).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information and in particular for the fact that he has been able to give us more information with regard to the second week than on some occasions.
With reference to the new Select Committee that was established this week to implement the Nolan committee recommendations, will the Leader of the House confirm that he will do all in his power to ensure that that Committee gets under way as quickly as possible and is able to meet as frequently as is necessary to meet the Nolan timetable?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have been pressing him for information about when we can expect economic debates in Government time, not least so that we may discuss what the Financial Times calls the "economic slow-down". Can he give us any further
322
information today about the progress that he is making in terms of fitting in those debates, which the House will be anxious to have?
In view of the widespread public concern about the huge private profits from the running of the national lottery, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the matter, not least so that we can also discuss the impact of the lottery on charities, particularly medical charities?
Will the Leader of the House also respond to the need to debate another issue of significant public concern, which was highlighted in the report on the private security industry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as there are now more private security employees than serving police officers and as not one witness before the Select Committee was opposed to statutory regulation of the industry? Surely we now need from the Government not a White Paper, but early action.
If the Government do not intend to take early action, will the Leader of the House at least arrange a debate so that Parliament can prove that it is willing to tackle the problems created by the elements of the industry that appear to act as institutionalised protection racketeers? Will the Government give an assurance that they will stop obstructing or delaying the measures that the Select Committee recommended and which, clearly, the majority of hon. Members want to see put into place?
Mr. Newton: On the last point, the Government have, as the hon. Lady knows, welcomed the helpful recommendations in the report by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Clearly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will seek to respond as soon as possible. I am not, however, in a position to say this afternoon exactly when and in what form that response will come.
I have two points to make about the lottery, while bearing the hon. Lady's request, as ever, much in mind. First, Camelot's bid to operate the lottery entailed a lower share of turnover for operating costs and profit than that of any other applicant for the licence. Secondly, part of the background to what the hon. Lady has said is that Camelot has made an astonishing success of the lottery, to the benefit of all the many good causes that will gain from it.
Proceeding in reverse order with the hon. Lady's questions, I now refer to her request for economic debates before the summer recess. I am afraid to say that I am still not in a position to give definite dates, but I continue to be aware of and intend to fulfil the Government's undertakings on the matter. I shall give the hon. Lady further information as soon as I can.
I think that everything I have said and done already shows my wish that the Select Committee dealing with the Nolan recommendations should proceed with all appropriate speed when its membership has been appointed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: A number of hon. Members are standing. It may not be possible to call them all unless they put brisk questions. I ask for one question only, please, from now on and I am sure that the Leader of the House will give a brisk reply.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on Short money—the money paid to the official Opposition? Why

323
should taxpayers' money be used to flout equal opportunities legislation by means of women-only parliamentary candidate lists?
Mr. Newton: That is a very good question. I am tempted to invite the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to reply. No doubt she will bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House helpfully gave us as much information as possible about the week after next as well as next week; that is a helpful development. Does he appreciate that with the publication of the Donaldson report, "Safer Ships: Cleaner Seas", and the Government's response to it, there was considerable interest and concern on both sides of the House about marine safety? Will he now implement the promise of the former Secretary of State for Transport, when he brought the Donaldson report to the House, that we could debate the issue?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that request in mind, especially as I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his remarks. I regard it as my business always to be helpful.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend look shortly to arranging a debate so that we can discuss the parliamentary year? Is he aware that it is absurd that, within the space of three weeks in November, we have 10 days' open debate, but that we then do not get a chance for Government-sponsored debates on many items of good news throughout the rest of the year? Rather than conceding always to Opposition Supply days, will he consider giving us some Government Supply days as well?
Mr. Newton: That is another very good suggestion, which I shall bear in mind. My hon. Friend may be aware that I was giving evidence to the Procedure Committee on some related matters yesterday.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on Britain's relationship with and future in the International Labour Organisation? He will be aware that this week there has been open warfare between the Foreign Office seeking to safeguard our integrity as an ILO member and the Employment Secretary and his Gayfere street epigone, who are acting to try to pull us out of the ILO. That is causing a great deal of cross-party concern, as is shown by early-day motion 1199.
[That this House, having regard to the role the United Kingdom played in founding the International Labour Organisation in 1919 and considering the ILO's long history of resisting totalitarian and authoritarian governments by advancing on a tri-partite and evolving basis measures to promote employment and social justice, welcomes the continuing contribution that British ministers, employers and trade unions make to the ILO's work; and would consider any threat to continuing British participation at the ILO to be in breach of the United Kingdom's treaty obligations and to the need for continuing dialogue at the global level on the issues currently on the ILO agenda.]
Many hon. Members would like a debate to affirm Britain's continuing commitment to membership of the ILO, which we helped to found.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has been misled. My right hon. Friends are in entire agreement that it is right that our membership of the ILO should be carefully evaluated, but no decision has been taken to withdraw.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House allow us an urgent early debate on the means by which we can bring to account the leadership of the London borough of Islington for the appalling events that have taken place in that Labour-controlled authority's social services department recently?
Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall give careful consideration to the possibility of such a debate, during which that and other comparable matters could be raised.
Ms Margaret Hodge: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to tell the House of the additional cost caused to people by having to take out insurance for their mortgages, the reports in today's press of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux expressing concern and the statement by the chief executive of the Nationwide building society, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the insurance that individuals will have to take out to protect their mortgages?
Mr. Newton: I would observe that there is a debate on housing on an Opposition day next Tuesday, but I would also express surprise at the hon. Lady's nerve. On my hearing of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, by the time that it had finished, it was 40-love to my right hon. Friend and if a fourth question had been asked, it would have been game, set and match.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on local government in London? Is he aware that, apart from the scandals of Islington, we are told that there is corruption and racism in Hackney and that in Lambeth there is £70 million of uncollected rates, council tax and community charge at a time when that council says that it cannot afford decent services?
Mr. Newton: My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) applies also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time next week on the total chaos of railway privatisation, which, in spite of the violent efforts of the present Government, will obviously be absolutely unworkable?
Mr. Newton: Were I to believe that the hon. Lady's suggestions were founded, I might well consider a debate, but I do not, so I shall not.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the state of the performing arts in Britain? Does he agree that such a debate would enable us to raise our continuing concerns about the discretionary grant regime for students of dance and drama and to pay tribute to one British genius, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, whose musicals bring pleasures to millions and massive revenues to the United Kingdom and who only this week won seven Tony awards in the United States for "Sunset Boulevard"?
Mr. Newton: I am happy to join in paying tribute to Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber and will bear in mind that request for a debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we be assured that the Select Committee that is considering the Nolan recommendations will seriously consider meeting and deliberating in public, in the same way as a Standing Committee of the House on legislation or regulatory matters does? It has always been the precedent in respect of privileges and Members' interests that it was necessary to meet in private only when the affairs of individual Members were being discussed, with a view to protecting that Member prior to the Committee finding. Can we have an assurance that that has not been ruled out, because my view is that the wider British public would like to hear the discussions that take place in the Committee?
Mr. Newton: As you will know, Madam Speaker, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, Select Committees have been given no power by the House to deliberate in public. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear in mind the fact that, although the Nolan committee took evidence in public, it certainly did not deliberate in public. Had it done so, I doubt that we would ever have seen a report at all.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the costs of doctors in parallel practices—it seems that doctor A can spend three times as much as doctor B on a similar number of patients but with less effect—with a view to establishing the effectiveness of fundholding in extending services to patients at a sound cost?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question reveals one of the advantages of the new arrangements, in that they enable such questions to be raised. However, I cannot promise an immediate debate.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the new Committee on Nolan's recommendations produces a report to be debated before the summer recess? Will he use his best offices to ensure that the report deals with the merits and demerits of proceeding by way of legislation rather than resolution of the House? Finally, will he use his very best offices to ensure that that Committee, unlike many of its predecessors, is not stuffed full of Conservatives with vested interests up to their eyeballs?
Mr. Newton: As the membership of the Committee has not yet been established, although its terms of reference have been agreed by the House, it would clearly be wrong and absurd for me to attempt to say this afternoon what the Committee will or will not do at any particular point in time.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must have a debate on social services in Islington? I stress the issue because I wonder whether he has read the appalling report about the children in Islington's care who have been subjected to gross sexual abuse. The leader of the council at the time and who was responsible is now the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). Does my right hon. Friend agree that she should apologise to the House and explain what went wrong?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have heard, I have already said twice that I am sympathetic to the possibility of a debate in which such matters might be raised.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: I should be grateful if the Leader of the House gave early consideration to a debate on today's announcement about the massive pay increase for the Director General of Gas Supply, Clare Spottiswoode. A number of hon. Members have already been approached by constituents who feel that it is a public affront. Could we have an early opportunity to articulate those matters in the House?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's request, but point out that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to be answering questions next Wednesday.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on what is going on in the Select Committee on Members' Interests, because it seems that some Opposition Members are failing to attend and do their duty, failing to consider the complaints made against the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader of the Opposition and are acting on behalf of a newspaper in pursuing a libel action? A newspaper libelled an hon. Member, but Opposition Members seem to be supporting the newspaper in what should be a matter for the courts in due course. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the statements by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in the press today are incorrect and should be condemned?
Mr. Newton: Any attempt to prevent Select Committees from undertaking proper inquiries that they have been asked to undertake or to go outside the proceedings of those Committees is something that I am sure the House wishes not to happen. Beyond that, I do not think that I am in a position to comment on what my hon. Friend said.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us time to debate those matters next week? The Committee is in a state of deadlock. The Labour members of that Committee have tried hard for five months to get it to look after its procedures, take account of precedent and do its duty, but have been stymied at every turn by the presence of a Government Whip, which has made it impossible for us to do our duty. In the end, we felt that we had to come out because we could not be party to a Conservative stitch-up on one of the most important issues facing the House this Session.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has in fact confirmed what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, which was that she is blocking the work of a properly constituted Committee of the House.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend will probably share my concern at the fact that more and more decisions affecting the lives of our fellow countrymen are made under treaty and royal prerogative. We should not be careless in considering those matters. Will he therefore undertake to give the House an opportunity to debate the progress made by the reflections group as it progresses towards the intergovernmental conference next year? It is important that we are given an opportunity to monitor that progress and to debate matters as they arise. We should do our level best to remove from

327
people the frustration that they undoubtedly feel as a result of so many decisions being made by treaty rather than as a result of a vote in the House.
Mr. Newton: I would certainly anticipate that the House and Parliament will have a number of opportunities for relevant discussions on the matter. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), gave evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation this morning on one of the meetings earlier this week.
Mr. Harry Barnes: At long last, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has come out of Committee, despite considerable attempts by the Government—on a duly constituted Committee of the House—to stop the progress of the Bill. Will the Leader of the House provide an opportunity for Report and the remaining stages of the Bill—which is supported widely in the country, progressed to Committee following a 175 to nil vote in the House and has supporters from all political parties—to be considered, so that the Bill can progress to another place?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has—not unreasonably—asked me almost exactly the same question on innumerable occasions. I am not in a position to add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the amusement industry, which employs hundreds of people in my constituency and thousands throughout the country? Does he agree that such a debate would provide an opportunity for Labour Members to explain their curious policies towards the industry? Those policies were recently brought to my attention in a copy of a letter sent to the British Amusement Catering Trades Association—the trade association of the coin-operated amusement machine industry—by a senior Labour Member, former Cabinet Minister and adviser to the present Labour leader. The letter says:
"I myself regard amusement arcades as wholly undesirable and nothing would give me more pleasure than for them to be taxed out of existence."
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an extraordinary statement, and should not the House be told whether it properly reflects Labour policy?
Mr. Newton: I can imagine that the statement would not be greeted with enthusiasm in the town that my hon. Friend represents. While I cannot promise a debate on the matter, it seems like a splendid subject for a Wednesday morning.
Mr. David Winnick: May we have a statement next week on the Government's attitude to the Scott inquiry, in view of the fact that not only has the inquiry itself been criticised by the Government and their supporters—if not too publicly—but the distinguished judge himself? The Government and their supporters are concerned about scandals for which the House has no responsibility. Why do not the Government concentrate on scandals for which they are responsible, such as selling arms to Iraq prior to the Gulf war? Why are they attacking the Scott inquiry and the judge?
Mr. Newton: The matter was raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. I thought that his answers were entirely straightforward and clear-cut, and I do not intend to add to them.
Mr. James Clappison: May I support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for a debate on the Select Committee on Members' Interests? What redress is available to members of that Committee when a newspaper—aided and abetted by a member of the Committee—makes a series of misrepresentations about the Committee, including that one member of the Committee was appointed to intervene in an inquiry, when in fact the member had been appointed long before the complaint was made and the inquiry begun?
The newspaper also stated that the Committee was not investigating one of the two allegations that was before it when it is doing so. Has not the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) attempted to discredit the Select Committee in conjunction with a newspaper that is itself a party to a libel action? Furthermore, given that, throughout its deliberations, the Committee's detailed proceedings have appeared in that newspaper bearing the interpretation that the hon. Member for Wallasey put on them, it is important that the House knows what the relationship is in that case. May we have a debate on it?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have heard, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has already confirmed that she, as it were, seeks to frustrate the work of the Committee. Perhaps she would care to confirm the rest of my hon. Friend's interpretation.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The Leader of the House will be aware of the case of my constituent, Private Lee Clegg; his case was reviewed by the Northern Ireland Life Sentence Review Board on Monday. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on the recommendations of the Life Sentence Review Board to prevent any more anguish to Private Lee Clegg or his family, and to meet the great interest that the British public have shown in that case?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Looking at the next fortnight's business, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has left enough flexibility in the programme to allow for occasional statements, as they may be required, by Her Majesty's Government on the evolving situation in Bosnia? During the Falklands war, for example, either the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary regularly came to the House to reassure hon. Members and, through them, the public at large. It will be necessary to inform hon. Members and to clarify the Government's policy, especially given that British lives are involved.
Mr. Newton: I cannot say that I have planned the business with a view to allowing for such statements, but the record will show that I have made provision for them whenever it has seemed to those of us at the Dispatch Box that they were required. I note my hon. Friend's concern.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the record 44 per cent. increase in Northumbrian Water's profits, which was announced today, and the fact

329
that it is the fifth water company to announce record increases in its profits one year after the price review that was supposed to keep prices for customers down, will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the total failure to offer customers value for money of last year's price review of the water and sewerage industry?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady might like to note that, over the next five years, the industry will share £90 million of the benefits of efficiency savings with its customers, which means £32.50 for each of its nearly 3 million customers.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on Britain's membership of the International Labour Organisation? Although that organisation has a budget of £177 million, of which Britain contributes £8 million, its only achievement seems to be that it is an international quango that allows trade unionists to go on freebies at the taxpayer's expense and is supported by the Labour party. Is it not high time that we withdrew from that organisation and the House had a chance to debate it?
Mr. Newton: I have already told the House that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Employment Secretary agree that our membership of the ILO should be carefully evaluated. They will no doubt take account of points such as those raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Following the public humiliation that the Government's rail privatisation suffered in the Court of Appeal in Scotland this week when they sought to circumvent section 27 of the Railways Act 1993, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the chaos that has ensued from the Government's proposals with regard to the Fort William sleeper and other rail privatisation proposals?
Mr. Newton: The subject of that court action was not a privatised body but British Rail.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate not on the Select Committee on Members' Interests but on whether we should establish another Committee of Privileges to look into the activities of some members of the Members' Interests Committee? Is it not a breach of privilege to divulge papers—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is alleging breach of privilege, which is a most serious accusation. As he knows, he must write to me if he wishes to allege any breach of privilege whatever by any Member of this House. He should now think about it carefully and rephrase his question or write to me.
Mr. Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to provide time for a debate, to discover whether we can establish a Committee to investigate those matters?
Mr. Newton: As you will know, Madam Speaker, you have already referred a number of matters to the Committee of Privileges, of which I have the privilege of being the Chairman. Were you to ask us to do something else, no doubt we would.
Mr. Don Touhig: There are fresh signs that the United Kingdom economy may follow the United States economy in slowing down. The Central Statistical Office forecasts show a fall for the 10th month in a row, which suggests that the economy may be faltering
Mr. David Shaw: We can read. Mr. Touhig: Fine; I will read. Hon. Members: Reading.
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me give a little guidance to the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of business questions is to ask the Leader of the House for a debate. One begins by saying that, then one has two lines on why one needs that debate.
Mr. Shaw: One line.
Madam Speaker: One line, or not more than two lines.
Mr. Touhig: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. There are further signs that house building is decreasing again, compared with the previous quarter. Does the Leader of the House recognize—[Interruption.] I am coming to the end. Does the Leader of the House recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood. If a debate is sought next week, the Member begins by asking for a debate next week because of a particular situation, and thereafter paraphrases what the problem is and why the debate must take place. He is not in an argument with the Leader of the House. He is asking the Leader of the House for a debate.
Mr. Touhig: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Speaker. I shall certainly learn from your guiding hand. My point is that the Leader of the House should urgently arrange a debate on the economy so that the House—
Madam Speaker: Well done.
Mr. Touhig: I would have got there in the end, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman should arrange that so that the House may debate the appalling mess that the economy is in as a result of the Government's actions.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to pick an argument with the Leader of the House, and he very nearly succeeded, except that I can draw attention to the fact that I have already provided, at the request of Her Majesty's Opposition, for a debate about housing next Tuesday.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have a debate next week about the problems of paedophiles travelling overseas and committing offences against children in other countries? Will we be able to give time to the Bill that is currently in the House of Lords and consider the possibility of prosecuting people? My right hon. Friend will know that the all-party street children group is preparing reports on those matters, and that there is serious worry about such matters internationally.
Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of those reports, and I am sure that they will be carefully considered, as will what my hon. Friend has said, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

English Football Supporters
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: In this Adjournment debate, I wish to raise the subject of the treatment of English football supporters abroad. It is best to declare my interests at the outset. I am a member of the board of Chelsea Pitch Owners, which earns me no remuneration, expenses or, I might say, even thanks. Secondly, I am a Chelsea season-ticket holder, which costs me £500 a year.
In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in the previous debate, I should declare also that the Chelsea goalkeeper is a Russian. His name is Dimitri Kharin. As far as I am aware, he is not part of the Marxist-Leninist plot of which we have been hearing. If he is, I await next season with great interest.
I have been an avid Chelsea supporter for more than 40 years. During that long period, we have not been spoilt with success. If one adds to that my membership of the Labour party, I suppose that one can see that life appears to have dealt me something of a bum hand, but, in politics as in football, it is best to travel optimistically.
I last secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of football and the behaviour of football supporters abroad and at home on 19 April 1985. It might sound somewhat immodest but my speech on that occasion is worth a revisit. Among my recommendations to Neil Macfarlane, then Minister with responsibility for sport, were the following. I said that grounds
"should be all seating, covered and divided into small secure sections with closed circuit television."—[Official Report. 19 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 596.]
I said that the courts should impose more custodial sentences on convicted hooligans and community work orders on match days for offenders, that clubs should provide many more voluntary stewards for self-policing of their crowds, that clubs should operate membership schemes, without which admission to grounds would be denied, that the police should set up specialised teams of officers to provide intelligence on known troublemakers, and that the police should travel with supporters to away matches and brief other local police forces.
I specifically urged that on the Minister in column 601. He said that he would draw the Home Secretary's attention to my suggestion, but it took until March 1990—some five years later—for the national football intelligence unit to be set up. It took until 1989, under the terms of Football Spectators Act 1989, for exclusion orders to be implemented for convicted hooligans. Regrettably and tragically, it took the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989 to produce the Taylor report and the requirement for all-seater stadiums.
I mention those items of 10 years ago not to state my claim for being particularly original in my thinking but simply to illustrate that, if only Ministers had listened more carefully to those many football supporters who know something about the game as a spectator sport, so much trouble could have been avoided in recent years and possibly many lives could have been saved.
Politicians who know little or nothing about football but who do not hesitate to rush into television studios or into print in reaction to a particular event are a wretched

377
nuisance. Similarly, legislation that follows in the same knee-jerk fashion is often far more trouble than help. I yield to no one in the House or even outside in my condemnation of those brain-dead louts, fascists and drunken troublemakers who have done so much damage to our national game. That is what my 1985 debate was all about, warning Ministers about events that were then taking place—to which no great political attention was being paid—and the likely consequences of a lack of action.
There are times when it does not give one any satisfaction to say, "I told you so," even in politics, but the trouble is that the activities of that small and unrepresentative minority have led to the reputation of English football supporters as the scum of the footballing world. I stress "English" football supporters, because the Scottish, Welsh and Irish supporters enjoy a favourable reputation in football.
The image of the English supporter as a thug has now tragically taken a firm hold in public perception, but the image is simply not the reality in respect of the great majority of football supporters. Most supporters are normal decent people who love their club and the game. They are young, old, black, white, male, female, professional workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, employed and unemployed. Football is a great leveller and people are accepted when they are a club supporter without reservation or qualification.
People do not ask supporters who they are and what they do. They just accept them as football supporters and one of the family. It breaks down class harriers and, for most, engenders a great feeling of camaraderie and togetherness. Those are the realities of football supporting for the great majority, but, regrettably and tragically, it is not true of all supporters. It is that wretched but significant minority that obsesses politicians, the media and the police.
The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to a specific and growing problem, which originates through and in the activities of that minority. In recent months, I have accumulated a disturbing amount of evidence that shows that the image of the English football supporter as a thug is leading to police forces in Europe believing that all travelling supporters are a menace to public safety and that the police can thus deal with them accordingly. Such police forces adopt the attitude that the travelling English supporter left his or her civil and human rights behind on this side of the channel, and that, when they set foot on the continent, the police can declare open season on them.
In the course of my inquiries, I have collected a wide range of personal evidence from individuals and groups, many of whom I know personally, of the most appalling treatment that has been dished out to them by police forces on the continent. My evidence tonight comes essentially from Chelsea and Arsenal supporters following their respective clubs in the European cup winners cup last season.
I am fortunate because I have a lot of time at my disposal, but I do not intend unnecessarily to detain the Minister or the House. I do not apologise for giving the following evidence in some detail because we need it on the record. We need Ministers to listen and to take these matters seriously. Genuine football supporters are deeply angry and hurt that no one seems to want to listen to their
378
problems or deal with their complaints. They feel that they are perhaps being treated on this side of the channel almost as they are being treated on the other side. The media are very interested when there is violence, but are not interested when it is perpetrated against English citizens abroad.
First, I shall give some details and make some broad general comments that were common to most of the letters that my office has received or that were forwarded to me by supporters and from Arsenal and Chelsea clubs. The first comments relate to the match on 28 February between Club Bruges and Chelsea in Bruges—I was at that match.
Up to 500 Chelsea supporters were herded into a warehouse outside the city in a Belgian police operation before the match. Fans were handcuffed and forced into riot vehicles, with the majority of them seemingly committing the crime of speaking with an English accent. In this giant warehouse, the fans were pushed into huge, purpose-built pens, handcuffed, sprayed with water cannons and offered no food or drink for the next nine hours. At 5 am the following morning, the inmates were deported in handcuffs.
Imagine the rightful outrage there would have been in this country, if the British police had handled visiting foreign supporters in such a way. We would have been right to criticise, but, as the police have told me in discussions, they would not have dreamt of behaving in such a fashion.
One of the letters relating to the warehouse incident comes from Mr. Wheeler of Earslfield, London SW 18, who organised a trip to Bruges for 28 business executives. Nine members of the party—none was wearing Chelsea paraphernalia—were arrested outside the stadium about half an hour before kick-off when asked if they were English. They were thrown into a police van, and one was attacked with a baton. All the fans were told that they had been arrested because their tickets were forgeries, but all the tickets had been bought from an official source. The man who bought them is a travel agent and he knew that they were genuine, but the Belgian police were saying, "That's a forgery," and tearing them up in the supporters' faces. What could they do? The evidence had gone; there was nothing they could do.
Those business men were among the 500 Chelsea supporters taken to the warehouse on the outskirts of Bruges and held for nine hours—obviously, they all missed the match. They were not given any food or water, there were no seats, and they were forced to urinate on the spot when nature called because no facilities were provided.
Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green, London N13, witnessed camera crews following the Belgian riot police and waiting in anticipation for something to happen. She said:
"I watched from a bar window as Belgian police hit out at people for merely walking along the street. These scenes were later shown on News at Ten and Sky News."
I was at that match and television companies that were not the slightest bit interested in football or the game went there looking for trouble. They wanted to broadcast scenes of English fans rioting on breakfast television the following morning. If one waits and provokes long enough, one will get precisely what one wants. Surely that

379
is not a responsible attitude for the media to take, and I am not prone to criticising the media either in the House or outside.
I heard from Mr. Hugo from London N5, whose son went to Bruges with two friends on a four-day break that coincided with the match. Two days before the match, they were in a bar when Belgian police entered, apparently shouting, "All English outside." His son and the two friends were arrested and detained without food or drink for 18 hours. They were
"paraded in front of what seemed to be a stage-managed party of press and TV crews."
They were then deported in handcuffs.
I have also received letters about the Real Zaragoza v. Chelsea match on 6 April. Again, I will go over the common reported occurrences in all the letters from Chelsea supporters. The police emptied the contents of fans' bags on to the floor during the search, taking batteries from cameras and discarding them in a heap on the floor—apparently, a move to stop fans using the batteries as missiles. Fans with tickets for the upper tier of the official supporters section were forced to sit in the lower tier—the section of the stadium where the trouble erupted, as I shall explain. There were seemingly motiveless attacks by Spanish police on Chelsea supporters up to three hours prior to the match.
I have heard from a number of people who were giving independent evidence, which I could cross-relate. Young fans—one was a nine-year-old—who travelled to the game with their parents, were manhandled by the Spanish police officers. One youngster had his hag, which he had just bought, ripped open and another was struck with a police baton. Subsequently, his father was beaten up by police officers as a result of his understandable reaction to the attack on his young son. I have evidence from other people who witnessed the scene and who did not know the man or his son. They wrote to me independently and I was able to compare three or four letters, all of which said precisely the same thing. There could not have been any collusion between all those people.
The organisation of seat allocation by ticket number was non-existent, with no apparent control over the situation. Fans were forced to sit in areas far away from their allocated seats, with many becoming separated. I experienced that in Bruges. I was told, "Just get over there." There was no question of the fans being segregated, or of there being any coherent plan to get them to their allocated seats. It was a disgraceful situation and it got even worse when the Chelsea supporters went to Real Zaragoza.
The general feeling among fans sitting in the lower tier, where so much trouble was shown on television, was that the police charged at them for no reason after Zaragoza scored its third goal. A minority of fans in that section then threw chairs as a response to the police charge. Afterwards, I saw independent footage of the scene and that is exactly what happened. The fans were attacked and, having retreated, in the end threw seats at the police, which gave them the reason to attack yet again. Those fans who sat still and tried to ignore and distance themselves from what was going on—Home Office evidence says that that is exactly what they should do—were then attacked by the police officers as they ran through to get at those throwing the seats, who were provoked into taking that rather irresponsible attitude. Of
380
course, it is easy to say now that one should never be provoked, but unfortunately at the time it was advice that was not easily followed.
The police were undoubtedly attacking innocent fans, who were simply trying to ignore or get away from the situation. The Spanish police prevented official Chelsea stewards from entering the lower tier to calm the situation. After the match, two fans were brutally attacked by the police when querying where their coaches were situated.
Those general comments were in a range of letters. On the specific points, Mr. Germaine from Harold Hill in Romford travelled with his wife and three children on official supporters club tickets on the "Green flight". He had tickets to the top tier in the Chelsea section with the official party, but was forced by the police into the lower tier that I just described. He was hit with police batons nine times, while he sat with his family in the stand, trying to ignore what was going on. He decided to leave the stadium to protect the safety of his family, but was again attacked when leaving by the Spanish police. The incident has brought great distress to his wife and his young children.
Mr. Williams from Lancing in West Sussex—a company director who travelled with the official club trip—was attacked by Spanish police as he went into a refreshment bar at the back of the lower tier just after half time. He was hit with batons and suffered severe bruising to his legs. He said:
"I was a lone figure posing no threat to anyone."
W. E. Fowler from Stanwell in Middlesex, a Chelsea football club steward on the trip, claims that the Chelsea stewards in the upper tier were prevented by the police from going into the lower tier to calm the violence.
Mr. Ragot of Westbere road NW2, said that, on returning to his seat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section after visiting the lavatory, he was attacked by police with batons and ejected. While pleading with police outside the stadium that his jacket and passport were still on his seat, he was hit on the back of the head by a policeman on horseback and knocked unconscious. He had to go to Zaragoza hospital to receive treatment for his injury.
Mr. Bargery of Slough in Berkshire witnessed a missile thrown from the Spanish section of the crowd on to the lower tier of Chelsea supporters. As they complained, the police became angry and started
"clubbing any and everyone they felt fit to."
Mr. Hedley from Cambridge street, Pimlico and his two friends received a severe beating from Spanish police outside the stadium before the game. Consequently, they missed most of the first half of the match. Mr. Hedley needed medical treatment for his injuries and his two friends were very badly bruised around their backs and legs. A friend travelling with Mr. Dibble from Worcester Park saw a young boy hit with a baton outside the stadium before kick-off. The young boy's father obviously became upset with the policeman and he was beaten up by a group of Spanish police officers as a consequence of his reaction. As I have already mentioned, that case has been cross-referenced.
Mr. O'Rourke from Wembley in Middlesex had a ticket for the upper tier with the official party but was forced by the police to sit in the lower tier. Many people tried to sit in their allocated seats but were forced into the lower tier, where the trouble occurred. As the trouble erupted, Mr.

381
O'Rourke was attacked by two police officers while sitting in his seat. He lost his glasses and suffered bruising to his shoulders and legs.
Mr. Harrison from Lower Bourne, Farnham, paid more than £300 for himself and a friend to watch the match. He said that they witnessed good-humoured Chelsea fans attacked by police outside a bar three hours prior to the game. Mr. Harrison also had a ticket for the upper tier. He was told by the Spanish authorities that he could sit anywhere that he liked and he decided to sit in the less-crowded lower tier. That was a mistake on his part. As the trouble erupted, he stayed in his seat, only to be attacked by two policemen. He suffered bruising to his kidneys and back. He and his friend decided to leave the match early for their own safety. These people paid good money to go to that match. They wanted to see football, they wanted to enjoy Zaragoza and have good time. They did not and they came home very bitter indeed.
Mr. Goodwin of Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth—not a place one associates with hooligans—had a ticket for the upper tier but was told by Spanish police that it was impossible for him to sit there. The entire contents of his bag were emptied on to the floor during a police search procedure. He said:
"For the first time in my life I was frightened for my own safety and attempted to leave the lower tier through the sole available exit. Upon doing so I was confronted by more Spanish police who, rather than assist in pacifying a situation, seemed intent on inflaming it by further liberally indiscriminate use of their batons.
They refused to let anybody leave, and anyone who did manage to evade them and reach the concourse ran the risk of further beatings.
I feel sure that it was solely due to my knowledge of the Spanish language that I was struck only twice before finding comparative safety in a toilet cubicle. I feel fortunate, unlike two other innocents who I saw left lying in pools of blood in the concourse. I and these others were not mindless right wing thugs, merely Chelsea Supporters fleeing for our own safety."
Mr. Kyte, a senior manager for London Transport, and his brother paid £235 for the trip and travelled with the official club party. They saw only 25 minutes of the game because of a police attack on them while they sat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section. His brother had to go to hospital in England suffering from severe concussion after having bad head pains and sickness on the return journey.
Mr. Robinson, a solicitor and secretary of the Diadora football league, said that many of the fans in the lower tier where the trouble erupted were sitting in their seats holding their hands up in an obvious sign of peaceful intention. Many of those fans, however, were still struck by passing police officers. He also commented that alcohol was freely on sale inside the stadium during the match, which is in direct contravention of FIFA regulations, about which I shall say more shortly.
Mr. Steve Frankham, a Conservative voter, is a personal friend of mine. I do not normally confess to having Conservative voters as personal friends. He is a quantity surveyor and a very successful business man. He witnessed two young Chelsea fans being brutally attacked by Spanish police and saw blows inflicted to their faces, legs and backs. He said that the fans were knocked to the ground by the sheer force of the blows. The two were merely asking the police for directions to their coach.
Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green has not missed a home or away game for 17 years. Well done, Miss McDonnell! She witnessed a fan knocked unconscious by
382
police while standing next to a refreshment kiosk in the stadium. The gentlemen had to receive mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Inside the stadium, Mr. Thompson from Wokingham witnessed a young Chelsea supporter being beaten by a group of police officers as he tried to retrieve a packet a crisps that he dropped down a flight of stairs. Steve Frankham also saw that incident and told me about it.
Let us turn to general comments about the Sampdoria v. Arsenal match in Genoa on 20 April. Six coaches full of Arsenal supporters were escorted by Italian riot police from Genoa airport to a large car park just outside the city. The coaches were forced to stay in the car park for six hours from 1100 to 1700 hours. At the site there were only basic refreshments and WC facilities available. Many of the supporters were due to have a three-course meal in Genoa as part of their travel package. The supporters were travelling to enjoy a good time, which is what I like doing when I travel to Chelsea away matches. None of that happened because the coaches were taken straight to the stadium by riot police and escorted directly back to Genoa airport after the match finished. I have heard a number of complaints about people taking their families for what would have been a good night out. It turned out to be a nightmare.
I have a number of commonly reported occurrences from Arsenal supporters about the Arsenal v. Real Zaragoza match at Parc des Princes on 10 May in Paris. They described the failure of French police to help Arsenal supporters obtain easy access to the ground and easy departure from it and said that alcohol was sold inside the stadium. Again, that was an infringement of FIFA regulations. There was an apparent lack of Arsenal FC and French stewards inside the stadium. The clubs are responsible for such matters. They must send more of their own stewards to the matches. What is more, when possible, those stewards should be bilingual. CS gas was sprayed at Arsenal fans inside the stadium after the match.
Questions were raised about safety and access to the stadium. A lack of turnstiles caused a crush of supporters at the entrance. Again, such matters are covered by FIFA regulations on safety in stadiums. We must ask whether the Parc des Princes is an acceptable venue for World cup matches. When I talked to police officers in this country, one of the complaints that they made was about the appalling facilities in a number of such stadiums. We are often seduced into thinking that all stadiums on the continent are wonderful palaces of facilities for spectators. That is not true in many respects. They do not have the facilities to segregate supporters like we have in this country.
The following are some of the letters that I received concerning the Arsenal v. Zaragoza match. The brother of Mrs. Jeans of Lissenden gardens in London NW5 attended the match. As he was returning to his coach after the match, he was attacked by a French police officer. Apparently, he was walking too slowly. He suffered bruising to his legs. A family friend of Mrs. Jeans also attended the match and reported that Arsenal supporters were locked in the stadium for 35 minutes after the end of the match, which is not unusual.
Anyone who has travelled with away supporters realises just how appallingly—sometimes—they are treated. In this country, the police do not attack, but supporters are often kept standing, kept waiting, are escorted and rushed from the station to the ground and

383
never allowed to act in a civilised fashion. Frankly, if one starts acting in a brutal fashion towards people, one should not he over-surprised if the response is similar. I am more surprised at the way in which people do not react. Certainly, when people act brutally towards me, I get exceedingly angry and aggressive indeed. I do not attack anyone, other than verbally, but I am certainly incredibly frustrated and angry by such treatment.
To return to the comments about the Zaragoza match, the fans were kept inside the ground for 35 minutes, which is not unusual. But some of the fans were then sprayed with CS gas by the French police. I assume that it was the French riot police, the CRS. The French police are not noted for being especially delicate in their handling of individuals. That was no way for English citizens to be treated in Paris. Many women and children were in that section of the stadium and were scared and bemused by the events that I have just described.
French police in riot uniform refused to help or give any directions to Mrs. Gray of Highbury, London N5 who was trying to go to her hotel after the match. In her letter, she also queried safety in the stadium. She said that chaos was caused in the access areas to the stadium, where an apparent lack of turnstiles to filter supporters entering the ground caused a bottleneck. Mr. Barford of Enfield in Middlesex noticed the lack of Arsenal stewards in the stadium and identified safety problems such as the small access area to the ground causing a crush of fans, as already described.
Mr. Martin of Hertford discovered confusion among Arsenal supporters who were trying to find their seats in the stadium, due to lack of stewards. He was also concerned about alcohol being sold inside the stadium. Mr. Nelson of Hornsey road. London N7 went to the match with his 13-year-old son; a proper and fitting thing for a father and son to do. After the match, the section of the stadium where he was sitting was locked. After a short while, a minority of the Arsenal supporters became impatient, as I have described, and, as a result, the French police fired CS gas into the crowd, causing great distress among fans in that section, many of them women and children. Mr. Nelson's son was affected badly by the gas. He was temporarily blinded and, being an asthma sufferer, he had extreme difficulties in breathing.
That is the evidence; I could have gone on a lot longer. The evidence is there and I have extracted the bare bones to give a taste to the House. Following the evidence I received, I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, with whom I also raised the matter directly, about the treatment of British citizens. The response from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary can only be described as pathetic.
The Prime Minister is, of course, a fellow Chelsea supporter, although of less vintage than me. I was there for all Chelsea's championship matches in 1954–55; it is difficult to forget Chelsea's championship year because it is the only one we have had. The Prime Minister has told me that he started to support Chelsea the following season. I was beginning to get rather worried because we have many similarities. We both come from Brixton, we were both on Lambeth council and we are both Chelsea supporters and Surrey supporters. I took great consolation from finding that he stood at the opposite end of Stamford Bridge. Clearly, the divisions were evident even then.
384
This fellow Chelsea supporter and Prime Minister, for the time being, wrote a letter which I found totally unacceptable. He said that he shared my concern about
"those who masquerade as supporters"
and who cause trouble. I condemn them unequivocally. However, he then said:
"I cannot comment on the circumstances of individual incidents, but I do know that where disorder occurs at football matches, both here and abroad, innocent people can be caught up in the measures taken to deal with it."
And some. The letter continued:
"Although… it will he of little comfort to those concerned, I would stress that the real responsibility for what occurred in Spain lies squarely with those who deliberately set out to create mayhem instead of watching football."
Absolute nonsense.
Who briefed the Prime Minister? From where did he get that impression? All the evidence is to the contrary, yet the Prime Minister wrote such a letter. If I were him—I have offered to show him the information—I would sack the person who gave me the duff information. I asked him whether he would be prepared to take evidence from the spotters—the police officers who travelled from Fulham police station to Spain with supporters—and from an officer from the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service who was there to act as an intelligence co-ordinator alongside the Spanish police. The Prime Minister said that they could not provide a full report on the actions of the Spanish police, and that it would not be right to ask them to do so.
I do not want to invoke the words of Palmerston: "Civis Romanus sum." I do not know whether Mr. Palmerston was a football supporter. Perhaps he supported the Corinthians or the Royal Engineers, although they were probably formed after his time. I know that they won cup finals in the 1870s. What Palmerston was saying was that English citizens had a right to expect their Government to defend them, and not to dismiss their justified arguments and to say, "Sorry, it is nothing to do with us. This is something that you just happened to fall foul of because the Spanish police were dealing with problems." The Spanish police were not dealing with problems; the Spanish police were creating the problems. We demand action from the Government, following Mr. Palmerston's observations.
If the Government do not want to listen to Mr. Palmerston, they should look at the front page of an old passport. I often wonder whether the words mean anything; it is clear that they do not if one is a football supporter. The passport states:
"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
That is just words—just a load of old garbage. If people wave that at a Spanish policeman, a French policeman or a Belgian policeman, the police will crack their heads open. So much for the power of the British passport which once, as they used to say, caused Johnny Foreigner to fall to his knees. I do not, of course, expect that sort of attitude. I am not some kind of neo-imperialist. All I am is someone who says that English citizens travelling abroad have a right to be protected from brutality wherever it comes from and that the British Government have a responsibility to protect them.

385
The letter from the Home Secretary was essentially couched in the language used in the letter I received from the Prime Minister. Obviously, they had cross-checked. It was an inadequate response.
May I make some positive proposals to the Minister? I realise that he is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister and that many of my proposals affect the responsibilities of his colleagues in the Department of National Heritage and the Home Office. As in the debate I had 10 years ago, I want to be as constructive as I can he—[Interruption.] You will he glad to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my drink is not alcohol.
First, to deal with some of the activities, we should ban the carrying of Union or national flags that are adulterated with the names of clubs or towns. These days, the Union flag so often has the name of a club or the name of a town across it. The flag is supposed to be a unifying and not a divisive symbol. Was what I just did—taking a drink—in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I did it again, I should not like to find myself falling foul of you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The tradition of the House is that hon. Members should come here fully watered and victualled before they make their speeches. I hope that hon. Members will maintain that tradition. Those who suddenly get a frog in their throat may, of course, briefly take water to keep them going. To help the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that a degree of calmness in presentation means that the voice will last longer.
Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would never want to fall foul of you intentionally. I was wondering what on earth, if hon. Members have to come in here watered and victualled, those two decanters were doing sitting on the Front Bench. Obviously there is one rule for Back Benchers and another rule for Front Benchers.
The second point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that Front Benchers get a little more excited than Back Benchers do.
Mr. Banks: I often find that excitement makes the juices flow more readily than does the more staid approach. I am, however, grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the situation.
Banning the carrying of Union or national flags adulterated with the names of clubs would be something. I have called for it before and I think that action should be taken. It is offensive to people to see such flags. The flag then becomes a divisive rather than a unifying symbol.
Secondly, we should cease the practice of playing national anthems before football matches. No other sport does this. I cannot understand why this happens in football matches when it does not happen before cricket matches or rugby matches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): It does sometimes.
Mr. Banks: I do not recall anyone playing the national anthem before a cricket match. Was the national anthem played up in Leeds before the start of the test match against the West Indies today?
Mr. Baldry: I do not know whether the West Indies has a national anthem.
Mr. Banks: The Minister's comment is interesting. What about Australia, then, or New Zealand? The Minister knows that the national anthem is not played at cricket matches. Why is it played at football matches? This is not an attempt to get at the national anthem, but a suggestion. Rival supporters whistling and jeering the respective anthems does not get the match off to a very good start. Again, as you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am getting over-excited.
Thirdly, there should he a crackdown on the sale of tee-shirts, leaflets and badges—all the rubbish that is sold outside grounds—that carry racist slogans. In August 1991, the Government announced with a great flurry of publicity that running on to the pitch and chanting indecent or racist slogans would be criminal offences. How many arrests have we had for those offences since 1991? It is not good enough to pass new laws. We need to ensure that they are properly and adequately enforced.
Fourthly, English clubs must insist that FIFA enforces its own rules and the European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour. When I go to matches in which we are playing an overseas club, the no-drinks rule is enforced rigidly, from the directors right the way through. The continental clubs are ignoring the rules on the sale of alcohol. Again, we start to ask why we should follow the rules when the others do not. We should follow the rules, and, more to the point, so should they. Frankly, that is something that the Minister should raise through the Foreign Office and other agencies.
Fifthly, part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 gave the courts the power to make restriction orders to prevent convicted hooligans from travelling to key football matches outside England and Wales. Statistics obtained through the answers to parliamentary questions show that only seven such orders were made between 1991 and 1994. That is a joke. How can Ministers expect us to take those regulations and rules seriously if they are not being adequately enforced?
Sixthly, we must seek changes in the legislation to allow those who cause trouble abroad to be prosecuted in the English courts. I know that this introduces a new concept, but it is about time it was seriously examined. We must also encourage authorities on the continent to prosecute those who are responsible for causing trouble within their jurisdictions.
It is offensive to see thugs—I am talking about genuine thugs who are properly arrested, not the innocent people whom I was describing earlier—getting back to Heathrow or leaving a ferry and giving the television cameras V-signs and fascist salutes, cocking a snook at authority in this country. It sends the wrong message altogether and is extremely offensive.
Seventhly, I would like to say a word about the role of the media. They seem to be interested only in the violent minority. I have found it very difficult to get the media interested in the sort of the cases that I have been describing at length. The media do not seem to be interested in the violence perpetrated on the innocent. They hype violence and inflame the situation.
One of the complaints that was made in Zaragoza was that the local press there was reporting what the national press in this country was saying about all the hooligans who were going there. People, and the police force, in

387
Zaragoza became worried that a load of barbarians would turn up and trash their town. That hyped up the police, made them extremely edgy, and they overreacted. The media have to understand the impact they have when such alarmist, hyped-up, unnecessary stories are conveyed to the country that is about to receive the visiting supporters.
I come to the most important part of my contribution. The role of the national football intelligence unit is crucial. It must be given the resources to extend its work. I have been talking to people involved and it is amazing that there is only a handful of officers—six or seven—in the NFIU. I had thought that there were loads.
In the Metropolitan police area, those officers are complemented by an officer in each police division in which there is a football club. I presume that that applies throughout the country. Even if one takes account of the 92 football clubs in the English leagues, that does not amount to a great number of officers to deal with a crucial public concern. It is no good politicians getting worried and making statements about what is going on and the media reporting and amplifying these events in great depth if we do not give the police the resources that they need to deal with the matter.
Each police force has its own spotters who go to club matches, but they are junior officers, constables. No more than two local officers, senior though they may be, go over to liaise with their counterparts on the continent before a match. They can go only by invitation. I mentioned the Spanish, the Belgians and the Italians, none of whom have the equivalent of our NFIU. Only the Dutch, who have a similar problem with football hooligans, have such a unit.
It is incumbent on Ministers to take some initiatives. First, the NFIU must receive more resources if, as politicians, we are going to complain about football violence and the behaviour of football supporters at home and abroad.
Secondly, Ministers should ask their European counterparts to allow police officers from continental countries to come to Britain for training in football crowd control techniques. Our police officers are probably now the best in the world at football crowd control. No doubt we all regret that they had to acquire that expertise, but at least they have it, and it should be shared among their continent counterparts.
We must send far more police officers to matches abroad to accompany supporters. Wherever possible, the officers should be bilingual—people who can get involved in what is going on, not to dictate to police forces abroad but to assist them to ensure that some of the problems that I have described do not recur.
We should also send police officers in uniform. I know that this is not customary, but I have checked the matter out and there do not seem to be any great obstacles standing in the way of that. It would comfort and perhaps control English travelling supporters to see English police officers in uniform with them. It would have been reassuring, certainly, for those innocent parties that I described earlier if they could have gone to an English police officer and made their complaints rather than suffering in the way that they did.
There is an understandable lack of expertise among European police forces. They have not been forced to acquire the detailed expertise that, regrettably, we have had to. Because they lack expertise, they tend to
388
compensate by relying on policing in numbers. That, in turn, creates problems of intimidation and confusion. To be confronted by massed ranks of police officers when you travel to a match is not a very comfortable position.
One of the other difficulties experienced by NFIU officers is that the police forces with which they liaise prior to matches are often not the police who end up policing the crowd. That is hardly useful.
In the end, essentially, we in this country are the problem, so we should be prepared to contribute far more to the control and resolution of the problem. The Government must take the situation seriously.
The responsible Ministers,—I wrote directly to the Prime Minister—should he prepared to call for reports on the matters that I have raised tonight. They should call for evidence from those few police officers who were at the matches I have detailed and from our embassy and consulate staff who would have been at them.
I expect the Government to do far more than that. On behalf of the large numbers of decent football supporters who travel abroad, I expect—indeed, I demand—that the British Government defend their rights and correct the wrongs experienced by those British citizens travelling abroad. Those football supporters, those English citizens, have a right to expect action from the Government, and the Government have a duty to respond.
7.47 pm
Miss Kate Hoey: I will add only a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on obtaining the debate and on being so clever as to get it on a night when we can go on a little longer.
My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, which has covered a lot of the issues that I wanted to raise. I accept that the Minister may not be able to deal tonight with some of the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and the questions that need to be answered, because it is clear that many of the things which have gone wrong in term of co-ordination and responsibility come under the aegis of the Department of National Heritage, although I am sure that the Minister will have co-ordinated with that Department.
I speak on behalf of the many Arsenal supporters who wrote to me, and I know that many have also written to my hon. Friend. The evidence that my hon. Friend gave about the match in Paris and about the other matches is very clear and we have all seen it. Some of us have also seen that my hon. Friend has a large file on the matter. What have the Government done? This situation has not just arisen—it has been going on for some months. Did any Minister at any state write even one letter or make one telephone call to protest or ask for an explanation from the French authorities, the Spanish authorities or those in any of the other countries where incidents occurred? If not, why not?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is right. Can one think of any other circumstances in which large numbers of people from another European country would be treated in such a way here without it being front page news and roundly condemned? It seems that the Government are not prepared to stand up for English—in this case, they were English—citizens abroad who have clearly been treated deplorably.

389
It is not good enough for the Government to say that there arc diplomatic reasons for not responding, or that there arc had supporters. We know that there are had supporters, and it is precisely because we want to isolate them that we need to stand up for the genuinely good supporters who did nothing but spend large sums of money and take time off work to enjoy a football match.
I have here evidence to back up everything that my hon. Friend said. One letter relates specifically to the European cup winners' cup final in Paris. My hon. Friend mentioned the state of the ground. I appreciate that it is not really a matter for the Minister tonight, but the football authorities need to be asked why the ground in Paris—the Parc des Princes—was allowed to be used. The available evidence shows that it was not fit even to host a normal match, let alone the final of a major tournament.
I received a detailed letter from Mr. Barford who lives in Enfield. He also wrote to Arsenal and to my hon. Friend. It outlines the way in which fans were treated on the way into the match. Even when they were not being treated badly, the route to the ground calls into question every FIFA rule. It appears that the roads leading to the ground were cordoned off with crash barriers and there was only a very small access area, which meant that people were crushed together. Mr. Barford's letter states:
"This was further compounded by ticket holders having to fight their way back through the crowd if they were trying to go down the wrong road and were told to go elsewhere."
Everything points to a lack of clarity about who was taking the decisions at the ground and who was responsible for it. Our football authorities owe it to the people who matter—the supporters—to ask FIFA why the ground, which was clearly not fit to host a major match, was used. At the same match, fans had to go through a small opening in the fence and there was more crushing. Mr. Barford said:
"I find it hard to believe that a stadium that hosts international matches does not have any turnstiles, a basic requirement that even non-league football clubs in this country have to have."
Once inside the stadium, there were problems with the stewarding. Many Arsenal stewards travelled with the fans, but were not always in evidence at the ground. There is some uncertainty as to why that happened. It was not because the stewards disappeared to have a nice time watching the match; there seems to have been a lack of understanding about where they were allowed to go and what they were allowed to do. I am sure that the same has happened elsewhere. The final result was that people were unable to find their seats. They were told to sit where they liked, which led to disagreements. The length of time that fans had to stay in the ground after the match also caused a problem.
All that happened to fans of a club which has no history of football hooligans attaching themselves to it. Indeed, the previous year Arsenal was awarded a fair play award for its supporters' behaviour in Europe. Mr. Barford concludes:
"I would not attend another football match at this ground",
and says that he would be very hesitant about attending another match in Europe at all. It is sad that many such letters are from people who were travelling to Europe for the first time and who now will never go back.
390
What do those incidents tell us? The Government are supposed to be interested in bringing the people of Europe together, but for many young people, their first trip abroad to watch a match was ruined and they will not return. We need some answers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the football intelligence unit. How it works is crucial, but there were questions about how it co-operated with the Dublin authorities during England's match there. I know that we are debating matches in Europe, but the Republic of Ireland is also part of Europe. I understood that the Minister with responsibility for sport was meant to co-ordinate the work of the Home Office and the Foreign Office with reference to our supporters travelling to international matches. I asked him whether he had had any discussions with the Dublin authorities the week before the match. He did not even pick up the phone to speak to the sports Minister in Dublin and ask how things were going. There had been no communication. That is scandalous.
We must remember that we are hosting the European championships next year, and many people will be coming. I hope that our hooligan minority will not be stirred up, and that our well-behaved supporters will not try to make up for the way they were treated by taking out their frustration on supporters from Europe. Football supporters matter, and football matters, but it is also important for the credibility of this country that we host the championships properly next year.
The World cup will be held in France in 1998 and, as my hon. Friend said, many people will be worried if England qualifies, as we hope that it will. They will be worried about going to watch England play in France if great attention is not paid to assisting our fans abroad. As Members of Parliament, we have to stand up for supporters who are going about the legitimate activity of watching a match abroad. We cannot put the matter aside and say that good supporters have to lumped together with the bad and receive the same treatment. It is not good enough to pass the buck.
I am afraid that the football authorities will say that the problem is a matter for the Government and the Foreign Office, and the Home Office will say that it is a matter for the Department of National Heritage. It is important that someone in Government gets a grip on this serious issue, which will not go away. The Minister must respond quickly to the evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and the response must show that the Government are prepared to stand up for English citizens abroad.
7.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been a useful debate. I do not wish to belittle any of the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) or for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), but the problem is that the hon. Gentleman's main contention was that police forces across Europe felt that it was fair game and open season to attack English fans because of their reputation.
Last season, according to my calculations, English clubs played some 17 matches in Europe. One or two of those 17 matches could have been extremely difficult, such as the Galatasaray match. We are concentrating on

391
three out of the 17. I do not want in any way to belittle the difficulties that may have arisen at those matches, but it is perfectly possible for English clubs to play in Europe with large numbers of English fans supporting and spectating, with no difficulties whatever. The idea that somehow police forces overseas see English fans as fair game, and that it is not possible for English fans to attend matches in Europe without getting into difficulties is not borne out by facts.
There is another difficulty, but again I do not want to belittle anything that the hon. Gentleman said. He read letters from a lot of people who had written to him regarding the three matches. Following those three matches—I have checked this carefully with officials from the Foreign Office, the Home Office and elsewhere within the Government—no football organisation or supporters organisation made any representations to us, either formally or informally.
I suspect that the attitude of many was summed up by Monica Hartman, the deputy chairman of the Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, who—after the match in Bruges—commented:
"It is no good anybody trying to make excuses for these people who fell fou of the authorities in Bruges… I just hope that the actions of the Belgian police sends a message around the world to those other security forces who have been so lenient with the louts in the past. Some of them are not even house-trained let alone fit to be travelling abroad representing our country… They think that wherever they go they will strike fear into people.
Well this time they were up against a police force who remember Heysel and the terrible loss of life caused by hooliganism in their capital city … I applaud the way the Belgian police rounded them up and locked them away in community centres. What else did they deserve if they entered the country without tickets?"
In relation to this year's football season, we have not had representations from any of the official supporters clubs or the Football Association. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if concerns had been raised either by embassy staff who attended the matches or by the police—the hon. Gentleman knows that the UK police are present at all such matches—they would have been fully investigated. I have to say that concerns about the three matches were not raised either by consular staff or by the police.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does not the Minister understand that he is identifying the problem? The fact is that the fans are getting so used to such treatment that they are not complaining. I am articulating—aggressively, perhaps—the frustration and anger that supporters feel. They believe that no one is interested, and that there is no point in complaining because all they will get is a stunningly complacent response from the Minister. I mentioned only a few matches, but I can give the Minister evidence from other matches.
Mr. Baldry: There is nothing complacent about my response whatever. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady raised concerns about specific matches. One would have thought that if the clubs or the associations that represent supporters had real concerns about the way in which matches were policed, they would certainly have gone to the Home Office or to ourselves to talk them through. The idea that the representatives of football in this country are not prepared to talk to the Home Office or the Foreign Office about their concerns is just unreasonable.
392
One accepts that the vast majority of supporters who go abroad have not been implicated in any of these events. The hon. Gentleman read out a litany of concerns from football spectators who felt that they had been treated unfairly by the police authorities in relation to the three matches. But it is also important to recognise the coverage following the Zaragoza v. Chelsea match. The Daily Star reported:
"Chelsea's hooligan element shamed English soccer once again with a sickening charge on Spanish riot police.
Mindless thugs threw seats, coins and anything they could lay their hands on as they fought a pitched battle."
Today said:
"Hundreds of Chelsea fans heaped more shame on English football with another display of mindless violence last night.
Thugs went on the rampage after their team went 3–0 down in the European Cup-Winners' Cup semi final in Spain against Real Zaragoza.
They ripped up plastic seats and hurled them at the police, who responded with a series of baton-wielding charges… trouble exploded in the section especially reserved for Chelsea fans. Again it was a mindless few who disgraced the club's name, just as they had in Belgium when they faced Bruges."
Miss Hoey: Is the Minister saying that because some mindless hooligans behave in a way that we all condemn, that justifies many people being treated in the way described by my hon. Friend'?
Mr. Baldry: I do not accept that large numbers of people were brutalised in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
In relation to the Arsenal match in Genoa against Sampdoria, some concerns were raised about people being detained in a car park for several hours. We received eight letters of complaint about that match. One cannot discuss the three matches that have been raised this evening as if they were instances of police forces suddenly deciding to beat up a few English fans. That is the way in which they have been presented this evening.
What happened in three out of 17 matches this season—by any interpretation—was that a significant number of mindless thugs, who were, sadly, English, started to attack the police and other fans. Their actions resulted in a public order disturbance. When the police are trying to sort out large numbers of people misbehaving and causing violence late at night, I am afraid that occasionally some innocent people may get caught up in that. But it is neither fair nor reasonable to attack the police in those circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman has done, by asserting that they have gone on a bloodlust hunt and were simply seeking out English fans because they spoke English. The facts do not bear that out.
Mr. Tony Banks: The facts do bear it out. I do not know how much the Minister knows about football, nor do I know how many matches he has been to, either in this country or abroad. He is reading from a brief that has been prepared by someone who does not know anything about what happened at those matches. I have concentrated on those matches specifically because I thought that I would get only a short time to discuss the subject. I could refer to a range of other matches.
I suggest that the Minister speaks to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) about the experiences of some Manchester United supporters in Turkey. He should talk to hon. Members from Liverpool about the experiences that people from that area have had.

393
I have a track record in this area, as I proved 10 years ago. The Minister should be listening, and not just reading out second or third-hand stuff from journalists who frankly did not understand what was happening.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is being selective if he chooses to ignore all that was written by the reporters and those who attended those matches. He should reflect on the fact that, if events occurred as he suggested, it is surprising that none of the journalists, English sports writers and those who attended the matches chose to comment on it. I do not belittle or dismiss the concerns that he raised, but he has been selective in his interpretation of the facts. The facts that he and the hon. Lady put forward do not support the contention that police forces throughout Europe are picking on English fans. It is perfectly possible for English fans to go to Europe and watch football matches peacefully.
We all share a common interest in and are committed to stamping out football hooliganism. Before every European match, officials from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other Departments get together to see how it will be possible to minimise the difficulties that might occur. We in the Foreign Office seek to ensure that every party is kept in touch because, as the debate has made clear, a number of different Government organisations are involved. The Home Office is responsible for security and public order. It leads on issues arising from football hooliganism. The Department of National Heritage also has an interest in football policy, more broadly. The Football Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service collates police intelligence on persistent hooligans. It exchanges intelligence with foreign forces and plays a key role in identifying the troublemakers. Security advisers from the football associations and club officials are also directly involved in the pre-planning stage.
The Foreign Office seeks to ensure that all those parties are in touch to help with arrangements on the ground and, most importantly, to help British nationals who get into trouble. Consular staff at our posts abroad are well placed for that task. They are intent on responding and being available if there is a breakdown in public order surrounding a football match.
Miss Hoey: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
Miss Hoey: The Minister has plenty of time to do so.
Mr. Baldry: I know.
In her speech, the hon. Lady's hypothesis was to concentrate on two matches and suggest that those examples proved that every time English spectators went abroad, they would be attacked by European police and nothing would be done to help them. The facts do not support that contention, and it is important that the House understands some of the facts.
Our consular staff know the local system and the language. Honorary consuls are often also involved. Those staff are involved right from the start in preparation and planning before a match. The level of staffing at a particular venue, and their deployment, is carefully worked out beforehand in consultation with local police.
394
Their aim is to be able to react quickly to calls for help from those arrested, injured, or otherwise distressed. They need to know in advance whether ticketless fans are to be detained away from the match.
One of the problems about a number of those matches is the number of people who turn up at the grounds without tickets. The consular staff need to know in which hospitals injured fans will be treated; where the troublemakers will be held; and how expulsion and deportation will be handled. When large numbers of fans are known to be travelling, not only consular staff are involved. The entire embassy staff and others will be deployed in and around the ground and at other relevant venues.
We wish to play a substantial part in countering football hooliganism, and will continue to do so. We have agreed this evening that it is not a problem for Government alone. The football authorities, clubs and the fans themselves must take a stand against those who cause trouble. Obviously, we try to prevent football hooligans from travelling to matches abroad. As the hon. Gentleman said, courts have the power to impose restriction orders, which means that those convicted of football-related offences can be prevented from attending key matches. That applies to matches in the United Kingdom and abroad. Those subject to restriction orders must report to a police station while the match is taking place.
As the hon. Gentleman said—his figures were slightly wrong—so far, only 26 restriction orders have been made. It is a reasonable inference that, given the small number of restriction orders that have been made, that scheme is not working as well as we would have wished. We are therefore considering ways in which it may be made more effective. The Home Office is reminding the courts and other interested parties of those powers. If we know the troublemakers, it may be sensible to impose restriction orders on them.
Last season was not one of which anyone can be altogether proud. Sadly, there was a resurgence of violence on and off the pitch in the UK. It sometimes seemed likely that that rather unpleasant aspect of football might be an export item. We were acutely aware that there were six English teams involved in the three major European competitions this season.
In the European Champions cup, Manchester United played in three matches. The game against Galatasaray in Istanbul in September last year had the potential to be the most difficult. The House will recall that it followed a previous encounter there, when six English fans were detained and some 180 were deported without seeing the game. The lessons of the past had been learned. There was close liaison between the clubs, police, UEFA and consular staff. We sent an official from the Consular Department in the Foreign Office to help, and that game went off perfectly peacefully. Directors of the club and Greater Manchester police were grateful for our contribution to the end result.
The Manchester United-Galatasaray game in Istanbul, which started off the season last September, proves that it is possible for English teams to play in Europe and not get into difficulties. The same applies to the three English clubs represented in the UEFA cup. Fans from Newcastle United, Blackburn Rovers and Aston Villa travelled to Holland, Spain, Sweden, Italy and Turkey and there was no trouble at any of those matches. Indeed, the citizens of Bilbao paid tribute to the behaviour of Newcastle United

395
supporters. So one must also ask why the Spanish police did not have to intervene on that occasion, and one can only conclude that they were not provoked as they were at Zaragoza. That means that the only difficulties resulted from the matches played in the European cup winners cup, and we have gone into those in considerable detail.
Miss Hoey: Is the Minister suggesting that the Arsenal supporters behaved badly at the final in Paris and that no trouble was caused by the Newcastle supporters in some of their matches?
Mr. Baldry: What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that the facts do not support the contention that French police suddenly decided to pick on or attack English supporters and spectators simply because they were English. I have made it clear this evening that it is perfectly possible—indeed, it frequently happens—for English clubs to go and watch matches in Europe with no difficulties whatever.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No; I will not give way again.
I accept without question that the vast majority of the football-watching public are innocent fans showing support for their chosen team. Of course I have sympathy with the resentment that they must feel about being regarded in the same light as thugs who are intent on causing trouble. Of course I deplore the inevitable occasions when any innocent fan is caught up in efforts to control troublemakers. [Interruption.] I say "inevitable" because we have all seen the disturbing and frightening images on our television screens. They give us only a hint of the chaos of a full-scale football riot and, in the face of a violent breakdown in law and order, decisions must he made by individual police officers in the blink of an eye. I know that no innocent supporter deserves to be harshly treated, and of course we all deplore that.
I can only suggest that genuine fans do all that they can to keep well clear of those who attend a match but have no interest in the game. That goes for football clubs, too. Experience shows that the safest way to watch a game overseas is to travel with the supporters club party and heed its advice. It may cost more than travelling independently, but costs are not always about money. Naturally, our consular staff are there, seeking to help anyone who gets into trouble.
I say to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Vauxhall, who repeatedly jump up and down, that if Arsenal or Chelsea feel that they have genuine worries about the way in which the Foreign Office or the Home Office help to contribute to the organising of overseas matches, I shall be delighted to meet them. However, neither Chelsea, Arsenal nor any other football club or
396
football organisation sought to visit Ministers to express anxieties about any aspect of the past season. That is because those clubs, I believe, recognise that the Foreign Office, the Home Office and all the other organisations involved have been, and are, working extremely hard to try to ensure that English spectators, when they go to Europe to watch matches, can have an enjoyable time, watch a match and return safely.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am trying to communicate to the Minister the fact that those people do not come to visit him and they do not complain because it is a waste of time. If I may say so, his speech is clear evidence that it would be a waste of time. He appears to have dismissed all the evidence that I have given tonight as being of no great concern because it relates to only three matches. Next time, I shall produce evidence from all the other matches as well.
It is outrageous that the Minister appears not to be prepared to accept that that evidence is genuine and that he shows no concern about what is going on. Those organisations do not come and see him because, on the evidence, it seems to be a rightful assumption that they will get short shrift from him.
Mr. Baldry: But all the football organisations are co-operating and working with the Foreign Office day in, day out, throughout the year, as are the police forces, as are the relevant organisations. It is a picture of continuing co-operation. They do not mention, and have not mentioned, the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expressed, not because they believe that we are insensitive to them but because they recognise that co-operation takes place to ensure that English spectators may travel overseas and watch matches safely. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that the speeches that he and the hon. Member for Vauxhall made this evening have not fairly reflected either this season or the work that is carried out by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and English clubs.
If any football organisation, football spectators organisation, football supporters organisation or football club feels that there is a scintilla of a shadow of a suggestion of truth in the proposition that both hon. Members advanced this evening—that European police forces are declaring open season on English fans—I very much hope that they will seek out Home Office and Foreign Office Ministers to talk us through that, because I shall be keen to listen to what they have to say. None of them has sought to do so, because they know, as we know, and as the House knows, that that contention simply is not true.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

TREASURY

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of 80 per cent. official bilateral debt write-off for all severely indebted low-income countries; [25375]

  (2) what is the cost to the Exchequer of bilateral debt write-off of 67 per cent. for developing countries under the Naples terms. [25374]

  Mr. Nelson
  The face value of debt reduction as a result of a 67 per cent. write-off of official bilateral debt owed to ECGD and ODA by developing countries which are eligible for Naples terms would be approximately £630 million. The corresponding figure for an 80 per cent. write-off of official bilateral debt owed to ECGD and ODA by severely indebted low-income countries would be approximately £750 million.

  However, these figures represent only the face value written off. Debt reduction under the Naples terms is implemented on the recognition that the beneficiaries would never have been able to pay the debt in full: 67 per cent. debt reduction reflects the ability of those countries to pay and cannot therefore be said to represent a cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries. [25377]

  Mr. Nelson
  The total outstanding debt owed to ECGD and the ODA by developing countries—excluding Russia and eastern Europe—is £6.4 billion.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value to the United Kingdom of debt interest payments from developing countries in 1994–95 from(a) payments to the Overseas Development Administration, (b) payments to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (c) payments to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and (d) in total. [25378]

  Mr. Nelson
  Debt interest payments from developing countries—excluding Russia and eastern Europe—in 1994–95 were(a) ODA £6.8 million, (b) ECGD £150 million, (c) CDC £105.8 million, (d) total £262.6 million.

  Statistics
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price charged at current prices for a complete set of Business Monitors in 1979, and Prodcom statistics in 1995, to (a) a private company and (b) a public library; and what calculations have led to the difference. [26363]

  Mr. Nelson
  The price in 1979 for a full set of Business Monitors, adjusted to today's prices, was £1,430 to a private company. The price charged in 1995 for a full set of "UK Markets", a considerably expanded and more
  262
  comprehensive set of reports which include trade data as well as Prodcom, is £4,950 to a private company. Sales of Business Monitors to public libraries in 1979 would have attracted a discount of 50 per cent. In 1995 a complete set of "UK Markets" is available to public libraries in hard copy at £4,950, but is also available on CD-ROM in a special library edition at £3,950.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Taylor Nelson AGB plc has a monopoly on the publication of statistics; what plans he has to allow a private statistics company to produce the complete Prodcom statistics on microfiche and sell those complete tables in that medium to libraries, and if he will make a statement. [26365]

  Mr. Nelson
  Taylor Nelson AGB does not have a monopoly on the publication of Government or Central Statistical Office statistics. HMSO remains the major publisher of CSO data. There are currently no plans for a private sector company to release Prodcom on microfiche. It is already available in hard copy, CD-ROM and I-Fax, and plans are in hand to include it on the CSO's electronic databank. If any proposals are received they will be considered on their merits.

  City Institutions (Assets)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of assets controlled by City institutions indicating the proportion which are British-owned and controlled. [27078]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on holdings of financial assets by UK financial institutions are shown in tables 9.1E to 9.1H of Financial Statistics, which is available from the Library of the House.

  Investment in Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his written answer to the (then) hon. Member for Dagenham, Mr. Gould, of 28 July 1983,Official Report, columns 568–9, showing the level of investment in British industry. [27128]

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates at 1990 prices of capital expenditure by the industries covered by the index of industrial production1 and by manufacturing for the years 1965 to 1994 are shown in the following table.

  £ million at 1990 prices

  Year

  IOIP industries

  (Of which) manufacturing

  1965

  18,404

  10,466

  1966

  19,628

  10,796

  1967

  20,017

  10,583

  1968

  19,290

  11,370

  1969

  19,016

  12,107

  1970

  19,481

  13,022

  1971

  18,138

  12,190

  1772

  15,963

  10,591

  1973

  16,511

  10,998

  1974

  18,882

  12,153

  1975

  20,326

  11,214

  1976

  21,216

  10,641

  1977

  20,801

  11,074

  1978

  22,353

  12,838

  1979

  22,298

  13,558

  1980

  21,058

  12,307

  1981

  18,984

  9,985

  1982

  18,772

  9,518

  1983

  18,661

  9,413

  263

  £ million at 1990 prices

  Year

  IOIP industries

  (Of which) manufacturing

  1984

  19,825

  10,975

  1985

  21,136

  12,710

  1986

  20,014

  12,097

  1987

  19,843

  12,641

  1988

  21,383

  13,846

  1989

  23,330

  14,984

  1990

  23,669

  14,227

  1991

  24,516

  12,803

  1992

  24,516

  11,590

  1993

  24,543

  10,989

  1994

  21,266

  11,239

  1 Industry groups section C, D and E of the standard industrial classification 1992.

  UK Companies (Overseas Earnings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 908, providing information on the overseas earnings of United Kingdom companies, if he will list the corresponding net return on capital invested in each of the years in question. [27072]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information available is given in table:

  Direct investment by United Kingdom companies overseas: Rate of return on direct investment1

  Percentage

  Manufacturing Industry2

  All Industries

  1989

  14.2

  13.0

  1990

  13.9

  12.8

  1991

  13.4

  10.0

  1992

  10.9

  9.2

  1993

  10.7

  9.9

  1 Net earnings after depreciation and tax as a percentage of the outstanding level of investment in book values at the end of the relevant year. Excludes interest receipts from overseas affiliates.

  2 Classified by main industrial activity of overseas affiliate.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official

  Percentage of gross national product1

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Whole economy Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  All assets

  18.6

  18.7

  18.3

  19.5

  20.5

  19.7

  19.3

  18.5

  18.3

  18.5

  Plant and machinery

  7.0

  6.8

  6.2

  6.5

  6.7

  6.3

  6.6

  6.6

  6.8

  6.8

  Net domestic fixed capital formation

  All assets

  9.8

  9.5

  8.9

  9.8

  9.9

  8.8

  8.3

  7.2

  6.9

  7.1

  Manufacturing industries2

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  3.9

  3.6

  3.0

  3.0

  3.5

  3.2

  3.0

  3.2

  3.5

  3.5

  Net domestic fixed capital formation

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Industrial and commercial companies

  Undistributed profits

  8.8

  9.3

  10.4

  12.5

  11.9

  10.0

  11.6

  12.3

  12.3

  13.1

  1 Gross national product (GNP) at market prices has been used as the denominator for investment percentages and GNP at factor cost for the calculation related to undistributed profits.

  2 Manufacturing is defined as all industries which contribute to Section D of the Standard Industrial Classification 1992.

  264
  Report, column 908, relating to the overseas earnings of UK companies, if he will publish the corresponding figures for 1979 and 1970. [26929]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information available is given in the table. Prior to 1984 the earnings from direct investment overseas by oil companies are not available, hence figures for all industries cannot be given.

  Direct investment by UK companies overseas: net earnings 1

  £million

  Manufacturing Industry2

  1970

  350

  1979

  1,597

  1 Earnings from branches, subsidiaries and associate companies. Earnings are defined as profits net of losses, plus interest receipts net of claims.

  2 Classified by main industrial activity of overseas affiliate.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 908, on the overseas earnings of UK companies, if he will publish the corresponding figures and rates of return on domestic investment distinguishing between (a) manufacturing and (b) other companies. [26928]

  Mr. Nelson
  No corresponding figures and rates of return are available for domestic investment. However information on rates of return on capital employed are published in the annual CSO First Release [CS0(94)205] "Profitability of UK Companies", last published on 30 September 1994, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 July 1982,Official Report, columns 291–92, if he will update the table showing gross and net investment for the whole economy and for manufacturing industry together with undistributed profits. [27125]

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest estimates of gross and net investment for the whole economy and for manufacturing industry, together with undistributed profits, are shown in the following table.
  265

  Percentage of gross national product1

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Whole economy

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  All assets

  17.9

  16.1

  16.0

  15.8

  16.7

  16.9

  16.7

  17.6

  19.2

  20.3

  19.5

  17.0

  15.6

  15.0

  14.6

  Plant and Machinery

  6.5

  5.9

  5.8

  5.8

  6.1

  6.6

  6.3

  6.3

  6.6

  7.0

  6.7

  6.0

  5.7

  5.6

  5.6

  Net domestic fixed capital formation

  All assets

  5.9

  3.8

  4.0

  4.1

  5.0

  5.2

  5.1

  6.3

  8.2

  9.4

  8.4

  5.9

  5.0

  4.7

  n/a

  Manufacturing industries2

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  3.2

  2.5

  2.3

  2.2

  2.5

  2.9

  2.6

  2.6

  2.6

  2.7

  2.6

  2.3

  2.0

  1.9

  1.9

  Net domestic fixed capital formation

  n/a

  n/a

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.1

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.5

  0.3

  0.0

  -0.2

  -0.2

  n/a

  Industrial and Commercial Companies

  Undistributed profits

  9.3

  9.1

  9.1

  10.1

  11.1

  11.2

  10.3

  11.7

  11.3

  9.2

  7.8

  7.3

  7.2

  9.6

  11.3

  1 Gross national product (GNP) at market prices has been used as the denominator for investment percentages and GNP at factor cost for the calculation related to undistributed profits.

  2 Manufacturing is defined as all industries which contribute to Section D of the Standard Industrial Classification 1992.

  Public Access Arrangements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many owners of land in Lancashire which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax by virtue of agreed public access arrangements have agreed with the appropriate heritage advisory agencies that access arrangements in(a) should be notified to the local tourist office and town hall, (b) should be publicised by notice or the perimeter of the land itself and (c) are not required to be publicised because public access is already widely known. [26976]

  Sir George Young
  All six owners of land in Lancashire which is currently conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax are required to publicise the arrangements for public access to their land as agreed with the appropriate heritage advisory agency.

  The heritage advisory agencies discuss with each owner the appropriate level and nature of publicity. Each case is considered individually and all relevant factors, including the existing level of publicity, are taken into account. Although the extent of public access may already be widely known—for example, where substantial public access is already giventhe owner will normally be required to ensure due publicity for the agreed access arrangements, where appropriate, by advertising the access arrangements in a local tourist office or town hall. For new designations of scenic land in England, owners are required to display at all points of entry on to their land map boards showing the agreed public access.

  I am unable to provide more specific information as this would help to identify individual cases of tax exemption, thus compromising the normal rules on taxpayer confidentiality.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to establish a voluntary share protection scheme for credit unions; what consultation or discussion with credit unions and their promoting bodies has taken place on the need to provide this additional protection for members; and if he will make a statement. [26915]

  Mr. Nelson
  Section 16 of the Credit Unions Act 1979 gives unions the power to set up or join a share protection scheme, to protect members in the event of the collapse of their union. Any such scheme must be approved by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, but he has no statutory power to require that one be set up.
  266
  With the growth of the movement in recent years, there should now be sufficient resources within the sector to support a scheme. The Registry of Friendly Societies has strongly encouraged the establishment of one covering all credit unions. The registry is currently in discussions with credit unions' promoting bodies and is offering them its help and advice.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the nationalised industries that have been privatised since 1979; and if he will calculate the total revenue the Government has received from the sale of, and in taxation from, each of the privatised companies since their privatisation. [27263]

  Sir George Young
  For a list of privatisations and the gross equity proceeds from each, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 758. Details of the tax affairs of each company cannot be made public without the prior approval of that company. However, in total, privatised companies paid about £50 million per week in tax in 1994–95.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the limit below which delivery of an inheritance tax account is not required for administering a deceased person's estate. [27983]

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue has today laid regulations increasing the limit from £125,000 to £145,000. The increased limit will come into operation on 1 July 1995 for estates of persons dying on or after 6 April 1995. It will simplify the administration of some 7,500 estates.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—what are his latest estimates for(a) the south-east and (b) Greater London for (i) the number of income taxpayers, (ii) the number of income taxpayers with gross earnings above £70,000, (iii) the number of income taxpayers with gross earnings above £80,000 and (iv) the number of income taxpayers with gross earnings above £100,000. [25951]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The table provides estimates for 1992–93, the latest

  267
  available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  Thousands

  South East

  Greater London

  Number of income taxpayers

  8,440

  3,190

  Number with gross earnings over £70,000

  90

  47

  Number with gross earnings over £80,000

  70

  39

  Number with gross earnings over £100,000

  46

  27

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal Loans
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table of loans made by British Coal for each year between 1985 and 1993. [26994]

  Mr. Page
  British Coal makes loans to its employees and to members of the corporation, and to its wholly owned subsidiary undertakings—the latter with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of the Treasury. The aggregate outstanding balances on these loans are published in the corporation's report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Newspaper Carriage Charges
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many newsagents have referred to arbitration carriage charges levied by news wholesalers; what was the outcome in each case; and if he will make a statement. [27032]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  An appeals system to consider disputes between retailers and newspaper wholesalers concerning serious breaches of terms and conditions of supply has been established voluntarily by the industry. Information about cases handled may be obtained from the Association of Newspaper and Magazine Wholesalers.

  Export Unit 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 relative to those of the Six, if he will publish the corresponding figures (a) the non-EEC countries and (b) the other EEC countries. [26559]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested relating to non-EEC countries is given in the table. Unit value indices for manufactured goods are only readily available 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.
  268

  Percentage change on previous quarter in UK export unit values relative to those of the non-EEC countries1

  Change on previous quarter

  1987q1

  5.5

  1987q2

  3.5

  1987q3

  -0.7

  1987q4

  5.6

  1988q1

  1.6

  1988q2

  0.0

  1988q3

  -4.0

  1988q4

  2.6

  1989q1

  -3.5

  1989q2

  -4.4

  1989q3

  0.2

  1989q4

  -0.6

  1990q1

  2.2

  1990q2

  2.2

  1990q3

  5.9

  1990q4

  1.2

  199 lql

  -0.2

  1991q2

  -7.0

  1991q3

  0.9

  1991q4

  3.2

  1992q1

  0.0

  1992q2

  1.5

  1992q3

  2.1

  1992q4

  -12.2

  1993q1

  2.3

  1993q2

  2.7

  1993q3

  1.5

  1993q4

  1.0

  1994q1

  -2.9

  1994q2

  0.4

  1994q3

  n/a

  1994q4

  n/a

  1 US, Japan, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland. 1. Unit value indices in US․ for EEC(6) are weighted together using total trade weights.

  2 n/a—not available.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27279]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In addition to their statutory entitlements, permanent employees within DTI and its agencies with over year's service are entitled to enhanced levels of maternity leave up to a total of 52 weeks. They are also entitled to a period of 14 weeks' maternity leave at full pay, which includes statutory maternity pay, subject to returning to work for a month after maternity leave. Other entitlements for women include time off to attend ante natal appointments and the right to apply for a career break of up to five years to care for her child/children.

  Fathers employed by DTI and its agencies are entitled to take two days paid paternity leave at the time of the birth or during the weeks following the birth of the child.

  The Department's maternity and paternity entitlements and those of its agencies are based on the civil service management code.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what rate funding for renewables will continue under the non-fossil fuel obligation when the nuclear industry is privatised. [27132]

  Mr. Eggar
  Renewables will continue to be funded through the fossil fuel levy. The amount of this support will reflect the excess cost above the pool price to the
  269
  regional electricity companies of renewables-sourced electricity generated within the non-fossil fuel obligation. This support is likely to build up over the next few years to a maximum of about £150 million annually.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much the proposed new privatised nuclear power company will be required to set aside annually to meet the eventual costs of decommissioning the pressurised water reactor and advanced gas cooled reactor power stations; [25288]

  (2) how much the proposed privatised nuclear power company will be required to set aside for the long term storage of the nuclear waste produced by its reactors. [25289]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The Government will ask all nuclear operators to draw up strategies for decommissioning their redundant plant. The Government have made it clear that the privatised nuclear generators will have to meet their obligations in respect of all their long-term nuclear liabilities, including those for decommissioning, in full and that they should make sufficient financial provision to do so. The Government believe that segregated funds are the best way of ensuring public confidence that the nuclear generators will meet their obligations and will consider carefully the detailed

  Income support recipients—Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district

  Quarter ending 31 May

  Quarter ending 31 August

  Quarter ending 30 November

  Quarter ending 28 February

  Annual average

  1992–93

  22,654

  23,760

  23,336

  25,162

  23,728

  1993–94

  24,988

  25,540

  24,421

  24,744

  24,923

  1994–95

  24,949

  25,633

  24,560

  25,153

  25,074

  Data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Frozen Pensions
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 273, which country initiated negotiations for the agreements of 1975 and 1979 with (a) Spain and (b) Portugal; what reasons were given for the initial approach; and what estimates he has of the current number of Spanish and Portuguese retired citizens in the United Kingdom whose pensions are paid by their Governments. [26373]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At the request of Her Majesty's Government, a Spanish delegation met UK officials in February 1956 with a view to negotiating a social security agreement between the two countries to protect the benefit rights of migrant workers moving from one country to the other and to ensure that they pay into only one country's social security scheme. Negotiations ceased in 1960 and subsequently resumed again in 1971. The agreement with the Spanish Government was signed on 13 September 1974. On 1 December 1976 the Portuguese Government requested the negotiation of a social security agreement along the lines of that between the UK and Spain. The number of retired Spanish and Portuguese citizens in the UK whose pensions are paid by their Governments is not known.
  270
  implications of this approach. The privatised generators will need to satisfy their auditors that sufficient cash is placed in these funds for each year. The precise level of the liabilities to be met will be a matter for the companies and their auditors in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons were in receipt of income support in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale districts for each year since 1992. [26570]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 7 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of persons in receipt of Income Support in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale districts for each year since 1992.
  I have provided, at Annex A, the quarterly figures and the annual average figures since 1992 in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27280]

  Mr. Hague
  Subject to the conditions set out in the civil service management code, permanent staff and staff on fixed-term appointments of two years or more are entitled to three calendar months and one week paid maternity leave if monthly paid, or 14 weeks if weekly paid. This will include entitlement to statutory maternity pay.

  Paid maternity leave may be followed by an optional period of unpaid leave which, together with the paid leave, cannot exceed 52 weeks in total.

  Casual staff and staff on fixed term appointments of less than two years are entitled to 14 weeks' unpaid maternity leave plus an optional period of four weeks unpaid special leave.

  Where an officer is not entitled to paid maternity leave she may nevertheless qualify for statutory maternity pay.

  All staff are allowed paid time off for ante-natal care.

  Fathers are allowed two days' paid paternity leave at the time of the birth or at a later date if this is more helpful. This can be increased to a maximum of 10 days when there are medical complications or acute domestic difficulties in caring for other children in the household.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months when answers to hon. Members given at Prime Minister's Question Time were subsequently corrected or otherwise qualified. [26970]

  The Prime Minister
  I have answered in excess of 750 questions during Prime Minister's Question Time over the last 12 months. My records show that I have subsequently clarified three answers by means of written questions.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27284]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In addition to the statutory maternity leave and statutory maternity pay entitlements, women with one year's service at the start of their maternity leave who state their intention to return to work after their babies are born are entitled to 14 weeks' maternity leave on full pay and a period of unpaid maternity leave thereafter, up to a total maximum absence of 52 weeks. They return to work on no less favourable terms than these enjoyed prior to their maternity leave.

  Women with 40 weeks' service by the expected date of birth, who qualify for statutory maternity leave—of 14 weeks—and statutory maternity pay, are given the option to extend their period of absence by four weeks, to enable them to benefit from the full entitlement to 18 weeks' statutory maternity pay. They, too, return to work on no less favourable terms than those held prior to their maternity leave.

  Fathers are entitled to two days' paternity leave and there are provisions for staff to apply for additional paid and unpaid special leave for compassionate or domestic reasons. Staff with dependant care responsibilities may apply for a career break of 12 months, renewable on an annual basis to a total of five years if required, because of genuine family reasons or difficulties.

  The above arrangements currently apply throughout the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office.

  Victims' Relatives
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how he communicates to the families of victims their right to be seated in the well of the court rather than in the public gallery. [27276]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 8 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the right of families of victims to be seated in the well of the court.
  272
  I should first explain that the Prosecution is responsible for contacting victims of crime and their families. There is no "right" for anyone other than those actively taking part in the hearing to be seated in the well of the court. However, if the judge considers it appropriate, a relative of a victim may be allowed to sit in the well of the court. In addition, court staff may be able to make arrangements to seat the relatives of victims away from the other side in the case.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney General what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27285]

  The Attorney-General
  Entitlements are available in accordance with the civil service management code. They provide for:Reasonable paid time off for ante-natal care.
  A maximum of 52 weeks paid and unpaid maternity leave for permanent staff1 with one year's service who state an intention to return to work. Of this, three months and one week2 will be paid leave.
  Staff may also apply for an unpaid career break of up to 5 years. Other staff, regardless of employment status, are entitled to 14 weeks' unpaid maternity leave and to return to work.
  Staff3 are entitled to two days' paid paternity leave.

  1 Excluding casual staff and those on fixed-term appointments of less than two years.

  2 14 weeks if paid weekly.

  3 Other than those on temporary appointments of less than two years in the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for further measures to require Scottish Homes to be more accountable to its tenants; and if he will make a statement. [24064]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for further measures to require Scottish Homes to be more accountable to its tenants.

  Within its objective of contributing to improved quality in housing and its management, Scottish Homes has finalised its tenant participation policy, which was developed with the assistance of tenants. The policy encourages increasing involvement of tenants in the management of their own homes. Scottish Homes has also issued a revised tenants handbook and is establishing a panel with tenant representation to review the effectiveness of communication with tenants.

  Crofting
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual administrative running costs of the Crofters Commission, including its share of the cost of administering the crofting agriculture scheme, the township development scheme, the various livestock schemes and the building grants and loan scheme. [26344]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Crofters Commission's approved running costs budget for 1995–96, including the
  273
  cost of administering the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme and the township development scheme, is £1.444 million. The commission has no involvement in the administration of the crofters building grants and loans scheme or the livestock improvement schemes for crofters.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual administrative cost of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of (i) the crofting agricultural loan scheme, (ii) the crofting township development scheme, (iii) the crofting building grant and loan scheme (iv) the livestock improvement scheme. [26343]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The estimated cost to the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department in 1994–95 of administering crofting schemes is set out in the table.

  Scheme

  Administrative cost £000

  Crofting counties agricultural grants scheme

  680

  Crofting township development scheme

  2

  Crofters building grants and loans scheme

  870

  Livestock improvement schemes

  330

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of applications under the crofting agricultural grants scheme for projects not requiring prior approval and the number of applications for comparable projects in each year since 1991–92. [26382]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of applicants claiming grant

  1991–92

  2,731

  1992–93

  2,688

  1993–941

  2,537

  1994–952

  2,334

  1 Applications for assistance towards cost of improving virgin hill land not accepted after 1 April 1993.

  2 Minimum level of claims increased from £100 to £500 with effect from 15 April 1994.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the proposed boundary changes for local enterprise companies with particular reference to Dumbartonshire Enterprise. [26858]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As the hon. Member knows from my letter of 31 May, my right hon. Friend announced his decision on local enterprise company boundaries on 31 May. A copy of his statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Primary School Closures
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used to decide whether to close a small primary school. [26856]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such decisions will depend on the merits of individual proposals.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) cases of heart disease and (b) deaths due to heart disease were recorded for each year since 1990. [27214]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of recorded deaths in Scotland from heart disease in the years in question were as follows:

  1990: 19,798

  1991: 19,598

  1992: 19,336

  1993: 19,922

  1994: 17,922

  Information on heart disease morbidity is not available. Data are however, held on hospital admissions. The information for the period requested is set out for both admissions and cases since an individual patient can be admitted more than once during the year.

  Year

  Hospital admissions

  Cases

  1990

  68,024

  42,120

  1991

  73,791

  44,156

  1992

  78,718

  46,031

  1993

  82,228

  48,039

  1994

  183,781

  n/a

  1 Provisional.

  n/a=not available.

  Offshore Oil Installations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the consequences for fishing of the disposal by Shell of the Brent Spar in the North sea. [25822]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The site selected for the disposal operation is in the north-east Atlantic in an area where the water is over 2,300 m deep. This is well beyond the current limit of deep-water trawling activity and hence disposal at this location will not present a hazard to fishing.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for environmental education. [28002]

  Mr. Lang
  The working group on environmental education chaired by Professor John Smyth reported to me in April 1993, making more than 90 recommendations for action by a wide range of organisations in Scotland. The report set out a strategy for taking forward environmental education in Scotland over the next 10 years. Public consultation following the report overwhelmingly endorsed the proposals made.

  One of the central recommendations was that there should be a national advisory panel. I am pleased that the advisory group on sustainable development has accepted my invitation to provide that central point around which environmental education can develop in Scotland, offering advice and targets for others to take up. This is an important initiative enabling environmental education to provide a significant tool with which to achieve our primary objectives for sustainable development.

  I am today publishing "A Scottish Strategy for Environmental Education" which commends "Learning for Life" to all seeking a guide as to my policy on

  275
  environmental education. I intend to adopt it as the foundation on which developments in my policy will be based, recognising that some of the recommendations within it may not be feasible or necessarily appropriate to implement immediately. I shall expect all organisations for which I have responsibility to have regard to its advice on environmental education. I will place copies of the publication in the House Library.

  Charity Funds
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to lay regulations before Parliament in respect of section 12 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. [27254]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Regulations in respect of section 12 are in the course of preparation and will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent by the Scottish Office in regional selective assistance for each financial year since 1979–80. [25347]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 May 1995]: The available information relates to payments to companies with projects in Scotland. For earlier years, this is published in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library. Expenditure in 1994–95 amounted to £77.1 million.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27293]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for the Office of Public Service and Science, its agencies, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information. Each of these departments follows the relevant chapters of the civil service management code in respect of maternity and paternity entitlements. Copies of the code are available in the House Library. Maternity arrangements are provided in conjunction with the statutory entitlements available.

TRANSPORT

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27278]

  Mr. Norris
  The main maternity benefits provided by the Department depend on the individual's length of service. Women are allowed 18 to 52 weeks' maternity leave. The first 18 weeks are paid at normal or statutory maternity pay rates as appropriate.

  All have the right to return to work at the end of their maternity leave. In addition, while at work, they are
  276
  allowed paid time off to attend any necessary medical appointments.

  Men are currently allowed two days' paid paternity leave.

  In all, the arrangements are in line with legislation and Treasury guidance.

  Vehicle Testing, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many officers responsible for enforcing heavy goods vehicle legislation are employed in Hampshire; [27143]

  (2) how many heavy goods vehicles were inspected in roadside checks in Hampshire in each year since 1979; [27144]

  (3) how many inspections of MOT testing stations were conducted in Hampshire; and how many testing stations were operating in each year since 1979; [27145]

  (4) how many inspections of public service vehicles were conducted in Hampshire; and how many public service vehicles were operating in Hampshire in each year since 1979. [27146]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Rail Closures
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lines intended for closure British Rail is currently running with only a limited service of a few trains a day which otherwise would be subject to the formal closure process; and if he will list the lines involved. [27190]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail is currently operating the following limited services for which statutory closure procedures are likely to begin in the near future: Derby to Sinfin and Watford junction to Croxley Green. The Croxley Green branch is subject to a major development proposal linking it to the LT Metropolitan line Watford branch to provide through Metropolitan services to Watford junction.

  Public Weighbridges
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average capital and net revenue cost to his Department of providing a public weighbridge. [27147]

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of providing a public weighbridge is £60,000 with running costs of £5,000 per annum.

  Port Waste Facilities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve port waste reception facilities. [26116]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is currently consulting interested bodies on a number of measures to improve port waste reception facilities, including financial mechanisms to encourage use, improved communications between the users and providers of facilities and measures to aid the enforcement of vessels which do not make appropriate use of waste reception facilities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships annually used United Kingdom port
  277
  facilities; and how much each port charges for the use of its facilities. [26113]

  Mr. Norris
  A total of 144,919 ships arrived at UK ports in 1993. Information on their use of port waste reception facilities is not available; nor is information on the charges levied by individual ports for the use of such facilities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of research conducted on the issues raised by the Donaldson report referred to in the press notice No. 055 of 28 February on port waste reception facilities. [26115]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's research has shown that while port waste reception facilities are generally adequate to meet the UK's international commitments, there is scope for improvement in the planning and organisation of facilities. This research has formed the basis of a consultation exercise with interested parties to consider how waste reception facilities could be improved, in the light of the recommendations of the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry.

  Marine Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the amount of illegal discharges made by ships into the North sea for the last 10 years(a) including and (b) excluding accidental discharges. [26112]

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

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proposals the United Kingdom Government will put forward or support at the forthcoming North sea ministerial conference in relation to controlling non-accidental pollution from ships with particular reference to oil. [26114]

  Mr. Norris
  In addition to a number of proposals on marine pollution generally, the Government will put forward and support specific proposals on the designation of the North sea as a special area for oil discharges under annex I of the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships 1973–78 and on the improvement of the availability and quality of port waste reception facilities for oily wastes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department intends to police the limits of discharge by ships set by the amendments to annexe 1 of MARPOL 73/78 in 1992. [26117]

  Mr. Norris
  Port state control inspectors assess discharges of oil by studying oil record books and quantities of oil on board vessels. Inspectors also inspect oil pollution prevention equipment and the ability of ships' staff to use it correctly, when carrying out port state control inspections of foreign vessels and general inspections of UK vessels.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Library Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to issue his response to the KPMG/capital planning report on library services; and if the report itself will be published. [26734]
  278
  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford on Avon (Mr. Howarth) on 16 May 1995,Official Report, columns 150–51, referring to the KPMG contracting out study. No decision has yet been made about the handling of the study, but we expect to make a further statement in due course.

  Cable Television, Thurrock
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when cable television franchises will be able to offer a service to areas in Thurrock; and if he will make a statement. [27342]

  Mr. Dorrell
  United Artists Communications holds the Thames estuary north cable television franchise, which includes the Thurrock area. Construction is in progress, but is a time-consuming process. I understand that the franchise holder has not yet announced a target date for providing a service in Thurrock.

  Royal Palaces (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was raised from admission charges to Windsor castle and Buckingham palace in 1994. [26971]

  Mr. Sproat
  The royal collection is responsible for visitor admissions and the related income and expenditure for Buckingham palace and Windsor castle. The royal collection is a department of the royal household and is not a responsibility of my Department.

  However, I understand that gross income, excluding VAT, from admission charges in the year to 31 March 1995 for Windsor castle, including precincts, state apartments and St. George's chapel, was £5,309,000 and for Buckingham palace state apartments was £2,662,000, in both cases subject to audit. Audited figures and further explanation will be provided in the annual report of the royal collection trust which will be available in early July.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what maternity and paternity entitlements are available for employees within his Department. [27283]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The maternity and paternity entitlements available to employees of my Department are consistent with the provisions of the civil service management code, copies of which are held in the House Library. A woman who satisfies the criteria set out in chapter 5 of the code is entitled to three months and one week's paid maternity leave. She is also entitled to a period of unpaid maternity leave; the total of paid and unpaid maternity leave should not normally exceed 52 weeks. All permanent male staff in the Department are entitled to two days' paid paternity leave, as outlined in chapter 3.1 of the code. These maternity and paternity provisions will be incorporated into the departmental staff handbook in due course.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what agreement has been reached with the Churchill family on the circumstances in which they can raise their fees for the reproduction of the documents purchased by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. [27339]
  279
  Mr. Dorrell
  No agreement has been reached with the Churchill Archive Settlement Trust on reproduction fees since these are always a matter for the individual copyright owner.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish, for each of the countries of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole, his estimate of(a) total receipts of the national lottery and (b) proceeds of the Treasury tax on the national lottery receipts. [25679]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The total receipts of the national lottery to date stand at £2099.2 million. The proceeds of Treasury tax on the national lottery receipts to date stand at £201 million. These figures are available only for the United Kingdom as a whole.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police (Overtime)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the effect of overtime restrictions on the operation of specialist squads of the Metropolitan police, with particular reference to the drug squad and flying squad. [27189]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that no special overtime restrictions have been applied to these specialist squads. However, they are, of course, required to operate within their agreed overall budget for the financial year. Action against drug-related violence, street and commercial crime and burglary are all specific objectives for the Metropolitan police and will continue to receive priority for resources within the overall budget for the force.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27286]

  Mr. Howard
  Chapters 3.1 and 5 of the leave section of the civil service management code—a copy of which is in the Library—set out the paternity and maternity arrangements and entitlements available to staff in the Home Office. These arrangements are provided in conjunction with the statutory entitlements.

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from HMP Holloway and HMP Styal were granted home leave in each complete month of 1995. [26891]

  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 8 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners from Holloway and Styal
  280
  prisons were granted home leave in each complete month of this year.
  Home leave, as such, has not occurred since 24 April when the systems of temporary absence were revised and figures for this period are not yet available. The available information is on the table below:

  Prisoners granted home leave from Holloway and Styal, January to April 1995

  Holloway

  Styal

  January

  4

  7

  February

  2

  3

  March

  0

  4

  April

  1

  0

  Radio Phone-in Programmes
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy towards convicted prisoners participating in radio phone-in programmes; [22770]

  (2) if he will undertake an inquiry into the participation of Mr. Jeremy B amber in a radio phone-in programme on Talk Radio UK; and if he will make a statement. [22769]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I do not think it appropriate for prisoners to participate in radio phone-in programmes. I share my hon. Friend's concern that Jeremy Bamber was allowed to do so. I have asked the Director General of the Prison Service to take immediate steps to change the appropriate standing order and governors will be advised that any breach by prisoners will be contrary to these regulations and will lead to disciplinary action.

  I am very concerned about the inappropriate use of telephones by inmates and have asked the Prison Service to take action. New technology which will allow prisoners to access only approved telephone numbers is about to be tested and, if effective, will be introduced throughout the prison system.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews were conducted in each year from 1988–89 to 1994–95 for Great Britain and in each standard region; and as a result of these how many claimants(a) were placed directly in a job, (b) claimed other benefits, (c) entered his Department's programmes or (d) signed off from claiming benefit. [26616]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 6 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question regarding Restart Interviews from 1988–89 to 1994–95.
  I have set out the information you have requested in the attached tables. You will wish to note however, that information on people who sign off from claiming benefit for reasons other than those in the three listed categories of total Restart Interviews, job placings and programme starts, has been collected only since 1990/91 and

  281
  covers only those cases where a direct connection between the interview and the client leaving unemployment can be demonstrated.
  It may be helpful if I explain the scope and purpose of the Restart Interviews which are offered at regular six monthly intervals as part of an advisory and information service aimed at helping people back into work. These interviews provide clients with the opportunity to discuss with a Client Adviser the steps they are taking to find work, how to access the employment and training opportunities that are available to them and the course of action which, if followed, will offer the best prospects of returning to work.
  While the primary aim of this service is to help people back into work, advisers also have a duty to make sure those claiming benefit understand and comply with the conditions under which they are paid. These conditions require people to be available to start work immediately; not to place such restrictions on the work they are

  1988–89

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  157,562

  211,306

  176,822

  445,594

  101,764

  118,408

  210,344

  349,122

  282,658

  2,053,580

  Job Placings

  408

  938

  1,183

  3,476

  480

  962

  1,198

  1,977

  1,745

  12,367

  Other Benefit Starts

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Programmes Starts1

  23,756

  27,887

  22,093

  50,813

  11,201

  19,877

  27,074

  42,570

  45,110

  270,381

  Other Sign Offs

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Jobclub, Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS), Restart Course, Employment Training (ET), Job Training Scheme, Community Programme, Voluntary Projects Programme.

  2 Statistics not collected.

  1989–90

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  150,571

  170,328

  180,598

  459,332

  98,485

  132,341

  230,541

  330,892

  279,545

  2,032,633

  Job Placings

  436

  839

  1,926

  6,475

  754

  1,688

  2,441

  1,909

  1,971

  18,439

  Other Benefit Starts

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Programmes Starts1

  22,496

  24,206

  19,801

  53,414

  12,063

  19,060

  30,644

  36,195

  43,468

  261,347

  Other Sign Offs

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Jobclub, EAS, Restart Course, ET.

  2 Statistics not collected.

  1990–91

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  142,603

  184,999

  144,714

  448,869

  93,505

  114,717

  167,843

  313,342

  277,786

  1,888,378

  Job Placings

  639

  1,090

  1,151

  9,059

  619

  1,452

  1,285

  1,799

  1,972

  19,066

  Other Benefit Starts

  3,772

  3,288

  3,209

  8,918

  1,722

  2,485

  3,534

  5,505

  5,006

  37,439

  Programmes Starts1

  17,266

  18,185

  14,369

  37,989

  10,519

  12,705

  21,803

  28,145

  31,782

  192,763

  Other Sign Offs (Fraud/Found Work)

  3,258

  4,647

  8,084

  12,373

  5,997

  5,748

  6,258

  10,618

  7,586

  64,569

  1 Jobclub, EAS, Restart Course, ET

  1991–92

  Northern

  Yorks and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  173,776

  226,727

  211,000

  646,400

  147,202

  151,821

  237,165

  404,875

  296,974

  2,495,940

  Job Placings

  794

  1,052

  2,456

  7,720

  1,094

  1,466

  1,599

  2,413

  2,591

  21,185

  Other Benefit Starts

  5,054

  6,483

  6,476

  14,959

  3,690

  5,111

  5,958

  11,400

  10,147

  69,278

  Programmes Starts1

  27,745

  30,714

  26,554

  80,583

  20,297

  20,500

  36,948

  54,571

  45,092

  343,004

  Other Sign Offs (Fraud-Found Work)

  6,651

  5,192

  9,881

  22,110

  11,987

  8,248

  7,845

  10,540

  13,807

  96,261

  1 Jobclub, EAS, Restart Course, ET, Job Review Workshop (JRW), Employment Action (EA), Job Interview Guarantee (JIG).

  1992–93

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  172,212

  209,592

  252,469

  854,311

  200,833

  148,542

  258,437

  441,163

  280,722

  2,818,281

  Job Placings

  2,730

  12,241

  10,005

  37,193

  6,325

  6,646

  11,297

  12,723

  12,583

  111,743

  Other Benefit Starts

  3,402

  5,437

  6,271

  15,338

  4,061

  4,482

  5,476

  10,970

  8,076

  63,513

  282
  willing to do as to leave them with no real prospects of finding a job; and to take those steps, each week, which offer the best prospects of obtaining work.
  As part of this process, advisers ensure that people are claiming the most appropriate benefit. If, during an interview, discussions between the client and the adviser identify that an alternative benefit is more appropriate, then the adviser will ensure a smooth transition to the correct benefit.
  I should emphasise that the figures shown in the tables represent only the immediate result of Restart interviews. Many other people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. Independent researchers who have studied the Restart Interview programme have all concluded that this indirect effect is extremely significant.
  I hope this is helpful.
  283

  1992–93

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Programmes Starts1

  23,913

  31,980

  33,208

  120,924

  31,349

  21,783

  38,529

  56,170

  39,179

  397,035

  Sign Offs as a Direct Result of CA Action

  2,763

  4,457

  4,513

  18,024

  5,824

  2,942

  6,748

  7,006

  4,986

  57,263

  1 Jobclub, EAS, Restart Course, ET, JRW, EA, JIG, Job Search Seminar (JSS)

  1993–94

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  187,640

  269,231

  284,901

  1,090,855

  250,163

  166,216

  332,763

  456,682

  285,690

  3,324,141

  Job Placings

  717

  3,305

  2,640

  9,652

  1,967

  1,620

  5,021

  3,405

  7,557

  35,884

  Other Benefit Starts

  2,502

  6,728

  5,607

  14,923

  4,557

  4,003

  6,282

  9,395

  7,193

  61,190

  Programmes Starts1

  37,339

  60,523

  54,999

  267,664

  63,400

  32,829

  71,488

  83,207

  60,391

  731,840

  Sign Offs as a Direct Result of CA Action

  1,769

  4,650

  5,163

  29,954

  8,159

  2,479

  8,409

  6,473

  4,620

  71,676

  1 All Employment Group Programme starts

  1994–95

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  215,683

  340,134

  343,155

  1,198,258

  271,335

  187,989

  364,259

  504,059

  333,721

  3,758,593

  Job placings

  1,583

  4,976

  6,080

  11,135

  3,121

  2,202

  5,946

  5,201

  9,249

  49,493

  Other Benefit Starts

  3,980

  11,218

  10,210

  22,408

  7,855

  6,172

  10,664

  15,236

  10,174

  97,917

  Programmes Starts1

  49,551

  73,054

  78,590

  310,001

  70,317

  40,284

  85,935

  103,620

  78,480

  901,832

  Sign Offs as a Direct Result of CA Action

  3,631

  7,034

  7,715

  52,271

  8,746

  5,309

  15,793

  12,098

  7,253

  119,850

  1 Jobclub, business start-up, Restart course, training for work, community action, learning for work, JIG, work trials, JSS, jobplan, job review workshop, workwise.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers currently holding investor in people status employ(a) 0 to 25 per cent., (b) 25 to 50 per cent., (c) 51 to 75 per cent. and (d) 76 to 100 per cent. of their staff on a part-time basis (i) for each of his Department's regions and (ii) nationally. [26504]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27290]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service follow the maternity and paternity arrangements and entitlements set out in the civil service management code, a copy of which is available in the Library. Women in those organisations are entitled to three months and one week's paid maternity leave. A woman who qualifies for paid maternity leave is also entitled to unpaid maternity leave, but the total period of paid and unpaid maternity leave must not exceed 52 weeks. These arrangements are provided in conjunction with the statutory entitlements available. There is also a two-day entitlement to paid paternity leave for permanent male staff. The Employment Service also follows the arrangements in the code with the exception that permanent male staff in that organisation are entitled to five days' paid paternity leave.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colonel Armando Avolio Filho
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information he has about Colonel Armando Avolio Filho, military attaché at the Brazilian embassy, and his role with respect to human rights violations; and when he became aware of this information. [27086]

  Mr. David Davis
  We first learned of the allegations against Colonel Avolio Filho from press reports on 24 May. Our ambassador in Brasilia was immediately instructed to seek the comments of the Brazilian Government. They have told us that President Cardoso signed on 1 June an order recalling Colonel Avolio Filho from his post as army attaché at the Brazilian embassy.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the Brazilian embassy concerning Colonel Armando Avolio Filho, military attaché. [27087]

  Mr. David Davis
  Following the allegations against Colonel Avolio Filho reported in the press on 24 May, our ambassador in Brasilia was instructed to seek the comments of the Brazilian Government. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his previous question.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting that took place in London during the week of 22 May between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the issue of Cyprus; and what role the British Government played in these discussions. [27075]
  285
  Mr. David Davis
  Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot representatives met in London from 21 to 23 May for exploratory discussions within the framework of the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a settlement in Cyprus. These discussions were a helpful exchange of views, although they did not yield as much progress as we would have wished. American and British representatives were involved as facilitators.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the international community in respect of the termination of arrests for genocide in Rwanda as a result of prison overcrowding. [27329]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Britain, together with the international community, strongly supports action against those responsible for genocide in Rwanda. At the same time, there is concern about overcrowded prison conditions resulting from delays in bringing cases to trial. Britain, and other donors, have responded with assistance to reconstruct the judicial system in Rwanda and to improve prison conditions.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are financing the international genocide tribunal for Rwanda; what financial contribution each has made; and what steps are being taken to increase the number of contributors. [27328]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda will be financed from member states' assessed contributions to the United Nations. In addition, a trust fund has been established for voluntary contributions. We have seconded three police officers to work for the prosecutor's office and have pledged £200,000 toward these and other costs. Official contributions to the trust fund have also been pledged by the following states:

  New Zealand: $31,860

  Switzerland: $75,757

  Chile: $1,000

  Norway: $50,000

  Ireland: $79,225

  USA: $500,000

  Israel: $7,500

  Egypt: $1,000

  Lebanon: $3,000

  Greece: $20,000

  The Holy See: $3,000

  Sweden: $65,000

  A meeting of the Rwanda operational support group was held in Kigali on 19 May to discuss financing of the tribunal. We understand that the following contributions were pledged at this meeting:

  Belgium: $1,000,000

  USA: $4,600,000 = 10 investigators

  Netherlands: $3,000,000 = 21 investigators

  Germany: 1 investigator

  Norway: $100,000

  Spain: $150,000

  Sweden: $70,000

  Switzerland: $90,000 = 3 personnel

  The UK continues to encourage other member states to contribute.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions in the past 18 months in which each United Nations safe area in Bosnia has been used by(a) Bosnian Government Muslims and (b) Croatian forces for training troops and mounting attacks on Bosnian Serbian, Bosnian non-Government Muslim and Croatian Serbian positions. [272216]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In accordance with UN Security Council resolutions Nos. 819, 824 and 836, Bosnian Government forces are permitted to remain in all the safe areas in Bosnia; there are no safe areas in which Croatian forces are present. We support the efforts of the UN to secure the demilitarisation of the safe areas and call on both sides to co-operate with the UN commanders on the ground in their efforts to achieve this.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1 May an ultimatum was given to(a) the Bosnian Government Muslims and (b) the Bosnian Serbs to return heavy weapons taken from United Nations control; how many weapons were taken by each of the two sides; and if all the weapons taken by the Bosnian Muslims were returned to United Nations control before the deadlines expired. [27339]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 24 May General Smith issued an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs to return four weapons they had removed from Osijek and Poljine weapons collections points. This did not apply to the Bosnian Government, who had not taken weapons from UN control. At the same time General Smith demanded that both sides remove their heavy weapons from the 20 km exclusion zone around Sarajevo. Neither side has complied with either ultimatum.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ground attacks have been launched by the Bosnian Government Muslims against the Bosnian Serbs since Sarajevo was declared a United Nations safe area. [272209]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no reliable statistics available regarding such attacks. We urge both sides to refrain from fighting and to co-operate with the UN in its efforts to renew the cessation of hostilities agreement which expired on 30 April.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on which side instigated the recent outbreak of hostilities in Sarajevo which led to United Nations military intervention. [27207]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The failure of both parties to renew the cessation of hostilities agreement on 30 April led to increased tension in Bosnia and an upsurge in fighting. Both sides used heavy weapons in and around Sarajevo. Following General Smith's ultimatum of 24 May, the Serbs continued shelling safe areas and refused to return the heavy weapons they had removed from UN collection points.

  Slovenia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the numbers of Russian Orthodox Croatian Serbs killed by Catholic Croatian troops in western Slovenia. [27208]
  287
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no reliable independent figures available on the numbers of Croatian Serbs killed in this Croatian army action which is still under investigation by the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Croatian Government have stated that around 188 people died during the military operation.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27288]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The maternity and paternity entitlements available to FCO staff, as laid down in the FCO code of management, mirror those set out in leave chapters 3.1 and 5 of the civil service management code.

  Female officers are provided with three months and one week's paid maternity leave for the period of continuous absence before and after confinement. They are also entitled to unpaid maternity leave, the amount of which is subject to the following restrictions:

  a) the total of paid and unpaid maternity leave must not exceed 52 weeks;

  b) unpaid maternity leave cannot be terminated earlier than 41 weeks from the actual date of confinement, except:

  (i) where rule a) prevents this;

  (ii) with the officer's consent.

  Male officers, other than those on a temporary appointment of less than two years, are entitled to two days' paid paternity leave.

  World Conference on Women
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what briefing notes his Department has produced or intends to produce for those attending the United Nations world conference on women in Beijing; and if he will place copies in the Library. [27236]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A background brief is being prepared and will be deposited in the Library.

  Father Joseph Jin Dechen
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the case of Father Joseph Jin Dechen, vicar-general of the Nanyang diocese and the reasons for his arrest, imprisonment and current confinement; and what representations have been made by his Department on Father Dechen's behalf. [27235]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Father Joseph Jin Dechen was arrested in 1981 after protesting about forced abortions, and was jailed in 1982. Father Dechen's case was raised by the Prime Minister with the Chinese authorities in 1991, and Father Dechen was released in 1992. We understand that Father Dechen is at present confined to his home village.

  Messina Conference
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting held in Messina, Sicily on 2 and 3 June.

  Mr. David Davis
  The meeting was held to mark the 40th anniversary of the Messina conference which paved the way for the foundation of the EEC. The Italian Foreign Minster hosted a working lunch which was attended by Foreign Ministers of all 15 member states,288
  the President of the European Commission and the president of the European Parliament.

  The first meeting of the study group, which will prepare for the 1996 inter-governmental conference, took place on 3 June in Taormina, near Messina. The group consists of the personal representatives of the Foreign Ministers of the EU. I am the representative. During this short initial meeting the group considered its timetable and agreed the following schedule of meetings:

  13–14 June (venue: Luxembourg)

  30 June and 1 July (Spain)

  10–11 July (Strasbourg)

  24–25 July (Brussels)

  4–5 September (Brussels)

  11–12 September (Brussels)

  25–26 September (Brussels)

  3–4 October (Luxembourg)

  16–17 October (Brussels)

  23–24 October (Brussels)

  6–7 November (Brussels)

  13–14 November (Brussels)

  21–22 November (Brussels)

  5–6 December (Brussels)

  The group also considered the scope of its work on the basis of a paper circulated by its chairman, Carlos Westendorp, Spanish Minister for Europe. It was agreed that until the end of July the group should take a first look at the EU's institutions; citizenship; justice and home affairs issues; the common foreign and security policy and defence; and the procedural issues such as legislative instruments and budgetary procedures.

  The chairman stressed that the study group's task was not to negotiate. Its purpose was to present a range of options to Heads of Government to assist them in determining the scope of the inter-governmental conference.

  Members of the group agreed that the IGC next year would be designed to develop the EU, especially to prepare the way for further enlargement. The study group would consider the challenges facing the EU, which included the need to make it more relevant and comprehensible.

  In making my initial address to the study group, I stressed that the Union faced major challenges in the coming years. The challenges included enlargement to the countries of central and eastern Europe, improving European competitiveness, making Europe relevant and acceptable to its people and developing a more effective common foreign and security policy.

  I emphasised that none of these goals required greater centralisation. On the contrary, there should be a greater role for national parliaments and a reinforcement of subsidiarity and deregulation. I said that the UK would oppose extension of qualified majority voting. Seeking to out-vote states when their vital national interests were at stake would be likely to create more problems that it solved and could build up resentment.

  I pointed out that there was no need for a massive overhaul of the basic Maastricht structure, which provided the necessary framework for further enlargement. A major overhaul would bewilder and alienate the European public.

  Finally, I emphasised the importance of carrying the people of Europe along in any decisions reached later in the inter-governmental conference. The European Union

  289
  should be built for the benefit of Europe's citizens, not its politicians.

WALES

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) 1970, (b) 1975, (c) 1980, (d) 1985 and (e) for each available year after 1990 the number of abattoirs operating in each county and in Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [26554]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures for the numbers of abattoirs before 1993 are derived from records of state veterinary service visits made at the end of each year as set out in the chief veterinary officer's reports for those years. The information for 1970 and 1975 is not available in the form requested and information for individual counties up to 1993 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of abattoirs operating in Wales was 62 in 1980, 72 in 1985, 60 in 1990, 55 in 1991 and 54 in 1992. From 1993, information on slaughterhouses relates to numbers licensed, and at the end of 1993 and 1994, the number of licensed abattoirs in Wales by county was as follows:

  County

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  10

  11

  Dyfed

  7

  7

  Gwent

  3

  3

  Gwynedd

  7

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  2

  Powys

  6

  6

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  4

  4

  Total

  39

  40

  NHS Consultants (Leave)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the guidelines establishing the maximum blocks of time that can be accumulated as leave by NHS consultants; and what are the maximum number of years during which accumulated leave entitlement can be carried over from the actual leave year into subsequent years. [27365]

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the terms and conditions of service for hospital medical and dental staff, NHS consultants are entitled to leave at the rate of six weeks a year; there are no specific guidelines in respect of accumulated leave.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the member of the European Commission responsible for regional policy concerning the funding of the Welsh Development Agency via(a) grant in aid and (b) the European regional development fund. [27366]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of correspondence between himself and the European Commission member 290
  responsible for the European regional development fund concerning additionality and the levels of grant in aid to the Welsh Development Agency and European regional development fund assistance to the agency; and if he will make a statement. [27367]

  Mr. Redwood
  There has been no such correspondence.

EDUCATION

  Peripatetic Music Teachers
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will supply for each local education authority area the number of peripatetic music teachers employed for each of the last five years. [26432]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within her Department. [27291]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's established employees qualify for, maternity and paternity benefits in accordance with the civil service management code chapters 3.1 and 5, which are set out in the Department's staff terms and conditions handbook. For mothers the main entitlements are: three months and one week'—14 weeks—of paid maternity leave, followed by four weeks of lower rate SMP; the right to resume work after 14 weeks' paid leave returning to the same job and the same terms and conditions as if she had not been absent. Staff also have the option to extend their unpaid maternity leave provided that the total amount of paid and unpaid leave does not exceed the maximum amount of 52 weeks. Officers who become fathers are entitled to two days' paternity leave at the time of the birth or afterwards.

  Casual staff and those on fixed—term appointments are also entitled to 14 weeks' maternity leave irrespective of the hours worked or length of service, in accordance with the EC pregnant workers directive.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents secured the primary or secondary school of their first choice for their child in each of the last three years(a) in total and (b) for each local education authority. [27183]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally: The most recent evidence—from surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and The Times in 1993—suggests that some 90 per cent. of parents gain a place at their first choice school.

  Regulations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the circulars, orders or regulations which have not been published or made by the due date; what was the due date in each case; and when was the date of publication or making of the order or regulation. [27184]
  291
  Mr. Boswell
  It is not the general practice of the Department to indicate in advance a due date for the making of an order or regulation or the publication of a circular although, in some cases, a broad indication may be given as to when a the order or regulation might be expected to be made or when a circular might be expected to be published. A consultation draft of an order or regulation may contain a commencement date but this, like other parts of the draft, is subject to change.

  Exceptionally, in the context of the Education Act 1993, the Department for education published a "timetable of DFE publications" which included dates for the coming into effect of the legislation and publication dates for relevant circulars. In relation to published circulars the cases where the timetabled date differed from the publication date are as follows:

  Subject

  Timetabled date

  Publication

  GM Schools Acquisition, Transfer and Governance

  November 1993

  December 1993

  Incorporation of governing bodies and dual use

  November 1993

  December 1993

  Local Management of Schools

  November 1993

  December 1993

  GM School: supply of school places etc.

  March 1994

  November 1994

  Behaviour and discipline

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Sex education

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Emotional and behavioural difficulties

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Time limiting on exclusions procedures

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Exclusions

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Exclusions: money following the child

  April 1994

  July 1994

  Pupil Referral Units

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Sick children

  April 1994

  May 1994

  Children looked after by LEAs

  April 1994

  May 1994

  School Closures
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many proposals from local authorities to close or re-organise schools have been awaiting a decision from her for(a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months. [27185]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of proposals published under either section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980 which have been under consideration in the Department for the periods indicated is as follows:

  less than three months: 65

  three to six months: 58

  six to nine months: 65

  nine to 12 months: 11

  more than 12 months: 12

  Proposals received by the Department within the last four months may in certain cases fall to the local authority to determine.

  School Meals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of school pupils entitled to free school meals for each year since 1979. [27186]
  292
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals was collected from maintained schools in England for the first time in January 1993. At this time, 20 per cent. of pupils were reported as known to be eligible for free school meals. In January 1994, the figure was 21 per cent.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she plans to announce her decision on the future of the National Youth Agency. [27187]

  Mr. Boswell
  We expect to announce our decisions on the future of the National Youth Agency before long.

  Grants for Education Support and Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the national totals under each heading of the GEST programme in 1995–96. [27188]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The national allocations under the grants for education support and training programme for 1995–96 are shown in the table.

  Grants for education support and training programme, 1995–96 allocations

  Grant number

  Grant title

  £ million

  1

  School Effectiveness

  121.5

  2(a)

  NC Assessment—Verification

  8.0

  2(b)

  NC Assessment—Supply Cover

  15.3

  3

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  16.6

  4

  Training for SEN Specialisms

  10.4

  5

  Educational Psychologists

  2.8

  6

  School SEN Policies

  10.2

  7

  SEN Parent Partnership Scheme

  4.0

  8

  Articled Teachers' Bursaries

  0.7

  9

  Articled Teachers' Other Costs

  0.3

  10

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  6.0

  11

  Licensed and Overseas Teachers

  1.9

  12(a)

  Vocational Qualifications—Introduction

  11.6

  12(b)

  Vocational Qualifications—Piloting

  1.3

  13

  Truancy and Disaffected Pupils

  15.4

  14

  Youth Action Scheme

  2.9

  15

  Youth and Community Workers

  1.2

  16

  Bilingual Pupils

  5.9

  17

  Child Protection

  3.0

  18

  Training for Careers Teachers

  4.1

  19(a)

  Drug Prevention in Schools—Formula Allocations

  4.3

  19(b)

  Drug Prevention in Schools—Bids

  1.6

  20

  Specialists Schools (Voluntary Aided Technology Colleges)

  2.0

  Total

  251.0

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how grant-maintained schools will benefit from the school improvement programme announced by her on 25 May. [28111]

  Mr. Forth
  As my right hon. Friend made clear in her announcement, this programme of measures is designed to promote improvement in all publicly funded schools. The aim is to secure maximum benefit from the new system of inspection and the action plans for improvement which follow. Grant-maintained schools receive special purpose grant (development) to assist in this process; this grant replicates, in the different circumstances of GM
  293
  schools, the grants for education support and training available to LEA schools. The Funding Agency for Schools will consult GM schools on additional flexibility to enable them to focus some of their resources in the period immediately following an Ofsted inspection. GM schools will also be able to make use of the list of advisers and consultants produced by the Department to extend the range and choice of professional advice to support school improvement.

ENVIRONMENT

  Westminster Redevelopment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 534–5, if he is now in a position to ensure that the block of Georgian buildings at 20A–32 Baker street can be saved from demolition; and if he will enforce the decision made by his predecessor in 1981 to preserve the buildings. [26736]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the event of a breach of planning or listed building control responsibility for day-to-day enforcement rests with the local planning authority.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer on 14 March,Official Report, column 534, if he has now completed his consideration of the issues raised by the chief executive of Westminster city council regarding the development of properties in Westminster; and if he will make a statement on his conclusions. [27094]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to obtain a copy of the legal opinion of Michael Barnes QC, regarding the conduct of Councillor Andrew Greystoke and Councillor David Weeks of Westminster city council, in relation to planning applications for the buildings at 20A–32 Baker street, London; and what account he intends to take of the legal opinion in making a decision on whether he should call in the planning permission concerned. [27019]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am in receipt of a copy of the legal opinion of Michael Barnes QC. All relevant information will be taken into account in deciding whether the planning applications should be called in for the Secretary of State's determination.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 595, what assessment he has made of any material considerations which indicated that the planning permission sought for the block bounded by Baker street, Blandford street and Manchester street in Westminster should be granted contrary to the major policies contained in the local authorities' statutory plans. [27082]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department was notified of the information on the outstanding applications and is currently considering all the relevant information.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he will take of(a) the views of Westminster council officers, (b) the advice of English Heritage and (c) the previous appeal decision by his predecessor in his decision on whether
  294
  to call in the planning application at 20A–32 Baker street, Westminster. [27023]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous reply.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to investigate the conduct of Councillor Andrew Greystoke and Councillor David Weeks with regard to planning decisions made by Westminster city council in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [27020]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has no such plans.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 534, what plans he has to investigate the events surrounding the redevelopment of the block bounded by Baker street, Blandford street, George street and Manchester street in Westminster in the light of more recent information he may have received. [27093]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None at present. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27289]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The general provisions available to staff in DOE follow the provisions of the civil service management code, a copy of which is in the Library and are in line with current legislation. These include:

  Paid time off for ante-natal care;

  Up to 52 weeks maternity leave (including up to 18 weeks paid leave);

  The right to return to work at the end of maternity leave;

  2 days paternity leave for male staff.

  Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage changes in waterborne inputs of cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc and lead to the North sea and to all other coastal waters which have been achieved by the United Kingdom since 1985. [27362]

  Mr. Atkins
  Following are the figures set out in the progress report being considered by the North sea conference on 8 to 9 June.

  Reduction in UK inputs 1985–1995

  Substance

  North Sea: per cent. Reduction

  All other UK sea areas: per cent. Reduction

  Cadmium

  70

  43

  Mercury

  73

  80

  Copper

  47

  56

  Zinc

  16

  23

  Lead

  79

  39

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the annexe 1A substances for which he expects the 50 per cent. reduction target for North sea waterborne inputs will be met by the United Kingdom. [27363]
  295
  Mr. Atkins
  There are 36 substances listed in annexe 1A of the ministerial declaration of the third North sea conference in 1990. It is anticipated that the UK will meet the target of achieving a significant reduction of 50 per cent. or more of waterborne inputs of 24 of these substances to the North sea between 1985 and 1995. Reductions will exceed 45 per cent. for three others. The 27 substances are:

  Mercury

  Cadmium

  Copper (47 per cent.)

  Lead

  Arsenic

  Chromium

  Nickel (46 per cent.)

  Drins

  Hexachlorohexane (HCH) (46 per cent.)

  DDT

  Pentachlorophenol

  Hexachlorobenzene

  Hexachlorobutadiene

  Carbon tetrachloride

  Tributyltin compounds

  Tetrachloroethylene

  Trichlorobenzene

  Trichloroethane

  Simazine

  Atrazine

  Azinophos-ethyl

  Azinophos-methyl

  Fenthion

  Malathion

  Parathion

  Parathion-methyl

  Dichlorvos

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage changes in atmospheric and waterborne inputs taken together of mercury and cadmium to the North sea that he expects will be achieved by the United Kingdom between 1985 and 1995. [27364]

  Mr. Atkins
  It is anticipated that the UK will achieve reductions between 1985 and 1995 in a range of 59 per cent. to 66 per cent. for mercury and 52 per cent. to 62 per cent. for cadmium.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is planned by Her Majesty's Government to examine the growth in populations of birds of prey and their impact on game bird management and racing pigeons. [28067]

  Mr. Atkins
  On 24 April, Environment Department officials met interested parties to discuss these issues. Following broad agreement reached at that meeting, the Government propose to establish a regular forum to consider the implications of the growth in the populations of birds of prey and to set up a working group to examine the facts and identify possible action.

  The working group will:

  consider population status of birds of prey;

  identify species alleged to be causing problems;

  identify, in particular, the impact of such species on game birds and moorland management and on racing pigeons;

  identify gaps in research and future needs, and identify possible sources of funding;

  296

  consider statutory and other mechanisms for the resolution of problems; and

  report back to the forum within one year.

  The working group, which will be chaired jointly by officials from my Department and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, will reflect a wide range of interests. It will be set up as soon as possible.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sales involving surplus land and property in which his Department has inserted a clause in the sale contract allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [26326]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: My Department's policy on disposals is to obtain the best price possible. To achieve that our consultants are required to investigate all feasible uses and development potential and to obtain town planning consent where it is appropriate to do so. Clawback clauses are used only where, despite the best efforts of our consultants, it is not possible to establish a property's potential with any degree of certainty. Thus there are relatively few cases where clawback clauses have been imposed and these are as follows:

  Mickle Trafford Buffer Depot, Lancashire;

  Land Border Post, Rosslea, Northern Ireland;

  Former Benefit Office, Drakewell, Cornwall;

  Rhodes House, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich;

  72 South Market Road, Great Yarmouth;

  Land at Northwood Hills, Pinner;

  56–60 Conduit Street, London, W1

DEFENCE

  Area Flag Officers
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of area flag officer posts. [27984]

  Mr. Soames
  A consultation document was issued on 2 March 1995 setting out the proposed reattribution of area flag officer tasks. Having given careful and sympathetic consideration to all the views expressed during the consultation period, I have decided to proceed to implementation of the proposals by 1 April 1996. This measure will save about £9,500,000 over the next 10 years. The posts of flag officer Plymouth and flag officer Portsmouth will be abolished and their tasks reattributed to other senior officers. Their representational tasks, which help maintain the Navy's strong links with these cities, will be undertaken by the remaining flag officers as appropriate, by the naval base commanders or by other senior officers if necessary. The post of flag officer Scotland, northern England and Northern Ireland will be merged with that of Commodore, Clyde at two-star level and also become the naval base commander, Clyde, and will have a one-star deputy. There will be a small overall net reduction in posts at Plymouth and Portsmouth of 20 service and 10 civilian posts. No reductions will be required in the FOSNNI/COMCLYDE areas beyond those which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 16 February 1995 in his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) at column 832.

  Royal Naval Supplies Depot, Endsleigh
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a survey of G Block, Ministry of Defence Endsleigh was carried out prior to the decision to relocate the CRISP computer there from RNSD Eaglescliffe. [26655]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. A survey of G Block, Endsleigh, was carried out in 1991 prior to the decision in 1994 to close the CRISP mainframe computer operation at RNSD Eaglescliffe.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the cost overrun of relocating the small parts stores from RNSD Eaglescliffe to Portsmouth. [26657]

  Mr. Soames
  No cost overrun is anticipated.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what surveys have been carried out of G and C blocks at Ministry of Defence Endsleigh. [26654]

  Mr. Soames
  A survey of G block was conducted in September 1991 after which re-cladding work was completed in early 1993. A further survey, carried out earlier this year, revealed faults in the, structure of the annexe to G Block and this will shortly be vacated and demolished. Although no specific survey of C block has been conducted, in common with other upgrading on the site, windows are being replaced and the roof relayed; this work is due to be completed later this year.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of demolishing, site clearance and construction of a replacement computer facility at Ministry of Defence Endsleigh. [26656]

  Mr. Soames
  No decisions have yet been taken on the location of the next generation of computer systems being developed for the Navy. It will not be possible to determine any costs, regardless of where they may be located, until the size and configuration of the type of hardware selected for this next generation of systems has been determined. A decision on this is expected later this year.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all projects on which his Department is working jointly with Los Alomos National Laboratories. [26879]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the 1958 UK-US mutual defence agreement, the Atomic Weapons Establishment works closely with Los Alamos National Laboratory on a number of areas of research. These include:

  Neutron Sources

  Irradiation Effects on Materials and Components

  High Explosives for Nuclear Weapons

  Chemistry and Compatibility of Materials

  Metallurgy of Weapons Materials

  Non-Nuclear Components

  Non-Metallic Materials

  Weapons Material Management

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Physics Design

  Weapons Hydrodynamics

  Computational Technology

  Nuclear Weapons Physics

  Nuclear Forces and Counter-Proliferation Studies

  Manufacturing Technology

  298

  Nuclear Warhead Accident Response Technology

  Nuclear Weapon Computer Code Development

  Nuclear Weapons Environment and Damage Effects

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all projects on which his Department is working jointly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. [26880]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the 1958 UK-US mutual defence agreement, the Atomic Weapons Establishment works closely with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on a number of areas of research. These include:

  Irradiation Effects on Materials and Components

  High Explosives for Nuclear Weapons

  Chemistry and Compatibility of Materials

  Test Monitoring

  Metallurgy of Weapons Materials

  Non-Metallic Materials

  Weapons Material Management

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Physics Design

  Weapons Hydrodynamics

  Computational Technology

  Nuclear Weapons Physics

  Nuclear Forces and Counter Proliferation Studies

  Manufacturing Technology

  Nuclear Warhead Accident Response Technology

  Nuclear Weapon Computer Code Development

  Nuclear Weapons Environment and Damage Effects

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money is being paid annually to Sandia National Laboratory in return for them providing engineering services in support of the Trident systems re-entry body. [26881]

  Mr. Freeman
  The precise figure is commercially sensitive, but amounts to less than $1 million per year.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all projects on which Sandia National Laboratories is working on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, in addition to those listed on page 7.69 of Sandia National Laboratories institutional plan, FY 1995–2000. [26882]

  Mr Freeman
  Sandia National Laboratory provides certain services in support of the UK Trident programme. Sandia also provides goods and services to support the UK nuclear research programme under contracts placed on the laboratory by the US Department of Energy on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defence. These are described as "projects" in Sandia's institutional plan.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27292]

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to certain qualifying conditions, most women who intend to return to work after their confinement are allowed three months and one week's maternity absence on full pay, and up to a further 38 weeks' unpaid absence. Service women are allowed 14 weeks on full pay and up to a further 34 weeks unpaid absence.

  Most fathers, except for service men, are allowed two days leave with pay at or soon after the date on which their children are born.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he and the management executive have taken in Northern Ireland as a consequence of the findings of the EOC (Great Britain) report into the gender impact of CCT in local government. [26012]

  Mr. Moss
  The health and personal social service management executive has examined the EOC (Great Britain) report and noted that the EOC policy recommendations arising from it are directed to local

  Number of men and women in each board trust employed in support services whose earnings are below the national insurance lower earnings limit

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Board trust

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Eastern HSSB

  2

  33

  3

  44

  4

  26

  1

  31

  0

  0

  Northern HSSB

  0

  30

  3

  33

  1

  13

  1

  25

  0

  15

  Southern HSSB

  4

  19

  0

  15

  0

  15

  1

  18

  0

  1

  Western HSSB

  0

  5

  0

  2

  0

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Belfast City Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Greenpark

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eastern Ambulance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  5

  0

  7

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South and East Belfast Community

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  4

  North and West Belfast Community

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  2

  North Down and Ards Community

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  7

  Down and Lisburn

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  3

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  6

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  Central Services Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  6

  87

  6

  94

  5

  58

  4

  82

  5

  51

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in the number of full-time and part-time jobs by gender immediately prior to and immediately after tendering of each support service contract tendered by the four health boards since 1990. [26000]

  Mr. Moss
  The detailed information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it is known that there was not necessarily a loss of jobs within the health and personal social service as a result of tendering. A number of contracts were awarded in-house and other staff moved to different posts within their organisation.

  NHS Support Services
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total annual expenditure on NHS support services, including catering, domestic, portering, grounds maintenance, estate services and telephones, by each of the health boards in each year since 1990. [26011]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. In 1992–93, the format of the boards' accounts were changed to allow for the appointment of overheads and capital charges to services. Comparison of
  300
  authorities in Great Britain, employers, trade unions and Government. With regard to the issues for Government, these mainly relate to proposed legislative changes for which the HPSS management executive has no responsibility.

  Health Boards (Staff)
  Mr. Soley
  to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) men employed in support services in each health board fell below the national insurance lower earnings limit for each year since 1990. [26003]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  expenditure figures from that date with those before it is apt to mislead. Consequently, the information provided in the tables below commences with 1992–93.

  Health and Social Services Board/HSS Trust

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Catering

  Northern Board

  5,319,679

  5,230,055

  Southern Board

  4,403,175

  3,549,475

  Eastern Board

  15,132,404

  8,118,187

  Western Board

  5,512,582

  5,787,112

  Royal Group Hospitals HSS Trust

  n/a

  2,492,283

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  2,197,239

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,463,317

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  n/a

  924,436

  Ulster North Down and Ards

  Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,672,137

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  30,367,840

  31,434,241

  Domestic

  Northern Board

  4,250,292

  4,392,266

  Southern Board

  3,311,888

  2,620,158

  Eastern Board

  13,966,737

  6,192,290

  Western Board

  2,824,806

  2,818,703

  301

  Health and Social Services Board/HSS Trust

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Royal Group Hospitals HSS Trust

  n/a

  4,094,951

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,656,460

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  736,213

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,170,682

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,179,362

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  24,353,723

  24,861,085

  Portering and Transport

  Northern Board

  2,694,339

  3,569,974

  Southern Board

  1,391,971

  1,085,317

  Eastern Board

  9,071,087

  4,607,199

  Western Board

  2,120,395

  2,274,714

  Royal Group Hospitals HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,755,282

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,543,001

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  685,160

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  n/a

  880,492

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  804,653

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  15,277,792

  17,205,792

  Building and Engineering

  Northern Board

  6,721,512

  8,173,374

  Southern Board

  8,324,237

  5,790,577

  Eastern Board

  16,609,338

  9,342,908

  Western Board

  4,969,474

  4,589,090

  Royal Group Hospitals HSS Trust

  n/a

  4,747,962

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  2,350,164

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,436,264

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,795,674

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospital HSS Trust

  n/a

  1,720,362

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  36,624,561

  39,946,375

  Market Testing Guidelines
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the findings when the management executive of the NHS in Northern Ireland applied the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines to its revised market testing guidelines in 1994. [26006]

  Mr. Moss
  The "Market Testing in the HPSS: Revised Guidance" was issued as a consequence of the specific commitment given in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", on page 21, that health departments would consolidate and improve existing best practice guidance, inter alia, to provide model contract terms and specifications; set out examples of good practice; provide procedure check lists; summarise financial arrangements; cover publicity for contracts; and describe reporting and monitoring procedures. The policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines were not therefore applicable to this particular document.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27282]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In conjunction with the statutory entitlements available, and subject to certain conditions, a302
  female employee is entitled to maternity leave of three months and one week on full pay. Unpaid maternity leave is also allowed, provided that taken together with paid leave, the total period does not exceed 52 weeks.

  Male employees are entitled to two days paternity leave on full pay.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1995–96 running cost limits for the Northern Ireland Office and Norther Ireland Departments. [27981]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The gross running cost limit for 1995–96 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is £789,017,000. There is also a net running cost limit of zero for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. Details of the provision for individual Northern Ireland Departments are set out in the Northern Ireland estimates, which were laid before the House today.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Affairs if he will list the aid projects and which the United Kingdom is currently involved with Bangladesh. [26920]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is given in the list of aid projects in Bangladesh, a copy of placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is provided to his Department by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund prior to the approval of his Department's grants to their core budgets. [26935]

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions concerning the United Kingdom's contributions to the core activities of the United Nations population fund—UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation are based on our assessment of the value of both organisations in contributing to better reproductive health. This assessment is based on reports of their programmes, our own monitoring of their work, and participation in UNFPA's governing body and IPPF's annual donors' meetings.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the transfer of buildings controlled by the Galton Institute to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. [26895]

  Mr. Baldry
  We understand from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that there has been no transfer of buildings, controlled by the Galton Institute, to it.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what information he has on the practice of some donor nations of tying aid to the implementation of family planning programmes; and in which countries where such conditions have been applied his Department is working. [26933]
  303
  Mr. Baldry
  We are not aware of any donor countries that currently tie aid to the implementation of family planning programmes.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what documentation he has other than annual reports of the use to which the core funds of the IPPF and UNFPA are put. [26934]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have access to a variety of documents, including evaluation and review reports, which describe the activities and programmes supported by the core funds of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the estimates of unmet family planning demand prepared by the United Nations population fund and similar organisations together with copies of studies undertaken by his own Department. [27297]

  Mr. Baldry
  A large number of country studies examining the unmet demand for family planning have been undertaken over the years. We will arrange for a sample of such studies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount was donated by the Overseas Development Administration in 1993–94 for primary health care projects excluding family planning provision in(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Malaysia, (d) Sri Lanka, (e) Cambodia, (f) E1 Salvador, (g) Nicaragua, (h) Mexico, (i) Peru, (j) Oceania regional, (k) Russian Federation, (l) Africa regional, (m) Burkina Faso, (n) Ethiopia, (o) Ghana, (p) Kenya, (q) Nigeria, (r) Tanzania, (s) Togo, (t) Uganda, (u) Malawi, (v) Sierra Leone, (w) South Africa, (x) Zaire, (y) Zambia and (z) Zimbabwe. [27226]

  Mr. Baldry
  In most developing countries, primary health care incorporates reproductive health care, including the provision of means by which people can, if they wish, have children by choice. It is impractical to try and distinguish the proportion of our aid to countries which is given for primary health care "excluding family planning provision".

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations underlie his Department's decision on the relative amounts to be spent on primary health care projects in Bangladesh and on reproductive health projects and family planning. [27298]

  Mr. Baldry
  The British aid programme helps promote strategic development objectives agreed with the Government of Bangladesh. Primary health care is a priority, within which reproductive health care, including the provision of means by which women and men can, if they wish, have children by choice, forms an essential part. Our emphasis within our primary health care programmes in Bangladesh is on preventive care and local capacity to use British aid effectively.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what liaison exists between officials of his Department and the China Family Planning 304
  Association and the representatives of the United Nations Population Fund in China. [26932]

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials from the British embassy in Peking do meet occasionally with representatives of the United Nations population fund based in China, but have not met with representatives of the China Family Planning Association.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 514, (1) what information he has on the actions taken by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to fight against Chinese policies which discriminate on grounds of gender, race, creed and political beliefs in Tibet; [26894]

  (2) what information he has on the actions taken by the China Family Planning Association to fight against Chinese policies which discriminate on grounds of gender, race, creed and political beliefs in Tibet. [26936]

  Mr. Baldry
  The International Planned Parenthood Federation is opposed to any form of discrimination in the implementation of policies relevant to reproductive health. IPPF encourages its member organisations to pursue this stance. The information we receive, through our discussions with IPPF, indicates that the China Family Planning Association is helping to alert the relevant authorities at township and provincial levels in China to instances of discrimination in the implementation of population policies.

  Malaysia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 301, if he will list the 11 power projects rejected by the Overseas Development Administration because they did not meet the developmental, commercial and industrial criteria for the aid and trade provision scheme, for budgetary reasons or because they were not accepted by recipient governments. [26911]

  Mr. Baldry
  The list of the 11 projects is as follows:

  1. Sarawak Power Transmission

  2. Ulu Jelai Hydro Electric

  3. Accelerated Power Transmission

  4. Connaught Bridge II Gas Turbine

  5. Supply of Power Transmission Lines

  6. Sabah Hydro Electric Power Stations

  7. Paka and Pasir Gudang Power Station

  8. Diesel Power Extension

  9. Sabah Gas Turbine

  10. Liwagu Hydro Electric

  11. Transformers

  EU Programmes
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the value in cash and constant prices of the United Kingdom contribution to the EU's programmes for central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and non-EU Mediterranean states in each year since 1990. [26975]

  Mr. Baldry
  United Kingdom contributions to EU programmes for central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and non-EU Mediterranean states since 1990 have been:
  305

  Figures in £ million

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  CEE countries (PHARE)

  Cash value

  25.3

  31.3

  54.1

  61.5

  Value at constant 1993 prices

  28.5

  33.0

  54.6

  61.5

  FSU countries (TACIS)

  Cash value

  0

  0.04

  3.9

  21.2

  Value at constant 1993 prices

  0

  0.04

  3.9

  21.2

  Non-EU Mediterranean countries

  Cash value

  16.2

  16.5

  24.7

  45.2

  Value at constant 1993 prices

  18.2

  17.4

  24.9

  45.2

  1 Most recent year for which data are available.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British contributions to the Liberia trust fund have been spent. [27326]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 February,Official Report, column 130.

  As the security situation in Liberia shows no sign of improvement, projects for which our funds are earmarked are not yet able to be implemented.

  Illegal Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has on the numbers estimated to have died from illegal abortion, in the last year for which figures are available, by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities; and on what basis their figures were calculated; [27240]

  (2) what is his Department's estimate on the number of women who die worldwide annually from illegal abortion; and what is the basis for this figure. [27239]

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of deaths resulting from the termination of pregnancy—whether legal or illegal—are based on information collated by the World Health Organisation. The quality of data is very uncertain as there is a reluctance to attribute death to abortion where it is illegal. Although earlier estimates suggested that up to 200,000 women may die, per year, from abortion, a study, undertaken by WHO last year—based on data sources such as hospital admission records and maternal mortality studies—estimated that 70,000 women die each year as a result of complications following unsafe abortions.

HEALTH

  Mercury
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has evaluated on the migration of mercury from amalgam fillings to human organs; and if she will make a statement on the impact of increased levels of mercury fillings on recorded levels of mercury in human tissue. [26675]
  306
  Mr. Malone
  The Committee on Toxicity advised in 1986 that the use of dental amalgam is free from the risk of systemic toxicity and that only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur. The subsequent research findings, and recent evaluations by several authoritative national and international expert committees are consistent with that advice. The Department of Health will continue to assess and evaluate all research in this area.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of specific funding is available for research into toxicity levels of mercury in humans from potential sources with particular reference to(a) mercury in the food chain, (b) mercury in dental amalgam and (c) environmental mercury. [26676]

  Mr. Malone
  Research has been carried out in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, about the health effects of mercury. Research to determine the long term biological safety of all types of materials used in primary dental care has been identified as a priority for the national health service primary dental care research and development programme; £175,000 has been allocated to the programme for the 1995–96 financial year and the first call for proposals will be made shortly. The NHS regions also fund research and development, including a project into the safety aspects of dental amalgam during pregnancy which is funded by South and West regional health authority at a cost of £45,000.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Department of Health's policy research programme also commissions research to meet identified policy needs. There is no specific budget for research into toxicity from mercury. Decisions on whether to support research proposals are made on the basis of competing priorities and the scientific merit of the proposal.

  Suicide
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress is being made towards achieving the "Health of the Nation" target relating to suicides among severely mentally ill people; [26649]

  (2) how her Department (a) currently monitors and (b) proposes to monitor progress towards the "Health of the Nation" target relating to suicides among severely mentally ill people. [26648]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following the references to the limitations in available data in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper, we have carried out some detailed technical work to identify a viable measure. We have decided to introduce from next year district returns which show the incidence of suicide and unexplained death among severely mentally ill people, defined for the time being as people subject to a care programme. This will enable changes in the incidence to be tracked.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the top 100 prescribed items, giving their actual cost to the NHS. [26981]
  307
  Mr. Malone
  A list of the top 100 items by prescription volume dispensed in 1994 has been placed in the Library. The total net ingredient cost of these items was £941 million.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received about the problems of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C. [27191]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations this year include seven parliamentary questions, a short debate in the House of Lords and five early-day motions. In addition Ministers have received 214 letters.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's most recent estimate of the number of people infected with hepatitis C from contaminated blood products; and how many of these are haemophiliacs. [27344]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Morning-after Pill
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make post-coital oral contraceptives available in pharmacies without prescription. [27403]

  Mr. Sackville
  Any change to the legal classification of such medicines to allow them to be supplied by pharmacists without prescription would be subject to statutory consultation by the Medicines Control Agency with all interested organisations. No application has been received to reclassify any post-coital oral contraceptive from a prescription-only medicine to a pharmacy medicine.

  Neurosurgical Units
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list all the neurosurgical units in Sussex and those in neighbouring counties with their distance in miles from the Sussex border; [27095]

  (2) what guidelines she has issued about the maximum distance any patient should be from a neurosurgical unit; [27096]

  (3) what is the total number of neurosurgical units in Sussex; what is the number of health authorities; and if she will list the health authorities that do not have a neurosurgical unit within their boundaries. [27097]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not issued guidelines about the siting of neurosurgical units, but a recently published report from the neuroscience review group of South Thames Commissioners concluded that specialist neurosurgical services should be centralised in major units which can attract a minimum of 2,000 patients per year, to allow the development and maintenance of expertise in the management of these less common surgical problems. The review group identified St. George's hospital, Tooting, as meeting this standard. The recommendations are currently being considered by the South Thames health authorities responsible for purchasing these services.

  The specific information requested is as follows:
  308

  Neurosurgical units in Sussex and neighbouring counties

  County/London Borough

  Location of unit

  Distance from Sussex county boundary1 (miles)

  West Sussex

  Hurstwood Park hospital

  —

  Wimbledon

  Atkinson Morley's hospital

  21

  Camberwell

  Kings College/Maudsley

  25

  Greenwich

  The Brook hospital2

  32

  Hampshire

  Southampton general hospital

  26

  1 Estimated shortest distance by road to nearst town or village on or close to the border.

  2 Until transfer of services.

  District Health Authorities in South Thames without neurosurgical units within their boundaries

  East Sussex (The one unit currently in Sussex is located in West Sussex, the other Sussex DHA)

  East Kent

  West Kent

  Eastern Surrey

  Western Surrey

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Bexley and Greenwich (On transfer of services from the Brook hospital)

  Kingston and Richmond

  Chemotherapy (Charges)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on charging women for chemotherapy by Wigan and Leigh Health Service trust. [27098]

  Mr. Sackville
  Wigan and Leigh Health Service national health service trust issued a statement on Friday 26 May apologising unreservedly for having made charges and undertaking to reimburse those patients affected. The trust has changed its administrative procedures regarding prescription charges with immediate effect to ensure that these events are not repeated.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines cover charging patients for chemotherapy treatment as(a) out-patients and (b) in-patients; and if she will ensure that there is a consistent approach to charging for chemotherapy treatment throughout the NHS; [27099]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the definition of day care surgery and outpatient treatment; and whether prescription charges can be levied when clinicians administer drugs on hospital premises. [27100]

  Mr. Sackville
  Any medication administered in hospital, whether to in-patients or out-patients, does not attract prescription charges. This is the position under the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989. Health authorities and trusts were reminded of this in guidelines issued in 1994, HSG(94)12, copies of which are available in the Library. A patient receiving treatment as a day case or as an out-patient—in other words who does not require the use of a hospital bed overnight—is liable for prescription charges for medication taken home.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much compensation has been paid to people who contracted HIV from contaminated blood products; how
  309
  many people have received compensation; and how many were haemophiliacs. [27345]

  Mr. Sackville
  Payments totalling £87 million have been made to those who contracted HIV from infected blood and blood products, and to their families. Of 1,511 people who received payments, 1,238 were haemophilia patients.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within her Department. [27287]

  Mr. Sackville
  Female staff within the Department have the following maternity entitlements:

  i. paid time off to attend ante-natal appointments;

  ii. paid maternity leave of three months and one week;

  iii. unpaid maternity leave up to a maximum of 52 weeks, inclusive of any period of paid maternity leave;

  iv. an unpaid career break of up to five years.

  Where a member of staff does not satisfy the conditions for paid leave, she may take a period of unpaid leave.

  Male staff, except those on temporary appointments of less than two years, are entitled to two days' paid paternity leave; extra leave may be allowed where there are special difficulties.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Regulations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that the proper enforcement of fisheries regulations is taking place. [25826]

  Mr. Jack
  Some £25 million is spent annually on inspection to enforce fisheries regulations both at sea and on land.

  Lindane
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent studies he has commissioned into the use of lindane in pesticides. [25827]

  Mrs. Browning
  The non-agricultural uses of lindane were reviewed in 1995 by the independent advisory committee on pesticides, which advised that approvals for non-agricultural products containing lindane should continue. The agricultural uses of lindane are currently the subject of a review by the committee.

  Veal Calves
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to support the development of the humane United Kingdom veal market. [25828]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are establishing a demonstration unit to show how veal calves can be raised using high welfare standards, at the ADAS research centre at Rosemaund, near Hereford.

  Milk
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the operations of Milk Marque. [25829]
  310
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have received several representations since vesting day about the operating practices of Milk Marque. Complaints about these practices are a matter for the competition authorities.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek changes in the European Community rules to permit trading in milk quota across member states' frontiers. [25839]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We proposed the transferability of milk quotas between member states during the debate on CAP simplification, in last year's CAP price fixing negotiations and in Council earlier this year, when I advocated transnational quota leasing. The European Court of Auditors made a similar recommendation two years ago, but there is, as yet, no support for our ideas in the Council of Ministers.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that stocks of fish are properly protected in the future. [25830]

  Mr. Jack
  Ensuring the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks in such a way that the livelihoods of this and future generations of fisheries are protected is one of my main priorities. A combination of R and D, currently running at £6.5 million a year, and strong enforcement of fishery rules will help to protect fish stocks for the future.

  Office of Science and Technology Panel
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to respond to the recent report from the OST Technology Foresight Panel on Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment. [25831]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will respond by ensuring that these recommendations are taken fully into account in developing our research strategy. We will of course contribute to the overall Government response.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to encourage public access to set-aside land. [25832]

  Mr. Jack
  Last September my right hon. Friend launched a new voluntary countryside access scheme which offers farmers annual payments in return for managing their set-aside land for public access under a five-year agreement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve the working of the set-aside land scheme. [25841]

  Mr. Jack
  In addition to the measures mentioned in my reply of 20 October 1994,Official Report, column 418, my right hon. Friend has recently negotiated in Brussels agreement in principle that eligible land taken out of production under the forestry and agri-environment schemes may from next year count towards farmers' set-aside requirements under the arable area payments scheme.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the abattoir industry to the proposed
  311
  level of charges to be levied by the Meat Hygiene Service. [25833]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Meat Hygiene Service has recently completed statutory consultation on its proposed charges. 91 responses were received in respect of the 1,866 premises consulted. These responses are currently being considered.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers have advised him of their opposition to the institution of the Meat Hygiene Service. [25838]

  Mrs. Browning
  Abattoir operators who write to us do not normally indicate whether they are members of a trade association.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what schemes are now in place to encourage organic farming methods. [25834]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government are keen to assist the development of organic farming. The organic aid scheme for England was launched in August last year and provides financial assistance during conversion to organic production. Similar schemes are available in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In addition, the organic sector also benefits from a substantial programme of research and development and from our support for the work of the independent UK Register of Organic Food Standards. My Department currently spends around £1 million annually on R and D into economic and practical aspects of organic farming.

  Meat Exports
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to encourage on-the-hook meat exports. [25835]

  Mrs. Browning
  According to Meat and Livestock Commission estimates, our meat exports were worth nearly £1 billion in 1994. But it makes sense to increase these further. That is why in, for example, the beef sector we have in hand action to improve the quality of dairy beef, to open up new export markets; to develop the welfare friendly veal market; and to encourage the use of dairy breed beef in meat processing. We are also working with the industry on stepping up promotion of sheep carcass meat in our chief export markets.

  Agrifood Business
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contributions his Department is making to improving the prospects of sales from Britain's agrifood business on a world-wide basis. [25836]

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has its own export promotion division, specifically designed to help UK agri-food exporters win business worldwide. My ministerial colleagues and I also take a personal interest in promoting UK capabilities abroad. This year we propose to take business teams to Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, India where opportunities for UK exports exist. We are also representing UK interests at agri-food exhibitions in China, Poland, the Baltic States, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Thailand and Kazakhstan.
  312
  In addition, Food From Britain, which is partly funded by my Department, has offices in key European markets as well as North America and has a substantial programme of action in support of British food exporters. Ministers give support by attending and speaking at major food and drink exhibitions around the world.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the common agriculture policy in 1996. [25837]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1996 preliminary draft budget for common agricultural policy expenditure has been set at the level of the guideline of 40.8 billion ecu or £33.9 billion. If it proves necessary, the budgetary discipline decision provides for access to the monetary reserve of 500 mecu or £415 million for additional costs resulting from a weakening of the US dollar of from realignments of the exchange rate mechanism which took place in late 1992 and early 1993. In addition, the CAP also imposes a cost on consumers. A note on the impact on consumers and taxpayers is available in the Library.

  Sheep
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of subsidy provided per sheep by(a) the British Government and (b) the European Union. [26905]

  Mr. Jack
  Payments under the 1994 sheep annual premium scheme were fixed at £16.96 per eligible ewe, with an additional supplement of £5.24 per ewe payable to producers in the less-favoured areas. Rates have not yet been fixed for 1995. The scheme is fully funded by the European Union.

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances are also payable on sheep in the LFAs. In severely disadvantaged areas, allowances under the 1995 scheme are paid at the rate of £5.75 per specially qualified ewe and £3.00 per qualified ewe. In disadvantaged areas, allowances are paid at the rate of £2.44 per qualified ewe. Up to 25 per cent. of expenditure under this scheme is reimbursable by the European Union.

  Maternity and Paternity Leave
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what maternity and paternity entitlements are available to employees within his Department. [27294]

  Mr. Jack
  Maternity and paternity entitlements in the core department and its agencies, with the exception of the Meat Hygiene Service, follow those laid down in chapters 3.1 and 5 of the leave and attendance section of the civil service management code, a copy of which is to be found in the Library of the House. Such arrangements are provided in conjunction with the statutory entitlements available.

  The majority of the staff of the MHS which was launched as an agency on 1 April 1995, transferred from local authorities. Accordingly, the agency has currently based its draft policy on local government conditions.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) his Department and (b) agencies for

  313
  which his Department is responsible for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25548]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total costs of consultants employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its executive agencies for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are detailed in the table. The figures for 1994–95 are provisional, and the figures for 1995–96 are current estimates. I will write to the hon. Member once the provisional figures are confirmed.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Core MAFF

  10,288,234

  7,161,186

  7,625,378

  ADAS

  985,845

  700,000

  700,000

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  463,037

  354,909

  350,000

  Central Science Laboratory

  149,731

  195,861

  150,000

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  34,281

  12,704

  5,000

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  170,469

  89,572

  150,000

  Meat Hygiene Service

  n/a

  475,000

  434,000

  Total

  12,091,597

  8,989,232

  9,414,378

  Contracting Out
  Mrs. Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) for each piece of work subject to a bidding process under the auspices of(a) his Ministry and (b) agencies for which his Ministry is responsible (i) where work was contracted out who the successful bidders were and (ii) which contracts were won by in-house bidders in (1) 1993–94, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1995–96; [25549]

  (2) what work has been contracted out (a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25547]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department seeks to conduct its bidding processes in accordance with the consolidated guidelines for public purchasing policy laid down in chapter 31 of "Government Accounting". For the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 the information requested is as follows for the Ministry's market testing programme:

  1993–94

  Successful bidders

  (a) Contracted-out work

  Library Services (Books and Journals)

  Dawson UK

  Swets UK

  Hammicks

  Blackwell

  National History Book Service

  Dillons

  Eastlake Information

  General Recruitment (up to G7)

  MSL Advertising

  PA Consulting

  Austin Knight

  Research and Development (Part)

  Whitbread Plc.

  Paterson Institute: Christie

  Hospital NHS

  Animal Health Trust

  A. E. Johnston

  314

  1993–94

  Successful bidders

  Processors' and Growers' Research Organisation

  UMDS—Guys Hospital

  PE International

  Ashbourne Bio Sciences

  Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants

  RPS Clouston

  Land Research Associates

  W. S. Atkins

  Mylnefield Research Services Ltd.

  Fisheries Protection: Surface Surveillance

  Royal Navy

  Radionuclide Analysis

  National Radiological Protection Board

  (b) Work won by in-house bidders

  Free Pollution Advice to Farmers

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service

  1994–95

  Successful bidders

  (a) Contracted-out work

  Inter-Despatch Service (IDS)

  Security Facilities Executive

  Term Commissions for Architectural and Engineering Design Services

  Jefferson Sheard

  Rogers and Grundy

  Ferguson Bucknall Austin

  Lawrence Hewitt Partnership

  Payroll and Associated Services

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Agronomic Evaluation of Set-Aside

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  (with British Trust for Ornithology and ADAS as sub-contractors)

  Information Technology Outsourcing: MVS

  Data Sciences

  (a) Work won by in-house bidders

  In the 1994–95 market testing programme no contracts were won by in-house bidders in the Ministry.

  1995–96
  To date no contracts have been awarded to either in-house bidders or external contractors in connection with the Ministry's market testing programme. It is not possible to predict in advance of recommendations following competition or efficiency review which services or functions will be contracted out.

  Agency chief executives will reply separately to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 25 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1291. In this you asked for information on what work has been contracted out in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96.
  ADAS was established as an Executive Agency in June 1992 and is jointly owned by MAFF and the Welsh Office.
  ADAS operates as a commercial consultancy within the food, farming, land and leisure sectors. In-house facilities may not always be able to support the work of the Agency. In such cases additional support is sourced from outside the organisation. Typically, work in such areas as information technology, training, collaborative research, payroll and banking services, property and facilities management, document and promotional media creation and vehicle hire may be contracted out.
  315
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 8 June 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your questions about the contracting out of work and the bidding process which is employed.
  The Directorate has so far contracted out work on the evaluation of pesticides, IT consultancy and publications. The amount of work contracted out totalled £170,469 in 1993/94 and £89,572 in 1994/95. In 1995/96 the Directorate is likely to contract out approximately £150,000 worth of work.
  The number of pieces of work subject to a bidding process was four in 1993/94 and four in 1994/95. The successful bidders over the two years were:

  The Natural History Museum

  Campden Food and Drink Research Association

  ADAS

  Central Science Laboratory

  Severn Trent Laboratories

  Desbrow, Thompson, Chaffe

  All of these contracts were awarded to organisations outside PSD. It is anticipated that for 1995/96 the number of pieces of work which may be subject to a bidding process will be broadly similar to previous years.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 27 May 1995:
  WORK SUBJECT TO A BIDDING PROCESS AND CONTRACTED OUT BY MAFF AND ITS AGENCIES
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992 and was re-launched as an enlarged agency two years later following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories.
  CSL is currently located on five main sites in Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Norfolk and Aberdeenshire with several smaller outstations throughout England. It is planned in the summer of 1996 to collocate the major part of CSL to a single site in Yorkshire where a new, purpose-built laboratory is at present under construction. CSL's market testing and contracting out strategy has been aimed at reviewing the wide range of services in connection with ensuring efficient and effective operation of the new laboratory at York.
  You have asked two questions relating to the financial years 1993/94, 1994/95 and 1995/96; firstly about work that has been subject to a bidding process and secondly about work that has been contracted out. I can confirm that in 1993/94 and 1994/95 none of CSL's work was subject to a bidding process or contracted out. However, during the 1995/96 financial year, many support services including facilities management, security, catering, estate management, waste disposal, management of the day-care centre and fitness facilities and other services for the new laboratory at York will be subject to market testing and contracting out.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 27 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply for the Intervention Board to your Question about the outcome of market tests since 1993–94, as the matter is one within my operational responsibility.
  Contracts were awarded as follows:

  1993–94

  Messengerial services, post-room services, word processing, reprographics and switchboard—in house team

  Maintenance of Government-owned grain stores—Henry Boot Ltd

  Analysis of olive oil—Agricultural Development & Advisory Service

  Analysis of exported products—Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association

  Internal audit services, Newcastle—in house team

  Analysis of livestock products—Agricultural Development & Advisory Service

  316
  1994–95

  Document handling & security services Newcastle—in house team

  Analysis of crops products—RHM Technology Ltd

  1995–96
  None to date.

  Letter from Guy Stampleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 27 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply for the Intervention Board to your Question about work contracted out since 1993–94, as the matter is one within my operational responsibility.
  New work strategically contracted out without an in-house bid:

  Contracts awarded

  1993–94

  Maintenance of Government owned grain stores

  Supervision of intake of cereals into store

  Analysis of sugar

  Analysis of exported products

  Analysis of olive oil

  Analysis of livestock products

  1994–95

  Travel services

  Banking

  Accounting systems development

  Analysis of crops products

  Contracts projected1

  1995–96

  Recruitment

  Certification of accounts

  1 Strategic contracting out only. The outcome of market tests cannot be anticipated.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about work which has been contracted out by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  Other than the work subject to a bidding process, about which I have written to you separately today in response to your specific Parliamentary Question, no other work has been contracted out by the Directorate in either 1993/94 or 1994/95, and none is projected for 1995/96.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the outcome of work subjected to a bidding process by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  In 1993–94, a contract for general office cleaning of the Directorate was awarded to Quality Assured Services. No contracts were awarded in 1994–95. but on 1 April 1995, a contract was awarded to the Analytical Chemistry Unit of the Central Veterinary Laboratory for the provision of analytical services required under the National Surveillance Scheme for residues in meat.
  No in house bidders were involved in either of these contracts.

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 25 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1286. In this you asked for information on the work subject to a bidding process, where work was contracted out, who the successful bidders were and ii) which contracts were won by in-house 1) 1993–94 and 2) 1994–95 and 3) 1995–96.
  ADAS was established as an Agency in June 1992 under the joint ownership of MAFF and the Welsh Office. As an Agency, ADAS is not involved in market testing except where it bids for work from other Government Departments.
  317
  In respect of work (which has been interpreted as meaning the provision of works and services as distinct from goods and utilities) ADAS has the policy of subjecting to the bidding process a wide range of services. Thus far these include, collaborative research, consultancy, payroll and banking services, elements of laboratory analysis, areas of IT and telecommunications, and staff training.

  Some of the above have been contracted out to independent third party contractors throughout the period. Unfortunately, to provide greater detail would be disproportionate cost to this Agency.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what changes there have been in the number of staff employed by(a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) agencies for which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible, listing the changes in the number of staff agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what changes are projected for 1995–96; [25061]

  (2) how many posts were lost in (a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) agencies for which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible, listing the total lost posts agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and how many posts are proposed to be lost in 1995–96; [25081]

  (3) what changes there have been in the number of staff in employment by grade in (a) his Ministry and (b) each agency for which his Ministry is responsible in (i) 199394 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96; [25623]

  (4) how many staff of (a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) agencies for which MAFF is responsible, were employed on a casual or short-term basis in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25489]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the number of casual staff employed in my Department in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report which is in the Library of the House. Separate information on posts is not available. No projections broken down by grade are available. I am asking the chief executives to reply for their agency.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 25 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1272. In this you asked for information on how many posts were lost in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and how many posts are proposed to be lost in 1995–96.
  ADAS was established in June 1992 as an Agency jointly owned by MAFF and the Welsh Office.
  Compared with the previous year the number of posts lost, within the Agency was as follows:

  1993–94: 121 posts

  1994–95: 392 posts

  There are no proposed figures for 1995–96.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 25 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1271. In this you asked for information on what changes there have been in the number of staff employed in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what changes are projected for 1995–96.
  ADAS was established as an Executive Agency in June 1992 and is jointly owned by MAFF and the Welsh Office.
  318
  My answer to this Parliamentary Question is the same given to PQ numbers 1272 and 1279. We do not have projected figures for 1995–96.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about changes in the number of staff employed by this Agency since 1993–94 as the matter is one within my operational responsibility.
  The average number of staff employed by the Agency was 983 in 1993–94,973 in 1994–95, and is currently projected to be 991 in 1995–96.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of posts lost in this Agency since 1993–94 as the matter is one within my operational responsibility.
  The Intervention Board does not operate a system of complemented posts. The Agency operates within the annual salary cost limits agreed with the Treasury which are within the running costs totals approved by Parliament. Salary budgets are delegated to line managers, who use an appropriate mix of permanent and casual staff and overtime to meet workloads. Staff year figures are given in the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board Departmental Report 1995 (CM 2803).

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about changes in the number of staff employed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  This information is published in Annex 6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Departmental Report for 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the number of posts lost in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  No posts were lost in the Directorate in 1993/94 or 1994/95, nor are any proposed to be lost in 1995/96.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of staff employed and posts lost at the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL).
  The average number of staff employed is as follows:

  Permanent

  Casual

  1993–94

  636

  30

  1994–95

  621

  41

  1995–96

  619

  44½

  The 1995/96 figure is at 1 April 1995. However, you may be aware of the merger of the CVL with MAFF's Veterinary Investigation Service which was announced by the Minister on 4 May. This will result in an increase of approximately 300 in Agency staff numbers and a reduction in MAFF's.
  The posts lost are as follows:

  Number

  1993/94

  7

  1994/95

  5

  1995/96 (estimate)

  2

  The figure for 1995/96 reflects losses already agreed but other posts may arise during the course of the year.
  319
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 8 June 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to a number of questions you have raised about appointments, staffing levels and retirements.
  Information on the numbers of staff employed in the Agency in 1993–94, project outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 are published in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Annual Report which is in the Library of the House. PSD's Annual Report and Accounts, which is also available in the Library of the House, gives the total number of staff employed in the Agency and provides a general breakdown between scientific and administrative staff.
  The number of staff who have left, or are projected to leave PSD under early retirement, voluntary redundancy, compulsory redundancy or on medical retirement are:

  1993/94

  1994/95

  (i) Early Retirement

  0

  1

  (ii) Voluntary Redundancy

  0

  6

  (iii) Compulsory Redundancy

  0

  7

  (iv) Retired on Medical Grounds

  0

  0

  It is not possible to project the number of staff who will leave PSD in the current financial year through the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme, redundancy or medical retirement.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes there have been in the number of staff in employment by grade in(a) his Ministry and (b) each agency for which his Ministry is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25623]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the numbers of staff employed in my Department in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report which is in the Library of the House. No projections broken down by grade are available. I am asking the chief executives to reply for their agency.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 24 May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the changes in staffing by grade at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The information you requested is set out in, the attached table. Can I emphasise that the return is based on actual staff in post, both full time and part time, on 1 April for each of the financial years you identified. At 1 April 1995, some posts were vacant and the recruitment of replacements is being actively pursued.

  Staff in Post

  Grade

  1993–941

  1994–9522

  1995–963

  4

  1

  1

  1

  5

  2

  2

  2

  6

  2

  2

  2

  7

  9.5

  11.8

  11.8

  SROII

  5

  4

  4

  RO

  7

  7.8

  6.8

  PO1

  1

  1

  1

  SEO

  2

  2

  1

  SSO

  5

  7.3

  6.8

  HEO

  7

  7

  8

  EO/AT

  13.5

  12.5

  10.5

  AO

  14.5

  18.2

  16

  AA

  13

  15.6

  14.5

  Typing manager

  1

  1

  1

  320

  Staff in Post

  Grade

  1993–941

  1994–952

  1995–963

  Typists

  3.5

  4.6

  3.5

  Personal secretaries

  3

  3

  3

  Messengers

  2

  2

  2

  92

  102.8

  94.9

  1 As at 1 April 1993.

  2 As at 1 April 1994.

  3 As at 1 April 1995.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1279. In this you asked for details of the changes that there have been in the number of staff in employment by grade in i) 1993/95 and ii) 1994/95; and what the projected figures are for 1995/96.
  I attach a sheet listing the details for 1993/94 and 1994/95. We do not have projected figures for 1995/96.

  Grade

  Total 1993–94

  Total 1994–95

  AA

  216

  136

  AO

  186

  139

  APPI

  5

  6

  APPII

  14

  13

  ASO

  192

  201

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  1

  Carpenter

  1

  —

  Consultant

  608

  472

  Craftsman

  56

  59

  EO

  56

  42

  Farm Manager

  9

  10

  Grade 2

  1

  1

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 4

  2

  2

  Grade 5

  15

  13

  Grade 6

  32

  34

  Grade 7

  90

  82

  General Farm Worker

  17

  31

  Graphics Officer

  3

  2

  GOTGI

  2

  —

  HEO

  22

  14

  HGO

  1

  1

  HMCO

  7

  7

  HPO

  1

  2

  HSO

  45

  36

  Industrial

  8

  5

  IT Specialist

  15

  10

  Librarian

  1

  1

  MCO

  50

  47

  MCTGI

  18

  15

  Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  Personal Secretary

  27

  24

  PTO

  24

  15

  Student

  22

  18

  SEO

  7

  7

  SGBI

  11

  10

  SGBII

  28

  24

  SGBII (Cleaner)

  25

  17

  SMCO

  1

  —

  Scientific Officer

  128

  87

  Senior Consultant

  297

  303

  Senior IT Specialist

  5

  9

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3

  3

  Statistician—Senior

  4

  Sampler Tester

  11

  10

  Team Leader

  93

  88

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Typist

  137

  99

  Total

  2,496

  2,104

  321
  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff by grade for 1993/94, 1994/95 and the projected figures for 1995/96 in the Intervention Board as this matter is within my operational responsibility.
  The numbers of permanent and casual staff employed by the Agency in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in the Departmental Report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  A breakdown by grade for the last two financial years is below. The Agency's staffing for 1995/96 is being reviewed in the light of work changes, and no current projection by grade is therefore available.

  Grade

  1993–94

  1994–95

  G3

  1

  1

  G5

  5

  5

  G6

  4

  4

  G7

  21

  23

  SEO

  46

  47

  HEO

  113

  111

  EO

  203

  195

  AO

  406

  391

  AA

  102

  86

  ADAS1

  1

  1

  ADAS2

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  12

  12

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  0

  Typing Manager

  2

  1

  Typist

  18

  14

  Support Grade Band 1

  9

  8

  Support Grade Band 2

  22

  18

  Supt. TLX

  1

  1

  Spec. TLX

  4

  3

  Sub total

  972

  922

  Casual staff

  11

  51

  Total

  983

  973

  The total of casual staff employed by the Agency are employed in the clerical grades. The figures provided are based on casual staff employed on short term work. Where casual staff are employed in established jobs while decisions are made about future overall staffing levels these are included in the overall grade totals.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff of(a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) agencies for which the MAFF 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 is the projected figure for 1995–96. [25474]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The available information for core MAFF is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Early retirement, voluntary redundancy and compulsory redundancy

  40

  130

  200+

  Medical retirement

  52

  44

  25+

  1 Provisional estimate.

  322
  A detailed breakdown of the retirement and redundancy categories could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  MAFF's agencies will be replying direct by letters from chief executives.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of staff employed at the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL) as well as other issues relating to early retirement and redundancy. I have also been asked to reply to your question about contracting-out of work and other work subject to a "bidding process". Your questions about expenditure on consultancy and the costs of redundancy/early retirement will, I understand, be answered by the Minister for the Department and its Agencies.
  I have already provided you with the average number of staff employed at CVL throughout a given year. Further outturn information on the numbers of staff employed at CVL for the years in which you are interested is published in MAFFs Departmental Report which is in the Library of the House. Details by grade are not available.
  Turning to information about staff medically retired, taking early retirement and redundancy etc, the information you require is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (i) Early retirement

  1

  —

  —

  (ii) Voluntary redundancy

  5

  5

  12

  (iii) Compulsory redundancy

  2

  —

  —

  (iv) Medical retirement

  2

  7

  13

  1 Estimate.

  You also asked about work that had been subject to a "bidding process" and work at CVL that has been contracted-out. In both cases you were interested in the information for the years 1993/94 and 1994/95 and proposals for 1995/96. CVL has a considerable number of contracts with private sector companies for the provision of services covering such areas as ground maintenance, refurbishment, cleaning and security. However, these have been in existence for many years and none have been let for the first time, contracted-out, during the years in which you are interested.
  CVL has run a market testing programme and in 1993/94 the in-house Library team were awarded a Service Level Agreement for the provision of library services. In the following year, 1994/95, the in-house Messenger and Driver team and Waste Disposal and Incineration teams were also awarded Service Level Agreements to provide these services. All this work was won in open competition. No contracts previously carried out in-house were awarded to outside bidders. For 1995/96 no decisions have been taken to contract-out any in-house activities although we are constantly questioning the relative value of each of our services and whether they are most effectively discharged in-house or whether they should, instead, be out-sourced.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  Numbers of staff in MAFF and its agencies who took early retirement, voluntary and compulsory redundancy, or were retired on medical grounds in 1993/94 and 1994/95 with projections for 1995/96
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992 and was re-launched as an enlarged agency two years later following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories. The figures provided below therefore relate to the original CSL Agency for 1993/94 and the enlarged Agency thereafter.

  323

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Voluntary Early Retirement

  1

  4

  1

  Voluntary Redundancy

  0

  0

  0

  Compulsory Redundancy

  0

  0

  0

  Medical Grounds Retirement

  1

  2

  1

  1 Projected Figures. CSL is currently located on five main sites with several smaller outstations throughout England. It is planned in the summer of 1996 to collocate the major part of the Agency to a single site near York where a new, purpose-built laboratory is at present under construction. Details of the number of staff at existing sites wishing to relocate to York are not yet available but it is possible that a number of staff may wish instead to seek voluntary early retirement during 1995/96 or 1996/97.

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1281. In this you asked for how many staff i) took early retirement ii) took voluntary redundancy and iii) took compulsory redundancy and iv) were retired on medical grounds in (1) 1993/94 and (2) 1994/95; and what is the projected figure for 1995/96.
  ADAS was established in June 1992 as an Agency jointly owned by MAFF and the Welsh office.
  Defining early retirement as applying to people age 50, and voluntary redundancy as applying to staff under age 50, the information for ADAS is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (i) Early retirement

  64

  36

  (ii) Voluntary redundancy

  6

  73

  (iii) Compulsory redundancy

  23

  95

  (iv) Medical retirement

  12

  9

  There are no projected figures for 1995/96.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about early retirement and redundancy in the Intervention Board, as this is a matter within my operational responsibility.
  The figures for the last two financial years are:

  Number of staff

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (i) Took approved early retirement

  0

  1

  (ii) Took voluntary early retirement on compulsory terms

  0

  7

  (iii) Took compulsory redundancy

  0

  0

  (iv) Were retired on medical grounds

  3

  2

  On the projected figures for 1995–96, in category (i) there is an approved early retirement scheme in progress, and it is anticipated that 2 officers will retire early on these terms. In category (ii), 13 staff have already taken voluntary early retirement on compulsory terms during the current financial year. However, it is not possible to give an accurate total projected number in this category at this stage. This is because the Intervention Board may run another voluntary early retirement scheme towards the end of the financial year, depending on revised manpower requirements following the implementation of a major accounts project and changes in intervention work. In addition, forecasting is particularly difficult because reduction in staff numbers in some areas and in some grades have to be counterbalanced by possible increases in new work in
  324
  others. In category (iii), no compulsory redundancies are currently projected. In category (iv), it is impossible to give any total projections for retirement on medical grounds, because of the uncertainty and complexity of individual cases.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 23 May 1995:
  PQ 4 17 MAY 1995
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about retirement and redundancy in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The information you requested is set out in the table below:

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/961

  (i) Early retirement

  0

  3

  0

  (ii) Voluntary redundancy

  0

  0

  0

  (iii) Compulsory redundancy

  0

  0

  0

  (iv) Retired on medical grounds

  0

  0

  0

  1 Projected.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff of(a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) agencies for which MAFF is responsible, were employed on a casual or short-term basis in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25489]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the numbers of casual staff employed in my Department in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report which is in the Library of the House. I am asking the chief executives to reply for their agency.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 24 May 1995:
  PQ 8 17 MAY 1995
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the employment of casual or short term staff in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  This information is published in Annex 6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Departmental Report for 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question number 1285. In this you asked for how many staff were employed on a casual or short-term basis in i) 1993/94 and ii) 1994/95; and what are the projected figures for 1995/96.
  ADAS is an agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office and was established in June 1992.
  The number of staff on casual or fixed term basis in ADAS was 237 at 1 April 1994 and 257 at 1 April 1995.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff employed on a casual or short term basis in 1993/94, 1994/95 and the projected figures for 1995/96 in the Intervention Board as this matter is within my operational responsibility.
  The numbers of permanent and casual staff employed by the Agency in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for

  325
  1995–96 are published in the Departmental Report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  The latest available figures are:

  Number of staff employed on a short term basis

  1993/94

  11

  1994/95

  51

  1995/96

  117

  1 Projected. In addition 40 casual staff in 1993/94 and 37 casual staff in 1994/95 were employed in established jobs pending decisions about future overall staffing levels. For 1995/96 we envisage a reduction in the number of casual staff employed taking into account the need to recruit permanent staff into some areas and the reductions in numbers required following implementation of

  326
  a new accounting system and an anticipated decline in intervention work.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated May 1995:
  Details of the number of staff employed on a casual or short-term basis and changes in the number of staff employed in MAFF and its Agencies in 1993/94 and 1994/95, with projected 1995/96 figures.
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992 and was re-launched as an enlarged agency two years later following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories.
  Information on the number of staff employed in CSL during 1993/94, projected outturn for 1994/95 and plans for 1995/96 are published in the MAFF Departmental Annual Report, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. I am unable to provide the full detail you have requested as no projections broken down by grade are available and nor is separate information on posts.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

National Lottery Proceeds: Allocation
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give wider publicity to the fact that charities will receive only about 5.6 pence from every £1 spent on a National Lottery ticket.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government have consistently made clear the percentage of lottery proceeds going to each of the five good causes. Each will receive 20 per cent. of the approximately 28 per cent. given to good causes from each ticket sold.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that there is a good deal of misapprehension—not, of course, in this House—about the proportion of the take which goes to the five good causes? Is he aware that the other day an article in the Sunday Telegraph stated that it was 50 per cent? Does he further agree that there is even more misapprehension about the share which goes to charity, as one of the five? Can there be very much doubt that that is one of the reasons why charitable giving, especially to the smaller charities, has declined so sharply? Some of them, to my knowledge, have already had to give up altogether. I know that the Government are monitoring charity expenditure. But my question today—to which I am not sure I have had an adequate reply—is perfectly simple. Will the Government do a good deal more to get over to the public just what the facts are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the percentage allocation for each good cause was set by Parliament. Each beneficiary sector could argue equally that it should receive a greater proportion of the proceeds. It is the Government's view that it would not be right for one sector to benefit disproportionately, although the situation can be reviewed after the lottery has been running for some time. The noble Lord mentioned charitable giving. It is early days for the lottery; I must stress that. So the evidence on charitable giving is not wholly reliable. It suggests that, while some small charities may be suffering a loss of income, some larger charities are not. We shall be monitoring the situation closely. The Home Office has had discussions with the NCVO and is now considering the way forward with that monitoring. We shall always try to make clear to the public that the reason for buying a lottery ticket is to win a prize. That is the primary purpose of the lottery.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to come back. I wish to make clear that I do not for a moment suggest that the share going to charity should be
1458
increased. I suggest that the facts should be made plain so that one day I might hope to meet someone who actually knows that the share of the charities is 5.6 per cent.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is early days for the lottery. As I said, we try to make known as much information as possible. We have to remember that out of the money raised for good causes, which is now £586 million, so far £94 million—less than 6 per cent.—has been spent on just over 400 projects. During the course of this year we expect over 1,200 successful applications for lottery funds. Once that has started happening and the public see where the money is going, I am sure it will raise the level of understanding.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a danger that the extra publicity postulated in the original Question would give further currency to the totally false belief that the reason which actuates those who buy lottery tickets is pure zeal for good causes and not a desire to win a share of the jackpot?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes an important point. During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, the Government always made clear that, in order not to affect charitable giving significantly, they would emphasise the point that one buys a lottery ticket to win a prize. Over 33 million people in this country have so far won a prize.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, bearing in mind that the charities committee will not be paying out any money to charities until November when the lottery will have been in existence for almost a year, what the cost is likely to be of administering the charitable side of it? Is he aware that the Charities Board is to set up 13 regional committees and 13 regional bureaucracies to advise it how to dispense the money? Can he say what estimate the Government have made of the cost of that regional bureaucracy on top of the national bureaucracy which is all to come out of the money that people thought would go to charity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have the figures for which the noble Lord asks. I shall write to him and let him have them. I should emphasise that the National Lottery Charities Board will have many more applications than any other of the four distributing bodies. They will come from all over the country. There will be many of them. It is important that we set up a system whereby people who wish to make applications to the National Lottery Charities Board will have their applications dealt with quickly and efficiently.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why, in view of the fact that some medical research charities report a substantial drop in their income, which they attribute to lottery fever, the National Lottery Charities Board continues to exclude medical research from financial considerations?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the National Lottery Charities Board is not excluding charities involved in the medical field. It has said that its primary aim in relation to the first applications will be grants to improve the quality of life for people and communities in this country disadvantaged by low income. It will

1459
certainly address applications from medical charities for the second and further rounds. There are many factors which affect charitable income: the lottery is only one of them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, of 5.6p in the pound going to charities? If he does— I was not clear from his Answer—ought not that figure to be much more widely known?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the total amount going to the National Lottery distribution fund is between 28 per cent. and 31 per cent. depending on turnover. The greater the turnover, the greater amount goes to the fund. The figure therefore can be between 5.6p and 6.2p. We try to make that information known but it is important that we do not forget that the primary reason why people buy a ticket on the lottery is not to give money to good causes. If they want to give money to charity they can give it directly. People buy a ticket to win a prize.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, following the Minister's answer that medical research charities are not excluded, does he agree that the practical reality is that in the first round they will not be included? The priority criterion announced by the board does not include them.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes. That is the answer I gave to the earlier question.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not the case that if charities received nothing from the lottery, no one could be under the illusion that by buying a lottery ticket they had made a handsome contribution to charity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lady makes an important point. No one should be deluded that by buying a lottery ticket they are helping a charity. They are buying a lottery ticket because they wish to win a prize. If they wish to give money to charity there are many other ways to give money directly.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this is one of the few countries which has a national lottery where any amount goes to good causes? What happens in most countries is that the total take goes to the exchequer. From that point of view, charities and other good causes, including arts and heritage, are well served by the lottery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. In other countries, the money made from their lotteries is simply subsumed into general government expenditure. We have created a structure in this country which provides an incentive for the operator to make as much money as possible for good causes, along with a transparent distribution process. That ensures that lottery funding remains additional to existing government support in those areas. It is for those reasons that the lottery is such a great success in this country.

The Government's Policies: Presentation
3.17 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
How long they intend to maintain the recently established Cabinet committee charged with the presentation of government policy.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the committee will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government gave as the reason for their disastrous showing in the recent local elections that they had not adequately presented their policies? Can the Minister explain to the House which of the Government's policies will benefit from better presentation?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we do not live in a perfectible world. The policies of any government are always susceptible to better presentation. It seems sensible therefore that the Government should establish a Cabinet committee in order to try to reach ever nearer perfection in this matter.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a certain irony in this Question coming from the party opposite? As far as anyone is able to ascertain, it has no discernible policies whatever. Does not my noble friend think it would be a kindness to provide the party opposite with a similar committee in order to help it present its policies?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. We are aware from the proceedings in yesterday's debate that the parties opposite would like to use public money to try to get them out of the hole my noble friend describes. I am glad to say that a number of people on this side of the House thought that that would be an even greater waste of public money than some of the policies the parties opposite advocate.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that we wish this Cabinet committee well in its endeavours? Judging from recent election results, the more government policies reveal, the less the people seem to like it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot have it both ways. Either government policies are being well revealed or they are not being revealed well enough, as his noble friend Lord Dubs suggested. I will be perfectly confident if the committee is able to do its job as well as it is beginning to do it. The more the Government's policies are revealed, the more the contrast with the policies of the Opposition will show to the Government's advantage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in his Answer the noble Viscount said that the committee will remain in place for the foreseeable future. Can he say at which point the Government would consider that they were too close to a general election and that selling the Government's policies might be in breach of using taxpayers' money to convince people for election purposes?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the rules are perfectly clear about when a government have to cease acting as a government and when they enter into the electoral arena. Those rules are set out. But the noble Baroness poses an entirely fair question by implication. I should emphasise that it is important for the committee to draw a clear distinction, and to make sure that a clear distinction is drawn, between the proper functions of presenting government policy and party political presentation. We are fortunate in having an explanation in paragraph 3 of what have come to be known as the Armstrong rules, which were issued on 1st February 1993.

European Union: UK Membership
3.21 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they believe that the United Kingdom's European partners would deny the United Kingdom access to the single market if the United Kingdom were to withdraw from the Treaty of Rome and, if so, whether such denial would contravene the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the United Kingdom does not intend to withdraw from the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think it is my duty to thank my noble friend for that reply, which, like the reply given to me by my noble friend Lady Chalker yesterday, does not make a tremendously valiant attempt to answer the Question on the Order Paper. Does my noble friend accept that it is our access to the single market as opposed to our membership of the European Union which confers a benefit on commerce and industry based in this country? Is he aware that Switzerland, which recently voted not to enter even the European Economic Area—that is to say, neither the European Communities nor the European Union—at present exports more than three times per capita than we do to the European Communities? Does that mean that life outside the European Union would really be so terrible for us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend said that my noble friend Lady Chalker made a valiant attempt to answer his Question yesterday. I listened to it and I thought it was an excellent answer—not an attempt but a very good answer. The question which my noble friend poses is totally hypothetical. It is rather like him asking me what life is like in the next world. I cannot tell him. He will find out one day.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl assure us that if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, continues to try to make an art form out of asking a series of tendentious, hypothetical and potentially damaging questions of this kind he will join with the noble Baroness in hitting him out of the ground as successfully as she did yesterday? Will he also bear in mind that the European Union has consistently tried to pursue a good neighbour policy towards the EFTA countries outside it (which is different from leaving the Community); and, in particular—as appears to be increasingly the assumption of those who believe that outside a single currency, if one
1462
comes about, we would be free (which we never were even under Bretton Woods) to do an infinite series of competitive devaluations, a continuation of a trend by which monetary sovereignty has succeeded in reducing the value of the pound from 12 deutschmarks to just over 2 deutschmarks in 35 years—that if we were to go on with that without consultation some reaction from the European Union would not be unexpected?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I dislike knocking my noble friend Lord Pearson out of the ground on any occasion other than this. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that when he asks absurd questions like this he will get very sensible answers which I hope will knock him out of the ground and possibly into the ground. It is a fallacy to suggest that if we are members of the European Union—a union in which we have a great part to play, which happens to be of great benefit to us and by which we are a great benefit to it—and decide to leave, the other members will say, "You have decided to leave what you consider to be our rotten, stinking club but nevertheless we are going to be the greatest friends with you". That is impractical and it will not work. That is why we ought to remain in the Union and make it work to the best of our ability not only for the United Kingdom but for Europe as a whole as well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there has been some encouragement to speculate on this matter following a speech by M. Delors, who I believe has friends in all parties and in all quarters of the House, on 13th February last in which he made a very constructive suggestion indeed, doubtless with Her Majesty's Government in mind, that means ought to be found formally to agree a method by virtue of which existing member states could, if they so wished, negotiate their way out of the Community? Therefore, there is some legitimate speculation about this matter. I should be most grateful, as I am sure the House would be, if the noble Earl could confirm, in answer to the latter part of the Question, that Her Majesty's Government have quite independent relations with GATT irrespective of their representations through the European Community.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to M. Delors speculating. I think that the noble Lord is as good a speculator as my noble friend behind me. But let me tell him of one thing that M. Delors said. As a result of the United Kingdom being part of Europe, 40 per cent. of all the investment that comes into Europe from Japan comes to the United Kingdom; 43 per cent. of all the investment from the United States into Europe comes to the United Kingdom; and it was M. Delors who said that the United Kingdom is a paradise for investment. That is something which those who are against the Community ought to remember.
With regard to our relationship with GATT, we are a full member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and we have a perfectly good relationship with Europe as a result of being part of a free trade area which is also part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, important to the United Kingdom as Europe undoubtedly is, the Euro-fanatics tend to exaggerate its importance in

1463
the modern world and that most serious international studies would place the market opportunities as the Far East first, the United States second and Europe third? It is important, but we do not really all want to become little Europeans.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Anyone who takes a strong view at either one end of the spectrum or the other does a disservice to the whole. The fact is that we have a great part to play in Europe. We are part of Europe and we can help to guide Europe not only for the benefit of Europe but for the rest of the world. The noble Lord is also right on another point. Our relationships do not relate only to Europe. The Far East is a tremendously growing market opportunity. So is India. So are other parts of the world. We want to be part of that. Because we are part of Europe that enables us better to be part of the other growing parts of the world.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the sum of the matter that we are better in with a vote than out without one and that when we use our vote we use it in the interests of this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend always puts things so succinctly. I could not agree with him more.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that one beneficial consequence of our withdrawing from the Treaty of Rome would be, according to the transport research laboratory, that 35 lives a year could be saved and 350 serious injuries avoided in that we could then outlaw lethal bull-bars on motor vehicles which at present we are unable to do because of European Community regulations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know who thought of that statistic, but it is a total irrelevance because we are not going to withdraw from the Treaty of Rome.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend help me on this point? A Committee of your Lordships' House said that it was impossible for the Visegrad countries to join the European Community with the common agricultural policy as it stands at the moment. It also showed that trade agreements with Eastern Europe allow in what those countries do not produce and keep out what they can produce cheaply. What efforts are going to be made to widen the Community so that it becomes a real and proper trading community which gives opportunities to Eastern Europe in order to save it from going fascist?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the European Community started off as an organisation with about six members. It is now an organisation with 15 members. Finland, Sweden and Austria have recently joined and certain countries of Eastern Europe are likely to join such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. I have no doubt that others will also join in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware—noble Lords may not like it and may find it boring if we complete the questions on this subject, but I
1464
am not going to be silenced. The longer noble Lords keep up the barracking, the longer I shall stay on my feet. Is the noble Earl aware that I was very surprised to hear him intimate that perhaps Europe might take a spiteful attitude if it was thought that it was in this country's best interests to withdraw from the Treaty of Rome and its subsequent amendments? Is he further aware that we have run a cumulative trade deficit of £87,000 million with the EC since we have been a member? Would not the European Community be cutting off its nose to spite its face if it did indeed take a spiteful attitude, which I do not believe it will?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to take some time to work out the exact point that the noble Lord is trying to make, but I would probably agree with him.

Mr. Sadiq Al-Mahdi: Detention
3.31 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What information they have about the detention on 16th May of Mr Sadiq Al-Mahdi, former democratically elected prime minister of Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Sadiq Al-Mahdi remains in detention, together with a number of other senior members of the Umma Party. The arrests followed a public statement made by Sadiq Al-Mahdi on 9th May which many interpreted as critical of the Khartoum regime. Our ambassador in Khartoum has raised this with the Sudanese authorities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that when the family of Sadiq Al-Mahdi went to see the Attorney-General, Abdul Aziz Shiddu, on Saturday, he said to them that the first thing he knew about the arrest of Sadiq Al-Mahdi was when he read about it in the international media. He reminded them that under the national security Act it was possible for any person to be imprisoned without charge for a period of six months. Is that still the law and should we not impress on the Sudanese that if they want better relations with us they have to abandon the practice of imprisoning people without trial? Can the noble Baroness say how many detainees there are? Can she confirm the figure of 120 of all parties, which has been reported to me, including not just members of the Umma Party, but many former cabinet ministers and members of parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are over 100 persons who have been detained. This sort of law is the very kind which denies human rights to Sudanese people from all kinds of different backgrounds. We thought that there had been some slight improvement in northern Sudan, but that was immediately marred by the arrest of Sadiq Al-Mahdi and other senior members of the Umma Party, as I said. It is the first time that there have been arrests on this scale since 1993. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg had a meeting with the Sudanese Minister of State. He urged the government to allow access for the UN special rapporteur to the Sudan. He expressed our deepest

1465
concern about human rights and about those who are continuing to be detained without any charges being brought.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at a recent meeting in Cairo of leaders of the Sudanese democratic opposition parties from both the north and the south, which I was privileged to attend, there was unprecedented consensus about democratic proposals for the future of Sudan? Therefore does my noble friend agree that the imprisonment of the democratically elected former prime minister, and indeed of well over 100 members of the Umma Party, is evidence of the Khartoum regime's continuing and unremitting hostility to any progress towards democracy and genuine peace for the Sudanese people, and that a very robust answer will give comfort to those who are concerned about that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is not just the abuses in northern Sudan. Some of the worst abuses, as she has bravely seen for herself, have occurred in southern Sudan. So all the activities like bombing civilian settlements, the massacre of civilians and the systematic slavery which go on are to be deplored. We shall continue to be active in securing the views of the whole of the world and representing them to Khartoum through our new ambassador there. We also made sure that the mandate for the UN special rapporteur was renewed because that is a most important step in trying to put right what is so definitely wrong in the Sudan.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most deplorable aspects of this sad situation is that the Government of Sudan endeavour to reject criticism as being anti-Islam? Does she further agree that there is nothing Islamic about arbitrary detention and torture; that the majority of those arrested in the past few weeks are members of the Ansar order of Islam; and that many of the most courageous opponents of the repressive and tyrannical regime in Sudan are in fact devout followers of Islam?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is absolutely right. We have to realise that the most ardent followers of Islam who want a much freer Islamic state are up against the National Islamic Front which is determined to impose Sharia law. Whatever the good signs have been, there is the underlying determination to impose Sharia law and to imprison without trial so many people who fight, as my noble friend said, for a democratic say for the people of Sudan. It is a very serious situation and it does nothing to help those moderate Moslems who wish to follow Islamic law, but in a moderate way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider pointing out to the Sudanese people that this very ancient Parliament, composed of people from all over Great Britain and, in some instances, from the Commonwealth, and all the parties in this House and the other place, condemns absolutely what is going on in the Sudan so that they can understand that this is indeed the united view of all of Great Britain's parliamentary parties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have to go on expressing these views to the Sudanese Government in every way we can. That we shall do with the new Sudanese ambassador when he arrives here later this summer, just as we do through our own ambassador now in Khartoum.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to criminal procedure in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate as regards Scotland certain enactments relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of, and forfeiture of property used in, crime. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences relating to criminal law there. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill
Lord Carter: 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 Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mustill: 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 Mustill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home Energy Conservation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Team and Group Ministries Measure
3.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich The Lord Bishop of Norwich rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, perhaps I may explain briefly what the Measure does and does not set out to do. Apart from a minor provision relating to group ministries, the Measure consists of a series of amendments to the existing legislation concerning team ministries. A single incumbent with, in some cases, an assistant curate is the normal form of ministry in the Church of England. In a team ministry, a number of clergy, and possibly also lay ministers, work together as a legally constituted team, which may contain a single parish or several parishes, and one church or several. The members of the team are the team rector, who is the incumbent of the benefice and the leader of the team, together with one or more team vicars, who share the legal "cure of souls" with the team rector, with the possible addition of other clergy or lay ministers.
The Measure aims to ensure that such team ministries work as effectively as possible. Its intention is not in any way to promote team ministries as the normal form of ministry in the Church. There are some places where a team ministry is appropriate and others where it is not; nor does the Measure in any way change the legal procedure for establishing a team ministry, which is a careful and detailed process involving consultation with all those who are affected. Equally, the Measure does not affect the rights of private patrons.
To put the matter in perspective, there are about 450 team ministries in the whole of England, and the number of paid clergy who serve in them consist of about 10 per cent. of the total. That is a significant proportion, but not a large one. Each proposal for a new team ministry is scrutinised carefully by the diocese concerned. Most of the teams work well and make an important contribution to the life of the Church and the local community. However, some have been less successful.
In order to identify both good and bad practice, and to propose solutions to certain problems that are being encountered, the General Synod appointed two working parties in recent years to examine the subject and to make recommendations. The most recent recommended to the Synod in 1991 that the legislation relating to the structure and working of team ministries needed some improvement to help all team ministries to fulfil their potential, and this Measure sets out to make those improvements.
Nearly all the provisions of the Measure are non-controversial and were accepted without comment by the Ecclesiastical Committee. One provision, concerning the team rector's tenure of office, caused some comment and debate and I hope that I may be able to reassure noble Lords who might have some misgivings about it.
At present, team vicars hold office for a fixed period of years which can be renewed if the priest concerned wishes to continue in that particular ministry and the bishop or appointing body considers that it is right for the priest to do so. Pastoral schemes may also provide for the team rector to hold office for a fixed term of years, and the majority of team rectors hold office on that basis. However, a minority continue to hold the so-called "parson's freehold". After careful consideration and full debate, the Synod decided that in future all members of the team should be appointed on fixed terms, including the team rector.
The issue of the "parson's freehold" in general is under discussion within the Church as a whole, and has been for some time. I have no strong views on the matter and would like to stress that this Measure is not an attempt either to pre-empt that discussion or to influence it. The Synod recognised that team ministries are a special category where special provisions are needed to ensure that the members of the team can work together in a true partnership, without unnecessary issues of special status getting in the way.
Some concern has been expressed that that might leave the team rector with insufficient safeguards at the end of his fixed term of years. However, there is nothing to suggest that those team rectors who hold office for a fixed term at present have in fact experienced problems over this. In addition, a detailed code of practice will be issued before the Measure comes into force which, among other things, will make clear that when the time comes to consider the renewal of the team rector's term—or indeed the term of any other member of the team—there should be a fair, professional and sensitive review process, according to specific guidelines in the code itself, to enable the appointing body to reach the best possible decision. That already takes place in some cases; but the code of practice will aim to ensure that it happens in all cases.
I hope that what I have said will reassure your Lordships, as it reassured the majority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The General Synod gave final approval to the Measure by a very large majority (of 326 votes in favour to 25 against) on the basis that it would make a minor but important contribution to the ministry of the Church in some areas, and hence to the Church's ministry to the community at large. For the same reasons, I hope that your Lordships will be willing to support this Measure and the Motion in my name. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my party as a whole has no views on this matter, as is the case on other similar matters, except to make sure that the rights of the individual as a citizen are not infringed. That is also the job of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and we have paid some attention to that in our meetings on this Measure. The right reverend Prelate has added to what was said then and we now have complete assurances that there is nothing in the Measure to which we object.
Perhaps I may expand on that a little because during the past few years I have worked within a team ministry and closely with team ministries. I believe that the Church of England is very much to be congratulated on their introduction. It is something that those of us who campaigned hard for reform 30 years ago thought might never happen. It has happened, and if it went further and wider and impinged on the parson's freehold, which this Measure does not, there would be some of us who would cheer quite hard. Those of your Lordships who have read The Times today will have noticed the remarks of a former Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson, who wrote in 1943 that the,
"independence known as the Freehold of the benefice is more serviceable to the idleness than to the efficiency of the incumbents".
There are few idle incumbents anywhere in the Church of England today. I cannot think of any case in the past 20 years where the parson's freehold has served as a barrier against a parson saying exactly what he wanted to say on matters within his jurisdiction. I hope that we shall proceed with such reforms. As for this Measure, I do not think that there can be any objection to it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. I do not wish to become involved in a discussion of the freehold in general. As I said earlier, this matter relates only to this Measure. It is a measure without guile. There is no sense of thin-edge-of-the-wedgemanship about it.
I shall add just one comment. Where problems occur in team ministries they are often focused on inappropriate leadership. Team leadership is a relatively new skill for the clergy, although I am glad to say that the younger generation is being trained in that way of working from the beginning. The team rector is primus inter pares. He is primus by virtue of his office as rector. The additional
1470
element of holding the freehold, while his fellow team members do not, tends to create the situation of primus inter impares.
Like the noble Lord, I too can speak from personal experience. I was a former team rector, and when a team ministry was formed in my benefice I surrendered the freehold and was appointed for the same term of years as the team vicars. I have no doubt that that was an important factor in the harmonious working of the team. I commend the Measure to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal against sentencing recommendation of trial judge in murder cases
. An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against a recommendation by the trial judge to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 as to the minimum period which should elapse before the release on licence of a person convicted of murder.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In one of the briefing papers, I think from Justice, this amendment was commended and correctly described as a modest but useful step towards justice. It is modest because, much as I would like to, it in no way reduces the Home Secretary's power to set the length of time a murderer should remain in prison. It is useful because it cures certain anomalies which exist in relation to life sentences.
As the Committee knows, there are two types of life sentence. There is the mandatory or automatic life sentence which arises when someone is convicted of murder. It does not matter whether it is a murder involving a mercy killing, where the degree of culpability may be looked on as being somewhat small; it does not matter whether it is a case where the murder has been committed as the result of the use of excessive self-defence; it does not matter whether the murderer had no intention to kill but, for instance, in a brawl in a pub used a bottle as a weapon, and his victim was killed.
The other type of life sentence is the discretionary life sentence. That is imposed by a judge in cases where imprisonment for life is an option and where the particular offence, be it manslaughter, be it attempted murder, be it rape or arson, shows characteristics of such seriousness and the risk so great to the safety of the public that an indeterminate sentence has to be imposed.
The Committee will have noted that in the examples I gave of murder, and of the cases where the discretionary life sentence is imposed, one can see cases for

1471
discretionary life sentences which are much more serious than those which attract mandatory life sentences, both on the facts and on the risk to the public to which those offenders give rise.
Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 throws up the first of the differences which arise. It relates to discretionary life sentences, and it empowers the judge, on imposing a discretionary life sentence, to state what he considers to be "the relevant period". That is the period which he considers appropriate for punishment and deterrence, and does not involve any aspect of safety for the public.
That part of the judge's decision is part of his order. It is not treated as a mere recommendation, and, as a result, it is open to appeal. Because it is open to appeal, counsel on behalf of the prisoner has the opportunity to address mitigation to the trial judge, and because it is open to appeal, he has a similar opportunity before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
The practice direction which is relevant has indicated that judges, except in the most exceptional circumstances, should avail themselves of Section 34, and as a result there has ceased to be what many judges find unpalatable: the need for confidential communication between the trial judge, and upwards through the Lord Chief Justice to the Home Secretary, indicating what the trial judge and the Chief Justice think is appropriate for this "relevant period" or what has been previously known as the tariff or the penal part of the sentence.
When one comes to the mandatory life sentence, Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 provides:
"On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the Court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence".
That subsection was provided in order to indicate that there was the opportunity to ensure that the life sentences which would thereafter be passed in the case of murders would be of a sufficient length to satisfy the public that the offence was being treated with the appropriate seriousness.
Before the 1965 Act, life sentences were of an unusually short duration—two or three years at times, with an overall average of about eight years. Such is the provision in the 1965 Act that last April—a couple of months ago—the case of the Queen v. Leaney was heard by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). It involved a stabbing by a young man of another young man who was unarmed. The trial judge considered that there was an element of racism in the offence and thought that the defendant was a particular danger to the public. He therefore made a recommendation under Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act that he serve not fewer than 20 years.
An appeal was brought against that recommendation, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal, having considered the matter carefully on the facts, was not convinced that there was a racist element in it, and decided that the recommendation provided an excessive period. Following three previous decisions of the Court of
1472
Appeal (Criminal Division) to the same effect, with reluctance it also concluded that the recommendation amounted merely to advice—it was not part of the sentence or order—and accordingly there was no appeal from it.
The court, which was presided over by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice—whom I am delighted to see here today—drew attention to the anomalies that existed (I have drawn attention to them today): no appeal where the life sentence is mandatory; an appeal where it is discretionary. The court considered that Parliament ought to have regard to that as a matter of urgency.
The court indicated that, in its view, the same openness, the same criteria, should apply to both forms of life sentence. I understand from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that if this amendment is accepted, there will be a practice direction somewhat analogous to that given in relation to Section 34 of the 1991 Act. Therefore, except in special cases, the judges will give their recommendation, having heard whatever counsel wishes to say in mitigation. That recommendation will be the subject matter of an appeal, if needs be, and the Court of Appeal will lay down the appropriate guidelines, as it has done in regard to discretionary sentences.
That will mean that unnecessary anomalies are eliminated. It will also mean that in the case of mandatory life sentences it will no longer be necessary for the confidential procedure to be gone through, as it is at the moment to the distaste of many members of the judiciary. Confidential letters are written via and upwards through the Lord Chief Justice to the Home Secretary making confidential reports with regard to the case and making a recommendation. However, as a result of the recent decision of this House in the case of Doody, the gist of the recommendation must now be communicated to the prisoner.
I should point out to the Committee that leave to appeal was applied for by Leaney and refused by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). As I was finishing lunch today I learnt that an application for leave to appeal has been made by Leaney to the Judicial Committee. I have checked and confirmed that no possible question of sub judice rule arises in that situation. That is referred to specifically on page 74 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. However, it means that your Lordships will not have the advantage of hearing the views of sitting Law Lords because one does not yet know the fate of the application. I hope that those of us who are not involved in the potential obligation to decide anything in connection with Leaney will be addressing the Committee on this matter.
As I indicated at the outset, this is a modest amendment designed to cure an unjustified anomaly which has arisen historically. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that my noble friend will give favourable consideration to the amendment. I can say so because I am not a sitting Law Lord.
4 p.m.
Lord Roskill: I venture to intervene because it so happens that almost 30 years ago it fell to me to make the first recommendation under the 1965 Act in a case which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, may well remember because he was defending counsel. I shall not mention the name of the case because I know that the man has been released and so far as I know he is still alive. I recall discussing with my noble and learned friend Lord Lane the question of when he should be released and what recommendation should be made to the Home Secretary.
There is a great deal of historical background to the 1965 provision. It was introduced—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who became Home Secretary at that time, will recall—because the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, was extremely apprehensive that with, happily, the final abolition of capital punishment the question would arise of keeping in prison for a very long time those who would otherwise have been executed. Lord Parker was persuaded largely by that formidable Lady, the late Baroness Wootton, to support the campaign for the final abolition of capital punishment. But when the provision was put in the 1965 Act the parole board had not been set up. Lord Parker's fear was that there would be a danger of really dangerous criminals being released very early. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said that the average was about eight years. My recollection is that in the case of capital murders the period was about 10 years, but I stand to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, if he is here.
The point is that at that time, in the cases of those people who were released after an average of 10 years there were mitigating circumstances and for that reason they had been reprieved. Obviously, that 10-year period was going to be quite insufficient for the really dangerous long-term criminals. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, may recall that in 1968 when he was Home Secretary he asked me to go to the United States to see how the Americans dealt with the problem. I had the most interesting experience because they were facing up to the problem of keeping people in prison for years longer than anyone had ever done. The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me afterwards about my report.
That is the history of the matter, but the whole position has changed radically. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, as a result of a series of anomalies, partly by judicial decision and partly by legislation, which has not taken everything into account, we have reached a position that is logically totally indefensible. I hope that in due course, when the matter comes back and the outstanding petition has been dealt with one way or the other, the Government will give strong and favourable consideration to it. It will involve reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the case that I tried and in which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, appeared. On appeal from me, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) stated that there was no right of appeal. I have always regretted that decision because no one is infallible. Human error being what it is everywhere, and in particular in court, it is important that there should be an opportunity of correcting that which may have gone wrong.
1474
I hope that I have not spoken for too long but I wished to give the historical background to the matter. There is a hopeless anomaly which ought to be corrected if not by judicial decision at least by legislation.
Lord Renton: I venture to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I am happy to say that it is very rare for me to do so. I hope that I shall not be presuming too much if I say that we should all bear in mind the fact that there is a clear division of function between the courts and judges on the one hand and the Home Secretary on the other. It is for the learned judges to apply the law and to make decisions. If there is a question of appeal from their decision, that goes to the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, it is for the Home Secretary, in respect of all people in prison but especially those who are subject to life sentences, to consider whether the Royal prerogative of mercy should be exercised and whether the various opportunities given to him by statute to consider cases of people who are undergoing sentences of any length should be exercised. Of course, the Parole Board, quite separate from the judiciary, has been given its own special function somewhere between the two—the courts and the Home Secretary.
When the Home Secretary exercises his discretion, he is entitled to receive advice from the prison authorities, medical people and from his own officials who, from my recollection, always give sound advice. In the particular case referred to by the noble and learned Lord, he is entitled to consider advice—and it is only advice—given by a learned judge after sentence has been pronounced.
Perhaps I may say with deep respect that it seems to me to be misguided and overzealous that we should pick out that particular advice which the Home Secretary receives and make it subject to all the tremendous efforts that are made when a case goes to the Court of Appeal and ignore the other pieces of advice on which the Home Secretary, by well-established practice, is entitled to rely and does rely. If that were a decision of the judge, I should agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; but it is not. It is merely advice and one of several pieces of advice which the Home Secretary has to consider.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, he was kind enough to say that we rarely disagree, and I wonder whether this disagreement does not arise out of a misunderstanding.
The noble Lord is anxious that the Home Secretary should receive the best advice possible. This provision simply seeks to ensure that he does receive the best advice because, if the trial judge gets it wrong, that is not the best but the worst advice. If the trial judge makes an error, it goes to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal says that the right advice is X, does not the noble Lord agree that that removes the prospect of the Home Secretary being misled as to what is the appropriate judicial advice?
Lord Renton: With deep respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not believe that that destroys my argument, in spite of the views expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for whom we all have the deepest respect. In reality, if the advice given by a judge is wrong, that will be manifestly clear in nearly every case. I really do think that on a matter which is not a matter of

1475
decision but a matter of advice, to invoke the whole process of going to the Court of Appeal is—I hope I am not using the wrong word—overzealous.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the purpose of this amendment were to ensure that the recommendation of the trial judge, under Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act, should always be made in open court, such a purpose warrants the unqualified support of all Members of this Committee.
Reference has been made to the anomaly between mandatory and discretionary life sentences. Before turning to that, as to the purpose to which I have, just referred, not only has it the merit of fairness and reasonableness, but it will also relieve the tensions aroused by a sense of frustration and injustice which has led to serious disturbances in our prisons. But is it the effect of the amendment that the trial judge should cease to communicate with the Secretary of State by private correspondence? I hope so. Is the effect of this amendment that the practice of the Lord Chief Justice communicating with the Secretary of State will continue or will it cease? If one erects an appellate structure to avoid the anomaly, one may well ask, with the greatest respect, whether the communication system between the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State could not become otiose.
As to removing the anomaly, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, there are obviously two views about that. In one sense, although the point of view advanced by my noble friend Lord Renton appears to be anomalous, on detailed examination it is not anomalous and should be preserved.
Whatever may be said as to the merits of that, perhaps I may respectfully suggest that the introduction of this appellate structure requires a measure of clarification as to the position of the communication with the Lord Chief Justice and also the secret communication by the trial judge at the request of the Home Secretary because, with respect, I should have thought that that secret method of communication should have ceased years ago.
Members of the Committee may be interested to know how this recommendation under Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act arose. It was part and parcel of a compromise to enable the Bill to pass because it was obvious that if the mandatory death sentence had to be replaced by the mandatory life sentence, no one, save in very rare and wholly exceptional cases, was going to serve a mandatory life sentence. Life did not mean life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has explained that it was designed to ensure that a sufficiently long sentence would be imposed.
That compromise was agreed between Lord Gardiner and Lord Dilhorne to enable that Bill to pass. But it was not particularly acceptable to either of them and it is certainly not understood why, as part of that agreement, that system of secret communication should have been necessary. But perhaps 30 years ago, a more overt system of dealing with the matter in open court had not been considered.
1476
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether she accepts that a recommendation by the trial judge should always be a judicial act performed in open court and that the system of the private communication by letter should cease; and, if so, whether the Government would be prepared to introduce or not to oppose an amendment to such effect.
In view of the disagreement as to whether one should remove the anomaly, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she will explain the Government's attitude to the continuation of that current practice of communication with the Lord Chief Justice. Further, what is the attitude of the Government to the proposed appellate structure under the amendment, bearing in mind the argument as to the anomaly? In the light of what my noble friend the Minister may say, it may well be that one would wish to have time to consider the amendment further rather than deal with it today.
Baroness Mallalieu: As a practising member of the criminal Bar, I wish wholeheartedly to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. My only criticism of it is that it is a small step which does not go far enough. Until very recently a defendant convicted of murder, as the noble and learned Lord said, and sentenced, therefore, to a mandatory life sentence accordingly, had no knowledge of what, if any, communication the trial judge made to the Home Secretary about how long he would have to serve, except in the very few cases—usually those of the utmost gravity—where a recommendation for a minimum term to be served was made at the trial in open court at the time of sentence.
It is also right to say that for many years counsel were largely ignorant even of the existence of the confidential report sent by the trial judge in other cases; and only very recently, as the noble and learned Lord outlined, have the accused and his legal advisers been entitled to know the contents of the report, or of any additional recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice, or, indeed, of the tariff itself ultimately set by the Home Secretary. At present there is no right of appeal against the recommendations of the trial judge, publicly or privately, of the Lord Chief Justice or of the Home Secretary.
The present position gives rise to very considerable feelings of injustice among those defendants at the receiving end. The decisions appear to be taken behind closed doors, with no opportunity to challenge, correct errors or persuade in any way. Perhaps I may give the Committee one brief personal and recent example. It relates to a middle-aged and totally respectable man convicted of the murder, committed in a rage, of a drug dealer who had been supplying drugs to one of his sons. He had gone to the dealer's house and used a shotgun. At the initial trial the judge directed the jury that they could consider his defence of provocation only in the context of what had happened between the two men after he had arrived, armed, at the drug dealer's home. In those circumstances, scarcely surprisingly, the jury rejected provocation and convicted the man of murder. He was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence of imprisonment. No recommendation was given at the trial in open court. Subsequently, the trial judge privately recommended to

1477
the Home Secretary a minimum sentence of 12 years. The Lord Chief Justice raised that recommendation to one of 14 years, which was accepted by the Home Secretary.
That man's sense of injustice about the direction of the trial judge was great, but at least he was able to appeal. In the event, the Court of Appeal ruled that there had been a misdirection on the law and ordered a re-trial, at which he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Therefore, he is likely to serve substantially less time. However, he felt a sense of injustice and frustration at being unable to appeal against the private recommendation of either the trial judge or of the Lord Chief Justice. He also felt that the decision of the Lord Chief Justice and the tariff that he set were bound to some extent to have been based on the trial judge's view. His sense of injustice in that respect was, if anything, even greater.
The amendment does not deal with the provision of appeals in relation to other stages in the tariff process. For that reason, I say that it does not go far enough. However, it is a modest step in the right direction and one which I hope the Minister will, on reflection, feel that the Government can accept.
Baroness Elles: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, perhaps I may contribute modestly and humbly to the debate. I listened carefully to the remarks made by noble and learned Lords. It seems to me that the real question is that of an anomaly. I am not sure that having an anomalous situation is sufficient ground for wishing to change existing procedure. On the other hand, the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway drew attention to the fact that there are certain deficiencies in the present procedure which I believe should be remedied, especially as regards private and confidential reporting coming from the judge, who makes a recommendation.
I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that she should perhaps take the matter away, study what has been said, seriously consider the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and try to find a way to improve the procedure without actually changing the process of going to the Court of Appeal merely on the grounds of an anomaly. In my view, that is not a strong enough ground for changing the procedure. However, clearly something must be done; there is something wrong with the procedure. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the amendment goes to the root of the problem.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: The amendment has my full support. Of course, as has been said—I do not wish to detail again the procedures—in all life sentence cases the tariff, or penal element, has to be set; that is the period which the prisoner must serve in order simply to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Until that period is served, the prisoner is not eligible for release on licence. Whether he should be held longer because he presents a danger to the public is another matter.
1478
However, we have this not merely anomalous and illogical but unjust distinction between the two different classes of life sentence. When a discretionary life sentence is imposed, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to set the penal element of the sentence as part of his order. That tariff is subject to appeal. Thus, the process of establishing that minimum period of detention is conducted in open court and is subject to appeal in open court.
By contrast, the regime in murder cases is quite different. When the mandatory life sentence is imposed, it is the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary to set the penal element of the sentence. In exercising that responsibility the Home Secretary has the assistance of recommendations from both the trial judge and from the Lord Chief Justice. That advice has conventionally been given in writing and behind the scenes rather than openly. Since the decision of the Appellate Committee of this place in the case of Doody, that advice now has to be disclosed to the prisoner before the Home Secretary makes his decision so that representations can be made upon it, but it is not subject to appeal.
There are least two reasons why the present system is unsatisfactory. First, the trial judge usually does not have the benefit of hearing argument on the penal element. Therefore, on the crucial issue of how long the prisoner should be detained the judge receives no representations on his behalf. However, its most important flaw is that the process is secretive. Justice in our system is administered in public. It is fundamental that proceedings which lead to conviction and sentence should, wherever practicable, be conducted openly and be subject to appeal. The current procedure involves a quite unnecessary and counter-productive deception on the public.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out in a debate in this Chamber on 27th April initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the public are confused by the difference between what the noble Lord termed gross and net sentences. Moreover, they hear that a prisoner has been sentenced to life imprisonment but know that in the majority of cases "life" will mean something between 10 and 15 years. Members of the public do not know where on the spectrum any particular case has been held to lie unless the prisoner or his legal representative leaks the judge's confidential advice to the media. This has happened in a number of recent cases and does little, in my view, to bolster public confidence. Happily, Parliament has already provided nine-tenths of a better procedure.
Under Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, to which reference has been made, a trial judge may, in a case of murder, make a recommendation in open court as to the minimum period which should be served before the question of release on licence arises. This power has tended to be used only in cases of exceptional wickedness when long terms have been recommended. It may perhaps have been equally appropriate to be used in cases where the small degree of culpability, comparatively speaking, would justify much less than the normal sentence, but it has not been so used, and indeed it is rarely used.

1479
Moreover, such a recommendation, even under the statute when it is done in open court, is not appealable, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has pointed out, and as we ruled recently in the case of Leaney. The amendment before the Committee would correct this anomaly by providing an avenue of appeal, as is the case with, for example, a recommendation for deportation. If the amendment is carried, I would propose to invite judges to regard the procedure under the 1965 Act as the usual course to be followed in all murder cases. Thus the trial judge would make his recommendation in open court having heard representations. If not appealed, that recommendation would go unchanged and unqualified to the Home Secretary. If it were appealed, the Court of Appeal would review it and its views would go to the Home Secretary. There would therefore be only one regime and it would be open to public scrutiny.
I would like particularly to comment on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton with whom I am afraid I do not find myself in agreement. He suggests that there is an important distinction between a judge who is making a decision and a judge who is merely making a recommendation. There is, of course, a distinction. That is clear. But it does not go to the merit of this amendment because at present the recommendation for deportation which a judge makes is only a recommendation. It is not binding on the Home Secretary. Yet there is within the statute a right of appeal in respect of that recommendation. How much more appropriate it would be if the recommendation related to a long period of years which the defendant may have to serve.
I would suggest that rather than the Lord Chief Justice single-handed having his input following the trial judge's secret recommendation, if there is to be a review of the recommendation of a trial judge the trial judge should make it in open court and it should be three judges, presided over, if you please, by the Lord Chief Justice, who should have the opportunity to review it. It seems to me that that would not only be more open but would give a better chance of achieving a fair result. Accordingly I would recommend that we follow the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. The Home Secretary's role in setting the final tariff in murder cases would—I emphasise the point—be entirely unaffected by the amendment we are considering. He would be free, as he is now, either to accept or not accept the judicial recommendation.
I have raised the matter already with the Home Secretary who was not, I am bound to say, enthusiastic about it, even though, as I have said, it would make no alteration to his power to decide the minimum period to be served by a mandatory life sentence prisoner. What it would do is to ensure greater transparency in the advice he receives from the judiciary when discharging his responsibility. It would remove the illogical distinction between the open regime of discretionary life sentences and the secretive regime of mandatory life sentences. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be so good as to consider whether he is content that the other types of advice and recommendation—to use his word—which
1480
the Home Secretary receives, and must receive, before reaching some of these major decisions, should continue to be given confidentially to the Home Secretary, or whether they should be made public and be the subject of some kind of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: I do not know what recommendations my noble friend is referring to. I have already indicated that a recommendation for deportation which a judge makes is open to appeal. I would have thought that this form of recommendation should be treated no differently.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain something for clarification? Is the noble and learned Lord with me on the point or against me, that the private letter of the judge should cease?
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: Most certainly; I am sorry if that has not been made clear. I thought that I had sufficiently referred many times to openness rather than to a situation behind closed doors. It is precisely to get rid of the behind the scenes letter from, first of all, the trial judge and then, secondly, the Lord Chief Justice that this measure should in my submission be supported by the Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as to the type of practice directions that will be given will be recorded in Hansard. It is on that basis of implementation that this amendment is supported.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: For complete clarification on this, I should point out that what I have in mind is a practice direction analogous to that which I gave following Section 34 of the 1991 Act. Section 34 of the 1991 Act is not mandatory upon the judges. A judge may bring Section 34 into effect if he chooses. I issued a practice direction to say that judges should, save in rare circumstances—perhaps where they thought that life should mean life—operate Section 34. The effect of that is that in every discretionary life sentence, save the exceptional ones, the trial judge in open court says what he considers is the minimum period that ought to be served.
As regards mandatory life sentences, what I propose is that if this amendment is carried I would issue a practice direction saying that judges should implement Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act in all cases of murder, save perhaps for some very exceptional reason. That would mean that a judge in every murder case would in open court invite comments as to the length of the period he should recommend from defending counsel. He should then make his recommendation. It should then be open to appeal. On appeal, it would be dealt with by three judges. If consistency is sought, I would be happy that it should be in a division over which I or my successors presided. In that way everything would be done openly and the behind the scenes letter would be done away with in the case of mandatory life sentences as it has been already in the case of discretionary life sentences.
Lord Meston: We on these Benches wish to support this amendment. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it seems that so long as judges have the important

1481
function of making recommendations and having a discretion to make them publicly as an accompaniment to the mandatory life sentence, it surely must be correct that such recommendations can be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal. As the Committee has just heard, this amendment will surely help to ensure consistency, and it is to be hoped that it will encourage greater openness in the making of recommendations. What should reassure us that the amendment will work, and work well, is the promised practice direction which is to come, it is to be hoped, quite soon from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice coupled with future guidance from the Court of Appeal which this amendment will facilitate.
Lord Lowry: I too should like briefly to support this amendment in view of all that has been said; but nonetheless, I hope, do so strongly. I recognise the logical reference to the existence of anomalies but perhaps I could remind the Committee that the real anomaly lies in a mandatory life sentence. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to argue about that, merely to make a factual observation. It is a grim reflection but true that when sentence of death was the mandatory punishment for murder, that sentence was normally carried out unless there were exceptional circumstances. Since the mandatory life sentence was introduced, it has become abnormal for that sentence to be carried out. That is the background against which we have to consider the proposal.
I wish to make three points. First, when the judge makes his recommendation in open court, as I have always understood the law, and indeed took part in declaring it in another jurisdiction, there is no appeal from that recommendation. Under the proposal, if that recommendation is made in open court, as I think it should be, the accused hears it and can decide whether to appeal. If he does not appeal, that itself is a guide to the Home Secretary, because the accused is apparently content with the fairness of what the judge has said. If he does appeal, the Court of Appeal will hear submissions, will give its decision in open court and will give reasons. That, too, is of paramount assistance to the Home Secretary.
Contrast the present situation where, whether or not the judge makes an initial recommendation, he has the opportunity to advise the Home Secretary. If he has retired or has died, that opportunity will not exist. In any case, the Lord Chief Justice has another duty. Here I speak with some experience in another jurisdiction. The Lord Chief Justice has little alternative but to confirm the recommendation, if one has been given by the trial judge, or else, in exceptional cases, to apply a modifying influence if the judge seems to have gone to extremes in one direction or the other. All that is not of great assistance to the Home Secretary.
My second point is that the recommendation, though not part of the sentence, is very important whether made in open court or later, and should be treated as part of the administration of justice like the trial and sentence. For generations we have subscribed to the view that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. That is one reason for favouring the amendment. Nowadays we are progressing even further to the view that administrative
1482
action must be open and be able to be questioned and examined. I understand that the Government subscribe to that view, and so does nearly everybody else.
Thirdly—and some Members of the Committee but not others may consider this important—the amendment does nothing to take away the power of the Home Secretary or interfere with his executive discretion. He still has the last word. If the amendment is accepted, that last word will be pronounced with the benefit of more information and much more useful advice.
I submit that the amendment has everything to be said in its favour and very little against.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have listened with great interest to the exchange on this issue around the Chamber. The concern shown by your Lordships' House on all matters relating to the mandatory life sentence for murder is well known. However, it would be right for me to indicate at the outset that the Government cannot agree to this proposed new clause, despite the eloquent and learned arguments used in its support today.
This new clause would create a very considerable anomaly were there to be no change in existing judicial practice when it comes to making minimum recommendations in open court in murder cases. Thus, if it happened that the judge made a minimum recommendation under the terms of Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, the convicted murderer would have a right of appeal. If the judge chose not to make such a recommendation in open court—which is currently the position in the vast majority of cases—then no such right of appeal would exist. But the judge would still make a recommendation to the Secretary of State in those cases about the period to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
It has been suggested during the course of this debate that that anomaly would not in fact arise. It has been indicated that the Lord Chief Justice would issue a practice direction to judges telling them to use their discretion to make a minimum recommendation in all but the most exceptional cases. However, I doubt that it is good legislative practice to pass provisions which depend on the issue of a practice direction to have any reasonable interpretation.
Even if judges made minimum recommendations in all cases, I cannot accept the argument that a right of appeal ought to exist against those minimum recommendations. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence they are, almost without exception, in cases where the court has the final word on the subject: where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane (the then Lord Chief Justice), confirmed that there was indeed a right of appeal against the "relevant part" specified by the trial judge in the case of a discretionary life sentence after the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into effect, he referred to the acid test being that there:
"was no modification, revision or alternative which could be substituted for that by the Minister".

1483
That is clearly not the case with a minimum recommendation made by the trial judge in the case of a mandatory life sentence. It is only a recommendation. Parliament has not so far chosen to give the judiciary in the case of the mandatory life sentence anything more than this role in considering the penal element. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said during the course of the Doody judgment,
"Parliament has not by statute conferred on the judges any role, even as advisers, at the time when the penal element of a mandatory sentence is fixed".
Given that the minimum recommendation is just that—a recommendation—there is surely no case for building an appeal procedure about it. It would mean that that element in the tariff setting procedure alone would be subject to appeal. Not even that of the Lord Chief Justice would be subject to appeal.
It is worth remembering that the fact that a minimum recommendation is made in court is not the end of the matter as things stand. There may be no right of appeal against that recommendation, but there is opportunity for a further judicial view. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary places considerable value on the views expressed as to tariff by the Lord Chief Justice under the current procedures. Where there are differences in the view taken by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, the reasons for that disagreement are given very careful consideration.
Those supporting the proposed new clause have gone to some pains to stress that it would in no way detract from the role of the Secretary of State in tariff setting, or prevent the holder of his office from setting a tariff different from that determined by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, on the basis of this new clause, it would be impossible to suggest that that should be the case.
Successive Home Secretaries have stressed that the views of the judiciary on the requirements of retribution and deterrence are simply one factor—though a very important one—taken into consideration. Other factors, like the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice are also relevant. That view is not simply one taken by Home Secretaries mindful of their responsibilities in this area, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, confirmed during the course of the Doody judgment that,
"The Secretary of State is compelled, or at least entitled, to have regard to broader considerations of a public character than those which apply to an ordinary sentencing function".
If tariff setting can go wider than normal judicial considerations—and it clearly can—then it seems to me that the intended advantage of Court of Appeal consideration of the judge's recommendation disappears. Rather than in any way improving transparency, it seems to me that it would be likely to cause considerable confusion.
The judge would make a minimum recommendation in court. That may well attract some publicity because, if the case has been reported on, the minimum recommendation will be recorded at the outcome of the trial. This will probably remain in the public consciousness. An appeal to the Court of Appeal which will take place some time later may or may not be reported. Even if it is reported,
1484
that would not be the end of the case. The Lord Chief Justice would still be invited to give a view. And the decision on tariff would still be made by Ministers. I am not sure that this would be readily understood by the wider public.
I do not suggest that the current procedures surrounding the setting of tariffs should remain immutable. That was the point made by my noble friend Lady Elles. A number of improvements have been made in recent years in terms of the disclosure of information to convicted murderers about tariff considerations. As noble Lords are aware, the prisoners are now informed of the recommendations as to the tariff period made by both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice; those serving a mandatory life sentence are invited to make representations on those recommendations; and once a decision has been taken by Ministers, they are told what their tariff is and they are given reasons for any departure from the judicial advice.
There may, however, be a case for greater transparency within those procedures where the general public is concerned. I have noted all that has been said on that aspect. In particular, I know that a committee in another place has been considering, among other things, whether there might be a case for recommending to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that when tariffs have been set, they are made public as a matter of routine. My right honourable friend has indicated that he can see that there might well be arguments for doing so. At this stage we do not know what the Committee will recommend—but I know that the case for any changes in this area will be looked at very carefully. Therefore I can give my noble friend that assurance.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked whether minimum recommendations should be made in all cases. The Government believe that that should remain a matter for the judge's discretion. But we have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that he would give pretty firm guidance to all judges that they should make a decision in open court. Nevertheless, it remains in law a discretion for the judge.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others referred to the role of the Lord Chief Justice if the amendment were passed. The Home Secretary would still want the views of the Lord Chief Justice. There would not, after all, be appeals in every case in those areas where a judge used his discretion not to make a recommendation in open court. The Home Secretary would want at least two judicial views in every case.
With regard to the Lord Chief Justice's further point, I accept that there is a right of appeal against a recommendation for deportation where the court does not have the final say in the matter. However, a successful appeal against a recommendation for deportation leads to the quashing of the recommendation. If it is quashed, there is nothing for the Executive to consider in due course. That is rather different from the position regarding the recommendation for a minimum period which can be made in the case of the mandatory life sentence.
The strong opposition to the mandatory life sentence, and to the role of the Executive in it, expressed by many in this House, and over many months—indeed, I suspect over many years—as I said at the outset, is well known. I believe that it is concern about the system of mandatory

1485
life sentence which underpins the amendment. I well understand that the limitations of the amendment have more to do with what is permitted within the confines of this specific piece of legislation than anything else.
This new clause is ostensibly about the fairly minor, though quite complex, issue of a right of appeal against the minimum recommendation made by a judge in open court. However, I do not believe that the wider implications of the new clause for the mandatory life sentence and its operation have escaped your Lordships.
If noble Lords wish to argue for changes to the mandatory life sentence, or for its abolition, that is their right. But I do not believe that the Bill, which has a very important and rather different purpose, is the proper place for such arguments to be aired.
Nor, if noble Lords wish to bring about changes to the operation of the mandatory life sentence, is this amendment the best way to do so. The new clause would introduce more anomalies rather than addressing the anomalies which some have claimed currently exist. I hope that the Committee will not take the decision—whatever its feelings about the system—to vote in favour of such an unsatisfactory change to the law.
I urge the Committee not to attempt to legislate for an appeal which would involve only one part of the tariff setting process. That point was made very well by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is just a part of the process; indeed, it is the early part of the process. It precedes the views of the Lord Chief Justice; it precedes the views of the officials in the department; and it precedes the psychiatric reports, the medical information and indeed the prison reports, too. There may be a case for wider transparency. As I said to the House, I have noted that point carefully. But I urge the House to accept that the issue should be considered as a whole rather than legislated on piecemeal. For all those reasons, I hope that this clause will not be pressed tonight.
Lord Ackner: I stated at the outset that the amendment was designed to do away with some of the anomalies which exist between the discretionary life sentence and the mandatory life sentence. I am bound to say that the Minister has not really addressed her mind to that issue. Section 34 of the 1991 Act has almost entirely escaped her observations. Section 34 of the 1991 Act gives the judge the right in open court to specify the tariff; and when he does so there is a right of appeal. In order to ensure that it became the practice of judges in discretionary life sentence cases to indicate what the tariff was, except in exceptional circumstances, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction that judges should use Section 34. I have not heard any criticism from the Government with regard to that practice direction; and I cannot see why, if the amendment is allowed, an analogous practice direction requiring judges, except in exceptional circumstances, to make the minimum recommendation in all murder cases is open to any criticism. It is a complete analogy. That is where the anomaly exists: that cannot as yet be done.
In my respectful submission, the noble Baroness overlooks this point. On the one hand, she says that the Home Secretary takes very seriously—it is a very important element in his thinking—what the judicial
1486
advice is as to the minimum period. But she rejects the opportunity of that advice being the best advice that can be obtained—not the advice merely of the trial judge, but, if he has got it wrong, the advice of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). It is difficult to follow on what basis the opportunity to have that advice is rejected.
The noble Baroness says—I think that it is complete misunderstanding on her part as to what has been suggested—that the view of the Lord Chief Justice as at present will always be wanted. But that overlooks the fact that the Lord Chief Justice is presiding in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the cases where there are appeals from the trial judge's recommendation. The Home Secretary not only has the benefit of his advice as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) but the advice of a Lord Chief Justice who has had the advantage of sitting in a Court of Appeal and—I stress this—having the case argued in front of him. At present, he makes the decision perhaps after consultation with the trial judge, with no argument, and without the assistance of members of the Court of Appeal. I do not follow why the amendment should in any way be rejected. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene at this point. It is true that Parliament has taken the view supported by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there should be a distinction between murder and other crimes which are subject to life sentences. That is the point at issue. There is not only a distinction but a distinct process through which cases have to go and it was that to which I spoke. It is for the Committee to address the issue that those guilty of murder should be treated under the same system as those treated under the discretionary system, but that is not the case. The amendment simply interferes with that distinct process for the category of murder as opposed to other crimes which are subject to life sentences.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: With the greatest respect, the distinction between the two sentences is that in the discretionary life sentence the Home Secretary has no entitlement at all to determine the period that the prisoner spends in prison. It is determined by the trial judge and subsequently by the Parole Board in relation to what remains after the tariff has been settled—namely, that part that is necessary for the protection of society.
In the mandatory life sentence, the Home Secretary has the ultimate discretion as to when the prisoner should be released. That is the distinction and no interference of any kind is being made in that distinction. What is being provided is, no doubt in many cases, better quality advice from the judiciary as to what the minimum period should be, as a result of an appellate process which is open and capable of being argued. The Home Secretary remains fully entitled to ignore that advice. The impression I receive is that the Home Secretary is deeply concerned that he will be criticised the more for disregarding the advice because that advice will have been given in open court by the Court of Appeal after argument. However, the present process is a secretive one with no argument,

1487
no appeal and the prisoner himself only entitled to the gist of what has gone on. That ensures that the public is insulated from the true situation. Therefore, the Home Secretary can—as he does—alter essentially upwards the judicial tariff without being open to public criticism.
I gather from the resistance and the way in which the Government have presented their resistance that the Home Secretary is anxious to remove himself from the criticism that might occur were he flagrantly to ignore the advice of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) as to the justified minimum period.
That is so unsatisfactory a way of dealing with the amendment that I would have been minded to divide the Committee but for a simple matter. Members of the Committee have had the advantage, for what it is worth, of retired Law Lords giving their views and the great advantage of the views of the present Lord Chief Justice. But the Committee has been denied the views of the sitting Law Lords because of the current outstanding application for leave to appeal in the Leaney case. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, purely on that basis that I intend to return to it at Report stage. By that time, we may know more about whether there is to be an effective appeal in the Leaney case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Applications to quash indictments appeals
. Where a person makes an application, on or before arraignment, to quash an indictment laid against him, on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the lapse of time from the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed to the date when the prosecution was instituted—

(a) is likely to cause substantial prejudice to the defendant in the conduct of his defence; or

(b) is likely to make a fair trial impossible,

an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) from the decision of the Crown Court granting or refusing the application.").
The noble Lord said: The object of the amendment is four-fold. First, it is to confer direct appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to entertain an appeal from the Crown Court in respect of a decision to grant or refuse an application to quash an indictment on grounds of delay. It would thus avoid the expense, inconvenience and untoward publicity of a trial which should never have taken place.
Secondly, it will enable a preliminary submission to be made before arraignment and so avoid the summoning and empanelling of the jury and arrangements for a substantive trial, including the attendance of witnesses. At the moment, preliminary submissions are made after the jury has been empanelled but before plea. All the witnesses are there and all the arrangements have been made for the trial.
Thirdly, it is to confer jurisdiction on the leave to be granted by the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to stay the proceedings on substantive trial on grounds such as the alleged abuse of
1488
process, pending the decision of the appellate court. So in a sense and to a large measure it entirely reflects the procedure which operates in Scotland.
Lastly, its purpose is to avoid substantial prejudice to the defence or the prospects of a fair trial—the most usual ground upon which the application is made.
During the passage of the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, moved an amendment substantially in that form. I am relieved to see him in his place. The amendment was carried without dissent. The noble and learned Lord was of the opinion that it was a matter of such importance, being concerned with the exercise of judicial discretion under the inherent jurisdiction of the Crown Court, that it was appropriate that such a decision should be subject to the direct appellate process; it should not be left to a single judge, and the Crown as well as the defence should have a right of direct appeal. The noble and learned Lord felt that a provision along those lines should be of general application and not limited to indictments laid under the War Crimes Act.
The noble and learned Lord put it so clearly that with the leave of the Committee I propose to quote what he said:
"A decision whether or not the prosecution should proceed when it is very stale and when an application for stay on the grounds of abuse of process has been made is a difficult one. As I understand it, it is a decision partly of law and partly of discretion. It is a decision in which a judge may clearly err, and some judges have erred in the past. Not only, in my view, is it desirable—as a matter of general law, quite independently of war crimes trials—that the law should be amended so as to render such a decision subject either to review or appeal in a case where an application to stay has been refused, to avoid what may turn out to be a long, expensive and quite unnecessary trial, it is perhaps even more desirable that the prosecution should be able to appeal against the wrongful grant of stay when, if the stay has been wrongfully granted, the defendant will wrongly and unjustly escape the prosecution altogether. But if that amendment to the law is desirable in general, which is the view that I would commend, it is still more particularly desirable—indeed, I would say essential—in war crimes cases".—[Official Report, 1/2/95; col. 1576.]
The noble and learned Lord then pointed to the fact that in war crimes trials it was inevitable that an application would be made in each case. He said:
"In my submission, it would be right that the burden and responsibility of pronouncing the last word in such circumstances on the question of whether or not the prosecution should go ahead should rest with a single judge. It would be right that it should be subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)".—[col. 1577.]
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor appeared to take a somewhat similar view to the questions of drafting; namely, that one day the introduction of a general provision along the lines proposed by this amendment should be considered. He said:
"We are therefore agreed that at present, under the law, no intervention is possible by any higher court in a decision of this kind unless it goes in favour of the prosecution and the review will only take place after the matter has proceeded. It may therefore be subject to appeal if there is a conviction.
I can understand the argument that there should be some form of possible appeal at that stage generally. The argument that there should be a right of appeal by the defence is usually met with the answer that, if the whole matter goes against the defence, they will have the right of appeal at the end of proceedings under the present law. But as my noble and learned friend forcefully pointed out, there is no such provision for the prosecution. Therefore one can find that the decision of a judge at first instance in relation to a prosecution generally, not

1489
just in relation to war crimes, may defeat the prosecution with no effective appeal in a situation where some may feel that the judge's decision was at least open to question.
That is a question of general importance and there is much to be said for it being considered".—[col. 1578.]
My noble and learned friend then said:
"The general matter is one on which different views may be expressed. I can see that in the future your Lordships' House may be asked to consider the matter as a general question".—[col. 1578.]
Therefore, on the basis of the analysis and the argument of the two noble and learned Lords, I rest this amendment. It would not apply in a multi-count indictment unless an application to quash on all counts on grounds of delay had been granted or refused, at least as at present drafted. It would not apply to an application to quash an indictment on any ground other than delay—entrapment, for example—as at present drafted; or while the charge as laid was misconceived as not being supportable on the evidence sought to be adduced, taking the evidence at its face value.
So it could be that noble Lords, or indeed the Government, may consider that the scope and incidence of this amendment should be enlarged, as the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is as provided by statute which excludes the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. That lies only within the exclusive remit of the Crown Court trial judge. It is only on conviction that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) may correct an erroneous decision of that type and set it aside or order a new trial on grounds which include a refusal to quash.
There is a strong case in principle for the introduction of the proposed amendment, irrespective of redrafting or putative enlargement, to include perhaps any abuse of process, to which I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, referred. Such is the spirit in which this amendment is moved, in the hope, first, that in the light of today's debate it may be largely acceptable to all sides of the Committee. And in the hope that the Government will introduce their own amendment at a subsequent stage—one hopes at Report stage—and indulge in a measure of consultation with noble and learned Lords who are interested in this matter. I have no intention of dividing the Committee today. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: The Committee may well feel that it has heard enough from judicial voices for one afternoon. But I hope that I may be allowed briefly to express my support in principle for the amendment, although I should wish to see it more widely drafted, so as to apply to any application to stay proceedings on indictment on the ground that the prosecution was an abuse of the process of the court. I shall be brief, for the additional reason that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has already quoted my views expressed on this subject on an earlier occasion.
An application to stay a prosecution on the ground that it is an abuse of procedure, which may be normally on the ground of delay but may also be on other grounds, always raises a serious question, often raises a difficult question and is not an issue which, in my submission, should be left for final decision by a single Crown Court judge, who may be a High Court judge, circuit judge, a recorder or an assistant recorder.
1490
It is perfectly true that if an application to stay is refused and the trial proceeds, there will be an opportunity, if the defendant is eventually convicted, for him to appeal against his conviction. But that is small consolation. The truth is that, where a prosecution has been brought in circumstances which make it an abuse, the defendant ought not to have had to undergo the trauma of standing trial. But as the law now stands, the case is still worse where the Crown unsuccessfully resists the application for a stay of proceedings and the judge grants a stay. In that situation, the Crown has no remedy. If the judge has granted the stay on inadequate grounds, the result is that a guilty man, who probably richly deserves to be punished, walks free and there is nothing that the prosecution can do about it. To my mind, that is a grave defect in our criminal procedure which cries out for remedy.
I understood from the passage which my noble friend cited from what was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the occasion of the Committee stage of the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave at least a qualified welcome to my general proposition that that was an aspect of the criminal procedural law which required remedy. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will at least be able to tell us that the Government will favourably consider introducing such a provision.
Baroness Blatch: This new clause would provide a right of appeal to either party against a decision of the Crown Court either to grant or refuse an application to quash an indictment on the grounds that the delay in bringing the case to trial would make a fair trial impossible. Until 1993 it was thought possible for both parties to seek judicial review of such a decision—or, more precisely, of a decision on an application to stay an indictment. However, in the case of Ashton the House of Lords ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to review these decisions, as they were matters,
"relating to a trial on indictment".
The defence can only challenge a decision of the Crown Court to refuse an application on appeal to the Court of Appeal following conviction. There is no means of redress for the prosecution.
I can understand why my noble friend tabled this amendment. But providing a right of interlocutory appeal, as this new clause proposes, would have considerable implications for the administration of justice. It would add an extra stage into the process and further delay the trial. It might be open to exploitation by the defence, who could use such appeals as a delaying tactic. While that would be confined to cases where there had already been a considerable lapse of time, I would suggest that it is all the more important in such cases that further delays be avoided.
Although I can see arguments in favour of a prosecution right of appeal against such decisions, which might result in important criminal proceedings being halted, it is not altogether surprising that one does not exist—rights of appeal have not traditionally been available to the prosecution. That was one of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. The defence, on the other hand, if aggrieved by a particular decision of the Crown Court, can have that decision reconsidered by the Court of Appeal following

1491
conviction. I believe that that represents adequate redress for the defence. A general right of appeal at the interlocutory stage against such decisions would need a good deal of further consideration before it could be adopted, particularly in view of the possible implications for the handling of court business and the timely conduct of trials. I hope that in the light of those objections, while I understand the anxieties of my noble friend, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she contemplate that the introduction of the obligation to obtain leave to appeal in the interlocutory stage would solve many of her anxieties in relation to the question of delaying meritless appeals?
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point. Perhaps he will allow me to take it away for consideration—it may well be an answer—between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords who spoke and of course to my noble friend the Minister. In relation to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend's brief was written before I raised the question of seeking leave from the trial judge or the Court of Appeal. I had that very point in mind—that one must have a safeguard against abuse. I hope that the reaction of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his advisers will be open to this point and that they will consider that their anxieties will be wholly met in a satisfactory fashion.
I cannot accept the invitation to withdraw the amendment in the sense that I shall never come back to it. I have said that I shall withdraw it today because that is the sensible course to take, particularly in view of the fact that it is manifestly plain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, wants to widen the scope of the amendment. If he does, I shall withdraw my amendment and support his. The issue will come back; it will not go away. There is no question of that. On the next occasion I shall certainly divide the Chamber, either in relation to my amendment or in relation to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I do not mind whether I win or lose, but I believe that it is right to do so.
When this matter has been fully considered at Report stage, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will allow us to entertain constructive discussions as to a form of amendment that may be acceptable to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, however drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. There is no more to be said at this stage. I ask my noble friend to keep an open mind. It would be a great pity to take up a lot of time in your Lordships' Chamber on a matter that will continue to be pursued and will not go away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Grounds for allowing and dismissing appeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("conviction)") to end of line 36 and insert ("in subsection (1) (a) (grounds on which the Court of Appeal are to allow or dismiss an appeal), leave out the words "or satisfactory" and insert the words "or may be unsafe".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 which are identical in effect. These are conservative amendments. They have the effect of making the changes to the original Act less extreme than they appear to be in the Bill. I refer to Section 2 of the 1968 Act and subsection (1), which is concerned with grounds on which the Court of Appeal is to allow or dismiss appeals.
The Government have opted for a simple formulation, in that if the Court of Appeal thinks that a conviction is unsafe, it allows the appeal, but otherwise it dismisses it. That is a change from the wording of the 1968 Act which included the words "unsafe or unsatisfactory". For practical purposes we agree that there is no distinction between "unsafe" and "unsatisfactory"—at least I do not agree, but the Court of Appeal has said so and we had better accept what it says as being the position that stands in law.
The Runciman Commission used the words "is unsafe or may be unsafe". If we abandon the use of the word "unsatisfactory", it is necessary to keep a distinction between something which is without doubt unsafe and something which may be unsafe and yet is a proper ground for an appeal to be allowed.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who had to leave for another appointment, said at Second Reading that if a verdict "may be" unsafe, then it is unsafe. But that is not the English language. There is a distinction in the English language between something which may be unsafe and something which is unsafe; in other words, is without doubt unsafe. The simple formulation which the Government have chosen is too restrictive and gives too little possibility to the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal. Already we are making changes to the powers of the Court of Appeal. Until now, if a case was unsafe on a point of law it was automatic that the appeal should be allowed. Now all cases will require the leave of the court or a certificate from the trial judge, which was previously the position only in cases that concerned matters other than points of law.
In the evidence given to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice a lot of people argued that leave to appeal should be abolished in all cases. Does "leave to appeal" add very much to the operation of the Court of Appeal? However, we cannot make that argument now. We are not making such fundamental changes. What we are doing in the Bill is to set up the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
We are proposing a very modest change. We are proposing to go back to more of the wording of the 1968 Act. We are proposing to use the wording that was used by the Runciman Commission. We are proposing that this should provide the proper role for the Court of Appeal in ruling on errors of law and procedure. We are not doing anything revolutionary or dramatic but I believe that it

1493
will be possible for the Court of Appeal to act in a more rational and flexible way if these amendments are accepted. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I would advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
5.30p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 3 would have the effect of maintaining the existing grounds for deciding an appeal against conviction, while replacing "or unsatisfactory" with "or may be unsafe". It is well-known that there has been widespread agreement that Section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, while it has served us well, is in need of substantial redrafting. That was reflected in the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which argued that the grounds for deciding an appeal were overlapping and unclear and should be redrafted to provide a single, broad ground.
There are many ways in which the current formulation of Section 2 is unnecessarily complex and even self-contradictory, and the reference to both "unsafe" and "unsatisfactory", which would be removed by the amendment, is only one. I shall not embark upon a detailed critique of the 1968 Act, but by way of illustration, under the current formulation, which would be maintained under this amendment, the court would be able to apply the proviso and dismiss an appeal, even when it thought that the conviction was unsafe and should be set aside. That would clearly be meaningless.
We have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our intention is to consolidate the existing practice of the Court of Appeal. The "lurking doubt" test will be maintained, as will the possibility for appeals to be allowed on the grounds of errors of law or material irregularities at trial. In each case, the issue for the court to decide is whether the conviction is unsafe.
I believe that there are considerable advantages in providing a broad ground for deciding an appeal. It allows the court the flexibility to allow an appeal on any ground which it considers renders the conviction unsafe. There are numerous factors which can render a conviction unsafe. There is no need to spell them out in statute because whatever words are used, in the end there is only one question for the court to answer: whether or not the conviction is unsafe. As I shall explain in a moment, I do not in any case consider there to be any advantage in adding the words "or may be unsafe" to the test for allowing an appeal.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 take up the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that the Court of Appeal should allow an appeal against conviction if it thinks that the conviction is or may be unsafe. We considered the Royal Commission's recommendation carefully before deciding to use only the words "is unsafe" and not the words "may be unsafe" in the new test for allowing an appeal. Combining the two phrases suggests that some convictions are more unsafe than others and, accordingly, that some convictions are
1494
quashed more thoroughly than others. That is not the intention. We therefore decided that we had to choose between the two.
The difficulty with the phrase "may be unsafe" is that it is inherently uncertain. Under one interpretation almost any conviction may be unsafe. On the other hand, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice argued with great eloquence at Second Reading that there was no merit in including in the test the words "or may be unsafe", since the implication of doubt is already inherent in the word "unsafe". He added that a conviction which may be unsafe is unsafe. "Or may be unsafe" would add nothing of value.
Although the test is expressed much more concisely than under the present law, we do not intend it to result in fewer convictions being overturned than at present. We want to consolidate the existing practice of the Court of Appeal and provide as simple and clear a test as possible. I hope that I may be forgiven for quoting once more the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who has said that the revised ground for allowing an appeal is,
"clear, just, and comprehensible to the ordinary citizen".
I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded by these arguments and that he will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I am not persuaded. The Minister suggests that with these amendments we are proposing that some cases may be more unsafe than others. We are indeed doing just that, because there is not just one course of action that the Court of Appeal may take. There are two courses of action. One would be to quash the conviction; the other would be to order a retrial. Therefore, the possibility of a lower test, which is provided by the phrase "or may be unsafe", is a proper reflection of the actual powers available to the Court of Appeal. It is entirely proper that the law should reflect those two degrees of—there is not a word for "unsafeness" but that is what I mean to say—because the action which the Court of Appeal may take as a result will reflect that.
The Minister then said that almost any case on conviction may in a sense be unsafe. I suppose that in one interpretation of the English language that could be the case. She then went on to applaud the words of the Lord Chief Justice, who said that "is unsafe" is the same as "may be unsafe". The two cannot be combined. One cannot hold both views at the same time. What is provided, as was provided in the Royal Commission report, is a lower test in the phrase "or may be unsafe". It reflects the powers of the Court of Appeal. It properly represents the views which have been expressed by the Court of Appeal in recent months, when the Court of Appeal has been taking a more generous interpretation of cases of this kind. I believe it is important that this House should accurately reflect the current state of mind of the Court of Appeal when it is indeed to be approved of, as I think it is here, and should ensure that the law reflects the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. Under those circumstances, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Monson, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Elis-Thomas, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Addison, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Aldington, L.

Downshire, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Annaly, L.

Elles, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Finsberg, L.

Astor, V.

Flather, B.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Goschen, V.

Biddulph, L.

Halsbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Harlech, L.

Blyth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burnham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Huntly, M.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Chesham, L.

Leigh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lindsay, E.

Coleridge, L.

Long, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Demon of Wakefield, B.

1496

Merrivale, L.

Romney, E.

Mersey, V.

St. Davids, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Scarman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Moyne, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Munster, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Nelson, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newall, L.

Stewartby, L.

Onslow, E.

Strange, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Oxfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swansea, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Prentice, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rawlings, B.

Wharton, B.

Renton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renwick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Power to quash unsafe conviction on hearing new evidence
.Where in any appeal the Court of Appeal receives fresh evidence which is admissible and which the Court considers to be capable of belief, and which if believed would render the conviction unsafe, the Court, if it be impracticable to order a new trial, shall allow the appeal and quash the conviction.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The new clause which I am proposing in this amendment is designed to achieve a principled answer to an awkward problem. The problem arises in those appeals where the Court of Appeal receives admissible evidence which it considers capable of belief. In such appeals one would expect the Court of Appeal either to allow the appeal or to order a retrial. But, if a retrial is impracticable or undesirable, should the Court of Appeal be able to decide the question of fact against the appellant and dismiss the appeal? My submission, which I shall argue, is no; hence the amendment introducing this new clause to that effect.
It is an awkward problem and it is discussed extremely well in the Royal Commission's report, Chapter 10, paragraphs 62 and 63. I agree with every word of paragraph 62 but, sadly, as I see it, the commission, in paragraph 63, yields the ground of principle and settles for what it calls, "the sensible alternative" of the Court of Appeal deciding the new question of fact for itself. The court can therefore, if I may borrow a phrase from the report,
"usurp the function of the jury and dismiss the appeal".
Is there any risk in that? That is a very reasonable question. I regret to say that the record shows that there are real risks. I cite only one instance today of where the Court of Appeal received fresh evidence. It was fresh evidence that we would now say was capable of belief. The Court of Appeal took immense trouble to listen to the new evidence. It refused to order a new trial. It reached a

1497
decision, and the Guildford Four lost their appeal. Events have shown that the Court of Appeal reached the wrong decision on the facts when it took that line, and the four accused spent another 15 years in gaol before they were vindicated. I cite that illustration because it shows the great danger of the Court of Appeal venturing into the field of judging evidence, so to speak at first instance, because that evidence, which was adduced before the Court of Appeal in the Guildford Four case, was never seen or heard by the jury in the trial of the Guildford Four.
So there are risks in allowing the Court of Appeal either to refuse a retrial or to feel that one should not be granted and then to go on to consider new facts not considered by the original jury and to reach a decision against the appellant and dismiss the appeal.
I am not the only one to be troubled by this problem and this situation. Lord Devlin, unfortunately no longer with us, was horrified by the law that had developed, and was associated with a well-known House of Lords case, Stafford v. DPP. He was horrified by what he regarded as the lack of principle and the desertion—the impeachment, if you like—of trial by jury as our principle for dealing with indictable cases; by the impeachment that arose when the Court of Appeal took that line by not ordering a retrial but itself entering the lists as the judge of fact.
Having said that, it is fair, I think, to ask me: what do you say are the principles which are offended by that course of action on the part of the Court of Appeal which is at the moment authorised by law—and by laws stated by this House in its judicial capacity? I shall endeavour to tell the Committee what I see to be the principles. I ask myself: what are they? First, the verdict and the conviction founded on it must be unsafe if the new evidence is capable of belief. That verdict (and the conviction founded on it in the trial when the new evidence was neither seen nor heard) is unsafe because it was founded on only part of the evidence, and the jury had no cognisance of the new evidence. Therefore, when deciding the question of fact against the appellant, the Court of Appeal does not make that original verdict safe. It remains an unsafe verdict unless and until there is a jury's verdict based on all the evidence. One can achieve that by a retrial. If there is no retrial, it cannot be achieved. So, what do we end up with under that procedure? We end up with a conviction based on an unsafe verdict which goes to only part of the evidence, and a finding of fact by the Court of Appeal never seen or heard by the original jury. Guilt has therefore been established under that procedure not by a jury, but by an appellate court. That is the first lack of principle in the present law.
Secondly, by itself deciding the new question of fact—that is, the decision on the facts not known to the original jury—the Court of Appeal—and this is perhaps not always understood—inevitably reverses in the case the burden of proof. Why do I say that? In an appeal against a conviction, the appellant goes first and puts his case. The Crown, the prosecutor, responds. When new facts are considered by the court and a ruling is made upon them by the court, the defendant appellant has to prove his case on the new facts. He now goes first. The Crown answers. He no doubt has a reply, but he has to make the going. Where has the presumption of innocence gone? Where, indeed, do we find the accused? He is attempting to
1498
establish a defence whereas if he was in the court of first instance, the evidence would be led by the Crown and he would have a presumption of innocence, with the burden of proof resting steadily on the Crown. It is a strange position which arises from a confusion about the appellate process and the trial process when the Court of Appeal takes that line in regard to new evidence and dismisses the appeal.
In the process of the law, confusion and injustice are likely to arise unless it is made absolutely clear that in fresh evidence cases, if it be impracticable or undesirable to order a new trial, the Court of Appeal's duty is to allow the appeal and quash the conviction. Hence my proposed amendment.
I put shortly, and perhaps not as clearly as I should like, the real trouble. We are in very strange waters, and it is important that appeal courts should devote themselves to appeals. Courts of first instance, and certainly a trial by jury—which is of course the right of those facing indictment—are where the facts have to be established, either at first or later. If the Court of Appeal finds itself in a position in which it cannot order a retrial and has the finding of fact, it has to allow the appeal. That is what I suggest. I am extremely disturbed at the consequences of not keeping separate the role of the trial with judge and jury and the role of the Court of Appeal, which is review.
I have one final little observation. In a strange way, when the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal on new evidence not seen by the judge and jury, it is at the same time denying the appellate stage in the Court of Appeal to the accused, because if it does that there is no Court of Appeal other than the House of Lords to which the defendant can take his case. He has on that issue lost his right to an appeal in the Court of Appeal because the Court of Appeal has acted as judge of fact.
These are serious matters. They are awkward matters. The amendment would get us out of trouble if cases have to be further considered. At the moment it is extremely dangerous to allow the Court of Appeal to make a decision dismissing an appeal on new facts, the evidence of which became available or became known only at the appellate stage. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened with a great deal of attention and concern to what the noble and learned Lord had to say. He raises, as he says, difficult matters. They are difficult not just because of the relationship to which he referred between the Court of Appeal and the courts of first instance but because of the relationship between the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. His amendment says, "Where in any appeal". That could be an appeal which comes direct to the Court of Appeal, without reference to the commission, or it could be an appeal which has been referred by the Court of Appeal to the commission for investigation. Therefore, the fresh evidence to which the noble and learned Lord refers in the amendment could be evidence which has been examined in an investigation by the commission.
The noble and learned Lord then describes three requirements for the conclusions to which he comes in the amendment: it should be fresh evidence which is

1499
admissible; it should be fresh evidence which the court considers capable of belief—the new formulation which has been introduced by Clause 4, which has just been agreed to—and, finally, it has to be evidence which it is believed would render the conviction unsafe.
The noble and learned Lord quotes perhaps the most disturbing evidence of all—the example of the Guildford Four who spent 15 years in prison after the Court of Appeal considered their case, received fresh evidence, did not indicate that the fresh evidence was worthy of belief, or whatever was the phrase under the 1968 Act, and did not indicate whether or not it believed it would have rendered the conviction unsafe but, nevertheless, dismissed the appeal. I am certain that he is right that we must provide in the legislation against such a miscarriage of justice ever happening again.
I am convinced that, whether or not the noble and learned Lord's formulation is correct—I shall listen with great care to what the Minister has to say on the matter—he has made an important point which deserves and needs to be answered if the Bill is to perform perhaps its single most important task: the reduction of such miscarriages of justice, because nothing can eliminate them.
Baroness Blatch: This new clause would require the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal against conviction whenever it decides to receive fresh evidence which could potentially render the conviction unsafe without considering whether the evidence in the court's view does render the conviction unsafe. As I understand it, the reasoning behind this new clause is that the Court of Appeal is not an appropriate tribunal to consider the weight of fresh evidence alongside all the evidence presented to the jury at the original trial. It is suggested that that task should be performed by a jury, or not at all.
The effect of the amendment would be to limit the powers of the Court of Appeal when faced with new evidence which, if believed, would go to the safety of the conviction: it would have either to order a retrial, or, if that were not possible, quash the conviction without ordering a retrial. Both of those powers are available to it now. The third option—which this amendment would remove—is to dismiss the appeal after deciding for itself that the new evidence does, not render the conviction unsafe.
I do not agree that the Court of Appeal is never in a position to assess the weight of new evidence in the context of the evidence heard by the jury. It has shown itself over many years to be capable of performing that function wisely and fairly. I hope the Court of Appeal will always bear in mind its power to order a retrial in fresh evidence cases. But in some cases a retrial simply will not be possible.
There will also be cases where the new evidence may be rebutted by other new evidence adduced by the prosecution. In those cases in particular I do not think it is unreasonable for the court to have a power to assess the strength of the new evidence rather than a duty to allow appeals automatically, without any consideration of their merits.
1500
I do not think that it would be right for the court to quash a conviction, and release an appellant with no prospect of a retrial, without having considered whether or not the conviction is safe. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Perhaps I may mention the case of Stafford, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. In our view, the Stafford judgment was a confirmation of the intention of Parliament. Section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires the court to allow an appeal if it believes that the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. That is a clear indication that it is for the Court of Appeal, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, to form its own view about the safety of the conviction. In 1992 the European Court of Human Rights held that the exercise of this power was indeed compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a fair trial.
None of us wants mistakes and we were all saddened by the experience of the Guildford Four. But I am not absolutely certain that this amendment is the way to address that particular problem.
Lord Mishcon: Will the Minister tell the Committee what principle is involved in the following matter, which is our tradition in the law? It is that on a trial on indictment at first instance it is the judge who rules purely on the law and he directs the jury that they must not take into account anything that he says in regard to a finding of fact. The facts must be found by them. Why is that principle a good one and yet a Court of Appeal can decide on a question of evidence and fact? What is the principle involved in that?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has the advantage over me because he is extremely learned in these matters. I am not sure that I, as a total layperson, am able to give him the rationale underpinning that principle. I hope that he will allow me to think about what he has said, research the matter for him and come back with a considered answer at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the last sentence of her reply. I did not have an opportunity to make a note, but I understood her to say that she was not absolutely certain that this amendment was the right way to tackle the problem. She identified the problem, as we all have, as being the risk of a miscarriage of justice, such as that which took place in respect of the Guildford Four.
I have never heard in a ministerial brief the phrase, "I am not absolutely certain that the amendment is the right way to do it". If the Minister is not absolutely certain that the amendment is the right way to do it, is there not a strong possibility in her mind and the minds of those in her department that it might be the right way to do it? Without taking anything back, would the Minister care to give some kind of commitment to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that she will think about the matter further between now and the Report stage and will discuss it with him?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord and I have jousted across the Dispatch Box on many occasions and therefore he will know well that I do not always stick absolutely to my brief. On this occasion I was saying—and I had

1501
departed from my brief when I said it—that inevitably, however secure the system and however secure we try to make it, there will always be mistakes. I was saying in my own mind that I was not certain that this was the way to address it.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in relation to the principle underpinning one stage of the process as opposed to another, I have said that I shall take that away and think about it. I shall, as I always do between the stages of a Bill, take away everything that has been said during the course of the debate and think about it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Scarman: I say at once that I do not intend to divide the Committee on this amendment. However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the extraordinary importance of the point that is raised. It may well be that the proposed new clause by itself is not the way to achieve the result. However, I shall demonstrate the fact that something needs to be done by using other people's words and adopting them as part of my argument.
Many Members of the Committee have read the report of the Royal Commission. I wish to show the real hesitation and doubt that was in the minds of its members and therefore, with permission, I shall read the relevant parts of paragraphs 62 and 63 of the report. Paragraph 62 reads:
"In Stafford v DPP the House of Lords held that on the proper construction of the statute it was the task of the Court of Appeal when deciding the impact of fresh evidence to decide whether it thinks the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. It should consider the weight of the evidence… This ruling has been criticised, notably by Lord Devlin, who argued that it usurped the function of the jury. In our view, the criticism made by Lord Devlin and others has force insofar as it concerns a decision by the court to hear and evaluate itself the fresh evidence and despite it to reject the appeal".
That is the point with which I am dealing. The report continues:
"In our view, once the court has decided to receive evidence that is relevant and capable of belief, and which could have affected the outcome of the case, it should quash the conviction and order a retrial unless that is not practicable or desirable. The Court of Appeal"—
listen to these words, my Lords—
"which has not seen the other witnesses in the case nor heard their evidence, is not in our view the appropriate tribunal to assess the ultimate credibility and effect on a jury of the fresh evidence. It should normally not decide the question of the weight of the evidence itself unless it is satisfied that the fresh evidence causes the verdict to be unsafe, in which case it should quash the conviction".
Paragraph 63 illustrates why the Royal Commission does not take it all the way that I take it and therefore, in fairness to the Committee, I shall read the relevant part of that paragraph. It states:
"Where a retrial is impracticable or otherwise undesirable, there is an argument"—
that is mine—
"for saying that the Court of Appeal should not usurp the function of the jury but should simply allow the appeal".
Here comes its reason for differing.
"We do not agree. It seems to us unacceptable, particularly after we have recommended that the court should apply a less strict approach to the kind of evidence it will receive, that fresh evidence which the court accepts as being capable of belief should not be tested as far as practicable. We are therefore unanimous in concluding"—
1502
and here come the words—
"that there is no sensible alternative in these circumstances but to leave the Court of Appeal with the function that the House of Lords in Stafford suggested it had under the present statute—of deciding the matter for itself".
I have endeavoured to indicate that that sensible alternative—the argument of convenience—should not prevail over the argument of principle which I endeavoured to put before the Committee. I hope that those concerned with the Bill will consider the point that I have endeavoured to make and will appreciate its importance because, as has been said in this Chamber in the past 20 minutes, we cannot have repetitions of the kind of miscarriage of justice that emerged in the Guildford Four case; an injustice that was not put right for 15 years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers exercisable by registrar]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 17 and insert ("No variation of the conditions of bail granted to an appellant may be made by the registrar unless he is satisfied that the respondent does not object to the variation;").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment designed to clarify the drafting of Clause 6, which delegates certain powers of the Court of Appeal to the registrar, including the power, where the prosecution agrees, to vary conditions of bail granted to an appellant. This amendment makes it clear that it is to the proposed variation of the bail conditions, as opposed to the exercise of the power itself, which the prosecution must agree. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Appeals in cases of death]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("by virtue of paragraph (a) above") and insert ("in relation to his case by virtue of paragraph (a) above or by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission").
The noble Baroness said: At present a person's rights of appeal die with him. Clause 7 provides for appeals when the convicted person has died to be conducted on his behalf by a person approved by the Court of Appeal. This is subject to a time limit of one year from the person's death. Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 and 64 to 67 are all minor, technical amendments designed to ensure that this provision operates smoothly.
Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that an appeal can be conducted on behalf of a deceased person following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and that the approval of the Court of Appeal is required before a person can pursue the appeal in these circumstances. Amendment No. 13 provides that references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission where the convicted person has died are not subject to the general one-year time limit governing appeals on behalf of deceased persons. This reproduces the existing law, under which the Court of Appeal can consider the appeal of a deceased person following a reference from the Home Secretary, with no fixed time limit. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 make equivalent provision for Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 to Clause 7, and Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 to Schedule 2, provide that in specified enactments, references to the "accused", the "appellant", or the "convicted person" can be construed, where appropriate, as being or including the person approved to conduct the appeal on behalf of the deceased person. Amendment No. 14 does this for the 1968 Act, Amendment No. 15 for the 1980 Act, Amendment No. 65 for the Costs in Criminal Cases Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, Amendment No. 66 for the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and Amendment No. 67 for the Legal Aid Act 1988.
Amendment No. 64 is a consequential amendment to Section 5 of the 1968 Act, which was needed because an appeal under Clause 7 may be conducted by someone other than the convicted person. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 17:
Page 6, line 8, at beginning insert ("Except in the case of an appeal begun by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission,").
Page 6, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert:
("(5) Where this section applies, any reference in this Act to the appellant shall, where appropriate, be construed as being or including a reference to the person approved under this section.").
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("by virtue of paragraph (a) above") and insert ("in relation to his case by virtue of paragraph (a) above or by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission").
Page 7, line 3, at beginning insert ("Except in the case of an appeal begun by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission,").
Page 7, leave out lines 6 to 10 and insert:
("(5) Where this section applies, any reference in this Act to the appellant shall, where appropriate, be construed as being or including a reference to the person approved under this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Commission]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 21, after first ("The") insert ("Chairman of the Commission, who shall not be a serving or retired member of the judiciary, and the").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53 to Schedule 1, which is consequential.
With this amendment and with Clause 8 we reach Part II of the Bill, which is concerned with the composition, powers and responsibilities of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. As the Committee knows, on Second Reading we on these Benches gave a warm welcome to the establishment of that commission. If I spent a fair amount of my Second Reading speech pointing out defects in the Bill, I did so in the context of saying explicitly that those were comments about matters which did not detract from the general approval and welcome which we were giving to the establishment of the commission. The question of the chairmanship of the commission is one of those issues with regard to which we see a defect but it will be readily acknowledged—and we acknowledge it—that it is not a defect of the utmost or critical importance to the work of the commission.
Nevertheless, it is important that the commission should be well established as being fully independent of the Court of Appeal, of government, of the police and of other parts of our criminal justice system. In saying that, I am fortified by the view of the Royal Commission which recommended that the chairman should be chosen for his personal qualities rather than any particular qualification or background which he may have. The commission recommended that, given the importance of what it called the authority—which is now the commission—being seen to be independent of the courts in the performance of its functions, the chairman should not be a serving member of the judiciary. I am referring to paragraph 20 on page 184 of the commission's report.
Our amendment goes a little further by suggesting that the chairman of the commission should not be a retired member of the judiciary. That in no way indicates any disrespect either for serving or retired members of the judiciary—and I hasten to say that in the presence of the two noble and learned Lords still present in the Committee. But the principle of independence from the courts is not personal or related to the skills of the judges concerned. We believe—and the Royal Commission believed—that that independence is necessary in order to establish in the minds of the public the entire independence of the new function which the commission is to have. We believe that the amendment which sets out the condition that the chairman should not be a serving or retired member of the judiciary and the consequential amendment in the schedule which removes the other conditions for the appointment of the chairman are modest improvements to the proposals in the Bill for the establishment of the commission. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right in saying that the appointments to the commission will be crucial if it is to inspire confidence in its work. The Government believe that the provisions of Clause 8 achieve that.
I am aware that the Royal Commission suggested that the chairman of the commission should not be a judge. We looked at the point very carefully when drawing up our proposals to create the commission. We concluded however that it would be undesirable to impose such a restriction in the legislation.
In appointing the chairman, and indeed any of the other members, it will be the qualities which the individual in question will bring to his task that will be of paramount importance. We think it would be counterproductive to preclude any candidate who had all the necessary qualities to be an effective chairman simply because he or she might be a judge or a retired judge. The Government intend that the selection process for the chairman should be as open as possible. The post will be advertised in the press. The job description and the type of person we are looking for will be clearly set out. We believe that this will provide us with the widest possible pool of candidates for the post and ensure that the best person available is appointed.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to a very important point in relation to the commission's independence from the courts, the police and government. It is important that we do not confuse the person with the institution. It seems curious to suggest that judges, of all

1505
people, lack the ability and personal independence to adapt vigorously to whatever task they are required to carry out.
If it were logical to exclude judges, should we not also exclude lawyers who might side with the prosecution or the defence depending on their usual kind of work? I believe it is fair to say that people such as judges do not have a deficit in the area of objectivity, in the balance of judgment, in impartiality, in analytical skills and, indeed, in good communication skills. Therefore, I hope that we would not, by way of the amendment, preclude the possibility of a judge, or a retired judge, becoming the chairman.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was useful to have in the Minister's reply the renewed assertion of the independence of the commission. I am grateful for that fact. Of course, no one is saying that judges, or retired judges, are not capable of doing things which are entirely different from their judicial work. Indeed, the outstanding example in that respect at present is Judge Tumim who is about to retire as Chief Inspector of Prisons. He has demonstrated the most admirable independence from the Government, from the Prison Service and, indeed, from almost everyone he has come across. Indeed, he has shown the most admirable dedication for the welfare of both those who serve in prisons as staff and those who are incarcerated. He will be a very difficult man to replace.
Of course, there has never been any question that the judiciary had a particular role in the running of the Prison Service. Therefore, there has never been any conflict of interest between Judge Tumim and the job that he had to do as chief inspector. I do not believe that that is the case here. It is important that the public should see that the commission is not simply an extension of the Court of Appeal. That is the impression that would be given—whatever the procedures for selection—if the result of such a procedure were that someone who might otherwise serve in the Court of Appeal was also appointed as chairman of the commission. Whatever the qualities of such a person, I think that that would be regrettable. It would also inhibit the effective working of the commission as an independent body.
I said on Second Reading that the relationship between the commission and the Court of Appeal is the most difficult, single subject underlying the Bill; indeed, a whole range of problems arise. We are discussing just one of them. It is not the most important and not a matter upon which I wish to divide Members of the Committee. I am mildly grateful for what the Minister said about the appointment system. It is with some regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert:
("() In selecting names to recommend to Her Majesty as members of the Commission, the Prime Minister shall—

(a) seek to ensure that there is a balance of appropriate knowledge, experience and skills within the membership,

(b) submit a list of proposed members to a Committee of the House of Commons for comment, and

(c) consider any comments received from the Committee to which he has submitted the list before submitting the list of proposed members to Her Majesty.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22. They are all concerned, not with the chairman of the commission, but with its members. The procedure for the membership of the commission which has been proposed—and if there is further news in that respect from the Minister, it would be interesting to hear it—is comparable to the procedure for the appointment of Lords Justice of Appeal. In other words, it is by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
It is clearly not an issue upon which the Prime Minister sits down with Her Majesty at the breakfast table and they think of a few names for an appointment. It does not actually happen that way, although the legislation requires that it should be expressed in that way. It means that the Government will appoint the members of the commission. Let us be quite open about that aspect of the matter.
However, we believe that there should be both additional requirements for the qualifications of the members of the commission—and they are contained in Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22—and also some involvement of the other place in the appointment to establish the independence of the commission from the Government. That is provided for in Amendment No. 19. Therefore, we are still keeping to the formula about the recommendation to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister and we are still seeking to ensure that there is a balance of appropriate knowledge, experience and skills. However, we suggest that the Prime Minister should submit a list of proposed members to a committee in the other place for comment, and consider the comments received from it before submitting the proposed list to Her Majesty.
We are proposing a very weak formulation. It does not give the power of veto to the committee in another place. Moreover, it does not impose any violent obligation on the Prime Minister; or, indeed, to whomsoever he may delegate the task. However, it gives some indication of the concern of the other place and, therefore, of the general public in the independence of the commission. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 20 is designed to go against, to some extent, or to complement one of the proposals in the Bill. Clause 8(5) says that at least one-third of the members of the commission,
"shall be persons who arc legally qualified",
and then goes on to define the term "legally qualified". We do not object to that; but we do think that the commission should not be stuffed with lawyers. Although the minimum of one-third is acceptable, we believe that a maximum of "half should be stipulated. In our view,

1507
practising or retired solicitors, barristers or judges should not in total make up more than half of the members of the commission.
Amendment No. 21 relates to a member of the commission who should have "relevant scientific experience". What we really mean is forensic expertise. However, I am told that the word "forensic" is not a concept which is recognised in English or Scottish law. That surprises me, but that is the advice that I have been given. I should remind Members of the Committee that the Royal Commission was set up in the first place precisely because of the defects in forensic evidence in the case of the Birmingham Six in particular, but also in the cases of the Maguire Seven and of Judith Ward. Both the Royal Commission and the Science and Technology Committee of this place (which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton), said that there should be some greater involvement and a greater degree of independence of the forensic science profession—if that is the right word—as regards its ability to give advice to the Home Secretary. In a whole chapter on forensic science, the Royal Commission referred to the need for a forensic science advisory council. The same view was taken by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
We are not proposing a forensic science advisory council. However desirable it may be, that does seem to go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, we do propose—perhaps as a precursor to the establishment of an advisory council—that at least one member of the commission should have the "relevant scientific experience", which means forensic expertise. We do so for a number of very powerful reasons which have been helpfully set out for us by the Royal Society for Chemistry. First, as I said when I referred to the establishment of the Royal Commission, there is the importance of scientific evidence and expertise in cases of miscarriages of justice. Secondly, in view of the rather fragmented nature of the forensic science business (some of it is a business, some of it is under public control and some of it is in the hands of the police), there is the need for an independent voice from forensic scientists around the table at which the new commission will sit. Thirdly, because improvements in forensic science will heavily affect our ability to deal with and reduce miscarriages of justice, it is necessary to have someone with scientific experience to help in the promotion of research and development.
Fourthly, there is the issue of professional standards, of quality assurance, of education and training, and the commission seems to us to be a good place for an expert person to promote those desirable facets of forensic science. Finally, there is the issue of the individual registration of forensic scientists which does not exist at the moment, which both the Royal Commission and the sub-committee argued for, and which, if it existed, would, we believe, help to ensure that miscarriages of justice could be limited by professional certification by individual registration of the forensic scientists who take part in the work of the criminal justice system.
The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 22, is concerned with
"knowledge or experience of mentally disordered persons".
1508
I think it is pretty well recognised that a high proportion of those who find themselves before the courts have problems of mental disorder as defined in Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and a higher proportion is likely to find themselves applying to the commission and to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence because one of the most difficult boundaries which will affect these cases is going to be whether the applicant was in fact capable of knowing about the crime and of really truly being guilty of the crime.
A great deal of the wording of the Bill is concerned with those different aspects of responsibility. A good deal of the time of the commission and of the Court of Appeal, I am sure, will be concerned with those issues. Therefore, again, it would be helpful to have a member of the commission with the kind of knowledge or experience which is referred to in Amendment No. 22. These are intended to be constructive suggestions for the composition of the body. They are not intended to take away all, or most, of the power of the Prime Minister in making recommendations to Her Majesty, but they are intended to show the wide range of needs on which expertise will be needed on the part of members of the commission. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord makes important points about the composition of this body; but again we do not think it right to depart from the long established precedent that Parliament sets out the framework in legislation for making relevant public appointments but does not, except in exceptional circumstances such as the case of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, involve itself in the process of making individual appointments. The commission is not a creature of Parliament but an independent commission. The appointments procedure we propose in the Bill underlines that fact. To involve Parliament in the selection process—for that is what it would mean—would draw the commission into the political arena in a wholly unacceptable way. And to add a further tier to the selection process would result in delay and uncertainty in recruiting and filling posts which I think would be hard to justify.
The Government intend that the selection procedure for members should be as open as possible. The posts of all the members of the commission, including the chairman (as we have already discussed) will be advertised in the press. The job description for the posts and the types of person we are looking for will be clearly set out. Candidates will be subject to an appropriate selection procedure and a shortlist of suggested candidates for the posts will be put to the Prime Minister. Our proposals to advertise the posts—and indeed the posts of all the staff of the commission—will provide access to the widest possible pool of candidates for the posts. Selection from those who apply will be on merit, based on the skills needed to do the job effectively. This, I suggest, is the right approach to take.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, these seek to specify more precisely the experience which individual members of the commission should possess. Amendment No. 20 would require that practising or retired solicitors, barristers or judges did not comprise more than half the members of the commission. I

1509
understand the concern that lawyers should not dominate the commission but do not think that the provisions in the Bill will have this result. The requirement in Clause 8 that at least one-third of the members be legally qualified and that at least two-thirds should have knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system will ensure that they reflect a balance of appropriate skills and expertise.
Amendment No. 21 would require that of the two-thirds of members with knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system, at least one member shall have relevant scientific experience; and Amendment No. 22 would require that at least one should have knowledge or experience in the field of treating the mentally ill. While I agree that it would be helpful to the commission to have access to expertise in both these fields, we do not think it sensible to be so prescriptive because there will be many more interests that could be taken into account. Being prescriptive in this way can lead to rigidity. And rigidity could render the commission less effective than it might otherwise be. It would be very unfortunate, for example, if a potential candidate with excellent qualifications had to be turned down just because the commission's quota of, say, lawyers or whatever had already been filled. It can raise other difficulties, too. Today many people have been trained in more than one discipline. We have lawyers who have turned into policemen and vice versa; we have scientists who have branched out into other disciplines. If we are too prescriptive in the Bill we could again rule out the good candidate for appointment because he or she fails to fit the exact requirements for the post on offer.
The Government believe that the best approach is to set broad guidelines as to the experience and expertise necessary to serve on the commission—as we have done in Clause 8—and then to appoint the best candidate for the posts. This will allow Her Majesty to select the appropriate balance of skills and experience required at any one time—not just at the start of the commission's work but in the years to come. Any gaps in the members' knowledge and expertise can be filled as necessary by the recruitment of appropriately qualified staff and by the commission seeking expert reports and opinions. It will be open to the members to do this wherever they think it appropriate and practicable.
The commission will have a varied and challenging workload. The members will have their own caseload and will contribute to the discussions on the cases of others. The cases with which they will deal will not, if current experience is anything to go by, fit into neat pigeon holes, for example, forensic consideration; psychiatric problems; misconduct by police or other officers. Miscarriage cases raise many different issues and each will have to be considered properly and dealt with appropriately. For example, the member of the commission with forensic expertise will not be called upon to deal with every case which raises question marks about the forensic evidence. That would not be feasible. All the members will need to be capable of tackling a wide range of cases calling on, and using, their fellow members' expertise as necessary.
1510
The Committee will have gathered from this that the members will need a broad range of general skills—and, in particular, the ability to absorb large quantities of complex and possibly conflicting information, and to apply an open mind—in addition to any specialised skills which they might have. It is for these reasons that the Bill sets out only the broad requirements for the qualifications for membership. The Government believe that this is the best approach—the one most likely to result in the spread of skills and knowledge needed to undertake the commission's work effectively. The Committee will understand therefore that I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able not to press them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is some good news and some bad news in that reply. The good news is that the Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 was specifically—I hope I am quoting her correctly—that it would be helpful first of all to have the scientific expertise and then knowledge or experience of mentally disordered persons on the commission. I hope that when the selection process takes place, there will be specific reference to those two kinds of expertise as part of the process, whether it is by public advertisement or some other selection procedure. It would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate that the recognition that such skills were relevant and helpful could be included in the selection process.
Baroness Blatch: I did indeed say that they are skills that would be welcome. However, we are set against making them absolutely prescriptive. I think that I am right in saying that it will be possible for this Chamber to see the descriptions of the kind of skills that will be required. If I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Lord.
Nevertheless, I take the points that he made and I shall consider them. If I need to give him a fuller answer I shall do so between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
I return to Amendment No. 20, which concerns the legal profession. Here it is the Minister who is being rigid, not me. The Bill sets a minimum requirement that a third of all the members shall be persons who are legally qualified, as defined, and two thirds shall be persons who have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system. The Bill rightly states that for this purpose the criminal justice system includes the investigation of offences and the treatment of offenders. Therefore, presumably, it at least includes the police service and the Prison Service. However, that category could also include psychiatrists, probation officers or a number of other skills which are relevant but which are not normally thought of as part of the criminal justice system.
If it is not the kiss of death to him, the person I should like to see on the commission is Peter Hill, who produced so many effective "Rough Justice" programmes for the BBC. He has a profound knowledge of the criminal

1511
justice system as a result of having fought for the prevention and remedy of miscarriages of justice over a number of years.
We must not assume, as the Government seem to assume, that membership of the legal profession or experience of the criminal justice system, if too tightly defined, is the only qualification for membership of the commission.
I hope that we shall not assume that the only important task of the commission will be the control of investigations. I hope that the commission will act more widely and will undertake some analysis in the preparation of its report each year to the Home Secretary, which will enable it to make wider recommendations about means of reducing or eliminating miscarriages of justice in the future. I hope that it will have an advisory function as well as an investigative function. I hope that that, too, will be taken into account when the members of the commission are appointed.
With those provisos, and taking on board the modest indications given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [General provisions about references]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 34, after ("raised") insert ("or not adequately raised or not adequately considered").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25, which is consequential.
In our submission to the Committee, this is an important amendment. The provisions of the Bill, as presently drafted in Clause 13, allow referral to be made by the commission to the Court of Appeal only if there is new evidence or new argument which has not been raised in any previous proceedings. It would be unfortunate if the new review commission were to be prevented by that drafting from referring cases where it seems to the commission that there is a real possibility that the conviction was unsafe but the relevant argument or evidence had been raised in some rudimentary or insufficient fashion either at the original trial or subsequent appeal. If the object of the Bill is to provide a means by which miscarriages of justice based on an unsafe conviction can be picked up and corrected, I seek to persuade the Committee and the noble Baroness that it would be wrong to exclude that category of cases out of hand in the initial drafting.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to widen the category of cases which may be referred by the commission to the Court of Appeal to include those cases where the commission feels both that there is evidence or argument which it believes gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe and that that material has not be adequately raised or considered before. That might arise in a number of different ways. I could give a great many examples, but I shall not do so because of the lateness of the hour. I shall confine myself simply to two examples.
First, our knowledge and recognition of the facts which can lead to a miscarriage of justice is ever-increasing in the light both of experience and research. Interpretation by the Court of Appeal is not static either. The common law is constantly developing and, one hopes, progressing. We now recognise additional factors which can lead to miscarriages of justice and the unreliability of certain kinds of evidence which even 10 years ago would not have been fully understood or whose significance would not have been appreciated. Much of our experience and learning has, sadly, come from experience of such miscarriages.
Appeals which were rejected in the past would in some cases now appear to be likely to succeed. That is particularly true in the experience of the organisation Justice in relation to cases which were determined before the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force in 1986. Those safeguards have not only protected some suspects; they have also heightened the awareness of the courts of some of the ways in which untrue or misleading admissions can be made by the innocent under oppressive circumstances.
By way of one specific example from Justice's 1994 report, Unreliable Evidence, in 1984 a man called Peter Fell was convicted of murder on the basis of confessions made by him to police officers during interviews which were conducted over two days and which lasted some eight-and-a-half hours. His requests for a solicitor during that time were ignored. No solicitor was present. There was no identification evidence and no forensic link with the crime. The trial judge, while he acknowledged that there had been a breach of the Judges' Rules, refused to exclude his confession. Back in 1985 the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's view saying in effect that it was the pursuit of truth and the interests of justice which both authorised and required the officers to deny Fell the assistance of a solicitor.
By 1992, four years after the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a very different approach by the Court of Appeal to such matters is illustrated by the judgment given in the case of Miller, Paris and Abullahi (better known as the "Cardiff Three" case) where convictions were quashed on the basis that admissions which had been made under police questioning should have been ruled as inadmissible by the trial judge. At that time the judgment of the Court of Appeal attached great importance not only to the presence of a solicitor but to his active intervention, saying that it was of the first importance that a solicitor fulfilling the exacting duty of assisting a suspect during interviews should discharge his functions both responsibly and courageously.
I understand that Fell's lawyers are considering a renewed petition. Under the Bill as presently drafted, if it were to become law, his case could not properly be referred by the commission to the Court of Appeal.
Justice's report identified some 17 cases where convictions had been secured before the passing of the PACE Act based on disputed confession evidence, together with allegations of police malpractice, and which would appear now to be challengeable. All of those would appear to be excluded under the present wording of the Bill.
We contend that it is important that these cases should be capable of being reconsidered by the review body and reconsidered in the light of current practice and greater jurisprudential knowledge.
Secondly—and this is every bit as important—as a practising lawyer it is right that I should draw the attention of the Committee to a category of cases which, as the Bill is presently drafted, would lie outside its scope of reference. Incompetence, inadvertence, errors of judgment and failure to appreciate the significance of a piece of evidence or argument on the part of lawyers acting for the accused are features of every legal system which is practised by human beings. I personally believe that the standard of competence at the Bar at which I practise is generally very high indeed. But, as those of us who have been in practice for any length of time know, there are occasions when lawyers make mistakes. Sometimes it is obvious to other people at the time. Sometimes it is only with hindsight—particularly in a long or complex trial which may involve many witnesses and literally thousands of pages of statements and exhibits—that the failure of the defendant's representative to advance a line of argument fully or to pursue an area of evidence adequately is apparent. It cannot surely be right to frame this new and important piece of legislation in such a way as to penalise a defendant whom the commission believes may have been wrongly convicted because his lawyer erred in not pursuing adequately a line of argument or evidence.
I, of course, accept—I anticipate that this may be the response of the Minister—that there must be finality. No one, least of all those of us on this side, wants to see the time of the commission or the Court of Appeal spent trampling over well-trodden ground. Clearly, if a matter has been adequately examined at trial or later in the Court of Appeal, the commission should not be adding to the burden of the Court of Appeal with a repetitive review. But cases in which the initial argument and the evidence were inadequately presented should not be excluded. This small measure is, in our submission, important. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to respond favourably.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: As a past practitioner, and one who is now very much out of touch with what is going on in the criminal courts, I support the noble Baroness. My experience has led me to appreciate that miscarriages of justice have taken place and will continue to take place because of the incompetence of lawyers and sometimes of judges or magistrates. It is an area with which in the past the Court of Appeal has failed so often to deal in the sense of allowing appeals when lawyers have made mistakes.
It must be of the greatest importance that this commission should not be hamstrung by the raising of some technical or legalistic point, it being said, "This was a matter that was raised at the trial or on appeal".
There are great dangers which lay Members of the Committee may not appreciate when young counsel, and often not so young counsel, are in the Court of Appeal, presenting, say, three grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal may say, "Mr. X, it is your second ground which is the important one, is it not?" The advocate then feels at once, "Ah, I can argue the second point". He argues the second point and believes that he has put forward an
1514
excellent argument and that the court is with him. He will then skate over the other grounds quickly and no doubt sit down. Then to his surprise and astonishment the court finds against him on the point which it had indicated was the important one. In that way, a point is argued only for, say, two minutes. It is dealt with inadequately. The Court of Appeal will not have put its mind to it.
The noble Baroness mentioned Justice, when referring to cases after they have left the Court of Appeal. In the old days, when Tom Sargant would ask one to go through the papers of a case to see whether there were any grounds for thinking that there was a miscarriage of justice, how often would one say, "Oh, but the point here was inadequately argued. The judge missed the point, and the lawyer missed the point, but now it is too late; and it cannot be raised because the point has been raised but hopelessly inadequately".
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion because I assure her that very often it is a basic reason that miscarriages of justice take place.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: I add my strong support to the amendment and endorse what I have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. This matter was discussed at some considerable length during the deliberations of the Royal Commission which resulted in recommendations.
Let me say now what I would have said if I had not been abroad at Second Reading. I am delighted at the welcome that has been given to a Bill which is so closely based on what I believe is one of the most important single recommendations of the Royal Commission which it was my privilege to chair. We were well aware of the history of the argument for finality. We were, I think I can say, unanimous that the cases on record showed quite conclusively that this argument had in effect acted against the interests of justice: that deserving appellants had not had the hearing which they deserved in the Court of Appeal because the court was at that stage of its history anxious—we would have said excessively anxious—that the defendant should not have (as it has sometimes been put) a second bite at the cherry.
I seriously believe, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that there is no downside to extending the clause by this small but important amendment. The amendment makes it quite clear that not only is the new commission entitled, but indeed has an obligation, to consider whether a matter which has been raised in the court of first instance has been raised so adequately, effectively and competently that the commission can be assured that there is no possibility of a miscarriage of justice of the kind which it exists to investigate and on which it might make a recommendation to the Court of Appeal. I very much hope that the Government will consider the amendment favourably.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 13 requires that there should be some new element for the courts to focus on before a referral of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence may be made. If all the matters raised with the commission have already been raised at trial, or on a previous appeal, then the courts have had an opportunity to consider the case and will have reached a clear decision after due consideration.

1515
The amendment would enable the commission to refer a case on no grounds other than that, in its opinion, the courts had given insufficient consideration to some matter or matters that had come before it. That would not be right as it would put the commission in the invidious position of asserting its opinion or judgment on a matter above that of the courts. The commission is not a court of last resort, second guessing, sitting over and above the appellate courts.
The amendment could also enable the commission to refer a case on the basis that counsel had failed to put an argument with sufficient conviction, or had not presented new evidence with sufficient clarity. It could result in every unsuccessful appellant going immediately to the commission saying, "My case was inadequately presented, or inadequately considered". On what basis could the commission decide between all those? How would it distinguish between that great number of applications?
The Bill deliberately allows the commission the opportunity to exercise a wide degree of judgment about what qualifies as "new", depending on the circumstances of the case. Where an argument was so poorly presented that the courts may have been misled, or where the applicant's case was not put to the court, then the commission could reasonably regard such matters as new and could refer. But if the assertion was merely that the defence counsel had been out-performed by the prosecution, then in my view that would not be a sufficient ground for reopening a case after appeal. However, the amendment would allow that.
The amendment strikes at the nature of the relationship between the commission and the courts because it appears to allow the commission to usurp the role of the courts. However delicately the commission approached its task, therefore, it would be exposed to great pressure to claim a function properly that of the courts.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of incompetence and asked whether incompetent advocacy would be deemed an acceptable argument for failure to adduce material at an earlier stage of the proceedings. That would be determined based on the individual circumstances of a case and having regard to the practice of the Court of Appeal. It could prove a factor if, for example, incompetence led directly to a vital aspect of the defence's case not being put to the jury. So there would be that flexibility to make that judgment.
The noble Baroness asked me whether we need to consider the views of the law taken by the Court of Appeal. The commission should be able to interpret the intention flexibly—a point which I have already made—so as to have regard to a change in the Court of Appeal's view of the law as being capable of finding a new argument. So on the basis of believing that there is a case for founding a new argument, that too would be open to a judgment that the commission could allow the appeal.
I am not sure that I have given the most comprehensive and lucid explanation in relation to the amendment, but I hope that it will not be pressed tonight.
Baroness Mallalieu: With respect, the noble Baroness is not correct when she says that the effect of the amendment would be to make it open to an applicant to
1516
the commission to press for his case to be referred solely on the basis that a matter had not been raised adequately or properly before that. Clause 13(1) (a) requires the commission, before it makes such a referral, to be satisfied that there exists an argument or evidence which gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction verdict or finding would not be upheld, were the reference to be made. In other words, the commission would have to be satisfied, first, that in its view there was a possibility that it was an unsafe conviction.
The noble Baroness has heard the views of others, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, both of whom have vast experience in connection with the matter. I am unhappy with the response that the noble Baroness has given so far tonight, but I was cheered a little earlier in relation to a previous amendment. She said in one context that she was anxious that the legislation should not be inflexible. I was also cheered when she said that it was her practice, after the Committee stage, to look again at the arguments that had been advanced. I very much hope that this important point is one that she and her department will reconsider. If she feels unable to reintroduce it herself, then it is something to which I would wish to return at a later stage. However, this evening I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that this business be not resumed for 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
7.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.2 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st July 1995.
People suffering from industrial diseases have the right to sue the employer concerned for damages. However, certain dust-related diseases take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed until 20 to 40 years or more after exposure. Because of this, sufferers and their dependants can experience considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation. By the time the disease is diagnosed, the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. It provides lump sum

1517
payments to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases, or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. However, I would point out that it has never been the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement, which must be satisfied before a payment can be made: first, that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; secondly, that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and thirdly, that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded.
The Department of Employment does all it can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. While it is necessary to ensure that payment conditions are met, it is also recognised that each case is an individual disaster and the department is as generous as the legislation allows. Since the Act came into force in 1980, over 7,800 applicants have made a claim and 75 per cent. of those have received payment. The total cost to date has been £39 million.
Payments under the Act are additional to any industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded. The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts payable regularly to maintain their value. These regulations aim to fulfil this commitment.
I feel sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that the circumstances leading to these payments are very unfortunate. They reflect the conditions in which some people worked many years ago. Action taken by the Government to control the use of asbestos and other hazardous substances should prevent such suffering for present and future generations of workers.
Nevertheless, I very much welcome the opportunity provided by these regulations to maintain the value of the compensation. I know all of us will recognise that no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for their loss, but at least these regulations allow us to give some practical and material help. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I understand, of course, that this is a relatively routine matter: the uprating in line, allegedly, with inflation is dealt with in the regulations. However, I wish to make a few remarks about the scheme generally.
As the Minister has already indicated, this is a disease which affects numbers of people—mainly men—who have worked in mining or in steel. It is extremely unpleasant and, after a long period of time, is invariably fatal, which is why we need to have benefit for dependants. Moreover, it is frequently not diagnosed until after death. Many miners have been refused benefit on the grounds that they are not suffering from it, only for it to be clear from the post mortem that they indeed had the disease.
It seems to me that it might have been more generous if, instead of doing as the Minister says has been done, an allowance were made for the fact that apparently there was an alleged overpayment, which is why the amount that is on offer now is 2.2 per cent. via the regulations. In
1518
view of the unpleasantness of the disease and the fact that it is so difficult to diagnose and that often individuals concerned may feel that they have the disease but have great difficulty in establishing it, it might have been more generous if the Government had given a full uprating rather than the 2.2 per cent. which is indicated. I understand that when this matter was discussed in the other place the suggestion was made that an uprating of the order of 5.75 per cent. would have been in order rather than the 2.2 per cent. which emerges from the regulatory uprating this time round.
The Minister referred to the fact that it is not possible for individuals in such situations to sue at common law for damages from their employer. He made reference to the Industrial Injuries Act in that connection. However, I remind the Minister that, if an individual who succeeds in a claim at common law wins some compensation, there is a provision now, to which I very strongly objected at the time, whereby the whole of the benefit so obtained via the Industrial Injuries Act is reclaimed. So the individual concerned has to pay back any amounts that might have been payable under the Industrial Injuries Act.
Therefore, this matter is not so straightforward as was indicated in the Minister's presentation. Nevertheless, I accept that these regulations have been through the other place and been accepted there. In those circumstances, it is not our intention on these Benches to oppose them. I simply make the point that they could have been a little more generous in view of the nature of the illness and the kind of individuals who will benefit from them.
With those few comments, I do not oppose the regulations from these Benches.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her support in this matter. She raised one or two points which it may be helpful to cover. So far as concerns the system itself, she drew attention to the distinction that is made in the payments on the one hand to sufferers themselves and on the other hand to their dependants.
It is a long-established principle of compensation in this area of the law that the compensation relates to what the individual concerned may be suffering and that some money is made available in respect of people who are dependent on him. In the event of the sufferer having died, where dependency can be established, the amount in respect of the dependency is obviously less than the amount to which the person who died would have been entitled had he made a claim. I should like to emphasise that where a claim is made by a sufferer before that person dies, the full amount is payable.
The noble Baroness made reference to the amount of the uprating. What is important in this regard is to look at the way in which the amounts payable have been uprated since the scheme itself came into effect. Since January 1980, the amount by which the payments under the scheme have increased has been 138.3 percent., while the cumulative increase in the RPI over that period was in fact less than that, namely, 134.7 per cent. I do not feel that it is fair to maintain in any respect that that is niggardly with regard to the fact that it is not uprated with inflation itself. I conclude by commending the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 to 7.30 p.m.]

Criminal Appeal Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 39, after ("information") insert ("showing that the factual basis on which the sentence was passed was substantially wrong").
The noble Baroness said: The Criminal Cases Review Authority was proposed by the Royal Commission in order to investigate and provide an effective remedy for wrongful convictions, not sentences. The Home Office consultative paper in April 1994 introduced the proposal that it should also be able to review sentences on limited grounds. Indeed, it was implied in a footnote to that document that this was designed simply to supplement the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which allow the appropriate court to vary or rescind its own sentence within 28 days on such grounds.
If the Bill is to include sentences in the way that it is presently drafted, there can be little doubt that it will result in a large number of applications, most of them unmeritorious, which will have to be sifted and assessed by the commission at a time when it will be at its busiest in dealing with convictions. Although I understand that the Home Office at present refers very few cases each year to the Court of Appeal, that is almost certainly because the power is virtually unknown. Once the new body is set up and its criteria are publicised, the initial sift of cases will take up a substantial amount of the commission's resources. If that includes the need to sift through a substantial number of sentencing matters too, we are afraid that that will divert the new body from its main task of investigating miscarriages of justice to the level of detail and supervision required.
We are also troubled that there is a further problem with the clause as it is presently drafted. As it stands, the commission's power of reference in sentencing matters goes much wider even than that in the Home Office consultation document. Indeed, Clause 13(2) (a) gives a power of reference when there exists any argument on a point of law or any information not already raised in any relevant court proceedings. That gives rise to a real possibility that the sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made. That goes far beyond the limited grounds on which sentence can be varied under either the Supreme Court Act or the Magistrates' Courts Act, and it appears to be drafted in that way to link into the Court of Appeal's present practice where a sentence may be lowered essentially on four grounds. Those are, first, that the sentence was not justified by law; secondly, that it was passed on a wrong factual basis; thirdly, that matters were improperly taken into account or that there are fresh matters that ought to be taken into account; and, fourthly, that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It is the last two which go much further than the original Home Office consultation proposals.
Any new argument or fact, it seems, can be put forward to justify a review. I contrast that with what the noble Baroness said in relation to the last amendment. That would appear to be the case however long after the original sentence. In every case a review will require the commission, first, to get hold of the case papers from the sentencing court; then to obtain a transcript of the sentencing remarks; then to look at the new information or argument and assess its weight and perhaps even investigate further its credibility; and, lastly, to assess its potential weight in relation to the sentencing issues involved. That is a substantial amount of work in an area that is likely, as I think the noble Baroness will be bound to agree, to attract a considerable number of unmeritorious applications, many of which will be from unrepresented prisoners, particularly if no additional provision is made for legal aid for the submission of those applications. There may also be repeated applications, and there is no existing case law to guide the commission in that respect.
The amendment seeks to clarify the extent of the power of the commission to refer sentence cases and to try to amend the existing draft in such a way as to minimise the number of unmeritorious applications. It is therefore proposed that the power to refer sentencing matters to appeal should be limited in the Bill to matters of fact which were not known to, or properly taken into account by, the sentencing authority at the time. I am encouraged—I hope—by what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice at the Second Reading of the Bill:
"The power of the commission to refer sentence only cases to the Court of Appeal causes me some disquiet and was criticised in another place on the ground that the commission might in its early years receive a great number of applications of this nature which could leave it struggling to cope with the caseload it will inherit of allegedly flawed convictions".—[Official Report, 15/5/95;col. 312.]
That is what the commission is essentially about. The amendment does not seek to remove altogether the power of sentence referrals. It seeks to try to cut away some of the dead wood so that the important matters in relation to miscarriages of justice based on unsafe conviction can be properly dealt with. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it is a helpful proposed alteration. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am extremely cautious about even suggesting that the noble Baroness may be imposing an unnecessary restriction, which I am sure is not the intention of the amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the commission's capacity to refer a sentence to the courts on the basis of new information. Any new information which might form the basis of a referral would have to be such that it showed that the factual basis on which that sentence was imposed was substantially wrong.
I appreciate the concerns which led the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to table this amendment. No one wishes to see the commission deluged with work on sentence cases to the detriment of its work on possible wrongful convictions. But I have to say that I do not think that that will be the case. If current Home Office experience is anything to go on, the commission will receive very few representations on sentence. C3 currently receives around 50 such applications a year for referral. Only one or two

1521
on average are referred and I know of nothing to suggest that that pattern will change once the commission begins its work.
In this amendment, compared with the last one, we seem to have gone from a relaxation of criteria to one which would impose too restrictive a criterion for sentence referrals. In the rare case where new information justifies a sentence referral, that information will not necessarily meet the requirements suggested. It may, for example, be a piece of mitigation which was simply not available to the sentencing judge. The factual basis of the sentence may be substantially intact, but the new mitigation might make the sentence quite unsuitable.
The present criteria for the referral of a sentence in Clause 13(2) require there to be a new argument on a point of law, or new information which gives rise to a "real" possibility that the sentence would not be upheld in the resulting appeal. Any new information, to form the basis of a referral, must therefore be of sufficient weight, in the context of everything else relevant to the sentence, to give rise to the clear possibility that the sentence would be varied as a result of the reference. That seems to me to be a sufficient hurdle to weed out any unmeritorious applications.
The commission will know that the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court do not alter sentences lightly. Where a sentencing judge or magistrate has used his discretion properly, it is not readily interfered with. So the commission will not be interested in arguments that the sentence is slightly wrong or that the judge and the Court of Appeal were rather harsh. Only something showing that the sentence may be seriously excessive or wrong in law would justify a referral.
The noble Baroness referred to the Royal Commission recommending that the commission should deal with convictions only. That is because the Royal Commission was not asked to consider sentences. That was outside its terms of reference. The noble Baroness said that the Bill goes further than the original Home Office proposals. In working up the proposals in the Bill, we looked at the types of cases which would be referred. The case of McAleny, referred in May 1991, is an example of a case which would not be referable if the amendment were accepted. Details of that case can be found in paragraph 2 of the note on the effect of the amendment. I have read it through and I believe that the point that is being made here is a pertinent one.
Moreover, we think that the criterion for referral which would result from this amendment would be too narrow. Information justifying a sentence referral, which will, we think, continue to be a rare event, does not necessarily show that the factual basis of the sentence was wrong. For example, the information might be an important piece of mitigation which was not available to the sentencing judge. In such a case, the original sentence will not be wrongly based but it may have become inappropriate. An example of that would be the case of McAleny, referred in May 1991. That information was not taken into account at the time of sentencing. The sentence, as I believe the noble Baroness knows, was reduced on referral from 10 years to nine.
1522
The criteria we have provided in the Bill seem to be broad and sensible and nothing I have heard today suggests that any amendment is required. I hope I am not being presumptuous but I do not believe that the noble Baroness would wish to narrow the effect of the Bill and not leave it with the flexibility which is already built in.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Baroness is wrong in her last conclusion. It is my primary concern to ensure that the review body is able to cope with what was the original intention, which was to deal with miscarriages of justice resulting from unsafe convictions. If other means are required to deal with appeals, whatever steps the Government take to deal with them should not interfere with the primary objectives of the review body, which was intended to deal with convictions.
I was not optimistic when I approached the amendment because if the noble Baroness was not persuaded by the reservations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice at Second Reading, she was unlikely to be persuaded by me. I had hoped therefore to provide an amendment which the noble Baroness could take on board as in some way restricting what I believed—and it seems clear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice also believed—might well be a flood of these applications. It seems that the material which enables the noble Baroness to be confident that there will be no such flood of applications has not been communicated to the judiciary. I hope that she is right.
I am encouraged by some of what she has had to say. I am anxious that if sentences are to be referred, as the Government have determined that they are to be, those which are based on factual errors should be able to be dealt with. I am also anxious—I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness a little earlier said—that the amendment should not restrict matters which cannot be dealt with in any other way. What I should like to do is to go away and look carefully at the authority to which she has referred. She does me a service which is unmerited of assuming that I know, understand and have read it recently. It may well be that I shall wish to return at a later stage with an amendment that will not exclude material which that case requires to be dealt with somewhere.
I remain unhappy that in a sense the procedure which should be dealing primarily with conviction may be hijacked by a large number of applications at the outset which will prevent its essential purpose being carried out properly. I know that at a later stage in the Bill there will be further reference, as there was at Second Reading, to the funding for the commission. I am sure that the noble Baroness will have well in mind that if she is wrong in her belief that there will not be a flood of these applications, additional resources will have to be made available to deal with them. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Any statement given by the Commission in accordance with subsection (9) shall be accompanied by—

(a) any statements and opinions obtained by or on behalf of the Commission, and

(b) any reports commissioned by or on their behalf,

in the investigation of the matter, unless such material is subject to the requirements of section 24.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 46. With this amendment, we turn to the issue of the proper disclosure of information to applicants. Indeed, we shall return to it again when we come to consider Clause 17.
One of the major reasons for miscarriages of justice over the years—and over far too many years—has been the absence of full disclosure of information to applicants. The most recent example, which has not only caused concern among those who have fought against miscarriages of justice over many years but has caused concern in the courts, has been the case last year of ex parte Hickey and others, a case better known as the Bridgwater Four. For years it had been argued that there was a general duty of confidentiality which denied the defence the information which was necessary to mount an appeal. What the Divisional Court in ex parte Hickey and others said was that there was a lack of elementary fairness, and that elementary fairness required that a person should know the evidence being considered so that he or she could challenge the accuracy or make further representations.
That has been an enormously valuable judgment because as a result of it the Home Office—I pay tribute to it—has started now to give to the advisers of applicants, including Justice, documents which had been withheld previously. It has been essential in ensuring that justice is done and is seen by applicants to be done. It is important in seeing that miscarriages of justice are not perpetuated. It is also important because this is the only way of ensuring that there are not repeated applications, as there have been in the case of the Bridgwater Four, to the commission or to the court because quite frankly the history of the Bridgewater Four has been a disgrace. One of those convicted died in prison and there have been repeated applications from the others who have proclaimed, with great sincerity and passion, their innocence over the years while in prison, despite the fact that new evidence has continued to come forward.
Although we welcome the general thrust of the Bill which is an attack on miscarriages of justice, nevertheless, this part of the Bill's provisions go the other way. That is not just as regards Clause 13. Clause 22 imposes a broad duty of confidentiality on the commission, members and staff and makes it an offence to disclose information without authority. Clause 23 contains exceptions to the
1524
presumption of non-disclosure. Ministers have said that these will provide sufficient gateways to allow disclosure as provided in the Hickey decision.
However, it is unclear from the wording of the statute whether the requirement to give the applicant sight of the evidence before a decision is made is a function within the meaning of Clause 23(1) (a). Furthermore, Clause 13 requires the commission only to provide refused applicants with a statement of the reasons for refusal. It does not specifically state that the commission must disclose all relevant material on which the refusal was made. The provision of statements of reasons for refusal was what the Home Office gave before the Divisional Court judgment. Frequently, such reasons were no more than a few paragraphs claiming that evidence in the possession of the Home Office contradicted assertions or evidence provided in the applicant's submission.
Therefore Amendments Nos. 26 and 46 would follow the judgment in the case of ex parte Hickey and others in requiring the disclosure of all relevant material to be given to the applicant. There would be protection in Clause 24 for sensitive material passed on to the commission by those in public bodies, which includes the police force. They may specify that it is not disclosed without consent and they may withhold that consent if it can reasonably be shown that the material in question is secret or sensitive. There would therefore be a duty to disclose information to applicants, balanced by an exemption for material which could be shown to be sensitive.
In the jigsaw which is caused by the provisions of this part of the Bill, it seems to us that this is an essential provision to ensure that miscarriages of justice, which are known to have taken place over the years and for which there is some protection from the decision of the Divisional Court in ex parte Hickey and others, shall be preserved. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It would appear that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, here is to ensure that a convicted person will be given details of the information found by the commission in the course of its inquiry so that he may make further representations on his case before any decision is taken to refer it or, when his case is referred, to enable him to prepare for the resulting appeal.
Clause 13(7) requires the commission where a case is referred to provide the court with a statement of its reasons for referral. This statement must be sent to all those who appear to the commission to be likely parties to the resulting appeal, but the person whose case is referred will be fully aware of the commission's reasons for making the referral.
The duty of disclosure, as in all appeals, will rest on the Crown in the form of the prosecution rather than on the commission. Of course, that means that the commission will have to assist the Crown in order to enable it to discharge its duty. But there would be a good deal of potential for confusion and mistake if the commission and the prosecution were to be involved simultaneously in disclosure. The gateways provided in Clause 23(1) are wide enough to enable the commission to make all the necessary disclosures to the Crown.
Clause 13(9) lays a duty on the commission to provide a statement of its reasons for a decision not to refer a case. We intend that this should be a full and reasoned

1525
explanation. The convicted person will know why his application has been rejected. The commission will, as the Government made clear in the debates on this Bill in another place, be governed by the same duty of fairness and by the same resulting requirements for disclosure as the Divisional Court set out in its judgment last November in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Hickey, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord.
The provisions of Clause 23(1) (e) are sufficient to enable the commission to keep convicted persons informed of the progress being made in investigating their case and, subject to the need for necessary confidentiality, to disclose information to them so that they can, in the interests of fairness, make further representations.
The court expressly recognised in that judgment the need to maintain a balance between disclosure and necessary confidentiality. That will involve in some cases not just matters of public interest immunity, but also the need to protect witnesses. The court expressly recognised too that the decision in such matters had to be taken on a case-by-case basis. We have adopted that principle. The Bill does not therefore impose rigid conditions as regards disclosure, but leaves matters to the commission's direction, operating in accordance with statute which creates it, and subject to review by the Divisional Court. We believe that that is the right balance and the right approach.
In order to reassure the noble Lord, we believe that the Bill's provisions reflect our acceptance of that judgment. As regards the Bridgewater Four, I can say to the noble Lord that I am happy to confirm that we are continuing to make the appropriate disclosures in that case which is being urgently considered now that the police inquiries have been completed. In view of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will understand that I cannot support the amendments, but maybe there is some comfort in my reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a complex and, in some respects, a helpful reply. The Bill is very bald about this matter. It says that the commission shall give a statement of the reasons for their decision to the person who made the application. The Minister has now said—and I am repeating it because it is on the record already and it is useful as regards Pepper v. Hart cases—that they should give a full and reasoned explanation which is rather better than just saying the reasons.
Then the noble Baroness said that there is a duty of fairness as expressed by the Divisional Court in the case of ex parte Hickey and others. She explicitly said that it is the intention that the judgment of the Divisional Court in that case is not being overturned or reduced in any respect by the provisions of the Bill. All those statements are extremely helpful, as is her assurance that the information being given to the advisers of those in the case of Hickey and others and those involved with the Bridgewater case, has now been resumed and will not be curtailed.
On the basis of those statements by the Minister and the expectation that when I come to read her remarks in more detail in Hansard there may be other things which I find helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Investigations for Court of Appeal]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("on behalf of') and insert ("for").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 and Amendment No. 41. I say, with apologies to the Committee, that this is an afterthought by counsel, who are considering the word "obtained" in the Bill. These amendments address that.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 to Clause 14 and Amendment No. 41 to Clause 19 are essentially drafting amendments. Clause 14 makes provision for investigations by the commission following a direction by the Court of Appeal under the provisions introduced by Clause 5 of the Bill.
Among other things, the commission is required to report its findings to the court. Subsections (6) and (7) provide for the report to be accompanied by any statements, reports and opinions obtained by them or on their behalf, other than the report of the investigating officer appointed to investigate as a result of a requirement under Clause 18.
We have been looking again at the wording of this provision and have come to the conclusion that the word "obtained" is a little ambiguous. We believe that it could have two meanings in this context—a wide one suggesting "everything that has come into the possession of the commission and a narrower one which suggests that the commission has caused the document or documents in question to come into being as in, for example, "taking a statement".
The narrower interpretation is clearly unsatisfactory, since it could result in the court not receiving all the documents relevant to the commission's findings. Old reports or opinions to which the commission would have access would not be covered since they would not have been commissioned for the purposes of the commission's investigations.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 are designed to replace the word "obtained" with the word "received". That change is proposed to put it beyond doubt that a court will receive all the documents relevant to the commission's conclusions which it has investigated for the court.
Amendment No. 41 makes a similar change to Clause 19(7). As the Committee will know, Clause 19 makes provision for inquiries made by investigating officers pursuant to Clause 18. Subsection (7) requires an investigating officer to attach to his report any statements, opinions or reports obtained by him in connection with his inquiries on behalf of the commission. The word "obtained" could similarly be interpreted in the two ways that I have already described. In seeking to substitute the word "received" for "obtained", the amendment makes it clear that the commission should receive all the statements, reports or opinions gathered by the investigating officer in the course of his investigation, whether obtained by him or commissioned during an earlier stage of investigations into the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 30:
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("obtained by or on behalf of the Commission") and insert ("received by the Commission in the investigation of the matter specified in the direction or any related matter investigated by them").
Page 12, line 28, leave out from ("reports") to end of line 31 and insert ("so received.").
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("19") and insert ("19(6)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Documents etc. relating to old cases held by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 13, line 35, leave out ("having considered") and insert ("consideration of).
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment. Clause 17(1) disapplies the provisions of Clause 16 in relation to certain documents or other material in the possession or control of a person serving in a government department. The amendment makes the extent of the disapplication clearer and, in so doing, brings the wording of Clause 17(1) into line with that in the rest of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not like to speak against the Question that a clause stands part of a Bill. I much prefer to amend the provisions of a clause in detail rather than to attack it in this broad-brush way. However, I am afraid that Clause 17 is so objectionable that there is no civilised way of doing this. The Minister has acknowledged that the amendment which has just been agreed is a drafting amendment only, so the clause remains substantially as it appears in the Bill.
The problem with Clause 17 is a fundamental one. Clause 16, which we agreed without debate, properly provides the powers for the commission to obtain documents which are necessary for its investigations. Clause 17 excepts from that general power documents which are held, according to the sidenote, by the Secretary of State but according to the text of the clause by a person serving in a government department. I do not know whether there is any significance in that difference of wording. Clause 17(3) provides:
"The Secretary of State shall give to the Commission any document or other material which—

(a) contains representations made to him in relation to any case to which this subsection applies, or

(b) was received by him in connection with any such case otherwise than from a person serving in a government department".

So far, so good. However, the subsection then provides that the Secretary of State,
"may give to the Commission"—
that is, in other words he may not give—
"any document or other material which is relevant to any such case but does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b)".
That is the really difficult part and why it is so difficult to amend the clause in detail.
1528
As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 26 which related to Clause 13, in view of the number of miscarriages of justice that have been caused by the failure of the prosecution to disclose all documents or other material, it is ironic that the Bill does not impose on the commission the duty to disclose all the documents. Similarly, it does not impose on the Secretary of State an adequate duty to disclose all the documents.
I am well aware of all the arguments about informers. That point has been well recognised. However, I do not believe that there are not ways of getting round that which are not provided for in the Bill as drafted. There are plenty of ways of ensuring that the identity of informers shall not be revealed and of ensuring that their work for the police is not endangered.
However, the combination of Clause 17 and Clauses 22 to 24, to which I have already referred, bring forward the risk that the right of access to documents which was established by the ex parte Hickey case will be overturned or limited. I say that despite what the Minister said on Amendment No. 26. I recognise that the noble Baroness said that there is no intention of in any way reneging on ex parte Hickey. However, I should now like the Minister to go a little further. Her intention is clearly right, but I now want to be assured that the reasons and opinions which formed the basis of the previous rejection by the Home Secretary will be disclosed and that their disclosure will not be inhibited by the words that I have quoted from the end of Clause 17(3).
It can be argued that the Secretary of State and government departments have an extra right to confidentiality. I do not think that I would care to argue that case too fully given that the Scott Commission has not yet reported, but there are people who would make that argument, and I can see their point. However, the point here is that the Home Secretary and C3, the Home Office, have not been acting in this respect as an Executive, but C3 has been acting, and until the Bill is passed will continue to act, as part of the judicial process. Therefore, the evidence which it produces and the reasons and arguments that lie behind it do not fall into the category of the confidential advice to Ministers which it is normally and properly accepted should not be made generally available. If the Minister is proposing to argue that the advice that she now receives as Minister of State at the Home Office will not be available to me when I am Minister of State at the Home Office in a couple of years' time, I can accept that part of the argument, but I do not accept that it applies to information which C3 gets in its quasi-judicial capacity.
Therefore, although I should like Clause 17 to be amended, I recognise that that is not possible and I am afraid that it is necessary to say that the clause is an undesirable restriction on the proper disclosure provisions which are made elsewhere in the Bill. Therefore, I record my opposition to the Question that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 17, as the noble Lord said, requires the Secretary of State to give the commission all documents or material received, other than from a person serving in a government department, if it is relevant to a case which he has under consideration when his powers are transferred to the commission, or to a case previously

1529
considered by him and which the commission is revisiting as a result of representations which it has received. The commission will therefore be given any representations by, or on behalf of, any convicted person, police reports and opinions from experts which the Secretary of State has received.
The Secretary of State may also give the commission any other material which is relevant to a case; for example, there may be internal notes by officials recording information received from investigating officers, or from the applicant or his advisers. In brief, we intend that the commission should have access to all relevant information held by the Secretary of State, whether it is representations by, or on behalf of, any person claiming wrongful conviction, or police reports, forensic science reports, opinions from lawyers, doctors and other independent experts, transcripts of legal proceedings, correspondence and records of telephone conversations.
What will not be given to the commission, however, is material which contains purely the opinions of government officials, as the noble Lord pointed out, or Ministers when they have considered a case previously. If it. were to have access to such material, the commission would be placed in an invidious position when it took its decisions. It would be vulnerable to the charge of having been unduly influenced by the views taken during the earlier consideration of the case by a different authority.
Over and above that however there are two reasons why the Government believe it would be unhelpful to the commission if Clause 17 were to be deleted from the Bill. First, there would be no straightforward mechanism by which the commission would be able to receive the material it will need on cases which are under consideration by the Secretary of State when the commission starts work or which he has previously considered and have been raised with the commission. Secondly, the commission would have no clear guidance as to precisely what material it could reasonably expect to obtain in what is likely to be an extensive number of cases. Outside the clear area of representations and material received from outside the the department, it must be right for the Secretary of State to make that judgment, and indeed only he or she will be in a practical position to do
1530
so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept therefore that Clause 17 is intended to help the commission, not to restrict it.
Reference was made to the Hickey case. That case was about reports received by the Home Secretary together with documents, such as witness statements. They must be disclosed under Clause 17(3) (b). The noble Lord asked also whether reasoned opinions would be disclosed. They will not if they are purely advice to Ministers on how to decide the case; but if they contain evidence necessary to understanding the case, that evidence will be given to the commission.
I hope that the answer has been helpful and that the noble Lord will allow Clause 17 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was never my intention to divide on a clause stand part Motion. It is not a thing I would ever wish to do, because I appreciate that within the architecture of a Bill each clause serves a purpose, and to take one out causes enormous difficulty.
The Minister said that Clause 17 is designed to help the commission. I accept that part of Clause 17 is designed to help the commission. It is the bit that starts with Section 14 which refers to that information which the Secretary of State may give to the commission rather than shall give to the commission that causes me concern. The Minister repeated—I anticipated that she would say it—the false analogy between advice given to Ministers by officials in general on public policy, and advice given to the Secretary of State by members of C3 division when they are acting in the quasi-judicial capacity which is rightly being abolished by the Bill.
I shall not proceed with my opposition to the question that Clause 17 shall stand part, but I give the Government notice that I shall apply myself rather more carefully than I have done so far, and come back at a later stage with amendments which will secure that the falsity of that analogy is made clear, and that the use of that analogy to deny necessary information to applicants and to the commission will be exposed, and, if possible, rejected.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumping ton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.

  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Birds of Prey
  Birds of Prey
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  EU Development Council Meeting, 1 June
  EU Development Council Meeting, 1 June
  Cyprus: EU Accession
  Cyprus: EU Accession
  Inter-Governmental Conference: UK Approach
  Inter-Governmental Conference: UK Approach