Sitting of 12 June 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    RAF Valley
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the impact on the local economy of the market-testing exercise at RAF Valley. [26031]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Several, and of course my right hon. Friend met the hon. Gentleman and a delegation from the area last week.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the Secretary of State for meeting the delegation from my constituency last week. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that we put forward an extremely strong case for the retention of jobs at RAF Valley and for requesting the Ministry of Defence to phase in its proposals for market testing, otherwise it will be very difficult for us to compete effectively in an area of high unemployment.
    Does the Minister accept that what the Secretary of State told us on Tuesday should be confirmed? The Secretary of State said that he is prepared to use his political influence, both with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence and, if necessary, with his colleagues in the Cabinet, to ensure that that very strong case is accepted and that he accepts that maximising the number of local jobs at RAF Valley is a top priority.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend is certainly more than willing to ensure that our colleagues at the Ministry of Defence are fully aware of the case being put forward. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the training and enterprise council is undertaking a useful skills audit. That audit and any other points that are raised must be considered carefully so that the RAF's operational needs can be best met while, at the same time, seeking to ensure as much local employment as possible.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and I assure the Minister that the campaign on behalf of RAF Valley has the full support of Opposition Front Benchers.
    As the Ministry of Defence proposals would have cost some 600 to 700 jobs in Anglesey, why was the Welsh Office not consulted in advance of the announcement? Can the Minister confirm that there is a major problem with the market-testing programme, in that there is a shortage of local skills? Now that the localtraining and
    480
    enterprise council has completed its skills audit and, I understand, has told the Welsh Office that there is a need for deferment, will the Minister accept that the proposals for a four to five-year deferment are reasonable and would allow the local community to prepare itself by developing the necessary skills? Does the Minister realise that anything less than that will be an absolute betrayal of a community who have served the country loyally and well?
    Mr. Jones: The Ministry of Defence's announcement comes under the consultation arrangements and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Office is fully involved in that consultation process. We have already agreed a deferment with the Ministry of Defence, in that the consultation period will now be extended until the end of June. I am sure that that time will be used very effectively to ensure that all the points are considered properly.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently unemployed (a) in Wales and (b) in Alyn and Deeside. [26032]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): In April 1995, there were 108,094 unemployed people in Wales and 2,458 unemployed in the district of Alyn and Deeside. Those figures are well down on those for last year and we wish to see them go even lower.
    Mr. Jones: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the loss of 140 jobs at NK International in my constituency and the loss of some 350 jobs at Kilroe Engineering this month. On that basis, will he consider granting development area status to my constituency? In that context, will he pledge his Department's and his Government's assistance with regard to Raytheon Jets' proposal to build a service station at Broughton in my constituency? Will he join me in trying to save hundreds of existing jobs?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman of course has my assurance that I will do anything within my legal powers to help with the Raytheon situation. He knows that I have intervened in the past, and I am happy to do so again to try to promote the area. I think that Raytheon can get a lot of good work from the very talented and skilled work force already in the area. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that point.
    I do not think that there is a strong case for assisted area status, because I am delighted to say that unemployment in his area is well below the Welsh and the United Kingdom average; it is also well below the European average and has continued to fall. Despite the heavy blow of job losses that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, unemployment has fallen month after month and the unemployment rate in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl area is now 6.8 per cent. I want to see the unemployment rate lower still, but it is good by national standards.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still scope for creating new jobs in the countryside in Wales as a whole and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)? Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair that England has been promised a White Paper on the rural economy? Why is Wales being sold short? Why did the White Paper not include the

    481
    subjects of Wales or forestry, which is an important industry for Wales? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee to the House that any initiatives or incentives that are available to England as a result of the White Paper's recommendations will be available to Wales also?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right: if good initiatives are being introduced in England that we are not already undertaking in Wales, we would want to adopt them in Wales as well. I give him that assurance again, as I have in the past to the House. My officials are keeping in close contact with the work in England. Of course, we had already set out a policy in Wales some time before the English initiative; but if there are good new ideas, I want Wales to be included in them. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Morgan: As the newly unemployed in Wales will soon be losing their income support and mortgage assistance, does the Secretary of State's call at the Welsh Tory party conference at the weekend for the home-owning quiet majority to be celebrated, and not taxed, mean that he is breaking ranks with the rest of the Cabinet on the issue, as on so many other Government policies?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I am not. The hon. Gentleman took a long time to remember his silly point today, which is why he sat on the Front Bench for such a long time after you called him, Madam Speaker. I am strongly in favour of every policy that the Government are putting forward. Of course, we believe in home ownership, unlike the Opposition, who undermined home owners whenever possible when they were in government.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to ensure that track services in Wales are maintained in the event of rail privatisation. [26033]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and I have met the franchising director and I have also met the chairman of Railtrack plc.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does the Minister realise that services are threatened not only by privatisation but by the Government's dithering while privatisation is being discussed? When will the Welsh Office decide where the new freight depot will be in south Wales, if we are to have one? I have written to the Welsh Office supporting the Pengam site, but whether it is Pengam or Magor, the decision needs to be taken rapidly. Welsh business depends on it.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I would rush to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no dithering about the rail freight depot in south Wales; we look forward to a decision being taken. Nor is there any dithering on privatisation generally, which undoubtedly will bring tremendous benefits to the rail travellers of Britain.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that for track services through central Wales to be viable, it is essential for Regional Railways Central to provide a decent standard of service for passengers? Does he agree that a service that provides no on-station information,
    482
    lavatories or telephones, and, at times when one expects tourists, leaves literally hundreds of people standing in inadequate trains, is not of an acceptable standard?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentlemen does exactly my job for me: he makes the case for privatisation. There has not been the incentive to provide that service before, because the passenger has not been key. In future, the passenger will be key.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister not accept that in the south Wales valleys in particular the general morphology militates against effective communications? [HON. MEMBERS: "Morphology?"] It is the shape of the valleys—something that hon. Members might not understand. It militates against effective communication and transport problems. Will he ensure that, in the unlikely event of privatisation, there is effective investment in track maintenance as well as the maintenance of services?
    Mr. Jones: Investment is specifically the responsibility of Railtrack, but I certainly do not accept the surmise of the hon. Gentleman's question and I have a very good basis for that. As he will know, two of the valleys lines run through my constituency of Cardiff, North. The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will benefit by the removal of restrictions and increasing incentives, which will lead to a better service for passengers using the valley lines and all railways.

    Public Spending Review
    4. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who in his Department is responsible for the Government's fundamental review of public spending; and if he will make a statement. [26034]
    Mr. Redwood: I am responsible for reviewing public spending in Wales and for reporting on it to the House. I have especially concentrated on reducing overheads in the Welsh Office and in quangos. Any conclusions from general UK reviews will be incorporated in Wales where appropriate.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for putting himself in charge—unlike in some Departments, where officials are expected to take a lead. Does my right hon. Friend agree that control of public expenditure has gone hand in hand with a dramatic revival of the Wales economy? Would not Labour's determination to increase public expenditure put that revival at risk?
    Mr. Redwood: Yes. Of course unreasonable increases in public expenditure would threaten the recovery. It would mean borrowing too much, which would force up interest rates and damage business, or taxing too much, which would also damage business—or a combination of the two. That is exactly why some Labour Members are now extremely shy about saying that they believe in more public spending, while others—as we well know—are full of plans to spend more. Meantime, I am pleased to say that the overheads of the Countryside Council for Wales and of the Welsh Office are this year coming down by almost £2 million and £1.7 million respectively. The overheads of the Welsh Development Agency will be £1.9 million lower than two years ago.
    Mr. Ray Powell: As the Secretary of State is responsible for those estimates, I wonder whether he is responsible for his statement to the Tory party conference at the weekend suggesting £100 million expenditure by Labour on a Welsh Assembly. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, nation and Principality how he came to assume that figure?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement. I am completing my estimate of the likely cost of such an assembly and will release it shortly. I made no statement at the Conservative conference—although occasionally there is inspired journalism in Wales. I suspect that the figure will not be far from that rumoured, but I have not yet completed my estimate. I shall release it shortly.
    Mr. Sweeney: In welcoming the expenditure reductions achieved by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him what steps he is taking to reduce administration costs in the health service, so that the maximum money can be spent on patient care?
    Mr. Redwood: As my hon. Friend may know, we are about to lower the number of health authorities from 17 to five, which will make a material reduction in the health administrative overhead at health authority level. We are now seeing fruits from the changes that I introduced to recruitment procedures for administration and management in general, which will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I have also taken a particular interest in consultancy expenditure throughout the Welsh Office, which has fallen from £1.45 million the previous year to £800,000. If we manage to keep up the pressure, I hope that that figure will reduce further.
    Mr. Wigley: Instead of kow-towing to every planted, uninspired question from every sioni siencyn on the Government Benches, will the Secretary of State put time into getting his figures right in respect of spurious estimates, such as that for a Welsh Parliament? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cost of running both Chambers of the Irish Parliament this year will be £28 million and that the New Zealand Parliament costs £40 million a year? If that is the extent of the understanding of figures in the Welsh Office, is it not a good explanation of why the Government's financial controls are out of sync and unacceptable to the people of these islands?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for my forecast. I shall set out exactly how it was compiled, so that the people of Wales can reach their own judgment on whether I have underdone it or overdone it.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I refer the Secretary of State to recent remarks by the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, in which she criticised the Government for failing to control public expenditure and for being the highest taxing Government since the war. Is that not another demonstration of how hopelessly split the Conservative party is? As its leaders no longer have confidence in each other, why on earth should the country have confidence in them? Lady Thatcher claims that she still has supporters in the Cabinet. Why does the Secretary of State not have the honesty to admit that he is one of them—or does he still profess loyalty to the present Prime Minister?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I support the present Prime Minister, and I am pleased that the Government are setting out to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of gross national product—in a way that is painful to the Labour party, because it means that we shall be able to deliver our promises to start lowering taxation while producing high-quality public services. The economy is now growing, which is, of course, the secret of success.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of unemployed in Wales; and what was the figure in December 1992. [26035]
    Mr. Redwood: In April 1995, the seasonally adjusted figures for Wales were 106,900, compared with 133,400 in December 1992. This represents a fall of 26,500, or one fifth, in the unemployed total.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, showing that there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in unemployment in Wales. Does he agree that that is due to inward investment, which has been encouraged by Wales as part of the United Kingdom's having a low corporate rate of tax, no national minimum wage and no social chapter? Does he believe that that would be helped if Wales had a Welsh Assembly, which would make it one of the most over-governed countries in the world?
    Mr. Redwood: On the contrary: it would put a lot of investors off, at home and abroad. The growth has come about from domestic companies and from inward investment. It has been marked in small companies and in self-employment, as well as in the larger inward investors. They all benefit from our attitude to decent wages and social costs under sensible control.
    Mr. Llew Smith: The Department of Employment recently provided me with a list of all job vacancies advertised in Blaenau Gwent, and their hourly wage rates. The average hourly wage rate for those vacancies was just over £3. Can the Secretary of State inform families in my constituency how they can bring up children on that kind of money?
    Mr. Redwood: If that were the sole income coming into a family, it would clearly need supplementing—it would probably be supplemented by the benefit system. But it would be even crueller to make those sorts of jobs illegal so that the people currently enjoying them could not even have them. Doing that would not suddenly lead to a doubling of wages—the jobs would disappear altogether.
    The hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the fact that many thousands of new manufacturing jobs at good wages have been created in Wales in recent years as a result of our economic policies.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind across to 600 of those jobs, created in the electronics industry, and look carefully at the plight in which Race Electronics in my constituency finds itself? The company has been at the leading edge of burgeoning Welsh electronics production but faces dire difficulties at the moment.
    Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I shall look at that. I have already asked for more information and briefing on the problem of that company. I am told that there is a reasonable chance that the business will continue, and that it is hoped that a new buyer will be found to take it on. I am told that there is some strength in the underlying business. I hope that that is true; I shall make further inquiries and keep the hon. Gentleman posted.

    District General Hospitals
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to safeguard the position of smaller district general hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [26036]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 1995, Official Report, column 303. Any substantial change in the use of a hospital requires extensive public consultation before it can be put into effect. If the proposals for change do not secure the agreement of local community health councils, they must be referred to my right hon. Friend for decision.
    Mr. Dafis: I hope that the Minister is aware that Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth is the smallest district general hospital in England or Wales—or, indeed, in most of the United Kingdom—and that its resulting higher unit costs are liable to put it at something of a competitive disadvantage. Is he further aware of the chronic underfunding of capital works in the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, and that this, in addition to the other factor, could lead to a gradual spiral of decline in the scope and quality of the provision of services in the hospital and the trust? Will he undertake to have a careful look at the funding situation and ensure, following careful study, that no such decline occurs—bearing in mind the key strategic importance of Aberystwyth as a centre on the west coast of Wales?
    Mr. Richards: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, I visited the Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth—it was my first visit on being appointed a Minister at the Welsh Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we look carefully at the provision of services and the purchasing of those services by health authorities. We shall obviously keep an eye on the way in which Dyfed health authority purchases services for the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mrs. Clwyd: May I ask the Minister to examine the provision of services in Aberdare general hospital? Although there has been general consultation in the Cynon valley, there is grave dissatisfaction with the failure of the health authority to give dates for the reopening of wards. In addition, the authority has failed to give assurances that day surgery will be carried out under general anaesthetic at the hospital, as it was in the past. What was once a thriving general hospital is now gradually running down. That has happened while the Minister has had responsibility for health in Wales. I ask him to examine these issues as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Richards: The provision of health care and services in Wales is better than it has ever been. I am sure that the hon. Lady has the wherewithal to take up individual cases with the appropriate health authority.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met local authority associations in Wales to discuss the reorganisation services following the setting up of the shadow authorities. [26037]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and I last met both the local authority associations on 18 January 1994 when a range of issues relating to local government and reorganisation was discussed.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is widespread concern in Wales about the proposed reorganisation of the fire service? Does he accept that the proposed reorganisation is opposed by those who work in the service, by the eight fire authorities and by all the new 22 unitary authorities? Does he accept also that there is now a case to re-examine the proposal to ensure that there is consensus among the people of Wales on a vital service?
    Mr. Jones: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of fire brigades throughout Wales. I know well that the proposals that are now being made will be most carefully studied to ensure that there is no reduction in the level of services that the fire brigades in Wales provide.
    Mr. Knapman: When the new unitary authorities are in place, will there be anything to stop the new councillors from quadrupling their allowances and expenses?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a most important problem—that of trying to curb the natural tendencies of Labour councillors to do what they do rather than what they profess to say they will do.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that, by independent assessment, the Gwent fire service has been judged to be the most effective response force in the country? Is it not logical, therefore, to leave it as an independent force, preferably conterminous with the new police authority—that is, Gwent plus the Rhymney Valley? That would surely make far more sense than lumping the Gwent fire service with other local services.
    Mr. Jones: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's regard for the importance of the standards that are being achieved by the Gwent force. I have complete confidence that there will be no changes that will result in any reduction of the levels of service that must be achieved, are being achieved and, I am sure, will continue to be achieved in Gwent and elsewhere in Wales.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Minister met representatives of local government in Wales, did he take some time to praise education authorities—especially Labour ones—for the pioneering work that they are doing in providing nursery education, which is achieving far better provision than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Will the Minister be prepared to provide the new authorities with extra resources to enable all three and four-year-olds to have a nursery place and to support the voluntary sector? Such provision will give three and four-year-olds a real head start in life, which is what Baroness Thatcher promised to provide over 20 years ago. Will the Minister now implement the proposal?
    Mr. Jones: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted Question 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), which relates exactly to nursery education. I suggest that he bide his time and wait until that question is reached. In the meanwhile, I content myself with the observation that I notice that all education authorities in Wales have made sufficient provision in their education funding, despite their fears and claims beforehand, to ensure that the teachers' pay increase is paid in full in each of the eight education authorities in Wales, and that they are now turning their attention to increasing allowances for councillors.
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the consultation period referred to in his recent announcement of the Welsh Office's aim to vary local authority boundaries is to commence; and if he will make a statement. [26038]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The consultation period ended on 5 May 1995 and we are now currently giving our consideration to all the representations.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply, but ensconced as he is in the morphology of Cardiff, North, he will be pathetically out of touch with Welsh public opinion. The fact is that there are now fewer councillors under the unitary authority system than there are people on his quangos. Does he realise that that is a very bad thing for democracy and that the people of Wales view it with dismay and, indeed, disgust? May I tell him that in no circumstances will the people of Wales put up with any more gerrymandering to lessen the number of democratically elected people in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I waited patiently to try to hear a question from the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I have heard one. I would correct him on one of his factual errors. Yes, my right hon. Friend makes appointments to quangos; he made some 850 appointments. That is significantly less than the number of councillors in the new unitary authorities in Wales. I note the insult from Plaid Cymru towards the capital city of Wales. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly suggest that Cardiff, North is out of touch with public opinion in the Principality.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister aware that local authorities, our councillors, our electorates, are going through a period of great turmoil as a result of local government reorganisation and unitary authorities? In those circumstances, is there not a case for slowing down the usual work of the Local Government Commission, in terms of councillors per seat, so that the existing structure can be more consolidated?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the work that is being taken forward by the commission will be at a wholly appropriate speed for the reorganisation of local government in Wales. As I said, in answer to the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we are considering the responses to the consultation. We are looking closely at the number of councillors; I do not expect to see any significant reduction in their number. We are certainly giving close consideration to whether there should be any overall limit to the number of councillors on each council.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve nursery education provision. [26039]
    Mr. Richards: The Government are committed to ensuring that a pre-school place is available for every four-year-old whose parents want to take it up. We are currently considering how that commitment can best be implemented in Wales.
    Mr. Flynn: Why are the children of parents who live in Labour-controlled local authorities three times more likely to get places in nursery schools than the children of parents who live in Conservative-controlled authorities? Why is it that in the county of Berkshire, where Wokingham is situated, fewer than one third of the children enjoy nursery education, yet in the county of Gwent, where Newport is situated, three quarters of the children enjoy that provision? How dare the Government say that they are about to start on a crusade in education—16 years late? Would it not be better for the people of Wales and Wokingham, when the glorious day arrives and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) becomes Secretary of State for Wales, if my right hon. Friend also took over the duty as governor-general of Wokingham?
    Mr. Richards: Berkshire is a Liberal-Labour-controlled local authority. I think that that is called an own goal. Conservative Members certainly recognise the benefits of pre-school education. The hon. Gentleman can be certain of one thing: when it is introduced in Wales, there will be diversity and choice. He is certainly one person who could have benefited from pre-school education. Indeed, he might even benefit from it now.

    Open Government
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for advancing open government in Wales. [26040]
    Mr. Richards: The Welsh Office has published and distributed widely a bilingual leaflet that explains how to make a request for information under the code of practise on access to government information. A bilingual code has also been published on openness in the NHS.
    In the first nine months of operating the code, the Welsh Office provided information free of charge in response to more than 1,000 requests. Some 99 per cent. of those requests were dealt with in the target of 20 working days.
    Mr. Hughes: In that case, will the Minister investigate whether the code and those principles apply to his own Department, given that, on 2 March, in the debate on Welsh affairs—at column 1236—the Secretary of State said that the Countryside Council for Wales had been

    489
    given perfectly adequate funds to meet its statutory requirements. The fact is, however, that the council had appealed privately to the Secretary of State because it did not have adequate funds even to meet its minimum requirements, let alone for what it wanted to do.
    Can we have not just words, codes and charters from the Welsh Office, but open government that will reveal to us when the Secretary of State does not tell the House what has actually been going on and what the facts are?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is poorly informed. The Countryside Council for Wales was given more and, indeed, subsequently confirmed that it had had enough. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to his basic data and, if he so wishes, write to the council. I am sure that, under the code of practice, it will give him the accurate information that he so direly needs.

    Economic Activity
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for economic activity rates for (a) the south Wales valleys, (b) Wales and (c) Britain. [26041]
    Mr. Redwood: I am advised that the latest figures that we have for the south Wales valleys for economically active rates come from the 1991 census of population. At that time the figure was 52.9 per cent. We have more up-to-date figures from the 1994–95 labour survey for Wales and Great Britain, which stood at 57.2 per cent. and 62.4 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: The Welsh Office regularly claims that unemployment in Wales is now down to the British average, and we welcome that; but the unemployment figure tells only part of the story. When economic activity rates are taken into account—especially in the old industrial areas—about 15 per cent. can be added to the male unemployment figure, partly because of early retirement but mainly because people have been encouraged to take invalidity benefit wherever applicable.
    In what way do the Government recognise those lower economic activity rates in Wales, and what will be the effect of changes caused by the introduction of incapacity benefit, which will take people off invalidity benefit and put them on to the dole queues? Does the Secretary of State accept that the economies of large areas in south Wales are performing well below capacity?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I do not accept that. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to sidestep the fact that unemployment is very low in his part of Wales, which is welcome. In the Carmarthen travel-to-work area, it is 4.7 per cent.; in the Llandeilo travel-to-work area, it is 5 per cent. Many hon. Members would love to have such low levels of unemployment in their constituencies: they show that our policies have been successful.
    The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that all those who are properly registered as being in ill health or disabled should be forced to work. That is not our policy, although it may be Labour's. When people are genuinely disabled or in ill health, they receive benefits and they are not expected to work. It is sad that there are more disabled people in some parts of Wales, but we intend to take care of them rather than doing as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    NHS Patients
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were treated by the NHS in (a) 1979 and (b) 1994. [26042]
    Mr. Redwood: The national health service in Wales saw 633,000 new out-patients and treated 739,000 in-patients and day cases in 1994–95, compared with 429,000 and 381,000 respectively in 1979.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome that incredible increase, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the money secured through any future modifications and savings in the NHS in Wales will be spent directly on patient care and not on dancing to the music of the paymasters of many Opposition Members, the health unions in Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course we wish to concentrate the money on patient care. One of the reasons for the success in treating so many more patients is that we have targeted much more money on ensuring that patients come first, and that more treatment is available for them. That is the overriding priority, and one that I intend to continue.
    Mr. Hain: If the Secretary of State really believes that health services are improving under the Conservatives, is he living on planet Portillo or possibly planet Redwood?
    Mr. Redwood: That be the lamest silly question that we have heard all day, and probably for many weeks, in the House of Commons. Of course I put the interests of patients first. Of course I am proud to come to the House and ask for more money for the national health service in Wales, which it has needed and which it has been given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am also keen to ensure that health services in his region are improved by new investment as well as the additional commitment of people and new treatments. That is what we shall do. The hon. Gentleman's cheap debating points demean him and the House.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created as a result of inward investment over the past five years; what were the figures for 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement. [26043]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Figures for 1974 to 1979 are not available. In the past five years, 852 inward investment projects have been recorded, promising almost 38,000 new jobs and capital investment of £4.5 billion. Those figures are a clear illustration of the importance of inward investment to Wales.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friends on those remarkable figures. Is it not amazing that the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 did not record their figures? No doubt they had nothing to record. My hon. Friend should continue to go for it: it must be good for jobs, good for Wales and good for the whole of Britain.
    Mr. Jones: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulations. They give me the opportunity to explode another myth being peddled by the Opposition—that the jobs being brought to Wales are cheap, part-time jobs for women. They are not: the manufacturing employment pay

    491
    figures show that males are now on 99.9 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, and females in manufacturing in Wales are earning above the UK average.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Research and Development
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he will make to the technology foresight panels' recommendations for additional spending on Government-funded research and development. [26055]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): I have announced a technology foresight challenge fund, totalling £80 million, to which my Department will contribute half during the next three years.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Chancellor confirm that his Government's "Forward Look" figures show that, between 1986 and projected spend in 1996, the Government will have taken almost £1 billion out of the science and technology budget? Are not the Government taking money out of science and technology in lorryloads and giving it back in jam jars?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that at all. The science budget, for which I am responsible, has increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms in the past 16 years. As to the science and technology spend throughout Government, in all Departments, the hon. Lady will be aware of the effects of the review of defence spending and, indeed, the effects of the launch aid in the aerospace industry and several other factors.
    The important thing is that the latest statistics, published in March, showed that more was being spent on research and development by industry, by universities and by Government.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in recognising the important impact of the technology foresight process, we should pay great tribute to Sir William Stewart, who retired last week as chief scientific adviser, who played an enormous part in making that such a great success in the wider sphere of Government scientific policy and was also a great pleasure to work with?
    Mr. Hunt: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the five years of distinguished service that Sir William Stewart gave as chief scientific adviser to the Government and as head of the Office of Science and Technology. His vision and leadership were instrumental in the successful establishment of the Office of Science and Technology and, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the publication of the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", which was so well received both within and outside the scientific community. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend during his time in office.
    Mr. Battle: May I make it clear that Labour welcomes technology foresight in principle and the reports so far? We would urge the Government to enhance and carry the process forward. I ask the Minister, when can we welcome a full debate on science in the Chamber in
    492
    Government time to discuss the reports? When will the Government publish practical action plans to implement the proposals of the report? When will other Ministers in other Departments welcome the reports and their recommendations, so that they are not left on the shelf in the Office of Science and Technology and ignored by Ministers in other Departments, as has happened in the past?
    Mr. Hunt: I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the technology foresight exercise. I pay tribute to the many people who have played a part in bringing about what I believe to be one of the most innovative programmes ever to have taken place in this country. Of course, he will know what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have already said about carrying forward the technology foresight message. The Government recognise the importance of science, engineering and technology. That is reflected in our response to the whole technology foresight exercise.

    Citizens Charter
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable. [26056]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): The citizens charter is continuing to raise the standard of public service. Although the charter as a whole is not legally enforceable, certain provisions in specific charters are backed by legislation.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that to widen the areas where the charter would be legally enforceable need not be unduly onerous in public spending terms?
    Mr. Horam: Yes, that is certainly true. It need not involve any further public expenditure. What I would be concerned about is losing flexibility. We have increased credibility for the particular charters and some legislative backing in, for example, the parents charter, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. We shall continue to evolve in that direction. He will notice that more and more adjudicators have been appointed—for example, for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. They are bridging the gap between legal enforcement and strong voluntary enforcement.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he can shout and bawl as much as he likes about the values and virtues of the Government's citizens charter because in the background there is another citizen, the ex-Prime Minister Lady Thatcher, who has marked the Government's record and their own charter and does not think that it adds up to a row of beans?
    Mr. Horam: I do not think that the House would readily agree that I was a shouter and a bawler.

    Charter Mark
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes of service have been monitored in the public services since the introduction of the charter mark. [26058]
    Mr. Horam: There have been a large number of measurable improvements since the introduction of the charter mark. One charter mark winner that I visited recently, a housing benefits department, has increased customer satisfaction to 97 per cent., improved its productivity level and saved more than £2 million through improved fraud detection.
    Mr. Fabricant: That is an encouraging answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents welcome the fact that when they telephone Government Departments, telephones are answered more quickly, they can find out the names of the people to whom they speak, and pamphlets are issued in English that they can understand? Does my hon. Friend agree that the constant carping and criticism from Labour Members implies that they have no desire to improve the standard of public services?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a revolution in public services in terms of waiting times, politeness, openness and all those aspects, although I confess that we still have a little further to go in terms of plain English.
    Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister given any consideration to having a negative charter mark for organisations which do not give any satisfaction? If so, what sort of negative charter mark should be given to the most discredited and unpopular Government since records began? Does the hon. Gentleman now regret joining the Tory party after so many years in the Labour party when his current party is going to lose the next election and he will certainly he out of a job?
    Mr. Horam: I am delighted to be a member of an Administration who have the best economic performance that I can remember and who have improved public services beyond the imagination of the Opposition, rather than an Administration who let inflation rip and came to an end in the tragic farce of the winter of discontent.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the growing popularity of the charter mark is shown by the fact that, last year, there were some 20,000 inquiries about it and some 500 firm applications? Is there scope for extending the charter mark system to organisations such as one in my constituency called the Blacon project, which is an outstanding community partnership between the local authority, the local community and the voluntary sector?
    Mr. Horam: That is an interesting suggestion, which I shall consider.

    Standards in Public Life
    27. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to implement the Nolan recommendations. [26059]
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government welcome the broad thrust of the Nolan recommendations in so far as they affect the Government and we are now considering a detailed response.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public concern that just four of the Conservative Members of Parliament chosen to serve on the proposed House of Commons Committee hold 23 paid directorships or consultancies between them? Is not that concern
    494
    reflected in the Gallup opinion poll reported in The Daily Telegraph today, showing that nine out of 10 members of the public do not want Members of Parliament to take any outside payment of any sort?
    As the Minister responsible for appointments to quangos, what will the right hon. Gentleman do now, before the Committee reports, to ensure that future quango appointments are not part of the Tory fund-raising operation?
    Mr. Hunt: The Nolan report concluded that there was no substance to many of the allegations that have been thrown around. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. I hope that this House can now get on with setting up the relevant Committee to look into the way in which this House should respond to the Nolan recommendations.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for single organisations to write cheques for £4,000 apiece—cash for votes—for the election expenses of many of our political opponents? Does he further agree that it would make sense for Members of Parliament to judge their own conduct by what I call the local newspaper test—if they are doing something that they would not want reported in the local newspaper, either they should not do it or they should tell the local newspaper?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises some important points, which I hope Labour Members will consider carefully. I read some speculation somewhere that at a recent Labour party conference—which seemed to be an awful lot of something about nothing—Labour said that it was looking into its links with the trade unions. I hope that it does so and comes forward quickly with recommendations.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the huge public support for the Nolan recommendations—all the answers to all the questions showing eight or nine people out of 10 supporting them—does the right hon. Gentleman think that for the Government to propose for the implementing Committee a group of people who are not only not all senior Conservative Members of the House, but clearly have a vested interest in a result that will allow hon. Members to continue being sponsored from outside the House, exactly confirms the public prejudice that we are always trying to look after ourselves first and the public second?
    Why did not the Government propose Members of Parliament with no outside interests, so that there could be a clearly impartial decision reflecting the view of the public that we need to sweep away the old order and bring in a far more free-from-interest order in accord with the public view of the day?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should read and reflect on the report in full. He would then realise that it states that many of the allegations that have been thrown around have been found to have no substance. It is a fundamental recommendation of the Nolan committee that Members of Parliament should be free to continue with outside interests. That was a specific recommendation. Of course the House must carefully consider the Nolan recommendations, but that is a matter for the House and not for me.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he sensible to ask the Nolan committee to look into the corruption and malpractice in so many Labour-run local authorities—in particular, the incompetence in the social services department in Islington when it was run by a lady who has now escaped to the Labour Benches, the employment of illegal immigrants in Hackney, and the employment of a teacher in Lambeth even though he is a trade union leader?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members will never be taken seriously until all of them give up every penny of trade union sponsorship both for themselves and for their constituency parties?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has issued an important challenge to Labour Members. I know that there is increasing concern about the way local government is being administered in certain parts of the country. My hon. Friend's voice will have been heard and the supportive reaction that he received noted. Indeed, the Nolan committee has already said that local government will be an area for further inquiry; no doubt my hon. Friend's remarks will be taken into account when it meets to consider taking further steps.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the comments made by the Chancellor's hon. Friends this afternoon, will he reconsider the Government's opposition to the proposal that the Nolan committee should look into party political funding? Would it not be helpful to everyone to have that inquiry brought forward and held as quickly as possible?
    The Minister is directly responsible for appointments to quangos and he has said this afternoon that he fully supports Nolan's recommendations on that issue. He also made that clear in a debate six weeks ago. What steps has he taken to implement the Nolan committee's recommendations about appointments to quangos? What is he doing about those who hold office on quangos who were not appointed on merit? Will he give an assurance, in the spirit of Nolan, that Ministers have stopped packing quangos with Tory nominees?
    Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Lady would read the Nolan report, as it clearly labels as untrue each and every one of the allegations that she has just made. The report says that there is no evidence of such packing. There is no evidence that people are appointed on anything other than merit. It is about time she reflected on the recommendations and words of the Nolan report, rather than trying to invent allegations which cannot be proved. We have put forward our policies very clearly. We have already laid out our response to the recommendations in the debate in this House. We are now preparing our detailed response, which will be published as soon as possible.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress the Government are making with their market-testing programme. [26060]
    Mr. Horam: As our announcement in January on the "Competing for Quality" programme showed, progress has been very good. By September 1994, £2 billion of activities had been looked at and annual savings of more than £400 million identified. New figures will be available shortly.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not contrast starkly with Labour party
    496
    policy, which seems to be against such efficiency savings? Indeed, as a result, the Labour party seems to be in favour of inefficiency and therefore higher taxation. What savings does my hon. Friend estimate we are likely to make in the forthcoming year?
    Mr. Horam: Until September, we are tackling a programme worth about £860 million. At the current rate of saving of about 20 per cent., that should yield—if my arithmetic is right—savings of about £170 million for the taxpayer.
    Ms Walley: Will the Minister look at the way in which the issue is being raised in the health service? Will he look closely at the decision of an industrial tribunal in Birmingham today? The transfer of a particular contract from one part of the health service to another has been found to be unlawful in the European Court because of the rules on the transfer of undertakings. When will the Government recognise that the exercise does not take into account the long term but looks only at certain so-called efficiency savings without considering the total cost and the dismantling of organisations such as the national health service.
    Mr. Horam: The programme does take account of the long term. Clearly, it is beginning to be a long-term factor. It started in the late 1980s and has carried on successfully over the years. If the hon. Lady would care to give me details of the specific example that she mentioned, I will certainly look into it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is there any reason why in-house bids should not be acceptable, particularly, for example, in the running of pension funds?
    Mr. Horam: It is normal practice to accept in-house bids. Only in very rare circumstances, where expertise is not available in-house, are in-house bids not accepted. I assure my hon. Friend of that.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent his Government responsibilities include overseeing and co-ordinating the presentation of Government policy. [26061]
    Mr. David Hunt: I chair the relevant Cabinet Committee.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is it true that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has sent minutes to the Prime Minister and sought to counsel him about the political and electoral consequences of the enormous rate of negative equity, especially in the south-east of England? In making those representations, has the Chancellor also drawn to the Prime Minister's attention the human cost of the anxiety suffered by millions of people enduring negative equity and the consequences for enterprise because people cannot borrow to start new businesses? What do the Government intend to do about the problems of negative equity to lift the burden from the people who suffer it?
    Mr. Hunt: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the Government are responsible for a sustained period of non-inflationary growth and a background in economic statistics that we have not seen for many generations. Of course, we are aware of the difficulties faced by some individuals. My right hon.

    497
    Friends have announced a series of measures designed to counteract that. The Government's sound policies take precedence over presentation. After last weekend, it is clear that, for Labour, presentation comes first.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in presenting Government policies, the Government seek to promote Britain in the best light and to promote pride in being British, rather than to sell Britain down the river as that lot over there on the Opposition Benches would, with minimum wages and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: In the words of the deputy leader of the Labour party, any silly fool should know that that would
    498
    be the consequence of the Labour party's policies, which my hon. Friend has just set out. Apparently, the Labour party last weekend decided to say anything about nothing and nothing about anything. The party without a leader is becoming the leader without a party.
    Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his reply to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Parliamentary Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he said that in-house applications for tenders for services that were about to be privatised would normally be accepted. In fact, in many cases they are not even allowed to tender. In the case of the civil service pension scheme, which is of major importance, it appears that the President of the Board of Trade is not allowing any in-house tenders.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, which is of some delicacy, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday 27 June, BBC Scotland and a programme called "Scottish Lobby" propose to have parliamentary awards. I do not know whether it is proper for the BBC to award Members of Parliament parliamentary awards according to criteria decided by the BBC. It is a matter of some concern when the Office of Speaker becomes involved. It is understood that you, Madam Speaker, are going to present the awards. I earnestly ask for reflection as to whether, with all the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons, your Office should be involved—perhaps without any sort of judgment by the Speaker—in awarding awards to parliamentarians on a pretty invidious basis. Whatever the basis, you have to be above such battles.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has written to me on more than one occasion about the matter. As with a number of issues that he pursues, the hon. Gentleman has pursued this one with me now for more than four weeks. I have taken sound advice from many of his colleagues, particularly from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who leads for the Opposition on Scottish matters, as well as from many other colleagues. I am not adjudicating, but I consider it to be a privilege and honour simply to make the presentation to one or two of my colleagues on whichever side of the House they may sit.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise in view of the developments over the weekend on trading in PowerGen shares. I am aware that the Financial Secretary made a statement to the House on Friday afternoon. In view of the growing seriousness of the issues raised, particularly in relation to the Treasury's role, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached you, Madam Speaker, to say that he is prepared to appear before the House to make a statement on those serious matters?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady indicated, the Minister did not make a statement on Friday; I allowed a private notice question. I have not heard since that any Minister is seeking to make a statement.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could we have a further investigation of Welsh questions? I appreciate that we have asked you to investigate that in the past, but after today, I think that it is necessary that the matter should be looked at again. I am complaining not for myself because I was fortunate enough to be called to ask a supplementary question, but because hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies and who tabled questions failed to be called today.
Today, eight Labour Members were called, with four Conservative Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies and one Liberal Democrat who does not
500
represent a Welsh constituency. Five hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies were called compared with eight who do. That is out of 38 Welsh Members. We have the opportunity to ask questions only once a month and surely that right should be given to Welsh constituencies and Welsh Members.
I notice that that does not happen in Scottish questions, for some unknown reason. Therefore, I suggest that we look yet again at the matter. Perhaps the Government Whip who deals with Welsh matters could persuade his colleagues not to use up the time that Welsh Members should have to ask Welsh questions.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member appreciates, I deal with Welsh questions in the same way that I deal with Scottish questions. This is, of course, a United Kingdom Parliament and when hon. Members from any part of the House table questions, they will be called to put them and called for supplementaries if they should rise.
I have noticed today that we have not moved as quickly as we normally do with Welsh questions. To some extent, that is because we tend to get long questions and we get long answers, too. If they were much more brisk, we would make further progress and the hon. Gentleman would be much happier than he is at the present time, although I see him with his usual smile on his face.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no inside information about who will get the Scottish parliamentary awards but I have some suggestions. Would it not be preferable if you were to nominate one or two Scottish Members to give awards for the journalists in the Gallery? It would not be proper for those who do not manage to stay for Adjournment debates on Scottish sewage and other such matters to be considered in that respect. It would be much more fun for us to adjudicate for once on the qualities, persistence and abilities of those who spend so much of their time telling us what we ought to be doing.
Madam Speaker: I could agree to the hon. Member's suggestion only if those nominated worked 12 or 14-hour days in that Gallery and stayed to the very end.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Don Foster, Sir David Knox, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. George Walden, presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985 so as to prevent certain potential abuses of electoral registration, proxy voting and overseas electors' declarations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

  Northern Ireland
  3.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.
  It is just over a year since the House last considered whether to renew for a further year the principal provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It was a wise measure to provide for the renewal of these temporary provisions every year if they are to survive.
  I will, for the only time today, indulge in a quotation from what I said in last year's debate—it is a short one:
  "The Act needs to achieve a balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and providing condign measures against terrorists and the organisations that sustain them."—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 267.]
  I think it right to acknowledge at the beginning that exceptional measures of this kind, enacted in the first place in order to meet exceptional threats to life and liberty, tend to develop an adhesive quality of their own—that is to say, they are more likely to stick than to be dropped as time goes by. It is easier to react to a sudden crisis by imposing such measures than it is to acquire sufficient confidence to surrender them in response to an improvement in the scene. Members of Parliament and Ministers in particular need to remind themselves of that truth. Circumstances do change and, happily, in Northern Ireland they have, in the past 12 months, changed dramatically for the better, as I shall illustrate. So it behoves us all, I suggest, to examine carefully whether, in the new circumstances, the former balance needs adjusting or whether it still needs to be maintained.
  I want it to be known in the House and outside that, in proposing the renewal of these provisions for a further year, I accept that the burden of proof rests with me. It is right to speak and to think of "the new circumstances" rather than of "today's circumstances". There is a danger, if we think only of what things are like today, that we may not give sufficient thought for what, on the basis of such objective evidence as is available, they foreseeably might be like tomorrow and what they foreseeably might be like next month. No one can be sure what will happen, of course; we can only go by outward and visible signs of other people's true intentions and then try to interpret them sensibly. In other words, like insurers, we have to assess the risks for the people for whom we are responsible. That is a concept and a duty to which I shall return.
  What are the new circumstances? They are as dramatic as they are welcome—and overdue. More than nine months have now gone by since what has come to be known as the republican ceasefire and nearly eight months since its loyalist counterpart. Many factors have, doubtless, contributed to the ceasefires. Foremost among them, to which the whole House will wish to pay tribute, are the extraordinary courage and steadfastness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces, and the staunchness of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
  We should remind ourselves, however, of the hideous terrorist crimes committed in 1994 alone, before the ceasefires occurred. For if present circumstances suggest
  502
  that a reversion to violence is being retained as an option, those are the kind of crimes that may again be perpetrated. Those are the crimes from which it is our duty to protect the public, as best we may. From January to June 1994, republican groups murdered 17 people and loyalists 27. I shall cite just three instances, each horrific and each leaving a trail of bereavement and pain.
  On 13 May last year, the Provisional IRA murdered a civilian cleaner in his car as he was driving with his family in Lurgan. His three-year-old daughter, Emma, was blown out of the car and severely injured. On 18 June, loyalist gunmen walked into a bar in Loughinisland where people were watching the World cup on television. They sprayed automatic gunfire into the crowd, murdering six people including an 87-year-old man. In August, Mr. Telford Withers, a part-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldier, was murdered in his shop at Crossgar by a gunman. None of those crimes, nor any of similar character that preceded them, never mind by whom they were committed, should ever be forgotten.
  Foremost among the new circumstances, however, is the fact that, since the ceasefires, terrorist activity has markedly diminished. People throughout the Province are relishing a return to what the rest of us have always called normality, yet which so very many of them have never experienced in their lives. Yet I cannot say that there has been no major terrorist atrocity since then; there has been. In November last year, Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Newry, was attacked and brutally shot dead in an armed robbery. He was fighting to prevent the theft of public money. That crime was planned and executed by the Provisional IRA organisation in South Armagh. Some £130,000 was stolen, and although central authority within the Provisional IRA denied authorising the raid—and implied disapproval of it—none of the money has been returned.
  Since the ceasefires, in Enniskillen, Newry and—most recently—Belfast, a total of four viable explosive devices have been found, fortunately before they could go off. Had they done so, the toll in life, limb and property could have been terrible. In no way should the Government or the House distinguish between such crimes according to whether republicans or so-called loyalists commit them. It matters not to the victim, and we have to judge how best to protect potential victims in future by means of legislation.
  It remains the case that paramilitaries on both sides, and not only the principal organisations, are still engaging in terrorist-related activity. Let us look at some examples. Both sides seek money, and they go after it by robbery, by extortion with intimidation and by the criminal extraction of money from charities, clubs and ostensibly legitimate businesses. They are involved increasingly in the drug trafficking that makes the lives of so many young people wretched. For no less political motives, they are engaged in other criminally violent activities, too. In particular, they continue to seek to impose their will on communities by threats, intimidation and brutal beatings. Indeed, from 31 August until the end of May, there were 131 horrific so-called punishment attacks. Sixty-two of them have been attributed to loyalists, including 13 shootings before the loyalist ceasefire. Sixty-nine have been attributed to republicans.
  Threats and intimidation often accompany those attacks. The thugs who perpetrate those sickening crimes often use baseball bats, clubs and cudgels with protruding

  503
  nails to beat their victims' limbs and torsos, smashing their bones and wrecking their internal organs. The attacks are capped with threats of death if the victims tell the RUC. Additionally, people are forced to leave their homes and neighbourhoods on pain of death by shooting. Others are ordered to remain away. Some voluntary groups fear that the number of people excluded from their homes by those wicked means may run into hundreds.
  Neither ought we to forget that there remain other organisations—equally deadly—which do not subscribe to the ceasefires. The INLA, which has carried out some of the most appalling atrocities of the past 25 years, has not mounted any attacks since the ceasefires commenced but has not yet declared a ceasefire of its own. The threat that the INLA poses was aptly demonstrated on 4 April, when the Gardai intercepted a van and a car north of Dublin containing four suspected senior INLA members, and recovered six automatic rifles, 20 pistols and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition. That the arms were destined for Northern Ireland is beyond doubt. We can only speculate on whether and where they were to be used.
  The INLA is not the only such group. Republican Sinn Fein has vowed to oppose the Provisional IRA ceasefire and to mount attacks in Northern Ireland. The threat that it poses is taken very seriously indeed, both by the RUC and by the Gardai. Only last month, the Gardai arrested six men and a woman following the discovery of arms in Dublin. All seven are suspected to have connections with Republican Sinn Fein, and have since been charged with firearms offences.
  Consistent with all that terrorist activity, terrorist organisations on both sides continue to train teams for operations, to research improvised weapons, to identify potential targets and—crucially—to maintain undiminished their stock of weapons and explosives.
  I take no perverse—or any—pleasure in telling the House about all this. Sometimes Ministers are upbraided for going on about it and spoiling the party. "Move the peace process forward," we are told. The implication is that we should ignore it all, or view it indulgently. To contrast it with the professed assurance that peace has come for good is said to be unhelpful. But what is really needed to move the peace process forward is the ending of actions that rupture or menace the peace. Otherwise, how are those who question the compatibility of those activities with professions of peace to be reassured? More immediately, how are we in the House to be reassured, who have to assess the risk to the lives of those for whom we in this United Kingdom Parliament are responsible?
  Mr. David Winnick: I believe that the peace process should be advanced, and the Secretary of State will no doubt accept that we all deplore the crimes to which he has referred. Violence and thuggery can never be justified under any circumstances.
  Will the Secretary of State concede that the organisation that was established in 1970 with the sole aim of driving Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom through force of every kind, including violence and the terrible atrocities that were committed mainly in Northern Ireland but also in places such as Birmingham, simply did not succeed? It was the will of the House and of the country as a whole that that violence should not be
  504
  victorious. Therefore, when the IRA announced in August-September last year the end of its campaign of violence, it was a victory against terrorism.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The IRA certainly did not succeed and it has not advanced very much in 25 years. However, I am afraid that many thousands of people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere look at the maintenance of weapons and explosives and see that as incompatible with the profession that peace is here for good. They hope that peace is here for good and they take note of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said, but they also take note of the activities that I itemised a few minutes ago.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I was a very close friend of Mr. Frank Kerr and I do not like Mr. Kerr's death being used as part of a political argument. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the peace process to which he refers is one that he himself has helped to advance by removing exclusion orders as they applied to people coming into England, Scotland and Wales; that he himself has helped to advance by ordering the opening of border roads; that he himself has helped to advance by meeting with the leader of Sinn Fein; and that he himself has helped to advance through the Minister of State's entering into formal party discussions with the leader of Provisional Sinn Fein and those who represent the loyalist paramilitary groupings?
  One of the problems that some of us have is: how can one be half in and half out of a peace process? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity today to explain to those who have that difficulty how one can be half in and half out of a process that the Secretary of State has, to his credit, helped to sustain?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can give very readily to the hon. Gentleman, who has a most worthy record in those matters, the justification that he seeks. Those matters with which he began his list resulted from the advice of the Chief Constable, my principal security adviser, that it was now possible to open the border roads and to lift exclusion orders in the light of a diminution in the threat. The same goes for a whole raft of other measures that have been taken and with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is very willing to deal if need be at a later stage.
  However, it is a very different matter if I am then asked to enter into negotiations with a party that is associated with a paramilitary organisation which is retaining its hold upon its armaments and which has used them in the past to sustain its party's political objective.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. As an eminent lawyer, he must realise that today he is about to renew legislation that will effect the closure of border roads at the same time as he has given instructions for the opening of border roads. Does he accept the wider point that, at the same time as renewing the legislation, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are affecting us in many ways by operating as Saatchi and Saatchi for the Provisional Sinn Fein? Since peace has been called, they have kept those people on the front pages of every newspaper and in the lead stories of

  505
  every news bulletin for up to nine months. Will he explain to those of us who have fought against the operations of the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groupings for more than 30 years, how that can be equated with his refusal not to renew the legislation?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: If I am allowed to continue, I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House the need, as insurance, to retain the provisions. We have not formed that judgment alone and unaided, but with the benefit of the advice of an independent reviewer of the operation of the Act over the past year, Mr. John Rowe QC. Had I and the Government agreed to enter into negotiations with Sinn Fein, as we are happy to do with other parties—including the hon. Gentleman's party—which have never been tarnished with any association with paramilitary violence, that would have left his party in a dangerous position, as Sinn Fein would have been able to say, with the support of the Provisional IRA, that tactics such as they have employed actually secured political advance. That would have left the hon. Gentleman's party, which has always subjected itself to the discipline of constitutional politics, in a dangerous position and a most undeserved one.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must continue.
  I should like to outline the principal ways in which, in the past four years, the Act has delivered the greater part of Parliament's legislative response to the terrorist threat from both sides, and to view those provisions in the light of the new circumstances.
  Part I of the Act creates the so-called scheduled offences, which are offences commonly committed by terrorists, requiring special treatment as regards bail, remands, trial, evidence, sentence and the remission of sentence. They are tried by judge alone in the so-called Diplock courts.
  Part II makes special provision for powers to stop, to arrest, to search and to seize property. Part III creates special offences against public security and order, including directing terrorist offences and belonging to such an organisation. Part IV provides for detention by order, otherwise known as detention. That power is currently suspended.
  Part VI makes special provision in respect of persons in police custody under the terrorism provisions for their management and their questioning in holding centres such as Castlereagh.
  Part VII makes special provision for the confiscation of proceeds of terrorist activities and for specially authorised investigators.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall continue with my speech a little longer, if I may.
  I do not propose to rehearse today the details of the provisions. They are well described in the latest report of the independent reviewer, Mr. Rowe, presented in May this year.
  The Act represents a wide spectrum of special provisions, and it is right that its operation from year to year should be independently reviewed. In addition to Mr.
  506
  Rowe's report, the House has the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, whom I appointed two years ago as an independent commissioner to review the operation of the holding centres. I am grateful to each of those distinguished gentlemen and to the deputy commissioner for the holding centres, Dr. Bill Norris, for their work. Dr. Norris has made over 80 unannounced visits to the holding centres.
  Mr. Rowe, after wide consultation and dispassionate assessment of the evidence, concludes that it is necessary to renew each section of the Act currently in force for a further year. His judgment concurs with our own. We consider that the continuing terrorist-related activity that I mentioned leaves us no prudent alternative, although the special powers that the Act provides are being used less and less, I am glad to say. The latent threat remains, and in our judgment, the Act itself remains necessary for the time being.
  Mr. Rowe recommends, however, that during the coming year the Act should be kept under review with a view to using the powers in section 69 to suspend individual provisions. We are happy to accept that wholeheartedly.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Appendix A on page 61 of the Rowe report gives the list of persons and organisations who gave assistance in discussion and representation. One is the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. As the Secretary of State knows—although this was not his doing—the secretariat was designed to be a joint instrument of the two Governments. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the basis on which the secretariat gave oral and written evidence and what it conveyed?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a good question to ask Mr. Rowe, but I do not know the answer at the moment.
  When, on advice, I consider that a particular provision is no longer necessary, I shall not hesitate to invite the House to approve an order suspending it. The suspension could be reversed at any time if necessary. After all, it is the Government's aim to remove those provisions altogether in due course—but Mr. Rowe concludes, and we agree, that we have not reached that time yet.
  Mr. Corbyn: As the Secretary of State is clearly determined to have the order approved today, will he give the House an idea of when he will suspend the section relating to Diplock courts and restore the right of trial by jury, which would be seen as a major contribution to the peace process?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer is: as soon as I am advised that intimidation has diminished to such a degree that it will be safe once again in the North—it remains unsafe in the Republic—to entrust such cases to a jury that will no longer fear intimidation. The original Diplock report dealt with that matter in great thoroughness.
  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Mr. Rowe have again advocated the introduction of some kind of electronic recording of interviews with suspects held under the prevention of terrorism Act. In the past, I had to balance the strong arguments in favour of recording against the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC that to introduce any form of electronic recording for terrorism suspects would not be in the overall interests of justice.

  507
  The change to the security situation clearly has a bearing on where the balance of advantage now lies. It introduces other factors, too. The number of suspects being questioned about offences connected with terrorism has, since the ceasefire, reduced by some two thirds. Assuming that the continued absence of violence will allow the downward trend to continue, there will, I hope, come a time when the need to use the more rigorous regime afforded by the holding centres will disappear entirely. That will mean that the ordinary Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 procedures will suffice for all suspects. That must be our aim, although we are not there yet.
  Having consulted the Chief Constable, however, I can say that, if it still appears necessary to do so at all in the light of the developing security situation, the Government will propose introducing an electronic recording scheme. That will be in the Bill that will be required next Session to replace the present Act. Such a scheme will require statutory provision, because it remains important for arrangements to be in place to prevent tapes from being disclosed by those who might have sinister motives. The House would, of course, have ample opportunity to consider the detail during that Bill's passage.
  With the decline in terrorist activity, the use of the holding centres has also diminished. It is my hope that that will continue, although the police will continue vigorously to investigate earlier terrorist crimes, no matter how old—but we are always determined to demonstrate that suspects, who may have been involved in the most horrific of crimes, can have no legitimate fears about ill-treatment. We have in place codes of practice, and since the previous debate it has been agreed that Sir Louis will be able to sit in on the interviews. That should provide another reassurance and safeguard.
  Sir Louis once again touches on the material conditions of detention in the holding centres. He continues to believe that the facilities at Castlereagh should not remain in commission any longer than absolutely necessary. I am content with that. However, I believe that it is sensible in the current changing security situation for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to pause and review its overall police building programme. It accepts the need to improve standards of accommodation, as does the RUC. The important question of a replacement for Castlereagh will therefore remain under consideration. Sir Louis makes other recommendations, with which the Minister of State will be able to deal should that be necessary later.
  The context of conditions in which persons are held in custody permits me to announce, in respect of convicted prisoners, the enhancement in three respects of a compassionate leave scheme established in Northern Ireland for many years. It has enabled prisoners to maintain family contacts at times of acute domestic difficulty. The arrangements have been of particular importance to a prisoner population the majority of whom serve long sentences.
  Over the years, the conditions attaching to those arrangements have been strictly adhered to by prisoners to an impressive degree—including prisoners convicted of the most serious offences—and that has contributed to a wide understanding of and support for the measures among community leaders and the general public in Northern Ireland. All such schemes, however, are capable of improvement, and in its 1995–96 business plan, the Prison Service declared its intention to develop further
  508
  opportunities for prisoners to maintain close family ties. A lot of changes to those arrangements have been working successfully now for almost a year and I consider that the time is now right to make further improvements, which I believe will receive widespread support in the community in Northern Ireland.
  Accordingly, and with immediate effect, I intend to take three steps. First, the maximum period of compassionate leave that the Prison Service may authorise for attendance at the funeral of a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild is currently 24 hours. In future, the Prison Service will be authorised to permit a period of absence of up to 48 hours, subject to a satisfactory assessment of risk. That will not of course apply automatically in every case. The length of absence will depend on individual circumstances.
  Secondly, prisoners may apply for compassionate leave in the event of the serious illness of a parent, child, brother or sister. That may be granted if the Prison Service is satisfied as to the circumstances and the degree of risk. In future, that arrangement will extend to the serious illness of grandparents and grandchildren. It will be for the prisoner or his family to satisfy the Prison Service as to the nature and extent of the illness.
  Lastly, prisoners who have served at least 10 years and who have a close relative who has been unable through medical disability to visit the prison for at least 18 months, may currently apply for a short period of compassionate leave. Two such periods may be granted in any one year provided the prisoner presents no undue risk to public safety. The value of that facility has declined with the availability of other forms of leave to prisoners who have served 11 years or more. Yet the scheme has worked well and prisoners have shown willingness to honour its conditions.
  Accordingly, I intend to reduce the qualifying length of sentence from 10 years to six years. Those three changes are modest but none the less useful extensions of arrangements that had been working well for prisoners, their families and the public.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: While we are on the subject of prisoners, not least in the light of much media speculation over the past weekend, will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the situation with regard to Private Clegg?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and with the House's permission I shall do so very briefly.
  There is no question of any linkage between the case of Private Clegg and any consideration of possible changes to remission rates or other regime changes for prisoners in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Those are matters solely for the British Government to decide. The Life Sentence Review Board met to consider Private Clegg's case, along with several others, on 6 June. I am considering its recommendations, and I shall consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge as necessary.
  That is the standard procedure, quasi-judicial in character, which is followed in all life sentence cases. As the law requires, Private Clegg's case will be treated in accordance with that established practice, solely on its

  509
  merits. There is no question of one law for the security forces and another for the rest, as Private Clegg's prosecution and conviction plainly demonstrated.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's written responses to questions that I have asked him in the past. As the case has been raised today, can he say when he is likely to make his decision on the recommendation that he says has been sent to him? I ask because of the anguish that Private Clegg and his family are undergoing.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has most assiduously represented the concerns of his constituent. I am not able to give the information that he seeks. As I have said, I shall have to consult. I shall do so with all practical speed.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: All of us on the Government Benches welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's robust statement that there is to be no linkage, but will he reassure us none the less that, when it comes to Private Clegg himself, there can be no question of the consultations involving questions being asked about the impact on certain parts of the community of justice being done for this unfortunate soldier?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that that is implicit in what I have said. If it is not, it should be explicit. Those matters will be dealt with not by reference to political expediency, but by reference to the merits of each individual case.
  The ceasefires have met with a ready response by the Government. On advice from the Chief Constable, many important relaxations have been made in security measures. Those have already been mentioned in part by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
  Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must now conclude my speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with further matters if that is required. I shall not detain the House further now.
  I hope that the trend of relaxation can continue, as it will if we are advised that the terrorist threat continues to diminish. I know that that advice will be positive. It will be measured as the gravity of our responsibilities demands.
  In the second half of the year, we shall have to make decisions about the legislation that will be necessary to replace the current Act when it expires completely next year. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, there will have
  "to be a wide-ranging look at all the options"
  for permanent counter-terrorism organisation once a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your advice. The Secretary of State was good enough to give way to three interventions about the Private Clegg affair. He turned down an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who represented a person who was killed, as was proven in three courts, by Private Clegg. In the
  510
  circumstances, do you not feel, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision not to give way to my hon. Friend?
  Madam Speaker rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I need not trouble you, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Courteous as always. Thank you very much.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).
  Dr. Hendron: Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituents and perhaps those of Greater Belfast have been deeply offended, but not so much by the campaign to free Lee Clegg? There are, of course, many campaigns to release prisoners. Instead, they have been offended by the nature of the campaign, involving former brigadiers and colonels and senior politicians. At virtually no time have those people considered in detail what happened on the night when Karen Reilly and Martin Peake were killed.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I recognise that Lee Clegg did not set out to kill someone? But is it not a fact that the Government do not want any other charge save murder—for example, culpable homicide—to be on the statute book in case other soldiers might also find themselves behind bars? I speak as someone who has given a lifetime to opposing paramilitaries on both sides. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the nature of the Clegg campaign is deeply offensive? When he makes his decision, will he assure us that it will not be made on the basis of a campaign that has been joined by people who have never considered the detail of what happened on that fateful night?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently for his constituents. There is nobody better to do that than him. What he has said about the Government's intentions is not consistent with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary having set up an inquiry into the law of murder. I understand that those conducting the inquiry will report within a month or two. I think that I can reject what the hon. Gentleman has said about our intentions. I do not want to say anything more about the circumstances of the Clegg case. It has been litigated in three courts up to the House of Lords and the judgments speak for themselves.
  As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the House that there would have to be "a wide-ranging look at all the options"[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 356.]
  for permanent counter-terrorism legislation once a lasting peace is established. I can now confirm that the exercise will include a powerful, authoritative and, most importantly, an independent review of the continuing need for the order and the prevention of terrorism Act.
  It is a matter for judgment when the conditions would be right to start such a process. Confidence in a lasting peace has still to be established. It is likely—and I regret this—that such a review could not sensibly be mounted in time for its conclusions to influence the successor Act. If that does prove to be the case, I undertake that next Session's Bill, some of the provisions of which may from

  511
  the outset be suspended, will be explicitly temporary and will have a shorter maximum lifespan than the five years of the present Act.
  I profoundly hope that the time will soon come when the emergency legislation will have finally served its purpose, as I anticipated in December 1992, in a speech that I made in Coleraine. I hold to all that I said there, in a speech that was quite widely noticed. Much has been achieved, far more than a year ago seemed attainable so soon. Today, I acknowledge the contributions of all who have brought that about.
  The exploratory dialogue that we are conducting with Sinn Fein and the two loyalist parties offers a means of leading to the achievement of much more, but a terrorist threat, regrettably, still remains. The Government are not going to drop their guard prematurely. There is too much at stake for that. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.
  4.16 pm
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by saying that the Labour party concurs with a great deal of the analysis of the present situation that the Secretary of State has just presented. Our interpretation and judgment, however, leads us to slightly different conclusions about the future of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1989.
  I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has taken so far in response to the improvements in the security situation in Northern Ireland. In a sense, he underplayed his hand this afternoon in terms of the number of changes that he has felt able to introduce, and the dramatic improvements in security. I shall not bother the House with listing them, but he did himself a disservice by not acknowledging the steps that he has taken.
  I also take this opportunity to acknowledge our agreement on the announcement that the Secretary of State made this afternoon about changes in compassionate leave for prisoners, as that is a step that we welcome very much. I was hoping to welcome with great gusto the announcement that there would be electronic recording at the holding centre in Castlereagh. I am disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to say only that that will be put in train in the next Session. He also said that he would be looking at section 69 of the Act, to change certain powers that are already in the EPA. I am sad that electronic recordings will not be in place during the summer, when and if the holding centres are used, because they would make a difference immediately. We would have welcomed a more speedy implementation of the possible use of electronic recordings at the Castlereagh holding centre.
  I shall not repeat the history that the Secretary of State went through in terms of the violence and the changes that we have seen from nine months ago, but with respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I want to acknowledge—not in a political way—the death of Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Armagh, because his is the main death since the peace process was introduced. It is incumbent on us to put on record, for his family, our feelings of sorrow, which his family will have felt.
  I would like to reinforce the point that was made about the appalling punishment beatings and attacks that have continued. There have been 131 since last September, and, as has been outlined, they are the result of activities by all sets of paramilitaries.
  512
  It is important that we remember the exact nature of those attacks, because 16-year-old Malakey Clarke cited his punishment beating in his subsequent suicide note. We should not forget Michelle Kinkead, who was driven out of Northern Ireland after her husband was killed.
  We must also think of the families who are still waiting to know what happened to the bodies of loved ones who have disappeared over the years. They have not been mentioned so far. Margaret McKiney, whom I saw in Belfast last week, was still waiting for news of her son Brian, who disappeared many years ago at the age of 22. It would give her great peace of mind if she could at least bury him now: that would make a difference to her, and the same applies to many other parents, families and friends whose loved ones are still missing.
  Let me emphasise that, if advances are to be made, the punishment beatings must stop. There is no justification, in a democratic, civilised society, for taking the law into one's own hands. Sixty people were killed last year, and 84 the year before that; but remarkable progress is now being made. We congratulate members of both Governments and, in particular, the communities in Northern Ireland who have shown such determination and courage in taking the peace process forward.
  I also pay tribute to the Army and the police, who are adapting to the new circumstances. It is not always realised that everyone must adapt to change. We should not forget, however, that more than 297 members of the security forces have been killed and 7,000 injured. Is there any way in which the Government can introduce greater flexibility to the system of assessing compensation for members of the security forces who are injured by terrorist violence, especially when off duty? The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised that point in an Adjournment debate last week, and I think that the House would welcome such a change.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Lady prepared to include victims of the Chinook disaster in what she has said, given the Government's abominable announcement that some of the widows will not even receive a year and a half's worth of their husbands' pay in compensation?
  Ms Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, having read in the newspapers about the levels of compensation that have been offered. I am reticent, not about the principle, but only because I do not always believe everything that I read in the newspapers. As I have not been given a detailed report of exactly what those families are receiving, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a carte blanche guarantee. No one who has read the reports concerning some of the wives of folk who were in the Chinook could help agreeing with him, but we shall wait to hear what the Minister says when he replies to the debate.
  Before the announcements of the ceasefires in August and October last year—there was no doubt of the progress towards a stable peace settlement, and Opposition Members welcomed that—we had always registered our opposition to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 during debates in the House. Over the years, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the unfortunate ritual nature of the renewal debates.

  513
  Our reasons for opposing the EPA in recent years have been stated clearly and concisely, more often than not by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Along with others, he has argued that section 34—the internment provision—gives the state, or the Executive, an unacceptable power to imprison without either charge or trial, and that the Government have ignored proposals from their own advisers for reforms in regard to such matters as access to legal advice for those in holding centres and the procedure for certifying in rather than out in the case of scheduled offences.
  Our opposition has been based on the fact that numerous sections of the Act have upset the delicate balance between fighting terrorism and protecting basic civil rights. We have questioned whether in principle it works and whether the curtailment of civil rights, and the anger and suspicion that it has created for many innocent families, have been outweighed by its success as part of the fight against terrorism.
  Not only Opposition Members have asked those questions. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), expressed worry in the debate in 1993, when he pointed out that the objectives of defeating terrorism
  "are the same objectives as Governments of all parties have had… But the plain fact is that, despite the lengthy passage of time, the objectives have not been achieved; nor is there any sign whatever of their being achieved."—[Official Report, 8 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 168–69.]
  The Secretary of State took note of those arguments and, during the debate in 1994, acknowledged exactly the argument that I am making. He acknowledged the "need to maintain the essential fairness of the law recognising,
  among other considerations, that unfair law, perceived to be oppressive, does not gain public acceptance and soon becomes law that works against its purpose."—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 263.]
  The situation in Northern Ireland has changed and, one hopes, will continue to change. We believe that that necessitates us looking afresh at such legislation as the EPA.
  The Secretary of State acknowledged this afternoon that in Coleraine in 1992 he stated:
  "In the event of a genuine and established cessation of violence, the whole range of responses that we have had to make to that violence could, and would, inevitably be looked at afresh … Similarly, the emergency legislation on which many of these responses are founded would have served its purpose. Normality could return."
  The Secretary of State quoted to us this afternoon J. J. Rowe, whose independent review of the EPA he quoted to support the position that he has adopted. One must draw attention to the fact that it was published in February 1994, so does not take into account the totality of what we have experienced in the past nine months. J. J. Rowe himself said in his report:
  "His recommendations do not, therefore, take full account of the new situation which these events created, nor of the Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent".
  Our opposition to the EPA historically could have been more fully expressed if we had been able to amend the order. It has always been a question of renewal or abandonment; as a result, we have opposed. If we could
  514
  have a reasoned amendment selected to abandon or suspend parts of the Bill, keep others, strengthen yet others, I believe that we would do so. That option has not been open to us.
  For example, colleagues in my position in previous years have said that they wanted to keep parts of the EPA on the statute book, especially those sections, such as section 28 in conjunction with schedule 2, that proscribe certain organisations, and those sections, such as sections 53 and 54 and section 57 and schedule 5, which provide additional powers to combat racketeering and fraud associated with terrorism. We have always argued in favour of those in relation to the EPA, and have been in the difficult and problematic position that we had to accept the whole thing or abandon it.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am relatively new to the House and I may be naive, but I understood that the reason why the Labour party opposed the EPA was that large numbers of hon. Members on the Benches behind the hon. Lady refused to support the Labour party when it asked them either to abstain or to vote with the Government on the EPA in the early 1980s. Is that not the case?
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Naive.
  Ms Mowlam: "Naive," say my colleagues behind me. Mr. Robathan: Better to be naive than dishonest.
  Ms Mowlam: No; I am being very honest with the hon. Gentleman. I am saying directly to him that there has been an argument from the Opposition Benches because we have been confronted with a difficult position. Some Opposition Members are, and have been, opposed in principle because they consider that the EPA is a violation of civil rights, that the balance has been turned over and that innocent families are affected.
  Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way? Ms Mowlam: May I just finish? Is that all right?
  In that sense, some people have been opposed in principle and others have said, whether about proscription or about fraud and racketeering, that they would like to retain certain provisions in the Bill. Because of the way in which legislation is introduced—every year on the renewal one can either vote for or against—contradictions have been pointed out, not just from the Labour Benches but from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We have discussed the matter in the party, being the democratic party that we are, and on balance have adopted our present position. That is a clear and honest answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Godman: I apologise to my hon. Friend for being over-eager in intervening. Surely the implementation of a measure such as this should not encourage police officers to act in a rough-handed way at our airports when dealing with bona fide travellers from Northern Ireland? Not so very long ago at Glasgow airport, a group of Northern Ireland political party representatives were treated in a grossly discourteous manner when on their way to attend a conference in Glasgow. Among their number were a

  515
  certain Mr. Ian Paisley junior, Councillor McGimpsey, Brendan Mackie and David Ervine. They were treated in a disgraceful way by police officers at Glasgow airport.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a good example of the point that I was trying to make, which was that the difficulty is that families or individuals who have not in any way been directly connected to terrorism have been faced with harassment at ports. It causes a great deal of anger in the Irish community, both in England and across the water, among families who are innocent and whose lives have been affected by the EPA. That is one of the difficult balancing acts that we have always had to take into account.
  Having explained in detail to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the position with which we have been faced historically—
  Mr. Robathan: That is difficult.
  Ms Mowlam: It is not difficult. I can do it with no problems. I appreciate his sympathy but let me reassure him that it is not difficult for me. I should like now, however, clearly to acknowledge that the position has changed in the way that the Secretary of State has analysed. Our judgment on that change, however, is that a response is now possible that is more in tune with the present changing situation in Northern Ireland. Let me just give a couple of examples of how things could be responded to differently.
  The Secretary of State mentioned using powers under section 69 of the Act to introduce orders to suspend—to put in reserve—different parts of the EPA which are already covered by existing criminal law. In particular, section 17 of the Act, which applies to arrest powers for scheduled offences, could now be put in reserve for the simple reason that, if so needs be, it can be reintroduced, as the Secretary of State announced, over 24 hours. There are powers under existing legislation—the Northern Ireland provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—to address the powers given in section 17. That would be a positive aspect to returning to normality which would not destabilise the picture that the Secretary of State painted.
  In other areas where changes cannot be made with immediate effect, we would like changes to be set in progress now. Let me give just one example. The Diplock courts were mentioned earlier. We clearly recognise the difficulties in making the transition to full-jury trials, especially while the intimidation, punishment beatings and attacks continue, but we want the transition from Diplock to a jury system to operate in parallel with effective protection measures for jurors and witnesses. An immediate and important step that would signal a commitment to change would be to move to certifying in rather than certifying out of scheduled offences.
  We recognise that the use of holding centres is now limited, but it would be helpful if, as the Secretary of State mentioned, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper were able to go in on particular interviews. The establishment of an independent legal unit at the holding centres would be an important step in ensuring that everything there functioned according to the rule of law.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State said that he might in the months ahead operate certain powers and schedules in the Act, such as those that I have mentioned, by using
  516
  schedule 69. I obviously welcome that, but it is sad that we cannot have such an announcement this afternoon in the House—an open, democratic debating forum—rather than action being taken by the Secretary of State in the months ahead. One or two steps could have been taken that would have made a difference.
  Mr. Hunter: I was reflecting on the hon. Lady's statements about the phased reintroduction of jury trials, but is not the reality the on-going intimidation of witnesses? Does she not acknowledge that we are still a long way from being sure that jurors would not also be intimidated?
  Ms Mowlam: I accept that intimidation of witnesses and jurors is a problem and that there is some difficulty with cases going through the courts while intimidation beatings and attacks are happening. However, we have to deal with that problem. My suggestion is that, if protection measures for jurors and witnesses are put in place in the months ahead, we could make a start on dismantling the Diplock system and extending jury trials into areas where historically they have not been available.
  In the short term, like certifying in and certifying out of scheduled offences, it is a move in the right direction. I am not suggesting a great leap into the unknown, but rather starting a course of action so that in a year's time the House does not say, "Thank goodness there has been a cessation of violence for two years, but we have not put anything in place to reflect that." We want to move things along so that, if and when the cessation of violence has lasted long enough and the punishment beatings have stopped, we can begin to take a more open approach. It is both rational and common sense to begin to put something in place.
  I want to set in train a fundamental and independent review of anti-terrorist legislation, responding to the changing nature of terrorism throughout the world. I want it to dovetail with proposals from Europe and the United States so that by 1996, when the EPA falls and the PTA is due to be renewed, a new Bill can be put before the House—one that is not emergency legislation specific to Northern Ireland, but rather a response to the challenge of the changing nature of terrorism.
  That is a very different proposal from the one that the Secretary of State announced at the end of his speech, which I understood to be an independent review of the likely position when the EPA and the PTA come to an end. I agree that the review must be carried out in a transitional way, but I cannot understand why it cannot begin now so that in a year's time we do not have to ask, "Should the EPA continue?" It is emergency legislation which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, has an adhesive quality. Why do we have to wait another year, not for change in response to what is happening in the real world, but just to start the preparation for the independent review?
  Mr. Barry Porter: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the civilised way in which she is dealing with this matter. She referred to perception. I assume from what she said that the Labour party will again vote against the renewal of the order. Does she feel that in some quarters there is a perception that, in the peace process, Sinn Fein and others are seen to be making the running? Would not a vote against the order tonight be perceived

  517
  as yet another example of the running being made all on one side? Surely it is a matter of not lowering our guard, but saying, "Not yet, Mr. Adams, not yet."
  Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman referred to a civilised response. I have tried to show in my arguments this afternoon that—[Interruption.] Labour's response is—[Interruption.]There appears to be a debate between hon. Members, so I might as well not be speaking.
  Mr. Porter: I am listening.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am listening, too.
  Ms Mowlam: This is a matter for civilised response. It is a question of differing judgments between us and the Government on how to respond to the changing nature of terrorism. I believe that we should be doing more now to put the right steps in train and to use normal legislation when we can. We could do that without giving clear signs to one side or the other.
  I have outlined why Labour has historically opposed the EPA on principle. Will the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) explain to me how I could now turn round and say, "We voted against emergency legislation when the violence was on the streets, but now that it is not on the streets we are going to change our position"? That would give people not only the wrong sign but a very confusing sign. As I have said, historically, we have opposed the EPA on the grounds of internment and principle, because we are not sure that it has worked, as people have argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out the impact that it has had on families and innocent people. The situation has changed and it is incumbent on us, as it is on others, to respond differently.
  I have tried to outline how we would have responded and the changes that we would have introduced if we were in government. We are not in government. I am not able to make the same judgment as the Secretary of State. We shall oppose the motion because disapproving of the order would send out the right signals.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the eyes of Sinn Fein and the IRA, there cannot be any doubt whatever of our consistent opposition—over 25 years and more—to terrorism? We have denounced every crime and atrocity committed by the paramilitaries, whichever side they happen to be on.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and fully concur with his point. It is not only true that have we criticised every violent act perpetrated by whatever side, but—this is the final answer to the question of the hon. Member for Wirral, South—we have made an effort since the ceasefire to maintain a bipartisan approach with the Government, which has worked in the interests of the process. I put it on record that we shall continue to make that effort, because we share the Government's determination and commitment to keep the process moving forward.
  That we can disagree over the renewal of the provisions does not jeopardise that effort, but shows the way in which discussion, negotiations and opposition can take place in the House of Commons, so that common sense
  518
  and rational argument may win through. We do not need to up the ante and have a problematic debate that would make things difficult.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Okay.
  Ms Mowlam: Thank you. We regret that the EPA will pass through the House in its entirety again this evening. We had hoped that the Government would take a more long-term view and announce plans for immediate changes. I hope that in any independent review that takes place—even though it may not be of the exact nature that we require—there is some bipartisan co-operation so that we may achieve a common purpose, produce effective counter-terrorist legislation and so that there is no reason to provoke unnecessary divisions. My principal desire is to ensure that from 1996, it will be possible to think of Northern Ireland without emergency powers—for the first time in 74 years.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). Sometimes, over the years, some of my hon. Friends have challenged the commitment of the Labour party to the fight against terrorism. I have never made such an accusation. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady's integrity in the matter, but I quarrel with her judgment: she has failed to perceive that the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from measures such as those before us, which a democratic state may voluntarily undertake, but from terrorism itself. My serious argument with her is that over the years—and to this day—she has responded insufficiently to the threat of terrorism.
  The first point that struck me from reading Mr. Rowe's report was the on-going reality of the threat of Irish terrorism. It is not over. We cannot yet assign it to history. Mr. Rowe lists some points. On many other occasions my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said more. The structures and organisations of Irish terrorism are intact. The IRA in particular is still recruiting, training, targeting, researching improvised weapons and raising money overseas to maintain its structures. Unless and until a clear sea change has happened and IRA terrorism especially has declined, we cannot move away from the climate which leads Mr. Rowe to say that in his judgment the provisions are needed and should be renewed for a further year.
  The first essential point, therefore, is that, because Irish terrorism is an on-going reality, the measures are still needed.
  Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully about the words that he is using. We are not talking about Irish terrorism: we are talking about terrorism—unless he is turning a blind eye to Unionist terrorism or assuming that Unionist terrorism is also Irish terrorism. The Unionists have killed more people in the past two years than the IRA. Prior to 1974, they also killed more people than the IRA. We must be careful to be even-handed: we are talking about terrorism, full stop—that is what is unacceptable, whether it be Irish or British.
  Mr. Hunter: I do not for one moment dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know from previous debates that I share those sentiments. There has never been any

  519
  justification for violence in Northern Ireland. Whether it has come from the loyalist—so-called—or the republican side, it has been equally reprehensible. The hon. Gentleman and I agree wholly on that.
  I want to accelerate and be selective in my speech. I noted with particular interest Mr. Rowe's observations on part I of the emergency provisions, which he regarded as the kernel of the provisions. I note that he advocated that there should be no change to the system of scheduled offences. He rejected the argument of the hon. Member for Redcar that there should be certifying in rather than out. I greatly look forward to the time when we can turn—metaphorically—to Mr. Rowe and say that such a procedure is no longer necessary, but my reading of the situation is that we are not yet at that stage, although I share the hon. Lady's hope that we soon will be.
  I especially welcome the fact that Mr. Rowe advises the House and the Government to keep the provisions under review throughout the year. Times may change, but I do not yet think that we are at the point where we can dilute or modify any aspect of the emergency provisions.
  That sentiment also applies to the Diplock courts and the question of intimidation of juries. All the evidence which comes my way is that the intimidation of witnesses is an on-going reality in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that it would be irresponsible of the House to do anything other than say—sadly—that, due to that on-going threat of intimidation, we have not reached the point at which the Diplock system can be changed.
  My final major point relates to prisoners. I welcomed what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say about the relaxing of compassionate leave arrangements, and I understand that that will be widely and warmly welcomed. I also appreciate the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend made in response to my intervention about Private Clegg. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should say that I have to a certain extent played a part in the campaign for the early release of Private Clegg.
  However, I wish the hon. Member for Belfast, West to have no illusions: those of us who are campaigning fully understand the tragedy which afflicted the Reilly family; we are in no way diluting or seeking to diminish that, and we understand the heartfelt grief of the family. In sound bites on the media, we answer questions about Private Clegg. I ask the hon. gentleman to accept the reassurance—and if he wishes, to convey it to his constituents—that we understand what a dreadful tragedy happened that night. Nothing that we say about Private Clegg diminishes our heartfelt sympathy for the Reilly family.
  The House would be acting irresponsibly if it did not accept that the provisions must remain intact for another year. As Mr. Rowe urged, however, we should keep them under review in the hope that circumstances will soon allow us to relax and move to a more orthodox and normal regime of law and order in Northern Ireland.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I should like briefly to address the question before the House: should we, in the changed circumstances, keep on the statute book by way of renewal an Act which in many respects
  520
  departs from traditional civil liberties and requires a derogation from the European convention on human rights? In paragraph 30 of his report, Mr. Rowe states:
  "The EPA cuts down some civil rights which the ordinary law provides; and I am talking of freedom from questions in the street, of freedom from searches of one's home, or the right to consult a lawyer at a police station, or trial by jury, to give only a few examples."
  The answer to the question is that we should do so only for so long as, and to the extent that, the powers contained in the provisions are required by the seriousness of the threat of terrorism to the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  There are civil liberties issues on both sides of the argument. The test must be whether the provisions are still required for the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of whether repeal would sweeten the peace process or whether the process of negotiation would be assisted by concessions. The question involves objective judgments about serious threats: how serious are the security threats, and how necessary are the powers to deal with them?
  When one seeks to address the questions, it becomes clear that objective security assessment would currently justify some powers, but not others. Internment is clearly recognised as counter-productive and does not need to remain on the statute book. Mr. Rowe states that it should not be included in the new Act. The value of the power of extended detention is questionable, and clearly a source of great opposition and friction, although the Royal Ulster Constabulary sees it as still necessary. If it is to continue, there should be videotaping of interviews.
  The Secretary of State made some welcome comments on that subject when he said that he hoped that the need for the use of powers of detention would quickly decline, but that if it did not, electronic recording should be introduced. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not envisage that happening until next year's Act, in whatever form it is introduced. It should be feasible to tape the more limited number of interviews that we expect. I recognise that the security of the tapes is vital, but it must be possible to protect that security. Surely, with co-operation on all sides, and if necessary in a statutory way, we can find a way of dealing with that important issue, which must be resolved.
  So long as the intimidation of juries remains such a strong possibility, there remains a need for something along the lines of the Diplock courts. We would prefer three judges rather than one. With the declining number of cases, we believe that that would be feasible—more feasible than it appeared to Mr. Rowe when he made his report.
  Some features of the legislation should be a permanent part of normal law. For instance, Northern Ireland is ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom on the licensing of security firms. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon indicate that he is prepared to do something on similar lines for the rest of the United Kingdom, following the report of the Select Committee. Such provisions should be part of normal law. It is arguable that the provisions on funds and money laundering for terrorism should also be part of normal rather than emergency law.
  The patchwork pattern suggests the need for an urgent and fundamental review so that preparation can be made for the fact that new legislation is needed in 1996. The Secretary of State has spoken of a review, but indicated

  521
  that it would not be likely to be feasible in sufficient time to influence the 1996 legislation. I should like the review process to move faster than that.
  Whenever it is completed, it can only take account of the security situation as it exists at that time. Change can go no faster than the security situation permits. However, that should not prevent us from taking the opportunity presented by new legislation to have a more fundamental review. The Government need to recognise that the emergency element in any new legislation could be much reduced and perhaps consolidated with a similarly reduced Prevention of Terrorism Act, as some of the provisions will not be needed and can be abandoned, and others can be included in ordinary law.
  We have never been happy with the restriction on civil liberty involved in the Act, but we have recognised the overwhelming need for some of the provisions. We have also pointed to ways in which key provisions could remain effective but be subject to more civil liberty constraints. We have suggested time limits for custody on remand, which we still believe are necessary, an independent police complaints procedure, three judges for the Diplock courts and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law.
  We could not accept the idea of defeating the renewal of the provisions today. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) gave an honest account of the Labour party's position, stating it clearly and frankly, but no one would be more embarrassed than the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) if the Opposition Whips succeeded in their intention and managed to defeat the order. To wipe all elements of the legislation off the statute book would not satisfy the test that we have set: that there should be a review based on an objective test of which powers are still overwhelmingly necessary and should be retained, even on a temporary basis, and how and with what safeguards such powers as are allowed to remain should appear in new legislation to operate from next year.
  Clearly, our hope is that the security situation will be so much improved that most of the Act will be unnecessary. However, after all that the people of Northern Ireland have been through, the judgment must be based not on hope alone but on careful and rational assessment of the risks.
  4.55 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I commend to the House the excellent and probing report of the operation of the EPA in 1994, drawn up by John Rowe. I think that the Government have considered it carefully and I welcome the fact that they have not dodged facing up to the terrorism currently being carried out in Northern Ireland.
  We have witnessed—as have all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic—the concern when concessions are made to IRA/Sinn Fein. It is all right for a member of the Conservative party to criticise the Labour Front-Bench team, but the Secretary of State has shaken hands with the leader of IRA/Sinn Fein. A few months ago, the Secretary of State was loudly protesting to President Clinton that the same man should not be allowed into America. A few weeks later, he flew
  522
  to America and shook hands with him. There is no difference between the situation then and now as regards the leader of IRA/Sinn Fein. He has not said that he will give up his arms; he has not said that he will give up anything—he holds on to the largest killing machine in western Europe.
  It has been widely circulated in the press that one of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office met and shook hands with Mr. Gallagher, a leader of the Irish Republican Socialist party, the political wing of the Irish National Liberation Army, which has not called a ceasefire. I should like to know if that report is right or wrong.
  I commend Mr. Rowe's report, because he paints a clear picture, even for this year. He states that proscribed organisations have retained their structures fully intact and the internal management processes are as complete as ever. Those organisations exercise influence over individuals and communities and run an illegal system of punishments. We have heard of a number of those punishments. In one police division, there have been 30 such punishments. There has been organised intimidation. Witnesses are driven and intimidated to forget that they have seen the things that they previously testified to having seen. Contractors have been forced off building sites and a local association of schoolchildren's parents has had to abandon some of its plans. Let me make it clear that such activities take place on both sides.
  No one is more sharply at the receiving end of the so-called Unionist paramilitaries than me. One has only to read their monthly magazine. Every month, my wife's husband is described as the evil man who must be removed from Northern Ireland politics. I have had bullets fired through my bedroom windows not by the IRA but by so-called Protestant paramilitaries. A home that I bought was bombed by Protestant paramilitaries, so I speak with practical experience about both sides.
  The proscribed organisations on both sides are recruiting at this very moment. They are carrying on training; they are researching and refining techniques and technology; arms and weapons are being obtained and moved about, as Mr. Rowe underscores. Targeting is continuing and, on the financial side, funds are being raised by collection, robberies, extortion, racketeering and fraud. They are now threatening certain banks. Of course, when they rob those banks, they use the pound notes. However, an attack has been made on the Northern bank by a front organisation of the IRA calling itself the Equality—the Campaign for Economic Equality. It tells us that we must not accept Northern bank notes and asks
  "Why does your School, your Parish, your Club, your Credit Union"
  receive them? It gives a whole list of so-called facts, a jaundiced list in my view, as reasons why that should be done.
  There is a campaign to destroy the economy. Is that peace? If those people robbed the Northern bank, they would be happy to use all the pound notes they could get for their own ends.
  Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the fact that no hon. Members are saying that the structures of the IRA have changed or that recruitment to the IRA has stopped and that no one has challenged the fact that the training of the IRA is continuing and that intimidation by the IRA is prevalent, perhaps my hon. Friend could suggest an answer to me and my constituents

  523
  as to why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland went to the United States of America to take the bloody hand of a cold-blooded terrorist like Gerry Adams and thereby insult the people who have faced terrorism for 25 years?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State should answer that. My views are well known. It is wrong for Ministers to shake hands with those who have not repudiated terrorism, as Gerry Adams certainly has not.
  Mr. Rowe says that, in February 1995, an explosive device, which was clearly intended to kill or injure the RUC or armed forces officers who attended to it, was defused. He states that there have been 233 armed robberies, most of which were committed by or on behalf of proscribed organisations, and that the total that has been taken so far is £1.2 million. No one can say that terrorism and acts of terrorism are not going on in Northern Ireland.
  If we had a true peace process, it would not need bolstering by concessions to the IRA. The IRA would not exist; it would be finished, over and done with. We are told that, if we speak about those facts, we are the enemy of peace. If there was a just peace, we would not need publicity stunts, fancy packaging, hyped-up gestures or public handshakes. Violence and all the associated criminality would end once and for all. Nothing could upset a pure and meaningful peace.
  However, we are not dealing with a pure and meaningful peace process. We are dealing with a strategy that the IRA is using very successfully to achieve its eventual end. It has made it clear in its newspapers that this is just another phase of the struggle to obtain those ends. The troubles are, alas, not over. As I have said, all sorts of other attacks are being made, even on our economy.
  Sinn Fein/IRA recently attacked the Prime Minister. When he visited Londonderry, he needed the support of the security forces to get him out of what could have been a very nasty situation, yet we were told that there was to have been a friendly handshake.
  At the Sinn Fein conference, we were told about angry voices and marching feet and we will have them during the coming days.
  Rev. William McCrea: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that there is a mighty difference between angry voices and marching feet and beating people practically to death, destroying the hopes and dreams of the people of Northern Ireland and intimidating people—members of the security forces were forced out of their homes the other day—in my constituency right to the very present moment. We hear angry voices in the House and we have heard marching feet on many occasions and will again, but there is a great difference between that and the intimidation and slaughter of innocent people.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, but the marching feet are marching towards violence and the angry voices are inciting violence, as we have seen in Belfast recently. That is going on now.
  A remarkable statement was made by a well-known Roman Catholic priest, Dennis Faul of Dungannon, who recently said at a conference that the IRA must retain its weapons to defend itself from extreme Protestants. My experience in Antrim, North, and as a member for the whole of Northern Ireland in the European Parliament, is that the IRA has intimidated Roman Catholic people. It
  524
  has been vicious in terrorising Roman Catholic people, but the priest tells us that it should keep its guns. It should give up its Semtex and explosive devices, but it should keep its guns. That is the message that is going out to the IRA.
  The Prime Minister in answering me the other night parroted a well-known republican and nationalist cliché: let us take the gun out of Irish politics. What needs to be said is: let us take the guns out of the hands of murderers. That is the real message that should go from the House.
  Mr. Mallon: I was not at that conference and I cannot comment on what Father Faul did or did not say, but I find it incredible that a man with his record of opposition to violence through the years—especially against the IRA—would have made that statement. I note the alacrity with which the hon. Gentleman will attribute points of view to people in what would generally be called the nationalist community. I think if he started to listen to some of those voices in the House, he might get a more accurate view.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: All that I am going to say is that no denial was made by the person concerned in respect of what was said, which was recorded publicly. Editorials were written by the Belfast Telegraph, which is no friend of my party, and not a very good friend of the hon. Gentleman's party either. The editorial stated what was said and criticised the man concerned. There was no denial. That is a very important matter.
  Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend can take it from me that many of my Roman Catholic constituents who have come under the heel of IRA terrorism find such a statement repugnant. They certainly do not want to hear such views.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that point entirely. Social Democratic and Labour party Members, especially the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), have expressed their criticism of the IRA and its tactics. I shall be interested to hear what he says to the House. I now turn to prisoners—
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am sorry to interfere in the political duet going on behind me; I speak only for myself. I am mildly puzzled. I may have reservations about some of the tactics being used by my right hon. and hon. Friends in this process. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commitment to a renewal of the order tonight is an indication that the Government have not accepted that Sinn Fein/IRA or any other paramilitary organisation should have its way? Tonight, we are maintaining this legislation for the purpose of ensuring that it is made clear to all these people that the end has not yet come. It is pointless to make futile, pin-pricking gestures at the Government when, clearly, they have not yet given up.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I can only say, "Physician, heal thyself." What the hon. Gentleman says about me should be said about his remarks to Labour Front-Bench Members. The hon. Gentleman judges me because I state the facts, yet he taunts Labour Members by saying, "Look at your attitude to the IRA", while his own Ministers shake hands with the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA. The people of Northern Ireland have noticed that.

  525
  I do not see why the whole of the people of Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by the tiniest of minorities—the prison population of 1,800 people. Why should their interests be put first in terms of the concessions that have been called for?
  I have a humanitarian interest in prisons and I visit them. From a humanitarian point of view, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today. I have tried to get people out of prison in bitter home circumstances, but because they have not served a certain time, they cannot get out.
  I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I am not against remembering the families of the prisoners because it is they who have suffered the most. It is the mother who has a continually aching heart. It is the wife who has a continually aching heart and it is the children who have a continually aching heart. I do not want anybody to say in the House, "Ian Paisley is opposed to granting special leave in serious home circumstances."
  The House knows that I voted against doing away with juries. The House should read the debates because it would see that the change was agreed by means of the Roman Catholic vote in the Committee. The Roman Catholic Attorney-General pleaded with one of his Roman Catholic colleagues to ensure that he would come from the side of jury trials to the side of Diplock courts. The Protestants in the debate were indicted for not having done their duty. Hon. Members should read the reports. In addition, from day one, I was opposed to internment. I do not need any lessons about the practicalities in Northern Ireland.
  The Ulster Volunteer Force has 110 paramilitary prisoners, the Ulster Defence Association has 110 and the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army have 365 prisoners. Some 20 per cent. are serving life sentences. The whole of Northern Ireland is being held to ransom because of that small minority in our prisons. Danny Morrison, who is just out of prison himself, having committed a serious offence, has the cheek to say to the people of Northern Ireland that, if a private of the British Army is released, we must let all the prisoners out. Everyone, even the hon. Member for Belfast, West—I know how he feels for his constituents—agrees on this point. I had a similar case at Clogh Mills in North Antrim. No one could point the finger at my representation, because the victim happened to be a Roman Catholic who was shot by a member of the British Army.
  Private Clegg did not go out that night to murder that young girl. The IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries went out deliberately to kill, to set the bomb, to put the bullet in the rifle, to aim the shot and to kill. Private Clegg did not do that. Perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, will comment on the further evidence that is alleged to have come to light. I would also like him to tell us whether he can refer the case back to a further Court of Appeal.
  Dr. Hendron: I have a point to make to the hon. Gentleman about all the prisoners in Northern Ireland, both loyalist and republican. We know that many of them have committed the most horrific crimes and that they have slaughtered people in both communities and members of the security forces. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, however, that there are people from both communities in prison who, because of the environment
  526
  in which they grew up, whether the Falls road, the Shankill road, Newry or anywhere else, followed an inevitable course? It was almost inevitable that, in a family of three or four boys, at least one and possibly two might get involved in paramilitary activity. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole question of prisoners should be looked at with some generosity? I am not talking about an amnesty, but about a spirit of generosity as part of the peace process.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am afraid to say that I take a different view from the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. One could argue in the same way about ordinary criminals. Ordinary criminals in Crumlin road have argued to me that they were brought up in poor circumstances, that they had difficulties and that, therefore, they stole money or even killed. The same law must apply to all. We are talking about criminals who took guns in their hands and shot or killed people; they know that.
  When visiting prisons and speaking to prisoners on Sunday mornings, face to face, I have debated this point. I have pointed out to them that they have a price to pay for the crimes they have committed and that the best way in which to pay it is for them to do their prison term without having hanging over their head every day the idea that they might get out early. That idea brings unrest to prisons; this whole debate is bringing unrest among prisoners.
  The sooner that the Government say that a tiny minority of 1,800 cannot hold the whole of the Northern Irish people to ransom, the better. That must be said loudly and clearly. That view does not make me popular with the loyalist side of the camp—it is no wonder that the loyalists attack me—and it certainly does not make me popular with my Roman Catholic constituents, especially those in the glens of Antrim who are strongly pro-republican. However, I have to say what I believe is right. I believe that that point must be said loudly and clearly so that we are on a proper basis.
  Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps my hon. Friend would ask those who are campaigning strongly to consider the likes of a young man in Magherafelt who is sitting in a wheelchair with both his legs blown off. What hope, consideration and generosity will be given to his future or to two young—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Historically, interventions have been kept to one question.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand how my hon. Friend feels. He himself has been under attack, and it is only by the mercy of God that he and his family have survived that. I understand how he feels. Everyone in the district, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, knows of his genuine humanity. I understand how he feels about the matter.
  I ask the Secretary of State to tell us that those who were robbed of their husbands in the Chinook disaster will get favourable treatment. In that way, justice will be seen to be done. I am not speaking with regard to newspaper reports, but to a briefing which I received from the solicitor representing one of the families concerned. I feel strongly about this matter and while I know that it is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, I hope that those on the Government Front Bench today will hear what I say and will make representations.

  527
  The House will do right to endorse the legislation. I trust that Labour Members will recognise from those in Northern Ireland that there is still a big problem with terrorism.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Some remarkable statements were made in the opening speeches from the Front Benches. The first came from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked him on what basis the Anglo-Irish Secretariat gave evidence and advice to J. J. Rowe's review, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not know. He is supposed to have responsibility for that group of civil servants, but he is apparently unaware, or unwilling to tell the House, what has been going on. It is remarkable he can disclaim any knowledge, yet cannot disclaim responsibility for what happens in the secretariat.
  Some remarkable statements were made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), but I am not sure whether they were recorded by Hansard. She said at one point that there seemed little point in her continuing with her speech, and that was an accurate reflection on it.
  The hon. Lady stated that the legislation curtails civil rights. J. J. Rowe accurately states on page 6 of his report that the legislation involves no breach of the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations. It is important to remember and to put on record the fact that the legislation involves no breach of our obligations under the European convention or the UN covenant on civil rights.
  Another remarkable comment from the hon. Member for Redcar was her proposal that we should drop the present legislation on scheduling in favour of some form of certifying in. Again, J. J. Rowe's report states that certifying in is practicably unworkable unless the decision to certify in is to be taken at the moment of arrest.
  The scheduling of the legislation has implications for the admission of statements and the burden of proof; the legislation does not relate simply to the mode of trial. If a decision is made to certify in, how can that decision be operated retrospectively?
  J. J. Rowe's report states that, since 31 August 1994, there have been some 51 shootings, and eight explosive devices have been used. Those figures were accurate at the beginning of May, when the report was produced. There have been incidents since then—for example, the unfortunate and highly regrettable incident, which must be condemned, on the Shankhill road the other week, when some people—perhaps loyalist paramilitaries—fired on the police.
  There have been other shooting incidents and murders. In addition to the murder in Newry to which hon. Members have referred, there was the murder in Belfast of a person said to be a prominent drug dealer. Everyone knows that that murder was committed by the IRA, although it has neither admitted nor claimed responsibility for it—no doubt in order not to embarrass Ministers who are now embracing the IRA in one place or another.
  The IRA is continuing not only the beatings but other devices. It has murdered two people since the ceasefire, but Ministers will not want to dwell on those murders. Those facts underline the continuing need for this legislation.
  528
  Reference has been made to the way in which the IRA continues targeting. Targeting is conducted in an obvious way, but it is not just a matter of a person knowing that he is being followed. Policemen out shopping have noticed that a person is observing them. That person goes further and bumps into the policeman, saying "If it wasn't for the ceasefire, you would be dead now." Terrorists have gone up to a policeman in the street and said, "Bang, bang." That sort of terrorism and intimidation continues.
  We have reason to believe that persons acting on behalf of the IRA are continuing to access records that would enable people to be targeted. Computer records from the Housing Executive and Inland Revenue records have been accessed. I hope that someone within the Northern Ireland Office is trying to think of counter-measures.
  The intimidation of witnesses continues. J. J. Rowe says in his report:
  "The RUC have provided me with many examples, and prosecutions have been abandoned because of the fact that a witness has 'reconsidered' his evidence."
  This has continued since the ceasefire, as I know from my personal experience of a case in which witnesses were intimidated.
  I am referring to a murder in Lurgan, which took place around the corner from my constituency office. Some local residents were able to give evidence that helped to identify the person concerned, but they were subject to intimidation. This occurred since the ceasefire. Unfortunately, that case was not assisted by an unfortunate lapse that resulted in the names of the witnesses being disclosed to the defence lawyers. Consequently, the names came into the possession of the IRA.
  Pending cases, of which we are told there are some 250, must also be handled under the legislation. There will be further cases, because one trusts that the police will not cease their investigations of previous cases where people have not been amenable. One trusts that the Northern Ireland Office has not instructed the police to lay off with regard to old cases. Therefore, there will be scores of cases that the police had not been able to clear up in the past but which, hopefully, they will be able to solve in the future.
  We saw a clear example of such cases on a television programme a few weeks ago that featured Mr. Eammon Collins. In it, Mr. Collins boasted of his work in setting people up for murder when he was active on behalf of the IRA. The programme went into detail of the incident where Collins set up the then Lord Chief Justice—now Lord Lowry—for an attack.
  Unfortunately, the programme—which identified not only Eammon Collins but a former academic colleague of mine, David Ewings, as being responsible for that attack—did not go on to refer to other incidents in which Mr. Ewings was involved, including the murder of my political and academic colleague Edgar Graham. Although Ewings is an Englishman, he is now domiciled in Dublin, and it is not hard to see why. One hopes that both he and Eammon Collins will be further investigated at some stage.
  Thinking of the present whereabouts of those men in Dublin makes one think about extradition—an issue that seems to have gone quiet recently. The Northern Ireland Office has not tried to extradite people from the Republic of Ireland recently. I notice that there has been no such

  529
  default by Strathclyde police, who are seeking the extradition from Dublin of two alleged members of the Scottish National Liberation Army in connection with explosive offences. Interest in this matter extends beyond Northern Ireland.
  Reference has been made to the Clegg case, but I do not wish to go into it in any detail. I am sure that the Secretary of State was right to say that normal procedures will be followed. The difficulty with the Clegg case stems from the existence of the mandatory life sentence. Had the court been able to reflect the case's extenuating circumstances in its sentence—circumstances to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred—I am quite sure that the sentence imposed on Private Clegg would have ensured his release by now. I suspect that Clegg's term of imprisonment has been extended by the political considerations that may be at work at present. His release has certainly not been expedited by any political considerations.
  There has been a quite improper attempt to link the Clegg case with prisoners generally. Those who represent the interests of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland have called for the early release of prisoners, which could be disguised by an increase in remissions. They suggest that the remission of sentences should be increased by 50 per cent. in the first instance, with a further increase after that. The case in favour of remission is sometimes presented in terms of bringing the law of Northern Ireland into line with that of England. It is worth examining the facts, because the position in England is not that simple.
  In England, when a long-term prisoner has served 50 per cent. of his or her sentence, the Home Secretary has the discretion to release that prisoner on licence if that is recommended by the parole board. It is possible for the parole board to recommend that prisoners be released on licence, with the potential for recall should the terms of the licence not be complied with. Under English law, there is no provision for blanket releases after prisoners have served 50 per cent. of their sentences.
  The Home Office's attitude to serious terrorist cases may be judged from its concern to ensure that any prisoners who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland remain Home Office cases rather than become Northern Ireland Office cases, in order that such prisoners do not benefit from any relaxation of the regulations in Northern Ireland. The Home Office's concern that prisoners who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland should remain under Home Office regime represents a clear vote of no confidence in the Northern Ireland Office and its policy. However, that is a side issue at the moment.
  My party normally finds arguments for uniformity in the laws of Northern Ireland and Great Britain attractive. Consequently, there is a serious argument for extending the English provisions for remission and parole to Northern Ireland. If that were to happen, it would apply to all criminal cases, not just to those who are convicted of so-called terrorist or political offences. One could not draw a distinction between those who were convicted of armed robbery on behalf of a terrorist organisation and those who were convicted of that crime on their own account; nor could one draw a distinction between those who were convicted of murder and those who were convicted of rape.
  530
  We would argue for uniformity in the laws of Northern Ireland and Great Britain in this situation if it were not for the well-founded suspicion that any discretion to release prisoners would be influenced by political considerations. We would support such a change if we could be satisfied that decisions would be taken purely on sentencing grounds.
  A Northern Ireland parole board would have to be established, but its creation would not in itself satisfy us as to the probity of decision making in view of the likely composition of such a board and the improper influences that would be brought to bear on its operations. I refer to the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in that regard. It goes without saying that a crude halving of sentences, as suggested by the Irish Government, is as unwelcome as their intervention in the Clegg case.
  In conclusion, I look to the future, as that is the most important consideration. On page 21 of his report, Mr. Rowe says that the present legislation can be dropped only when the terrorist organisations
  "have lost their structure, and influence, and their activity has diminished, so that even if offenders are detected for past terrorist acts, and brought to court, and plead not guilty, a jury can try the case fearlessly and without interference".
  Unfortunately, it will be a long time before that can happen. However, a decision must be taken—and taken soon—about the future of the legislation. That decision goes beyond the issue of renewing the order tonight, which of course we shall support.
  As Mr. Rowe points out, the prevention of terrorism Act falls for annual renewal in March next year and the current emergency provisions Act expires in August next year. Anti-terrorist legislation cannot be allowed to disappear altogether. Even if a complete and perfect peace were to come to Northern Ireland, if the current Acts were allowed to lapse we would have no port and entry control powers, we would lose the fraud powers and the powers to investigate financing and we would have no measures to deal with international terrorism. We must have provision to deal with those matters, and that provision should contain powers to deal with any continuing or renewed threat in Northern Ireland.
  As the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act are so closely interlocked, Mr. Rowe recognises in his review published in February the very strong case for consolidating the two statutes and incorporating the amendments made by the Criminal Justice Act 1993. He states:
  "The time has come to put together all the provisions which concern terrorism whether it is terrorism affecting Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, or international terrorism".
  It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that we endorse that view entirely. Therefore, we believe that it would be sensible to plan for a single Act to replace the present legislation which, ideally, should be on the statute book by March 1996 or August 1996 at the latest. Such an Act must have a flexible structure so that parts of it could be enforced at different times and even in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  I believe that the approach outlined by the Secretary of State this afternoon is too dilatory. I am not sure exactly what he proposes with regard to a review. I will study his remarks in Hansard. He seemed to envisage a slower and much more relaxed approach to the matter, but I do not see any reason for delay. I do not see any difficulty in proceeding to put together a consolidated

  531
  Act which could be used to cover the continuing situation in Northern Ireland as well as international terrorism. Crucial decisions should be taken in the course of this year so that the legislation could be on the statute book early next year.
  I urged that course early in the year when debating the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. It does not seem as though anything has happened, but perhaps it has—perhaps the civil servants have been at work and we can move more quickly in that direction. We urged the Government to move on the issue months ago, and we repeat our plea tonight. If the Secretary of State proceeds in the slow manner that he has indicated, the Government will end up looking foolish, and we do not want that to happen on this issue.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Like all those in the House and outside it, I am deeply disappointed that the renewal of the order is necessary. However, I think that it is necessary for three very clear and straightforward reasons.
  First, the threat of renewed killings remains as great as it was eight or nine months ago. Thousands of guns are still in circulation, tonnes of explosives remain stockpiled and the INLA has yet to declare any sort of ceasefire. Unlike the Government, I am afraid that I am not persuaded that it is safe to assume that the ceasefires declared so far are permanent. If they are permanent, why keep the guns? They are not kept for reasons of self-defence, as was argued by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), because missiles and machine guns are not needed for self-defence. Why keep the Semtex? I cannot think of anyone who could give a sensible explanation of how Semtex could be used for self-defence purposes. The parties are keeping guns and explosives just in case they need them when they cannot get their own way through negotiation. Until those arms are surrendered, the orders are necessary because the threat is as great as it ever was.
  The second clear and simple reason why we should renew the order is that terrorism continues. It is perfectly true that the killings have stopped bar one, or was it two, or perhaps three—who knows? Most of the killings have stopped. We are enormously grateful for that, but the violence and intimidation has not stopped and the extortion continues. The violence and intimidation are almost always of the most foul and brutal variety. People are forced to leave their homes, often on pain of great brutality or even death.
  The third clear and simple reason why the order must remain on the statute book is that terrorists are still at large. The perpetrators of the evil killings to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred are still in circulation. The perpetrators of the beatings to which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred still roam the streets. The terrorists are still armed, they are still training, targeting victims and raising funds, and, above all, many of them are still dedicated to a united Ireland. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the order is a necessary response to all these factors in case any terrorist group, on whichever side of the sectarian divide, returns to shootings and bombings.
  532
  Over and above those three reasons is another much more depressing and disturbing one. There is a growing prospect of a violent Unionist backlash in the Province.
  I comment on Unionist matters with a great deal of trepidation. After all, I freely admit that I was not elected to represent Unionist opinion in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland is part of my country and I cannot help but report to the House what I hear, whoever elected me and whoever I represent.
  My regular visits to Northern Ireland persuade me that a large and growing number of people in the Province believe that the framework documents are a green agenda leading inevitably to a united Ireland and that the Government's neutrality is designed to persuade people in the Province to accept the inevitable. I note with some horror that a large and growing number of people in the Province believe that the Government's repeated failure to stand by their stated position proves that they are on a course for peace at any price.
  Finally, I keep hearing that people in the Province believe that it is only a matter of time before terrorists are released from prisons in yet another futile attempt to buy off the IRA. I am in no doubt at all that many Unionists feel betrayed. If we show them that the gun and the bomb achieve results, they may, God forbid, take the point.
  Before I leave the issue of prisoners, I should underline what I have said before in the House: I am not interested in why somebody blows up young children or guns down innocent people in a pub. They are horrendous crimes committed by evil people. Patriotism is no defence and, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), one's home background is no excuse for such evil. The assumption that they will not do it again if peace breaks out is, in my judgment, no justification for deciding that punishment is not necessary or richly deserved. Let me once again make it clear to my right hon. and learned Friend that I cannot and will not support any early releases or special paroles, or any amnesties which are not available to all convicted criminals throughout the United Kingdom.
  It is a great pity that renewing the order is again necessary, but I have no doubt that it is what we have to do. I consider it a great pity that the Labour party will again divide the House. Lest they misunderstand me, I repeat that I do not for a moment doubt that the Labour party loathes terrorism, just as we loathe it, but voting against the order sends terrorists the wrong signals because they thrive on division and are experts at exploiting weakness. If we divide the House, that signal will go out tonight.
  Terrorism is still rampant in Northern Ireland. Only the killing—or most of it—has stopped. If there are those in the Province who believe and claim that the order harms the peace process, we can send them a very simple message. All they have to do to make the order unnecessary is hand in their guns, surrender their Semtex and stop the beatings. If they do that, the order is unnecessary, and until they do that it has my full support.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Let me initially refer to some points made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I look forward to reading the Hansard record of his speech. I make no apology in the House or anywhere else for wanting to create and be

  533
  part of a united Ireland by peaceful democratic means, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman respects that political view. If I am misinterpreting what he said, I shall most certainly adjust my opinion.
  Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, believes that I was denying him the right by democratic means to fight for what he passionately believes, I apologise to him. It was not what I intended to say and I trust that it is not what I said.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
  Let me start by clarifying some points concerning the case of Private Clegg. I no more wish or desire to keep that young man in gaol than I desire to keep any young person in prison in Northern Ireland for one day longer than is absolutely necessary. I take no pleasure whatsoever from the fact that young people, whoever they may be or from wherever they come, are in gaol as a result of the past 25 years and what our antecedents have left us. Unless we get it right, we shall leave to posterity the trap in which many young people find themselves and which has resulted in their presence in gaol.
  Private Clegg is in the same position as many young people that I know personally and have visited. It is from that point of view that I make my remarks, but I should like the case to be dealt with as part of a wider approach to the problem of young people in prison and not as a one-off incident that can and will be interpreted—rightly or wrongly—as one law for British soldiers in Northern Ireland and another for young people from the Shankhill road, the Falls road or South Armagh. Therein lies the danger in the controversy and the debate and therein lies the problem that will continue to crop up until a decision is made.
  We should recall Lord Denning's remark:
  "Be you ever so high, the law is above you".
  We cannot have one law for one group of people and a different law for another. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to ensure that we consider all those young people in gaol for whatever reason because it is partly our fault. It was partly the fault of the House and those who preceded us here. We gave that generation of people a dud hand and when they had to play that dud hand, many of them were prey to influences that we hope our own families would never have to face.
  If we were all in that position, we might not be so high and mighty when we judge other people. It is easy to carry one's rectitude like a banner and salute it as often as possible. That is much more difficult if one is sitting in a trap on a large estate in Belfast or South Armagh and knows the peer pressures, pressures on the community and the difficulties into which one's children are getting—and that there is nothing that one can do about it. Against that background, I ask the Secretary of State carefully to study the context.
  From the remarks by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), it almost seems that to comment on the Clegg affair constitutes an interference with due process. That attitude has prevailed in the House for some time. If a view contrary to that held on the Tory Benches is expressed, that is seen as interference with due process. Let us put that into perspective. The Secretary of State
  534
  is considering a submission from a committee of public servants chaired by Department's permanent secretary. That will be an Executive act. Due process has taken place in three courts, including the House of Lords, which upheld the conviction. One will be an Executive act, decided by a politician on the advice of civil servants. The other was the due process of law, decided by three courts.
  We must ask who is upholding the primacy of the law and the principle of equality before the law in the Clegg case. We should answer that question honestly for ourselves. However we answer, we should do so with the compassion to which Private Clegg is entitled—as is anyone who gets themselves into bother in the north of Ireland because of the political, social and economic mess that earlier generations left behind.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Minister of State have been most courageous in probably the most difficult set of circumstances that any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has ever handled. Mistakes have been made, but I put on record my appreciation of and admiration for the Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of State and other Ministers.
  My one fear is that, in their reticence, they have had to be dragged on to the dance floor far too often in the last nine months, instead of taking the initiative. They should have got it all over with in the first week—getting the handshakes out of the way. If that had been done, the Secretary of State, Minister and everybody else would have been saved a lot of problems. That would have prevented Sinn Fein from mounting its public relations exercise of the past nine months, in which the unwitting players have been the Secretary of State, the Minister and the rest of us—and I include myself.
  I shall give another piece of advice that will not be listened to—it concerns dealing with the realities, not theories, of my life, the lives of people who live around me and the lives of all the young people in prison. The Government should not build up decommissioning as something that they can deliver, because they cannot and would not. It is a climb-down issue. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh to their hearts' content but anybody who knows anything about Irish history—be it the history behind the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) or the one of which I speak—knows that decommissioning will not happen according to expectations.
  I am prepared to face the hecklers across the Chamber in one year's time and ask them whether I was right on that climbdown issue. I say that because I do not want the good work of the Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of State and others devoted to something that they cannot fully deliver. I believe that they know that for themselves.
  Whatever noises are made in the background, and whatever platitudes we hear, the reality is that the peace that has been created will last. Nothing of the scepticism that has entered the debate with certain implications will deflect anyone from maintaining that peace. Nobody in this debate should detract from that peace, which is tangible on the ground in the north of Ireland, among the people I represent and throughout the north of Ireland.
  If there are individuals whose sourness of heart is such that they cannot conceive lasting peace, they should examine not just their political analyses but their consciences and ask themselves why they are so sour at

  535
  the prospect of lasting peace. The people who have suffered deeply from the absence of peace will say that it is here now because the people of the north of Ireland made it clear to the paramilitary groups and everybody else that 25 years of hell was enough. That is why the peace will last.
  I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that peace is more important than his academic arguments or political heckling, or any point that he or I make in the House. That lasting peace means lasting lives. British soldiers, my neighbours and members of other communities would otherwise be dead. Hon. Members should think before they make argumentative points about a matter that goes to the heart of a situation that we have been dealing with for a long time. As Yeats wrote:
  "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne is far enough from the problems to be argumentative about them.
  The assumption has been made that the legislation is required and that if it did not exist, there would be a terrible collapse of the entire system. John Rowe QC has been used as the authority. We read his report on the prevention of terrorism, and my opinion of that assessment has not changed. He said then that he was not part of the peace process, and he confirmed that in his latest reports. What does the measure do that could not be achieved by ordinary legislation?
  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, to whom the Secretary of State referred, said in his report:
  "I think that the provisions of the criminal justice system are well capable of exercising effective powers to deal with terrorist crime, at the same time maintaining in a civilised society the important safeguards for the individual."
  Thus speaks the Government's appointee as commissioner for the holding centres, giving his informed opinion as an eminent lawyer—that the criminal law as it stands, without emergency legislation, can cope. We should respect his view.
  The foregoing statement can be looked at more objectively in the light of some statistics on convictions obtained under the emergency provisions. They are most informative. Of all the convictions obtained under the emergency provisions in 1992, 228 were for motoring offences; 184 were for unattended parking in a controlled zone; 25 were for leaving a vehicle unsecured; and 16 were for failing to render a vehicle incapable of being driven off. In the same year, there was precisely one conviction for failing to stop for members of the security forces, and there were two for failing to answer security forces' questions.
  We have been told for the past three hours that this legislation is essential to our future safety. In 1993, 237 convictions had to do with motoring offences, and 179 were to do with cars being left in security zones. Thirty were for unsecured vehicles. There was one conviction for attempting to illicit information useful to terrorists, and there was one for wearing hoods in public places. There were six convictions for possession of information useful to terrorists. For 1994, there were 171 convictions of the motoring type, but there was just one for recording information useful to terrorists, and one for collecting such information. This information is recorded in Hansard, in the form of replies to questions by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
  536
  I remind the House that we are being told that the whole fabric of society would crumble without these provisions—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will find, at paragraph 26 of Mr. Rowe's report, the observation that, if it is thought that the police need the support of the Army and the other armed forces to help them carry out their policing responsibilities, part II of the Act, at any rate, needs renewing, because it is the part that gives the Army the jurisdiction to carry out its supportive role.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that, in South Armagh, there is—regrettably, by reason of the enhanced terrorist threat as compared with the rest of the Province—a greater need for the Army to continue to patrol in support of the police than there is elsewhere. Is he seriously telling his constituents to second-guess the police and to tell them that they do not really need the support of the Army, so the whole Act, including part II, can go?
  Mr. Mallon: No. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives me this opportunity to clarify what I am saying. My point about Mr. Rowe is that he does not see the need for any change in the whole legislation—not a single iota. Secondly, for as long as we have emergency legislation and the police in South Armagh depend on the Army, we will not be able to break the cycle. I suggest that the police service starts to operate some form of normality in South Armagh during this period of peace, however long hon. Members think it may last. Personally, I believe that it is permanent. That is how to reach the stage where part II of the Act is not needed: that will be the test. I happen to think that my feelings about South Armagh are more closely related to the facts than are Mr. Rowe's.
  I do not wish to discuss the Diplock courts in detail. I do, however, think it unfortunate that they have come to be known as Diplock courts at all. When establishing them, Lord Diplock stated unequivocally that any court that did not comply with the minimum requirements of the European convention on human rights was not worthy of the name of a court of law; should not form part of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction system; and should not be staffed by ordinary judges who sit in other criminal courts. The rationale behind that remark was that, otherwise, the judiciary would risk losing the respect and trust that are of paramount importance to the functioning of the judicial system in Northern Ireland. I am quite sure that Lord Diplock has often had cause to regret the fact that his name has been associated with this system of courts.
  We must realise the damage that emergency legislation has done over the years. I tell the Secretary of State that we have a chance now to start to redress that damage, not by giving way to terrorism or by allowing the creation of a lawless society, but by creating, for the first time since the state was founded, a system of justice, of policing and of law that the entire community can be part of, can support and can defend. That will in itself prevent a repetition of the events of the past 25 years.
  It is easy enough for John Rowe QC to say that he is not part of the peace process. Fortunately, the Secretary of State is part of it. As such, he has a responsibility to show the community in the north of Ireland that he is confident of the peace process and will move on it—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me a couple of times, so I do not feel too diffident about inviting him to give way. I ask him to reflect on what he

  537
  has just said about the Diplock courts. He clearly implied that the so-called Diplock courts are incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. That is not so. Their legitimacy, in terms of the convention, has been upheld time and again by the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman is casting imputations against the High Court and senior county court judges who sit in those courts. I hope, therefore, that he will reflect that what he has said gives rise to a most unjust and unwarranted implication.
  Mr. Mallon: I made no such implication. I was not referring to the judges who man the courts or to how they are handled. I was referring to what Lord Diplock said in the context of the European Court of Human Rights. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that some of the cases that arrived before the courts followed arrests and detentions that represented a derogation from the provisions of the European convention on human rights. That is why I recommend re-reading what Lord Diplock said when he set up the courts.
  I end with a plea to the Secretary of State. Whether he likes it or not, history has made him a main player in what is going to happen at the turn of the century. He will certainly have my support for doing all that he can to ensure the peace. Together with the Minister of State, he has a major role to play in moving towards the real negotiations which alone will solve this problem. I beg him not to be dragged on to the dance floor but to go out there and take a lead. Only in that way will he be able to advance on the considerable role that he has played hitherto.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I shall be exceptionally brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to move forward along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) urged while speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. We are part of the peace process, as is the Secretary of State. I feel that he should be more progressive. I understand that there are quandaries and difficulties, but I would have liked to see him move forward more quickly.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I, too, shall be brief. I know that the debate is coming to an end.
  I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his opening words. He drew attention to the dangers that we face when emergency legislation seemingly becomes permanent—legislation that was produced as a temporary measure. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there are dangers. That has been the force of my argument over the years. I have argued that there is a danger to democracy.
  An additional factor should be taken on board. We are permitted to use emergency legislation in terms of international law only when there is an emergency. If Britain has been a vast contributor to international law, we have a duty to live up to it. It is possible to argue that there is still an emergency in Northern Ireland. I think
  538
  that the Secretary of State will agree with me, however, that it is becoming more and more difficult to argue that that is the position in legal terms. That being so, we need to start phasing out emergency legislation. The sooner we say so clearly, the better.
  On that ground, I think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is wrong to say that we should vote for the motion because we want some of the legislation. If the Government were still taking the tough, hard line that was taken when the paramilitarists were functioning as military groups, the right hon. Gentleman would still have to support the Government because he wants some provisions of the emergency provisions legislation.
  We must vote against legislation when we are against it—this answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—and similarly when we are against parts of it that we cannot amend which we consider to be important. We should never make an apology for that. The message that we send out by adopting that approach is that we are not divided but we believe in a democratic process. I know of no more powerful argument than that.
  I agree entirely with the Secretary of State that the profoundly important issue of prisoners should not be linked with the Private Clegg case. We all know, however, that it is seen in that way, inevitably, in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) told us that he is campaigning for the release of Private Clegg and that in so doing he means no insult to the victim or the victim's family. He made the point well. Those of us who campaigned for the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four faced a similar problem, even though we were arguing that those who had committed those offences were still going free. These are complex arguments.
  I make no complaint that Army officers are involved in trying to secure the release of Private Clegg. I understand their involvement because they come from the same group. However, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) has said, the community that he represents in part has strong feelings about the Clegg case. It has a right to ask why there is one rule for British service personnel and another for the people of Northern Ireland. That is the way in which that community sees the issue.
  It is important for newspapers to recognise that one of the reasons for some to say that there are double standards is that some areas of the press, such as the Daily Mail, campaigned to keep the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four in prison and are now campaigning to get Private Clegg out of prison. If there is a miscarriage of justice involving a British soldier or someone accused of a terrorist offence in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, Unionist or Republican, it remains a miscarriage of justice. No other approach is acceptable.
  Paratroopers form an elite group. They are selected and trained in a specific way. They are trained to be aggressive and to react quickly. That is what is needed to be a paratrooper, and that is right. That means that paratroopers are not the best group to use in what is essentially a peacekeeping role. Private Clegg might not be in his present position if he had been in one of the ordinary regiments, the members of which are not trained in the way of paratroopers. I make that point as much for paratroopers as for anyone else. They are aggressive

  539
  attacking troops. Other troops have better training for a peacekeeping role. That is why it is a mistake to use paratroopers in Northern Ireland.
  When it comes to the release of prisoners, we have always had to make a judgment on parole, life sentences and conditional release schemes, for example. If someone is no longer regarded as a danger to the public, that is one of the factors to be taken into account when considering early release. A feature that has been missing in the debate, especially on the part of representatives of the Unionist parties, is acceptance of the peace process. We have all made strides, but it must be recognised that the leadership of the Unionist paramilitarists and that of the Republican paramilitarists have made a giant step. That should be said. It is in our interests that the leaderships of the two groups stay intact.
  I saw the leaders of the Unionist parties linked to the terrorist campaign of the past only a few months ago. They recognised, just as do the leaders of Sinn Fein, that if their troops decide to return to violence they, the leaders, will be swept aside. It is in our interests and those of everyone else that the two groups continue the peace process. That is why I argue strongly that we should start to phase out emergency legislation.
  The Secretary of State has made quite a good start but there are issues to which I should love to refer. They were taken up ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. We could go much further in terms of the Diplock courts. We must get the message over that we believe in the peace process and that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: There is no dispute in the House about the need for anti-terrorist legislation. The question is whether it should be the present legislation and whether it is needed now. The issue was well covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
  We welcome some parts of the Secretary of State's approach. For example, we welcome what he said about introducing an electronic recording system in holding centres. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why it cannot be introduced now. That is something that has become lost, as it were. It would be an important message. We welcome the relaxation of prison rules on compassionate leave. There was a welcome for it throughout the House.
  The mystery deepens slightly when we come to consider what is to succeed the current legislation and the Government's approach. It seems that the Government intend to introduce a short-term emergency provisions Bill next year. What does "short-term" mean? The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is not now in his place, said that such an approach was too dilatory. As I understand it, the legislation that the Government propose would need to be ready for the Queen's Speech in November. The Government must have a clear idea now about what they are intending to do by means of the new measure. Not one word has crossed the Secretary of State's lips about how he will amend the EPA.
  From the Opposition's point of view, it would be intolerable for a new EPA to include internment powers. Surely it would be easy for the Government to say that
  540
  any new EPA will not include such powers. Many hon. Members have talked about the limitations of the Diplock courts. Some have said that with the current legislation it is difficult to phase out those courts. It would have been handy for the Secretary of State to say that that is his intention in introducing a new EPA.
  What mystified me most about the Secretary of State's approach is that he said that there would be a new short-term EPA. How short-term? He also said that, at some stage in future—he could not say when—he would start an independent review of the legislation, that it would attempt to put together the EPA and prevention of terrorism Act and, even more idealistically, that he would be hoping to do that on a United Kingdom basis. That is not a short job. If the Secretary of State does not intend to start that review this Session, how long will it take? How long will the short-term EPA be in existence?
  I am rather worried, as was the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that the wrong messages would be sent, and that, no matter how long the peace process lasted and was developing, there would not be solid messages going out about changes in the legislation by the Government.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making sensible and reasonable points, but Conservative Members understand that the Labour party will vote against the measure, because some Opposition Members are more concerned about civil rights than they are about the rights of victims. The hon. Gentleman speaks of messages. The message that he and the Labour party are sending today by voting against the prevention of terrorism Act, I regret to say, is that the Labour party is soft on terrorism and soft on the causes of terrorism.
  Mr. Worthington: That matter was raised earlier by the hon. Gentleman, and he did not understand a perfectly simple reply then. I have no optimism that my teaching powers are greater than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, so I shall ignore his point, because it has been dealt with.
  Since we last debated the EPA, there have been two ceasefires. We should point out the difference that they have made to the quality of life in Northern Ireland, and pay tribute to all the people who have contributed to them. Labour Members—this is a partial answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—accepted that there has not been a complete end to terrorism. While there are punishment beatings, there is terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violent and intimidating tactics to achieve political ends. That is how it is defined in the Act.
  When parties with links to paramilitary organisations say that they do all they can to prevent beatings, they lack credibility. They have to realise—this applies to both sets of paramilitaries—that they would become credible as democratic organisations and totally remove any case for these powers if they used their influence to stop the beatings. When organisations use intimidation and terror to control areas, to promote crime and racketeering, they undermine the rule of law. They also undermine those of us who want to stimulate the Government to maintain the momentum to normality in law enforcement. We are undermined by the actions of those who have influence on the paramilitaries.
  For their part, the Government must press on with all possible safe measures to normalise policing. We welcome the withdrawal of the Army from policing

  541
  matters, and the many small steps that have been taken by the Chief Constable to move towards the ideal of a police service, not a police force. We welcome the recent substantial increases in the number applying to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary from the Catholic community. We wish to support the RUC in all its moves to build trust and confidence across the communities.
  We hope that the present tense relationship between the RUC and the Police Authority can be repaired and then strengthened. The challenge to help the police to become welcome to all in both traditions who want a law-abiding and peaceful community must not be weakened by division between those at the top of the RUC and those at the top of the Police Authority. A new relationship must be worked out, and it needs their joint co-operation.
  There are damaging effects from unfair law when there is armed warfare in the country. Even more damaging is unfair law when there is a ceasefire. It is crucial, with all due prudence, to keep the momentum going. It is disturbing that the Government do not seem ready to commit themselves to a full replacement for the EPA ready for the Queen's Speech. That would have been the right way ahead. There has to be a new Act of Parliament, and to move to short-term expediency seems to be the wrong way of going about that. Opposition Members have said that there need to be powers on fraud and racketeering, proscription of paramilitary organisations and the threat of international terrorism. We want that to be done in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole and with all-party support. That may be idealistic, but it has to be the target that we set ourselves.
  We believe that more could be done now. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has not felt able to come here with a promise from the Chief Constable that, as a matter of policy, he would always, where possible, use the powers that are available to him under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) rather than the EPA powers. I realise that that is a matter not for the Secretary of State but for the Chief Constable, but it would have been handy to have that assurance.
  We would have preferred to suspend EPA powers covered by existing criminal law, but a declaration, by the Chief Constable, of the intention of using ordinary criminal law where possible would be welcome. It is clear that the Diplock courts cannot be stopped overnight, but we have heard nothing from the Government about how those courts are to be phased out and jury trials phased in. We heard earlier that that cannot be done easily within the present EPA, but jury trials have to be phased in at some time, and the Government have to tackle that, because, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, many of the Diplock court cases have been for offences that have had nothing to do with political violence.
  It is disappointing that the Government have not felt able to come to the House with a promise to give access to legal advice in holding centres. We are not asking for anything that endangers anybody. We simply want to go forward prudently with amendments to these laws. We have offered a bipartisan approach to the Government, for which they have expressed some appreciation. But will the Government take up our offer of talks so that, when the successor legislation to the EPA and PTA is proposed, it will have the support of the whole House? Will the Minister accept that offer?
  6.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I welcome the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to his duties on the Opposition Front Bench, and at the outset say to him that of course the Government would welcome talks with him and his colleagues about the future of the legislation. If we can proceed with a wide measure of agreement, that would indeed be most welcome to the House, the country as a whole and, of course, to all others who may have an interest in the subject.
  We have made a very firm commitment indeed to the review of the legislation. It will be an independent review. It will be a review that must take place having regard to the prevailing security situation, which must clarify itself in the time ahead before we can firmly decide when that review should start. I am very glad to make that response to the hon. Gentleman at the outset of my remarks.
  I think that one would agree that this has been a very good debate. It has also been an unusual one, given that we are now more than nine months into the Provisional IRA ceasefire and eight into that declared by the so-called loyalists. The intervening period has, thankfully, been free from major terrorist atrocities, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, terrorist organisations on both sides remain all too capable of returning to violence. That has been a theme of the debate.
  The renewal of the legislation has been supported by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They too have referred to the state of readiness of the various terrorist organisations and their ability to return to violence, and it is against that backcloth that I invite the House to support the Government.
  We hope that what I have described will not happen, and our efforts are directed towards that end; but our considered judgment is that it is not yet time to dispense with any of the powers conferred by the Act. They still have a role to play. Military activity in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is down to some 25 per cent. of previous levels, and two major units have been relocated from Northern Ireland. For the first time since 1969, no soldiers regularly patrol the streets of Belfast. Policemen and policewomen are increasingly able to devote their efforts to protecting all communities from ordinary crime.
  The Government have responded to the new situation in other ways. In October, all the closure orders on cross-border roads were revoked, and the physical work to reinstate the crossings is now largely complete. It has been welcomed. Patrol bases and vehicle checkpoints no longer cause extensive delays to the motoring public, disrupting everyday life. The security forces have decided to remove the vehicle checkpoint at Clady, on the Tyrone-Donegal border, and work will begin shortly. That is an operational decision by the security forces to rationalise the network of border patrol bases—those that must remain.
  The civilian search unit in Belfast, which has existed since 1972 to protect the city and other centres of population—two of whose members were murdered in the late 1970s—will be stood down from the end of this

  543
  month; we owe it our deep gratitude for its services over the years. I can also announce that, from 1 August, the great majority of restrictions under the vehicle control zone order—which is made under the Act, and which restricts parking and access at many locations throughout Northern Ireland—will be lifted. I am sure that many hon. Members, in particular, will welcome that announcement. It will represent a significant return to normality, and I believe that it will be greatly welcomed by the wider public in Northern Ireland.
  Some valuable points have been made in the debate; I shall deal with as many as I can. A number of hon. Members referred to the Clegg case. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked whether any further evidence had been received. None has been received, but I can tell the House that, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State received any new evidence, he would of course consider it—as is his bounden duty—and ensure that it went before the appropriate judicial authorities.
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I will consider the report of the Life Sentence Review Board objectively. We will not be influenced from any quarter or by any lobby or political consideration; we will reach our view on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. It could not be otherwise.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to flexible compensation for RUC members who have been injured, and for the families of those who have been killed. She was present last week when the hon. Member for Upper Bann introduced an Adjournment debate on the issue. In my reply to that debate, I undertook to examine any details of cases that the hon. Gentleman chose to supply; I stand by my word, and will attempt to establish what further compensation or assistance may be properly available.
  The report of the inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster will be published shortly. Copies will go to the dependants—to family members who have a right to receive them. It will be a matter for the Ministry of Defence, in accordance with usual law and custom, to decide the level of compensation; that is not a matter with which I can deal directly this evening.
  I particularly welcomed the reference by the hon. Member for Redcar to knowledge of, and the return of, the bodies of those who have been murdered by terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. She struck an important chord: that would bring immense relief to the families of those who still yearn to grieve in the knowledge of where their loved ones have been disposed of. I hope that the hon. Lady's words—and, indeed, the sympathy of the House—will be conveyed to those who may have influence in the matter, and may be able to convey any appropriate information to the authorities to enable that to be done.
  I hope very much that we shall see the establishment of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Let it not be forgotten that successive emergency provisions Acts have played their part in enabling us to reach this stage. The necessary amendments that they have made to the judicial process, and the powers that they have conferred on the security forces, have provided the legal framework for firm and resolute action against the terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland.
  544
  I believe, however, that we now stand poised on the brink of new opportunity, and look forward to the day when the 1991 Act will no longer be necessary. Many of the comments made in today's debate—
  It being three hours after the commencement of the debate, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [6 June].
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 190.

  Division No. 162]

  [6.37 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cran, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

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

  Alton, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkins, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Faber, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorst, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  545

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rendel, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Knapman Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Maddock, Diana

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thumham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trimble, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)

  Norris, Steve

  Waterson, Nigel

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wells, Bowen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Whittingdale, John

  Patntick, Sir Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  546

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wood, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gunnell, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Hain, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Hall, Mike

  Battle, John

  Hanson, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Henderson, Doug

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Benton, Joe

  Heppell, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Berry, Roger

  Hinchliffe, David

  Betts, Clive

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Blunkett, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Boateng, Paul

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hutton, John

  Burden, Richard

  Illsley, Eric

  Byers, Stephen

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef' ld, H)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Martyn (Crwyd, SW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Keen, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Clelland, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Corbett, Robin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corston, Jean

  Llyd, Elfyn

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  McAllion, John

  Dafis,Cynog

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum

  Darling, Alistair

  McFall, John

  Davidson, Ian

  McGrady, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Denham, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  MacShane, Denis

  Dixon, Don

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Mahon, Alice

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Mallon, Seamus

  Dowd, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Michael, Alun

  Enright, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Etherington, Bill

  Milburn, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Flynn, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Galloway, George

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, John

  Mudie, George

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  Murphy, Paul

  547

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tumer, Dennis

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Vaz, Keith

  Purchase, Ken

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wardell Gareth (Gower)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watson, Mike

  Reid, Dr John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

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

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day
  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
    Schedule

      SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      6.55 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—

      '.—(1) Section 37 (unfitness to practise through illness, etc.) shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In subsection (3)—

      (a) in paragraph (b), after the word "expiry" there shall be inserted the words "(or termination under subsection (3B)(b) below)"; and

      (b) for the words "; but the Committee shall not" there shall be substituted the words "; but, subject to subsection (3A) below, the Committee shall not".

      (3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

      "(3A) The Health Committee may give a direction extending a period of suspension indefinitely where—

      (a) the period of suspension will, on the date on which the direction takes effect, have lasted for at least two years, and

      (b) the direction is given not more than two months before the date on which the period of suspension would otherwise expire.

      (3B) Where the Health Committee have given a direction for indefinite suspension, they—

      (a) shall review the suspension when requested to do so by the person whose registration is suspended (but not until two years after the date on which the direction takes effect and not more than once in any period of two years), and

      (b) having carried out such a review, may direct that the suspension be terminated.".'.

      Amendment No. 1 will give the General Medical Council's health committee the power to suspend a doctor's registration indefinitely where he has already been suspended for two years. The health committee would have to make that direction within two months of the expiry of the current period of suspension. The amendment would amend the health committee procedures to bring into effect the proposals made by the GMC in a consultation document last year. The power will be similar to that already proposed in the Bill for the committee on professional performance.
      The Government recognise the benefits that the amendment would have for sick doctors with a grave and persistent impairment who are currently subject to annual hearings. Those hearings can be stressful, may raise false hopes and may have a demoralising effect on the doctor.
      The Opposition introduced a new clause of a similar nature in Standing Committee, for which I commend them. I agreed then to accept the change in principle and to introduce a Government amendment on Report. I am pleased, therefore, to commend amendment No. 1 to the House.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome the amendment. As the Minister rightly said, we discussed this topic in Committee in relation to an Opposition amendment. When we pressed the Minister on

      549
      the matter, he was able to give us an assurance that the Government hoped to return to it on Report and he has done so.
      There is no division between the parties on the matter of substance. Both our amendment and the Government's amendment do essentially the same thing. They amend the second of the three procedural devices open to the General Medical Council in such a way that, when the health procedures have been invoked, the council has the power, which it did not have before, to suspend a medical practitioner from the register indefinitely. That is intended not as a punishment or disciplinary measure, but to give a medical practitioner whose health may be failing the chance to recover before coming before the GMC for reaccreditation.
      The existing procedure requires an annual review, which in some circumstances can be a cruel and disadvantageous thing. That will be superseded, where appropriate, by the arrangements that we are putting in place today. I therefore join the Minister in supporting his version of how we should do this rather than ours. Of course, he has the benefit of the parliamentary draftsmen and we do not.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am very much in favour of the amendment and have no disagreement with it. My anxiety about it is that it does not do anything to tackle a problem which exists in the national health service and which I hope that Ministers will deal with in some other way.
      Clear evidence exists that doctors who have been suspended on pay for various misdemeanours falling short of extreme unfitness to practice are able to work while their cases are being examined or explored and, as I understand it, to earn a salary in other parts of the NHS. Clearly, that is malpractice and should not be allowed. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that the matter is being considered elsewhere; otherwise, it would be handy to deal with it in the schedule.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I should immediately say that I am a lay member of the General Medical Council's health committee. On the comments that have just been made, that issue is not in any way connected with the GMC. I share the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but that matter needs to be dealt with in the structures of the national health service rather than in the Bill.
      I welcome this change in the law. I have on the floor of my office five cases containing papers for next week's meeting of the GMC's health committee. The demand of annual reviews on the hard-working and high-quality staff of the GMC is very great; it is also very expensive. The change is a practical one which recognises the merits of the case and it will be welcomed throughout the GMC.
      Amendment agreed to.
      7 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—
      '6A— (1) Section 42 (Preliminary proceedings as to professional misconduct and unfitness to practise) shall be amended as follows—
      (2) In subsection (3)(c) for the words "two months" there shall be substituted the words "six months".
      550
      (3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) The Preliminary Proceedings Committee may, subject to subsection (4) below, if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is in the interests of the registered person referred to inquiry, at any time renew, for a further period not exceeding six months, an order for interim suspension or for conditional registration."
      (4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
      "(4A) An appeal shall lie to the court (within the meaning of section 38(7) of this Act) from any direction of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee given by virtue of subparagraphs (3)(b) and (c) above."
      (5) In subsection (6), for the words "two months" there shall be substituted the words "six months".'.
      The amendment deals with the second of two issues that we raised in Committee and to which the Government said that they wished to return on Report. We have just dealt with the first issue through amendment No. 1. I do not think that this second issue is contentious between the parties, although the Government may wish to produce a different draft as I understand that there are technical difficulties with drafting an amendment to achieve the purpose that lies behind our amendment.
      The amendment deals with the issues referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Its purpose is to give the GMC preliminary proceedings committee the power to make orders for interim suspension for periods of up to six months and for renewal thereafter as necessary. That power is not currently available to the GMC.
      Under the present powers conferred by the Medical Act 1983, periods of interim suspension and conditional registration can last for a maximum of only two months and they are not renewable. Therefore, it is possible for a medical practitioner to try to practise again if somebody will employ him. The GMC is aware of the problem. It published a consultation paper in February 1994, which made a powerful case for the proposal we have put before the House today. The GMC says that experience has shown that it may take longer than two months to arrange medical examinations of and reports on a doctor who is referred to the health committee.
      A doctor may successfully apply for an adjournment of a forthcoming health or professional conduct hearing on a number of grounds, such as being hospitalised, family illness abroad, and so on. At present, it is possible for doctors under investigation to abuse the judicial arrangements and so escape interim suspension from the register while being investigated. That is clearly wrong. I note that the Secretary of State has said publicly that she wants to do something about the matter and our amendment provides the opportunity to do so. I do not expect there to be any difference between the Opposition and the Minister on this, and I await his comments with interest.
      Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the GMC already has the power to impose interim suspension or interim conditional registration, but only for a period of two months. It is generally agreed that, in current circumstances, that is not sufficient, as it usually takes rather longer to mount proceedings. The GMC has already consulted on the matter and has received a positive reaction to extending interim suspension from two months to six months. Further orders might extend the suspension for a further period.

      551
      We have considered the issue and we believe that the correct period would be three months. As a doctor's livelihood may be affected and no case has yet been proven, we agree that the doctor should have the right of appeal to the High Court—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend mean a total of three months suspension or three months renewable?
      Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I am referring to renewable periods. Each time the GMC wished to continue a suspension, it would have to bring the practitioner concerned in front of the relevant committee. The GMC's existing power to impose interim conditions would be similarly extended and we welcome that.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East helpfully wrote to me last week urging the Government to expedite our consideration of the matter. We have had further discussions with the GMC, with other Departments and within the Department of Health to ensure that we get the detail of any amendment correct. I regret that it has been impossible to agree the detail of an amendment and to bring one forward within the time available.
      We are concerned to get matters of policy correct, such as our judgment that there should be a six-month period, renewable for three months, in contrast with the Opposition's proposal for a renewable period of six months. The shorter period is in line with natural justice. It gives further protection to the doctor while at the same time ensuring that the GMC has an incentive to get on with proceedings and to bring the matter to a successful resolution.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I assure the House—and the hon. Gentleman in particular—that we will introduce a suitable amendment in another place to bring into law what the hon. Gentleman has sought through his amendment.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I have just one comment to make on the issue and it relates to the fact that the GMC is not a court made up of professional judges or of people who are paid to do the job. The GMC consists of elected and nominated members who are not remunerated at the professional rate for the work that they do. Therefore, to a great extent their work is voluntary.
      Suggesting that we need to ensure that the GMC gets on with its job might imply that it is not diligent in so doing. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is a fellow lay member of the GMC and it is a pleasure to see him in his place. I am sure that he shares my view that there is enormous pressure on members of GMC committees and that no criticism can fairly be levelled against them.
      While there is a case to be made—and it has been well made on both sides of the House—to change the present arrangements to allow longer and renewable suspensions, I hope that the Minister recognises that the national health service has a part to play in ensuring that doctors who are not performing to the standard contractually required of them are, in appropriate circumstances, taken out of their jobs while proceedings are pending before GMC committees.
      There is a woeful lack of information in the N. network. Often, a hospital has absolutely no idea that doctor is facing proceedings before the GMC. That is
      552
      something which frustrates the GMC's committees—notably the professional conduct committee, on which I served for five years. It is valid to make a plea to the Minister to ensure, in the broad context, that information is networked around the different parts of the NHS so that, when a doctor applies for employment, it can be quickly ascertained whether he is the subject of a complaint to the GMC.
      In the Gaud case—the notorious case of the surgeon who was responsible for the spreading of hepatitis B and who was subsequently imprisoned for a year by Southwark Crown court—it was evident from reports on the case that Mr. Gaud was employed at hospital after hospital despite the fact that he had already been dismissed from employment because of his hepatitis B condition. Indeed, in that case it would appear that quite senior consultants gave references for Mr. Gaud despite possibly one or more of them knowing of the hepatitis B condition. Such a situation should never arise.
      Mr. Rowe: There have also been cases of the royal colleges and others giving oral statements—on the telephone—about not being happy at the prospect of working alongside a particular practitioner, but refusing to put those statements in writing when asked to do so. There is a whole area of uncertainty in the national health service which the hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly addressing.
      Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, I suggest that the way in which locum consultants in particular and locum associate specialists are employed simply does not bear examination. It is horrifying to think, but true to say, that they are sometimes employed as a result of a telephone call to a medical employment agency without any references being taken up at all. That is not the GMC's fault. The GMC is entirely blameless in such situations; it has no relevant powers. But the Government can take steps and I urge the Minister to consider what further steps are available in that context.
      Mr. Sackville: On the first point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I would be the last to suggest that we wanted to put any undue pressure on the General Medical Council. I certainly agree that what it does is voluntary, for which we are very grateful. If there were any implication that bringing in a three-month rather than a six-month renewable power was in order to put pressure on the GMC, I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am informed that most cases can be dealt with within six months and that the proposal would deal with rather exceptional cases.
      On the second point, and echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, clearly the national health service has to be very careful. It has to exchange intelligence on such matters and constantly watch out for doctors whn—perhaps—should not be employed. I remind the Hot that any doctor who seeks to work as a doctor in contravention of a suspension—interim or otherwise—commits a criminal act and could be arrested and charged for it. I give the House the assurance that we shall be bringing forward a suitable amendment in another place to cover the matter.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: In fairness to the medical profession, it is only right to say that the amendment would, in any event, cover only a very small number of cases each year.

      553
      I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It did not take me by surprise because, as he correctly said, there has been a very satisfactory exchange of correspondence between us. Even if there had not been an exchange of correspondence, I could have read all about the matter yesterday in The Mail on Sunday, the campaigning newspaper that gets results. It carried a rather ferocious looking picture of the Secretary of State under the headline "Grateful". I assume that that means that she is grateful to the parliamentary Labour party for tabling the amendment and for pressing the Government on this matter.
      The important point is not that the period of suspension be for six months and renewable as necessary, as the Opposition's amendment proposes. I have no quarrel with the Government's proposition for a six-month suspension, renewable for three-month periods again and again if necessary. The important point is that there is a power for interim suspension and that it is renewable. If the Government wish to come forward in another place with something containing those principles, drafted in a way that is satisfactory to them and to the parliamentary draftsmen, it would be the right way to proceed.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      7.14 pm
      Mr. Sackville: This Bill will, by general agreement, fill what is seen as a serious gap in the General Medical Council's fitness to practise procedures, which was first identified by the council itself. We have been pleased to be able to provide legislative time and support for the Bill. The Bill will add to the existing disciplinary powers of the GMC. It will enable it for the time to address allegations that a doctor's standard of professional performance is seriously deficient. It will assist the GMC's key purpose of ensuring that only doctors who are fit to practise remain on the medical register. It will further strengthen quality of service and patient safety, while providing a clear indication to members of the profession of what is expected of them.
      I express my appreciation of the cross-party agreement and for the assistance of various hon. Members of all parties during the passage of the Bill. I would also like to use this opportunity to congratulate Sir Robert Kilpatrick on his six and a half years as president of the GMC. He is soon to step down. During his time as president, through his great personal virtues and commitment, I am sure that he increased the standing of the profession as a self-regulating body. He has also managed to guide the GMC towards a better balance between the protection of the public and the protection of the rights of medical practitioners. I am, therefore, very happy to commend the Bill to the House as a fitting tribute to Sir Robert's excellent presidency of the General Medical Council.
      7.17 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: May I first echo the words of the Minister about the retiring president of the General Medical Council, Sir Robert Kilpatrick? He is a man who can best be described as having an excellent bedside manner. He has led the GMC with kindly and courteous consideration throughout his period of office. He is being succeeded by an extremely fine and worthy successor, who I am sure will help the GMC to continue to move forward. Sir Donald Irvine will be the first general practitioner to become president of the General Medical Council. Those of us who know him well—even those who have met him only briefly—quickly discovered his qualities of leadership and his articulate presentation of medical matters.
      When I joined the GMC, I was surprised to discover what a hard-working and determined organisation it was. I had misgivings about such a self-regulating body dealing with the registration of doctors, the disciplining of them and all matters connected with it. After serving on the GMC for about six years, I believe that it does its job rigorously and protects the public extremely well. As the Minister said, the impetus for the Bill came not from the Government or the Opposition, but from the GMC itself. The fact that the GMC is prepared to look for improvements in the law and in its procedure speaks volumes in evidence of the council's determination.
      I welcome the Bill. The GMC is grateful that the Government gave time for it. There are other issues on which the GMC has asked for legislative time, some of them are complex and relate to difficulties involving registration and training. I hope that time will be found at least as readily for those issues as for the subject before us.
      7.20 pm
      Sir Anthony Grant: I must apologise for the fact that I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate. I was abroad with the Select Committee for Trade and Industry at the time.
      My interest in the subject stems from 10 years ago and the tragic death of a young lady called Harriet English, the daughter of my friend and agent in my constituency, Richard English and his wife Ann. I raised the subject of her case on two occasions in the House, the second of which was 25 March 1986.
      Harriet English was a young lady of 22 who was a perfectly fit and athletic girl. She felt tired after playing badminton and engaging in other exercise, and complained of a pain in her shoulder. Her general practitioner, Dr. Barretto, was consulted and diagnosed a torn ligament and administered an injection of cortisone. He made no other inquiries. Harriet was similarly treated by his partners, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Page. Sadly, four days later she was rushed to the London clinic in agonising circumstances and died of septicemia which had not previously been diagnosed.
      There was a great case before the GMC on 18 March 1986 and various experts and counsel were engaged on both sides. One expert, Dr. Martin Wood, attested that Harriet's symptoms should have alerted Dr. Barretto to the fact that she was suffering from something more than a torn ligament. The GMC's finding, from which there was no appeal except on a point of law to the Privy Council, was that serious professional misconduct was not proved, so the doctors were cleared. Nevertheless, as I

      555
      told the House then, the case left unanswered questions of competence and acceptability of conduct. But no alternative charge was available under the Medical Act 1983.
      I worked closely with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who had many similar cases, and was a sponsor of the private legislation that he sought to bring before the House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill before us as it seeks to rectify, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the fact that, with regard to serious misconduct,
      "no such powers exist to deal with doctors whose performance may be seriously deficient but who, nevertheless, fall short of those extremes."
      That is precisely what happened in the case that I have mentioned.
      As I said in the House in 1986, the law as it stood was rather as if the only motoring offence was the charge of dangerous driving, and there was no offence of careless driving, the lesser offence—or as if someone could be charged only of murder, not manslaughter. I said in 1986 that I thought that that was ridiculous and I welcome the change that is being made.
      The Secretary of State, to whom the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) paid tribute, said:
      "The Bill plugs the gap … the initiative came from the GMC."—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 673.]
      The right hon. Lady might perhaps have added that the GMC was chivvied to a great extent by the hon. Member for Newham, South and, to a lesser extent, by myself, as well as by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). The GMC was galvanised into taking action by the tragic cases that hon. Members brought to the House.
      Can I be absolutely assured that the Bill covers cases such as that of Harriet English? I have read the Committee reports and the full effect of clause 1, and the phrase "seriously deficient" is not entirely clear. I am not certain from the Committee report precisely what triggers the new procedure.
      I believe that the Bill improves the law and I strongly support that improvement. I am sure that careful scrutiny in another place where there are more distinguished doctors than in this place—[Interruption.] With certain most notable exceptions—[Interruption.] If I have to make more exceptions, I shall have to excuse every Member of the House. There are other distinguished people in another place who will no doubt rectify, as they always do, any little errors or lacunae in the Bill.
      I want to be certain that the Bill will prevent tragic cases such as that of my constituents. Richard and Ann English know that nothing can bring back their beloved daughter, but they are anxious, as I am, that others should not suffer her tragic fate.
      7.24 pm
      Mr. David Congdon: I welcome the Bill. I was able to speak on Second Reading and I noted with interest in the Committee proceedings that the fact that I spoke on Second Reading seemed to have been picked up by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I was flattered that the north-east Croydon question was referred to, especially as the point that I raised was based on an original point made some years ago by the hon. Member for Newham, South. He
      556
      did so in the context of a child in his constituency who died from meningitis when a doctor refused to go and see the child. The case, although proven, was not found to amount to serious professional misconduct. I have always viewed the Bill as an attempt to remedy that gap or defect in existing procedures.
      I, too, read the reports of the Standing Committee. The reports were of some length and my impression was that, in response to probing by the hon. Member for Newham, South, my hon. Friend the Minister was able to confirm that the procedures could be triggered by a single incident. That is important, because it is possible to conceive of circumstances where a doctor's single act does not constitute serious professional misconduct, is not part of a pattern or a number of repeated occurrences, but most reasonable people might say that it was not good enough and something should be done about it.
      I hope that my interpretation of the reports of the Standing Committee can be confirmed. It is important that we do not find ourselves a few years hence discovering that the cases that today we thought would be dealt with by the Bill are not covered.
      Apart from those minor reservations, I am pleased to support the Bill's Third Reading.
      7.27 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I support the Bill's Third Reading. The Bill came before the House with all-party agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) promised during the debate on the Queen's Speech that the Bill would have a fair wind through the House from the Opposition. We made informal representations to the Government stating that we would be happy with a Second Reading Committee rather than a half-day's debate on the Floor of the House.
      It was the Government who sought the full day's debate on the Floor of the House, which, towards the end, became repetitive although well-informed, largely because people were reading from the Library note, which had been well prepared. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who raised the issue and attempted to introduce their own legislation prior to the Bill before us.
      The Bill increases the powers of the General Medical Council, the medical regulatory body. It enables it to take action against doctors whose professional performance has become seriously deficient. It represents a third procedure that is now open to the GMC. It already has powers to take action when a doctor's fitness to practice is called into question by virtue of first, serious professional misconduct or, secondly, ill health. The Bill proposes a third procedure.
      The action that the GMC will be able to take ranges from ordering registration to be dependent on the doctor in question undergoing a course of retraining, to ordering indefinite suspension from the register. The Bill also makes provision for doctors to remove themselves voluntarily from the General Medical Council register.
      While I welcome the Bill, there are three points that I should like to raise. They in no way undermine my support for the Bill, but they are matters that I believe remain outstanding. Concerns were expressed in Committee that the new powers of voluntary removal from the register might allow doctors who are undergoing

      557
      investigation for serious professional misconduct to escape sanction; in other words, that doctors could voluntarily remove themselves from the register before an inquiry caught up with them.
      It is important to consider patients who have been adversely affected by such doctors. The victims of a medical practitioner are unlikely to be satisfied if they feel that the doctor has somehow escaped punishment for his misconduct. It is important that justice is done and that those who have suffered feel that justice has been done. It is very important that the procedures do not allow the rare, errant medical practitioner to get off the hook.
      Secondly, the Bill proposes that hearings under the new performance procedures will be held in private, at least for the first two years. The Secretary of State made reference to that on Second Reading. It was clear from what she said that her mind was not closed to reconsidering the issue after we have seen how the procedures that we are putting in place today work in practice.
      There is an anomaly in the Bill at present. It allows for public hearings at the request of the doctor but not at the request of the complainant. The objection to public hearings clearly does not concern the principle, but who can call for them. If a doctor can ask for a public hearing, it is surely right that the complainant can. That is not an anomaly that destroys the thrust of the Bill, but it is one that we might want to reconsider when we see how the procedures work in practice.
      Thirdly, the GMC will be able to postpone investigation of a doctor if related investigations by other bodies are already under way. I understand that that is probably a good—even a necessary—idea if a criminal investigation is under way but surely cases in which criminal investigations are running alongside investigations by the GMC are rare.
      It is not immediately obvious why investigations by, say, an employer should lead the GMC to suspend its investigations until the employer's investigations have been completed. That seems to me to be particularly true of the new procedures, which, of course, are intended to be not disciplinary but remedial procedures. It is my view that the GMC should be able to get its investigations under way when it believes it to be appropriate and also at the earliest possible time. I accept the point in respect of criminal investigations but not of other investigations. Delay will undermine the procedures and is therefore to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary.
      Having made those three relatively minor qualifications, on behalf of the Opposition I give the Bill a welcome and wish it a speedy passage into law.
      7.33 pm
      Mr. Sackville: I shall touch briefly on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about triggers and what sort of cases could become subject to these procedures.
      Any information about a single case or several cases which would give rise to the suspicion that there was a serious deficiency of professional performance would fall under these procedures. Any departure from good medical practice, whether covered by GMC guidance or not,
      558
      sufficient to call into question the doctor's registration, that is to say his or her fitness to practise, would fall under the procedures.
      The General Medical Council, under these procedures, has to look for a pattern of seriously deficient performance but a single case may be sufficient to trigger the investigation under the new procedures.
      On the matter of locums and the need for the NHS to be vigilant, a report of the locums working group, inspired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, is now out for consultation. That may address many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
      With that, I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in welcoming the Bill and commending it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6), That the Bill be read a Second time.
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

      SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
      That the Order of the House [30th March] relating to Scottish Grand Committee (sittings) shall have effect with the following modification, namely, that for paragraph (4) there shall be substituted—
      '(4) in the Aberdeen Town and County Hall on Monday 23rd October at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1267), dated 10th May 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the next two motions relating to statutory instruments.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Armagh Observatory and Planetarium (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
      That the draft Arts Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      CONSUMER PROTECTION: UNIT PRICING
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4069/95, relating to price indications, and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should be adopted.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion No. 9. I see that it is not moved.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. There has been an objection to motion No. 9 on the Order Paper. As one of the proposed members of that Committee—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion was not moved.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: My point of order concerns what happens next, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is simply that we have to resolve the matter. If these objections go on for ever, the Committee will never meet and the public will want to know why. Cannot the usual channels resolve it?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Government to decide when they can bring forward such a motion. Private matters between the usual channels are not for the Chair.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has it not been an instruction of the House that the Committee should report by a certain date? Bearing that in mind, does not the Chair have some responsibility to the Chamber, which has already taken its decision on the matter?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: No, it is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government as to when they may bring forward another motion.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When could the Government bring forward such a motion, given the anxiety on both sides of the House to clear up the matter?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the matter as it affects the Chair. I do not intend to take any more points of order on it.

  City Hospital, Birmingham
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  7.38 pm
  Ms Clare Short: I rise surprisingly early this evening to ask the Minister, on behalf of people of all political persuasions in Birmingham, to tell us the truth, on the record in the House of Commons, about the plans for the future of City hospital, formerly and more widely known as Dudley Road hospital. The issue is causing enormous concern across the city and it comes after a period of enormous turbulence and change in hospital provision in the city. We in Birmingham have been lied to systematically before. There is now grave doubt, including in the local newspapers, about whether we can believe any of the things that we have been told in the past couple of weeks.
  I became a Member of Parliament in 1983. The Birmingham children's hospital and the then accident hospital, which was of international renown for its burns treatment, were both due to be rebuilt; we were firmly promised that. There was then a new plan to build a healthy Birmingham and to build a series of new hospital provision on the Queen Elizabeth site. That caused enormous arguments in Birmingham, because people were worried that, if all the provision was centred in one place, people from other parts of the city would not be able to get to it. All those plans were then scrapped. The accident hospital was closed and moved into general hospital which, in turn, was closed. Children's hospital is now not getting a new building, but has been moved into the general hospital.
  General hospital is a city-centre hospital. People were deeply worried—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was involved in the campaign to save general hospital—because it was the big hospital that served the city centre. There was terrible concern that if it closed and if there were big accidents in the city centre, there would be no way in which the people of Birmingham could be cared for. We were told repeatedly—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister would listen to this point because it is of enormous concern to the people of Birmingham. I see that he is talking and not listening.
  We were told repeatedly that the people of Birmingham should not worry because Dudley Road hospital, now known as City hospital, was expanding as a district hospital, would have a large accident and emergency department and could provide for any crisis or tragedy that might take place in the city centre.
  Dudley Road hospital is a much-loved, high-quality hospital that serves an enormously poor community, as well as having accident and emergency provision that serves the city centre. According to Department of Health statistics, the community is the fourth poorest in Britain. Yet the hospital is of such high quality that royal college examinations take place there. It is a teaching hospital, and the quality of many of its services is outstanding on a national scale.
  The Minister should know that there is a deep ethos of public service at the hospital. Very high-quality staff come to work in the hospital and tend to stay there for a long period because they want to give a service to a needy

  561
  community. It is notable that the consultants at the hospital do not make large amounts by working in private practice; they continue to work at the hospital because their sense of public service is deeper than their desire to make extra money on the side.
  I have described the background of the loss of a whole succession of hospitals in Birmingham, which caused consternation across the city. We then settled down with the new reorganisation. City hospital became a trust and the 3,000 staff who worked there were determined to ensure that the hospital succeeded. In the past, there had been trouble about the hospital's budget, partly because of the Government's funding formula for hospitals. This matter was raised at meetings with the region and meetings with the Secretary of State. The formula for distributing funds, quite reasonably, provides for extra funds where there is a large elderly population because elderly people tend to be big users of the health service. However, in some of the poorest communities, the formula does not serve well because people live less long.
  The hospital has had difficulties over the funding formula on a number of occasions. We have been given assurances on a number of occasions, including at meetings with the Secretary of State for Health, that adjustments would be made and that hospitals such as City hospital would not lose out under a formula that was triggered by having large numbers of elderly people because of the great poverty in the area.
  Everyone worked enormously hard because there had been crises about money before and they worked with enormous success. In the past year, the throughput in the hospital has increased considerably. People were content and working hard. All the people who worked in the hospital were united and determined that the hospital would continue to succeed after the period of instability in Birmingham.
  Out of the blue came an enormous shock. On 10 May in The Birmingham Post, there was a story that the maternity unit at City hospital might face the axe and that there was to be a major reorganisation of the hospital, probably with large numbers of redundancies. There was a real crisis, because North Birmingham health authority was unable to pay for the increased numbers of emergencies treated at the hospital.
  It is inconceivable that the maternity unit at Dudley Road hospital should be axed. I was born there and, more significantly, many children are born there now. It is a big, successful, high-quality maternity unit in a needy community. The west midlands has a worryingly high rate of infant mortality, which is connected to poverty. The unit is an expert, high-quality one, yet we have been told out of the blue that after a year of success and increased throughput, the maternity unit faces cuts in funding and redundancies. One can imagine the worries that this has caused in the city.
  On 16 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, having followed up the story, received a letter from the chief executive of City hospital suggesting that the hospital's future might be as a sort of cottage hospital in the town. This terrified us all, and the sense of consternation across the city grew; I do not exaggerate. The Birmingham Evening Mail, the evening paper that is read throughout the city, started a campaign, for which we are all enormously grateful. We are united in our
  562
  admiration for the newspaper at present. That is not always the case among politicians in the city, especially as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) chairs its board. Some Labour Members think that that is a little odd. None the less, on this issue there is no question.
  The paper started a campaign called, "We are watching you every step you take", "you" meaning the Government and the regional health executive. It is determined to find out what is going on and it has said clearly—this is the spirit of the city—that it is not prepared to see another hospital go. With the closure of the general hospital, this hospital is crucial to cover the accident and emergency needs of the city centre. There was consternation all round at the suggestion that we would lose the hospital and have a tiny replacement hospital. I tell the Minister that the present hospital is on an enormously large site. There has always been a suspicion that there might be the ulterior motive of selling a lot of the land. That is part of the fear.
  On 18 May, an exclusive report in The Birmingham Post, the morning paper, said out of the blue—no one, including consultants, trade unions, Members of Parliament and people in the city had heard of this—that we were to get a £100 million new hospital on the City hospital site. We were all deeply sceptical and suspicious. We thought that this was all about a hidden agenda to close Dudley Road hospital. How one minute could people be talking about cuts and getting rid of the maternity unit and the next minute saying that £100 million, which no one had heard of, was available? We had heard the rumours about there being a tiny cottage hospital on the site of the massive district hospital. We were all deeply suspicious, and those suspicions were voiced by everyone, including our local evening paper.
  The chief executive of the West Midlands health authority was extremely angry. He suggested that people should not mistrust his word, and that we should be grateful for the suggestion that we should have a new hospital. What happened then? There was a further leak of minutes of dinners—not meetings, but dinners—of the West Midlands health authority executive and of dinners of the trust that controls the City hospital suggesting that there would be an extremely small hospital with some beds. There would be an accident and emergency function, but the rest of the provision would be for walking patients who would be treated and go home that evening. The local evening paper felt vindicated. Of course we were right to be suspicious. The announcement of the unheard-of f100 million hospital seemed to be a smokescreen and an excuse for closing City hospital.
  I want some firm and clear answers from the Minister. He has had plenty of notice of this debate and I am sure that he has been fully briefed about the depth and extent of suspicion and fear in Birmingham. Everyone will read his words with enormous attention, and I hope that he will give us some clear answers.
  Was there or is there a plan for a new hospital on the site? If so, when was the plan drawn up, and is there a budget? Will the primary role of the planned hospital be ambulatory care and a day treatment centre? There may be some beds because of the accident and emergency function, but there is an assumption that there will be a substantial reduction in emergency medical admissions. Rather than the current practice of admitting patients for 24-hour stays, they would be assessed, have their treatment prescribed and be discharged to the care of their

  563
  GP. Is that the sort of hospital that is planned? Is the plan for a hospital of the same size as the existing City hospital, or will there be a greatly reduced hospital?
  Are other hospitals in Birmingham facing similar plans? Is only City hospital to be downsized? Has City hospital been picked for a national experiment? That was the suggestion in a letter received by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, which seemed to describe a new kind of hospital with no beds and in which people are treated overnight and sent home. If so, will the Minister explain why one of the poorest communities in this country has been chosen for that experiment?
  Surely it would be better to choose an area in which people have good housing, warm homes, high-quality food and support and relatives to care for them for that experiment. It is inconceivable that anyone serious about health planning would carry out such an experiment—if it is desirable at all—in such a poor community. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that proposition.
  Why has City hospital been singled out for the experiment? I suggest to the Minister that the reason might be the inability to pay for services provided at City hospital. That goes back to the funding formula, which gives too little money for our part of the city. It is a poor and needy community in which people do not live as long. Therefore, the entitlement which comes from an area having a large number of elderly people is not triggered.
  I think that the scheme is market-driven. The money is running out, and that is why the plans are changing weekly and monthly. A mad new idea has come up for a cottage hospital service for a very needy area. The Rowntree reports have clearly demonstrated the growing inequality in this country, and with increasing poverty goes increasing ill-health. In poorer areas, there is more sickness and ill-health, and there is an enhanced need for money for medical treatment.
  Primary care is not well developed in west Birmingham. If there is to be an experiment, surely an area should be chosen that has high-quality primary care. If people are to be sent home immediately, high-quality GPs and community nurses must be available to care for them.
  Is it true that fundholders in the west midlands have a £40 million surplus this year? If so, and I believe that it is, that is an outrage. The crisis has been triggered by a shortfall of £4 million, which was caused by the hospital being so successful in increasing its throughput. The mad market experiment in which the Government are engaged means that fundholders have £40 million that they do not need. A crisis is being faced by the people of Birmingham as a consequence of the mad experiment in commercial forces in which the Government are engaged.
  I understand that the west midlands was the only region in the country that chose a nine-month waiting list initiative instead of a 12-month one. Where did that money come from, and where did it go? Is it not more important to pay the bills for City hospital and to keep it going? Is it not true that the money is increasingly in the wrong places, and that the most needy are experiencing worse health care?
  I suggest to the Minister that City hospital is an inappropriate setting for the experiment of a cottage hospital in the middle of a city. I understand from our local newspaper that the £4 million missing for this year has been settled, but I want an undertaking that it will be
  564
  settled for longer than this year. We met the Secretary of State for Health, who promised us that she would attend to the funding formula problem. But it is not good enough to provide £4 million for this year and then say that there will be a crisis next year.
  That hospital needs stability, and all concerned want to know where things stand. A group of GPs and hospital doctors are currently going through every service that the hospital provides, looking at all modern developments and making sure that we plan for the future. We must make sure that we have proper provision for the people of west Birmingham. We are not against change, but we want decent services for the people whom we represent.
  We do not need this new hospital. We are being conned. I was born in Dudley Road hospital, and my family has been cared for there throughout our lives. I have been in and out of the hospital throughout my life. It is a big old Victorian hospital in large grounds. Of course it needs some attention here and some further work there, but all sorts of building developments are taking place on the site. It is not falling apart, but out of the blue we were told that the hospital was to be pulled down and some tiny cottage hospital built.
  I am told that there are strange capital charges in the funding formula. Is there some distortion in the formula that means that a large old hospital—no matter how adequate, warm and well maintained—is somehow more costly, and therefore must be got rid of?
  I very much hope that the Minister will give some adequate answers tonight. Everyone in Birmingham will be watching the Minister, with the help of our newspapers. If he, his Administration and the regional executive carry on their threats, we will cause so much fuss, agitation and protest in the city that he and they will regret that they ever dared to try to close or replace City hospital.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I must be clear that he has the sanction of both the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville)indicated assent.
  Ms Short indicated assent.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for allowing me to participate in this Adjournment debate, and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) may also be allowed to take part. We have been lucky—it is the first bit of luck that City hospital has had—to have extended time for this debate, and we should make good use of it.
  I do not want to be repetitious. The Minister will be the most famous man in Birmingham tomorrow, because all his words will be read. The people in the city are aware of my views and of those of my hon. Friends, but they will want to know the Minister's views.
  City hospital served the old West Birmingham health authority which—before the amalgamation last year—consisted of the four wards in my constituency, all the

  565
  constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood and one ward in the constituency of Small Heath. West Birmingham health authority's calculations and reports from the former director of public health—all of which have been published—show that it is the most unhealthy part of England in which to live. A whole series of indicators—early death rates among adults, suicides, accidents in the home, perinatal mortality rates and low birth weight babies—confirm that.
  We need a good hospital and better primary health care. We are debating a part of Birmingham that is not wealthy and is unhealthy: that point must be taken on board. Since the trusts were formed and the current spate of reorganisation, there has not been as much contact between those who run the health authorities and Members of Parliament as there was previously. We have had crisis meetings in the past, and we have certainly had such meetings in the past few weeks. There has been no full and frank exchange of views and thoughts.
  That may be because those currently involved in health planning in Birmingham know what happened in the days of Sir James Acker's reign at the West Midlands regional health authority, when there was one plan after another for Birmingham and we went to one Secretary of State after another. The consensus among my hon. Friends was that, by and large, we had been conned regarding the proposed hospital closures and other changes in health care. The good times that we were promised have not arrived. Therefore, we are bound to be a little sceptical and, for that reason, the current health planners have decided not to talk to Members of Parliament.
  However, rumours were rife around the city. They could not be pinned down. The regional chief executive said that he did not know the origins of the idea that there were one too many hospitals in Birmingham. At meetings that I attended in the last decade to discuss health planning issues in Birmingham—right back to when we devised the "Plan for a Healthy Birmingham"—we were told that, according to population changes and new modern medical techniques, Birmingham had one hospital too many.
  We were never told which hospital it was, and general hospital was framed for closure. It was not a fully fledged district general hospital. It was located in the city centre, but it was not a large hospital—I do not think that it ever had more than 400 beds and three operating theatres. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, I was born at the former maternity hospital in Loveday street, which is attached to general hospital.
  When the city centre hospital ceased functioning as a mini district general hospital—it serves various other purposes today—we were told that modern health techniques in hospitals required the construction of large district general hospitals in order to deal with all complications that might arise as a consequence of patient treatment. We said at the time that the hospital was useful for dealing with accidents and emergencies because of its proximity to the city centre and that it was very easy to reach.
  We were then told that Dudley Road hospital was a city centre hospital. The authorities were very clever to change its name to City hospital, because that gives people outside Birmingham the impression that it is located in the city centre. As a Brummie, I would not describe Dudley Road hospital as a city centre hospital. Many of
  566
  my constituents have difficulty reaching it, and it is their district general hospital. It is sometimes easier for them to travel to Sandwell hospital or to Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield.
  Over the years, we got the impression that the planners wanted to close one hospital in Birmingham, but we could not tell which one it would be, as building work was under way almost constantly at Dudley Road hospital, Good Hope hospital, East Birmingham hospital—which was renamed Heartlands—as well as at the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. It was extremely difficult to forecast what would happen.
  After a period of quiet and lack of discussion, it appears that Dudley Road hospital is to close—notwithstanding the fact that the maternity hospital is located there and that the new eye hospital is being built on that site. I have no complaints about the fact that there is to be a bedless hospital. I think that some of the headlines about that have been unfair, bearing in mind that it will be situated next to an 850-bed district general hospital. However, if an 850-bed district general hospital is not located next to the new eye hospital, we will have a problem. The Minister must be made aware of that.
  The current eye hospital in the city centre has been closed many times for health reasons and its current lease is about to expire. Hence, a new eye hospital is to be built on the Dudley Road site. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the Dudley Road hospital.
  Mr. Sackville indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rooker: I hope that he will visit it soon. When he does, he will see that a large part of the site has been cleared recently. Many of the oldest parts of the Dudley Road site—which are more than 100 years old—have been demolished. Part of the site was the old workhouse. However, the entrance to that former workhouse has been retained as it is a listed building and therefore cannot be demolished. A great monolith representing part of Birmingham's history remains while the rest of the area has been demolished.
  A district general hospital containing 850 beds is not a large district general hospital; it is a modest hospital. We are now very short of emergency beds in Birmingham. No one in his right mind wants disasters to occur, but it is the responsibility of all those involved in political life to plan for the future. If people turn on a power switch and the lights do not come on, they will not thank us when we say, "Sorry, we did not build enough power stations." Similarly, if there is a rail or aircraft disaster, we cannot say, "Sorry, we got rid of the spare hospital beds on the orders of the accountants."
  Last week I asked what would happen if a 747 crashed in Birmingham. Many senior people replied that not many people would be injured. That is not the right way to approach the issue. It is no use saying that the health service will stop and that we will get on the telephone and locate empty beds. If we reduce the number of beds available at Dudley Road—whether or not the hospital is rebuilt—we are courting full-scale disaster in Birmingham.
  My noble Friend Lord Howell of Aston Manor, a former Member of this place, recently waited 12 hours for a bed on the day before his operation was to take place. He asked for nothing more than his rights as a patient of the national health service. He had gone to that hospital

  567
  all his life, yet he had to wait 12 hours for a bed in order to undergo an operation the next day. He experienced the problems at that hospital at first hand.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood mentioned the current spate of rumours surrounding the fate of the hospital. There was a press report about the possible closure of the Dudley Road maternity hospital, and before the most serious rumours took off, I was contacted by doctors from the Laurie Pike health centre—formerly the Birchfield medical centre—in my constituency. It is a world-class local primary health care general practitioner practice. Doctors who want to learn how to run a good practice with their own researchers and who wish to get out into the community practise in that centre. I once sent the former Home Secretary, the present Foreign Secretary, to that centre to learn what was happening in inner-city health care. I told him to talk to the doctors rather than to the self-appointed community leaders.
  The doctors in that centre wrote to me saying:
  "We are GPs in the Laurie Pike Health Centre caring for patients in Perry Barr, Aston, Handsworth and surrounding areas for which the City Hospital, Dudley Road is the main provider of secondary and maternity care.
  We are deeply concerned about the implications of the proposed closure of the maternity and possibly other departments at the City Hospital. This would seriously affect the care of our patients and indeed all those in the catchment area.
  It would not only be difficult, particularly for pregnant patients to travel to the Maternity Hospital or Good Hope but we do not consider that they would receive comparable care".
  The press reports about that proposed closure were worrying enough, but on VE day, as I sat in the cathedral an hour before the start of the commemorative service, two people approached me within half an hour of each other to ask whether I had heard rumours about the possible bulldozing of Dudley Road hospital. I had not heard those rumours before that day.
  I then wrote a letter of no more than 50 words to the chief executive asking him to comment on the press reports about the closure of the maternity hospital and about the rumour that I had heard. The rest is history. The chief executive, Mr. Tarver, replied to me by letter. I understand that he has been ill recently and I wish him a speedy return to health. He has served West Birmingham health authority and the City hospital trust with distinction. He wrote me a frank letter in which he answered my questions and commented upon the rumours. I was horrified: it was the first I had heard of town hospitals. The new concept involved bulldozing district general hospitals and replacing them with small town hospitals located in the suburbs.
  I am in favour of small town hospitals as a complement to district general hospitals, but not as an alternative to them. My constituency suffers from the lack of good-quality health centres where minor operations may be performed and where localised aftercare could be provided in the community prior to patients returning home. Small town hospitals should not be an alternative to the City hospital and the work that it does.
  I was concerned about that proposal, and I made Mr. Tarver's letter public. I asked the medical journalist at the Birmingham Evening Mail, Mr. Derek Weekes, to investigate the matter. I am 100 miles away for four days every week and he was able to speak to many people. My hon. Friend has quite rightly paid tribute to the Birmingham Evening Mail for its excellence in reporting
  568
  general health-care issues and the NHS in Birmingham. Its reporting of those issues was of a high quality before the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) took control of the company, and the newspaper has maintained that standard ever since. It is to the credit of the editor and journalists concerned.
  The staff at the hospital asked the management whether they could have a copy of the letter that Mr. Tarver had sent me. They were refused, because of all the complicated questions that I had asked. I had written a 50-word letter enclosing a newspaper cutting about the possible closure of the maternity unit and asking for comments on what I had heard in the cathedral on VE Day. I did not ask a series of detailed questions. I have done so since, but it is obvious that there was less than openness with the staff. That is the root cause of the problem.
  If the Minister wants to get a grip on the matter and stop what has become a public relations disaster for health service management in the west midlands, and consequently the Government, the one sure way to do it is by total openness. It is only a few weeks since the new code of open practice in the health service was launched by the Secretary of State.
  I take no joy in the matter. What has happened in Birmingham is tragic. It is causing consternation among our constituents as GPs, patients and families of patients. It is totally unnecessary and it can be cured only by openness in thinking and sharing thoughts about health service planning with consultants, GPs and hospital staff. It is not happening because of money, accountants and budgets. One hospital has been set against another because of the market. That is the difficulty, and the Minister is the only person who can do anything about it.
  I look forward to hearing his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood about the proposed £100 million hospital. Mr. Edwards, the regional director of the NHS, wrote to me on 23 May. His letter consisted of three sentences, each a paragraph. The middle one was:
  "Do you want a new hospital or not?".
  Frankly, no one had ever offered a new hospital. My answer is that I am not sure, for the following reason. There is no question about the site being large. It is bordered by main roads and the canal. It is not far from the prison. Where would the new hospital go? Would the present one be knocked down to clear the site for a new one? Would the new one be built somewhere else while the present hospital is operating 850 beds?
  Someone has to answer some practical questions about putting another hospital on the site. Even with modern building techniques, there is no room to put another hospital of the same size on the site while maintaining the existing provision. The idea that the hospital at Dudley Road could be knocked down and everyone squeezed into all the other hospitals in Birmingham, if accepted, would be the final nail in the coffin. It would get rid of the spare hospital in Birmingham because, on the evidence of the past 10 years, I do not believe that a new one would ever be built once the site was cleared. That is a real problem.
  Openness has to be the way forward. That openness has to include the meetings of the health authority and the trust. The Birmingham Post did some work on that issue. There were five meetings concerning Birmingham health service trusts and authorities, all behind closed doors. The journalists went to an open session and found that

  569
  members of the authorities were not asking questions. It has been left to Members of Parliament and The Birmingham Post to ask some key questions of those in charge of the health service.
  It is not always easy to find out who is in charge of the health service. The way in which it has been reorganised means that accountability has been diffused, spread and blurred. That in itself causes difficulty; therefore, sometimes we have to reach for our press pack or press six-gun. We cannot get the answers because we cannot find out who is accountable. It is all part of the consequences of constant reorganisation and lack of accountability.
  There is also considerable lack of accountability in the House, as the Minister will make it clear that it has nothing to do with him—it is the trust for this, the trust for that, with this authority or that authority making the decisions. That is not good enough. We want some accountability in the House of Commons for a public service that is supported and loved by the vast majority of people in Britain.
  I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has said. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions and make the position absolutely clear so that it cannot be misunderstood by anyone, even by the most malicious of the Government's political opponents.
  I am not seeking to make party political capital out of the issue. I want the truth for my constituents and the citizens of Birmingham, but I cannot secure that if the Minister and the health service are not open with me. If I feel that they are not being open and that I am being misled, I shall use arguments that border on a political attack as they are my only weapons as a Member of Parliament.
  I should rather satisfy my constituents and the doctors that we shall maintain quality health care at City hospital, with progress and advancement. Nobody wants to ossify what we have; we want to advance on a range of issues.
  It has been an unfortunate three or four weeks for the health service in west Birmingham, the knock-on effects of which have affected the rest of the city. That has done the health service no good, the Government much damage and, above all, has given my constituents some unnecessary sleepless nights.
  I shall not recite individual cases, but I have been deluged with letters from constituents complaining to me about occurrences in the past few months that they thought they could put up with, but they now realise how much pressure the staff have been under at Dudley Road. The hospital has treated 13 per cent. more patients in the past year. That is part of the reason for the present financial difficulty. I consider 13 per cent. more patients to be a success. The hospital should not be penalised because of the way in which the Government organise health service finances.
  I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say and the Minister's detailed response to the debate.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: With the permission of the House, I shall make a short contribution to the debate. A few weeks, ago I left the House early. I went back to my constituency on a Thursday
  570
  to find an article in the newspaper that day talking about a £100 million investment in City hospital. I was not aware of the correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had with City hospital. I was suddenly confronted with the news of a£100 million investment and I was asked for my reaction. My initial reaction was that I wanted to look at the fine print and I was rather sceptical.
  In Birmingham we have heard quite a lot about mega-investment in hospitals over the past few years. Not many years ago, we had the so-called "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan. At that stage we were promised an investment of £500 million in new and refurbished hospitals in the city. We were told—and we knew—that the hospital stock in Birmingham had not had sufficient investment for many years. Part of that investment included a new children's hospital.
  The "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan was unpopular because the regional health authority in one of its guises had not talked to many people about it and when it did, it did not listen to them. When that plan was dropped, nobody shed many tears, but a couple of years later—about two years ago—a new document called "Looking Forward" told us that we would have investment of more than £100 million in hospital services in Birmingham.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is not a general debate about hospital services in Birmingham. It is a very specific debate about Dudley Road hospital.
  Mr. Burden: The relevance to Dudley Road will become clear. It relates directly to a letter about Dudley Road and the dinner to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred concerning Dudley Road, which puts the issue in the context of hospital developments in Birmingham.
  "Looking Forward" talked about around £100 million investment. I took that up with the Minister responsible for health in another place who explained that it was not really a cut in hospital investment. I could not see that. The new programme promised no new children's hospital, just a rejigged children's hospital on another site, but we were promised a new emphasis on primary care.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no use the hon. Gentleman acknowledging a ruling from the Chair and then starting to talk about primary care, which has little to do with Dudley Road.
  Mr. Burden: I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend made the point that, if Dudley Road is to close as a district general hospital and there is not sufficient primary care in Birmingham, the idea being mooted of a network of cottage hospitals could not be effective.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman. This is the first time in three minutes that he has even mentioned Dudley Road. I will be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman will remark specifically about Dudley Road, and make such other allusions as may be relevant. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not referred to Dudley Road.
  Mr. Burden: Because of public concern about Dudley Road, the chair of NHS Executive West Midlands, Brian Edwards, wrote to all Birmingham Members of Parliament on 6 June. He explained:
  "I thought it might be helpful if I put events into the sequence in which they occurred."
  Item 3 states:
  "On 26 April Brian Edwards met the Chief Executives of all hospitals in Birmingham to discuss how hospitals might work together to improve services and reduce unnecessary costs. Roger Tarver, of City Hospital, copied his personal notes of the meeting to his fellow Directors."
  I have a copy of those notes. The third paragraph states:
  "Regional officers had decided that a new, but much smaller, hospital should be built at Dudley Road."
  However, Mr. Baker's letter continued:
  "We have absolutely no plans to close City Hospital. It not only services a very needy local population but also plays an essential part in the fabric of the Health Service in Birmingham."
  Personal notes or not, it is clear that City hospital's chief executive believed from a meeting attended by representatives of all the hospitals in the area and of the regional health authority, to plan future hospital services in Birmingham, that City hospital as we know it was to be replaced by a new, smaller hospital—and that some of the services that it and other hospitals provide would be rejigged elsewhere.
  Roger Tarver's notes state:
  "The Birmingham Women's Health Care Trust—not wishing to become a baby factory—could provide services for complicated births and neonatals currently dealt with at City Hospital."
  So we need to ask what plans there are for maternity services at City hospital. Another note observes:
  "An option appraisal is to be developed for the relocation of orthopaedic services from the Woodlands site. It will compare a new build at the City Hospital with use of the new Solihull Hospital, given that there appear to be limited uses for the latter, the preferred solution is predictable."
  That concerns me because, on the face of it, that note states that Dudley Road will have a new range of services, including extra orthopaedic services—but that they might go to Solihull hospital instead. The point is, though, that those services would come from Woodlands hospital on the borders of my constituency, which has been the subject of a long and well supported campaign over the past two years to remain open. We thought that it had finally been reprieved just a few months ago, and it has been given trust status. It could now lose its lifeblood of orthopaedic services to City hospital. We must have answers.
  When the new regime arrived in West Midlands regional health authority, it was at pains to emphasise that it wanted to be open and have a dialogue with Members of Parliament and the people of Birmingham. We were told that the lessons of the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan had been learnt and that henceforth, everything would be above aboard, and everybody would be involved and told what was happening. The events of the past few weeks leave me most worried. The Birmingham Evening Mail is right to print the words "We are watching you" whenever it mentions the issue. We do not currently have enough confidence in the system to know what is happening.
  At an apparently private dinner on 26 April, the City hospital chief executive took personal notes that imply comprehensive reorganisation of Birmingham health
  572
  services, involving the possible transfer of orthopaedics from my constituency to Solihull hospital, which is under threat, or to Dudley Road. There is mention of maternity services now at Dudley Road being transferred to the women's hospital, and of changes at the children's hospital.
  Those matters are of major public concern. Every time I ask the regional health authority what is going on, we are told that planning is a matter for individual trusts. Now we are told that all the trusts and hospitals have got together with the regional health authority over dinner to devise a new blueprint for Birmingham hospital services.
  We must know what is happening. I am pleased that we are meeting the regional health authority chief executive in a day or so, and I hope that he will give answers. I hope that Ministers can give answers as well. All the problems that London—which has received a good deal of publicity over health care—is experiencing are equally important in Birmingham. The future of local hospitals are important to local people. They made their views crystal clear in the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" debate. They want to be listened to and to have say. They do not want to be bounced into things, and they want people to be straight with them.
  What is the future of City hospital? How big will it be? How many beds will it have? If there are plans to build a new hospital, we have a right to know how it will be financed. As my hon. Friend said, the capital charges debate has bedevilled a number of Birmingham hospital projects, including the children's hospital rebuild.
  Added to that is the private finance initiative. My experience of it in Birmingham relates to a new primary health care centre, when it led to further delays in the building programme. If City hospital is to be rebuilt, will private finance be sought? If so, from where? Will it be just an injection of private capital into something that will remain a national health service development in all its aspects—I mean, one owned and run by the NHS, and whose ancillaries services will be run by the NHS? If we do not receive a clear answer, I will be profoundly worried.
  I hope that the Minister will answer our questions today and will also tell the people who run the NHS Executive West Midlands that, before they embark on mega-reorganisations in future, they must talk to Members of Parliament and to the people of Birmingham.
  8.18 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: With the leave of the House, I shall make a short contribution to this Adjournment debate. My constituency is not in west Birmingham but lies to the east, and Heartlands is my district hospital. I want to emphasise the importance of the matter to the whole of the city.
  At risk is the confidence that Birmingham people were just about beginning to have in health provision management in the west midlands. The Minister will not need reminding that West Midlands regional health authority and Birmingham hospitals have been through a difficult time in recent years. There is a history of mismanagement and poor service. One of the worst effects of that was that it damaged public morale and the public's confidence in their hospitals.
  There has been a period of quiet over the past year or 18 months since the new administrators took office, and some good things have happened. The fact that waiting

  573
  times in all our hospitals, including Dudley Road, have fallen is much to be welcomed. There has been a healing process; the period of quiet has been a time when people's experience of hospitals—although by no means satisfactory, and no excuse for resting on laurels—has not been as bad as it was two or three years ago.
  Now there is a perception among people throughout Birmingham that the period of quiet has been used as an opportunity to plan the closure of another hospital. That is tragic. Not only would it be a tragedy if Dudley Road were closed, but the recovery of morale among the people of the city would be hindered. The Minister must begin quickly to explain the intentions of his administrators as regards the city of Birmingham.
  This problem is a festering sore. If it is left to fester, the people who live in the west of the city—the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—will not know the future of their health care in hospital, and they will be pitched into a period of uncertainty that we could well do without. It is the very last thing we want.
  Furthermore, we do not want the public's lack of confidence in the hospital administrators to be allowed to grow. We do not want to have to come to the Minister and tell him that, if he is going to save Birmingham's hospitals, he will have to change the chief executive and the hierarchy again.
  Let us nip the problem in the bud. Let us have some openness and some clear answers, so that we and the people of Birmingham can take part in the debate, if one is to take place. People in the west of Birmingham must not be left uncertain as to whether they will have a hospital. They need to know that the people running our hospital service are prepared to consult them about what has been going on behind their backs, and that they will not act without taking their views into account.
  We ask, first, for an assurance that Dudley Road will continue; secondly, for an assurance that the administration of our hospitals is in good hands and will be opened up. Thirdly, we ask, even today, for an end to the rumours, scaremongering and uncertainty that are plaguing everyone who works in our hospital service—and all the families who look to it for their health care.
  8.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has sought this debate. Indeed, I am not surprised that she has. I have seen some of the headlines in the various Birmingham newspapers; clearly things have been said, which have caused alarm. I should like to do what I can to calm those fears, although in doing so I also recommend that hon. Members present for the debate meet the regional health authority—I believe that they intend to do so. Mr. Brian Edwards will be in a position to reinforce what I am about to say.
  There are no plans to close the City hospital, otherwise known as the Dudley Road hospital. There have been suggestions and discussions—this is all now in the open—between many of the chief executives and other local
  574
  employees of the health service about the possible advantages of redeveloping City hospital, for a number of reasons.
  Clearly, the hospital is a large and rambling site. It is also of a certain age and, as Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of the RHA, put it—much better than I could:
  "Although the staff at City Hospital provide an excellent service, the buildings are now as much a hindrance as a help, particularly the cramped Accident and Emergency and Out-patient building at the front of the hospital, and the long corridor of wards in the main block."
  So there is apparently general agreement among those working for the health authorities and trusts concerned that patients and staff could probably benefit from a new development of the hospital.
  That is not to say that the hospital will close, or that the services there will be withdrawn. But all over the country, older hospitals, particularly those that are rambling and difficult for staff and patients, are being redeveloped. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on building new hospitals or building new wings on current hospitals, and that is good. Thus, I was a little concerned to hear the hon. Lady apparently rejecting out of hand the idea of a redevelopment. She should not do that.
  Ms Short: No one would reject a redevelopment of the local hospital, although it is not such a shambles as to amount to a crisis. It does not need to be pulled down; it works quite well. People like the space in older hospitals. What we reject is a cottage hospital. If we are being conned with one, we do not want any part of it. We would rather keep what we have.
  Mr. Sackville: I can reassure the hon. Lady that it will not be a cottage hospital or a tiny hospital. I acknowledge that the notes circulated by Mr. Tarver, and his letter, were open to alarmist interpretations. The view that he expressed was not, as far as I know, shared by his board or the other authorities involved. It should be seen merely as a contribution to the preliminary part of an important debate that will take place on the buildings at the City hospital.
  If there is to be a new development and it is thought that there are good reasons for one, it will be the subject of a great deal of open consultation. As a Health Minister, I would expect no less. The resulting hospital is likely to be physically smaller than hospitals that would have been built some time ago. There are a number of reasons for that: hospital design, and the fact that there is much more day surgery these days. Stays in hospital are shorter; much more work is done in the form of out-patient work. Some conditions that used to require stays of a week or more are treated in one day now, or even require no in-patient admission at all. There is no argument between us on that point—hence the emergence of smaller hospitals.
  As that process continues around the country, we find that more patients are being treated. To quote a well-worn statistic: we now treat more than 120 patients for every 100 treated four or five years ago—after making allowance for the small change in the method of counting, from deaths and discharges to finished consultant episodes.
  Mr. Rooker: I am elected to represent the citizens of Birmingham, and we are also here in Parliament to take a national overview. My experience tells me that we cannot

  575
  use what is happening in the rest of the country to organise Birmingham. The fact is that we have been short-changed on our hospital care for a decade or more. Primary health care infrastructure has not been built up to cope with the changes in the hospitals. The pressures on the community care services exerted by speeding patients through hospitals, and bringing them back to hospital time and again, have brought those services to breaking point. That is why I am worried by talk of a smaller hospital without guarantees that primary health care and the necessary mini-health centres around Birmingham will be in place before we start.
  Mr. Sackville: A reduction in the number of beds—we have heard all the arguments about that, especially in London recently—must be accompanied by a discussion with everyone concerned and by every attempt to reassure the public, along with the provision of suitable primary care and other community care facilities. We cannot rely on a change to day surgery alone. If we are to reduce the number of acute beds, we must ensure that there are facilities to treat people elsewhere. It is often an improvement from a health point of view to treat people in their homes or near their homes instead of admitting them to hospital. In terms of outcome, that is often an improvement. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that we must not proceed with bed reductions without being sure that the facilities that are needed are put in place.
  I was asked specific questions by the hon. Member for Ladywood. She asked whether there were plans for a new hospital. No, there are not. There have been some preliminary discussions, the general outcome of which is that it is likely to be advantageous to redevelop City hospital. The hon. Lady asked me when that would happen. That I cannot answer, because there are no firm plans at present. She asked me what the budget would be. I do not know, because in advance of detailed proposals for major hospital schemes, it is impossible to make any estimate. I can only tell the hon. Lady that there are many schemes throughout the country where £50 million or more in capital is being spent, in either building a new hospital or redeveloping parts of major hospitals.
  Mr. Burden: The chief executive of the NHS Executive West Midlands has specifically mentioned £100 million in talking about the City hospital site. May we be clear that there is no plan for an investment of £100 million? May we take it that it could be more or less, and that mention of £100 million should not be taken as a guarantee?
  Mr. Sackville: That is correct. It would be impossible to calculate at this stage the capital cost of a major new future development. Such a figure would be an informed guess of the cost of development and would make it a major hospital development. We are tending to see smaller hospitals rather than larger ones.
  There is no question of an experiment. The words used by Mr. Tarver described his own view. The most likely outcome of any discussion on redevelopment is a more traditional hospital model, even if that is accompanied by a certain amount of provision for community facilities.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood also asked me about extra funding for the deficit that is still being experienced in the finances of City hospital. As she knows, that money has been made available. It will be made available,
  576
  however, on the condition that plans are laid to bring the finances of the trust into balance, as with every other trust throughout the country. She should not suppose from what I have just said that there will be massive redundancies or cuts in services.
  Ms Short: I hope that the Minister listened to what I said about the problem arising from the formula for funding west Birmingham. We are faced with a problem of success. The hospital has treated more patients. We cannot make up the deficit without a reorganisation of the funding. Everyone who works in the hospital has worked harder. The problem with funding is not the fault of the staff. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that funding will be examined specifically.
  Mr. Sackville: I would expect the regional health authority and the districts concerned to arrive at a fair method of allocating funds to match the problems—social, medical and others—of the local population. The hon. Lady makes an important point.
  I have been assured that, if redundancies are necessary, the trust would hope to confine them to support services and administration. It would not be looking for redundancies. It would be more likely to seek a freezing of vacancies to ensure that savings could be made without painful, large-scale redundancies or damage to patient services. It is an exercise that has had to be undertaken at several hospitals throughout the country. The hon. Lady will rarely, if ever, have heard of large-scale redundancies in our acute hospitals.
  The hon. Members for Ladywood and for Perry Barr asked about openness. I give an undertaking that no plans will be brought forward in secret. If there are to be developments at City hospital, they will be discussed widely.
  I reiterate that it is unfortunate that various rumours have circulated and that Mr. Tarver's remarks have been misinterpreted, giving rise to the idea that the hospital will close. There are no plans to close City hospital.
  Mr. Rooker: I have not had any discussions with Mr. Tarver for about two and a half years. Given what has been said, and in the light of the letter last week from the regional executive disowning Mr. Tarver's letter to me, I seek an assurance that Mr. Tarver, who has been a loyal servant to the health authority, will not be made a scapegoat because of the bad publicity that has been received by the RHA. It is bad enough that consultants have been threatened with the sack for talking to Members here and in the other place. We shall not accept the scapegoating of any servant of the health service in Birmingham for doing his duty and telling the truth. I seek the Minister's assurance that Mr. Tarver will not be scapegoated.
  Mr. Sackville: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred should not be seen as anything more than a contribution to the debate.
  Ms Short: Mr. Tarver is deeply respected by everyone who lives in the area of which I represent a part. Perhaps he was more honest than some when discussions took place at dinners. Rumours have been confirmed by several different sources. We are not dealing only with Mr. Tarver's minute.

  577
  It would be intolerable if it were suggested that he should be penalised in any way. We consider him to be a good man and we want him to continue to work for the trust.
  Mr. Sackville: I note the defence that has been mounted on behalf of Mr. Tarver. I am not attacking him. I am trying to put in context the views that have been expressed, which have clearly led to considerable alarm.
  It was said by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) that in the west midlands, especially in Birmingham, there has been a period of relative calm about health matters in recent months, and perhaps over the past year or more. That is to be welcomed, and I hope that it will continue.
  578
  Much has happened over the past few months. More patients are being treated. About £26 million is being spent on improving primary care facilities. There has been a remarkable achievement in waiting times, as the hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned. The redevelopment of City hospital has been mooted and it should be good news for health in Birmingham if it goes ahead.
  Birmingham is acknowledged as a centre of excellence. It is home to Europe's first quick and early diagnosis unit for cancer treatment. It is one of the country's designated heart transplant centres. New and high-quality accident and emergency facilities are being developed in a number of places. There is good news. It is unfortunate that certain reports have given rise to alarm. I hope that I have been able to put the matter in context.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Pension Payments
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many staff employed by right hon. and hon. Members and funded by the office cost allowance had payments made to personal pension providers in each year since 1989; what is the average length of membership of such personal pension schemes for(a) those who have now left their employment in Parliament and (b) those who are still employed in Westminster; and for how many of such members are (i) regular premium payments and (ii) single premium payments made by the House.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of payments made to personal pension providers on behalf of staff employed by right hon. and hon. Members who are funded from the office costs allowance for the past five financial years is as follows:

  1990–91: 1,057

  1991–92: 1,113

  1992–93: 1,264

  1993–94: 1,375

  1994–95: 1,423

  Records are not centrally held to enable answers to be given to the remaining specific questions asked.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 216, (1) when 1993–94 data on trust surpluses and deficits will be available;

  (2) if she will now publish a list of which trusts failed to (a) break even, (b) keep within the external financing limit and (c) record a 6 per cent. return on capital, and by what percentage and sum in 1993–94;

  (3) if she will now publish a list of trust turnover for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 December 1994, c. 396]: I regret that there were errors in the table provided in my previous reply.

  An amended table has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has in respect of employment packages offered by an NHS trust which include private medical insurance as an integral or an optional part; and if she will make a statement. [27402]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. National health service trusts have powers under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to employ staff on whatever terms they think fit.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 594, what information her Department holds centrally in respect of contracts for health and hospital services awarded by health authorities and NHS trusts under the competitive tendering process. [27414]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 June at column 28 for information about contracts for clinical services awarded after competitive tender by national health service trust in England. Information about the award of such contracts by district health authorities is not available centrally.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dedicated private operating theatres there are in NHS hospital trusts; [27422]

  (2) how many dedicated private operating theatres have opened in NHS hospital trusts in the past year. [27421]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records of dedicated private operating theatres in national health service hospital trusts are not available centrally. Operating theatres should be organised in relation to the needs of the whole hospital.

  Clinical Negligence Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the health authority in charge of the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, indicating their gender, occupation and any other NHS responsibility. [27094]

  Mr. Malone
  The regulations in respect of the special health authority to administer the clinical negligence scheme for trusts are being prepared and will be laid before Parliament for approval in the near future. An announcement of the membership of the proposed new health authority will be made in due course.

  Capital Underspending
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 776, on capital underspending, when she expects to publish the 1994–95 figures. [27906]

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of underspending on 1994–95 regional health authority capital cash limits are expected to be available at the end of July.

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney Community Health Centre
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her plans for the future of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney community health council. [27551]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority. It is responsible for ensuring that its local community health councils are able to reflect the views of the communities it serves. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Stuart Burgess, chairman of the regional health authority, for details.

  Suspended Consultants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants are currently suspended in the national health service by region; and for how long each consultant has been suspended. [27783]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. Decisions on employment matters, including possible suspensions, rest with the employing authority.

  NHS Executive Letters
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last updated NHS executive circular EL(93) 113. [27903]

  Mr. Sackville
  This executive letter is extant but will shortly be reviewed.

  GP Vacancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 776, what information on GP vacancies her Department holds centrally. [27907]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Information on general practitioner vacancies is held by the medical practices committee.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of cosmetic surgery operations that are currently carried out by NHS plastic surgeons are performed to correct previous cosmetic surgery performed in the private sector; [28174]

  (2) what is the annual cost to the national health service of cosmetic treatment and surgery in the last three years. [28180]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints her Department has received related to liposuction surgery in the last year. [28178]

  Mr. Sackville
  Five.

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to regulate private cosmetic surgery clinics. [28177]

  Mr. Sackville
  All private clinics where surgical procedures are carried out under anaesthesia are required to register with the local health authority under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. They have to satisfy requirements as to the facilities and the level and qualifications of staff. There are no plans further to regulate private cosmetic surgery clinics.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has made of the number of people who undergo cosmetic surgery each year; and what percentage of this number takes place in the private sector. [28181]

  (2)what percentage of plastic surgery performed by the NHS is for cosmetic purposes. [28175]

  Mr. Sackville
  Data available do not distinguish cosmetic surgery from other plastic surgery procedures.
  362
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints her Department has received related to cosmetic surgery in the last two years. [28179]

  Mr. Sackville
  Thirty-six.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received on the regulation of cosmetic surgery in the private sector. [28176]

  Mr. Sackville
  Nine written representations in the last two years.

  Planned Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the planned real change in spending on the national health service between 1995–96 and 1996–97 expressed(a) in percentage terms and (b) as an absolute sum; and if she will make a statement. [28143]

  Mr. Sackville
  Government spending on the national health service is planned to be £32.9 billion in 1996–97. This is an increase of 0.5 per cent. in real terms over 1995–96 plans, equivalent to some £160 million at 1995–96 prices. Plans for 1996–97 are subject to review in the public expenditure survey.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people aged 25 years and under have died(a) in prison and (b) in police custody in Northern Ireland in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) so far this year. [26376]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No-one aged 25 or under died in prison or the young offenders centre in Northern Ireland in either 1993 or 1995. There was one death by suicide in 1994.

  No person aged 25 or under died in police custody during the period specified.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. David Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis the Anglo-Irish secretariat collectively gave oral and written evidence to J. J. Rowe QC for his report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. [26577]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In the preparation of his report, J. J. Rowe QC took views from the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat given on behalf of the Irish Government.

  Prior Options Study
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the result of the prior options study of the estate services directorate within the health and personal social services management executive of the Department of Health and Social Services. [28540]

  Mr. Moss
  Following a prior options study, I have decided to begin preparations with a view to establishing the estate services directorate as a next steps agency in October 1995. The agency will be developed with a view to further private sector involvement, and to this end the
  363
  chief executive will consider the potential for the privatisation of aspects of the agency's business, and provide me with recommendations in due course.

  Codes of Practice
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to amend the police and criminal evidence codes of practice in Northern Ireland. [28541]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland PACE codes of practice have recently undergone a thorough review. A considerable number of amendments have been proposed including a new, shorter police caution and the introduction of a new code on tape-recording of interviews to replace the guidelines presently followed by police. Revised draft codes have been prepared and I shall be issuing them for public consultation shortly.

DEFENCE

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected future use of the official service residence, Haymes Garth near Cheltenham. [27269]

  Mr. Soames
  The future of Haymes Garth is being assessed in the light of the recommendations made in Sir Peter Cazalet's review of representational entertainment in the armed forces. Subject to this work, it remains the intention that this property will be disposed of as soon as practicable, subject to the availability of suitable accommodation for the Air Officer Commander in Chief Personnel and Training Command.

  Nimrod
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original date when the Nimrod maritime aircraft were due to come out of service; and what is the current out-of-service date. [26998]

  Mr. Freeman
  The original out-of-service date of the Nimrod MR2 was 1995; the current planned out-of-service date is 2006.

  Trident
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the in-service date of each of the Trident submarines. [26999]

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Vanguard entered service in December 1994; HMS Victorious will enter service around the turn of the year; Vigilant in 1998; and Vengeance around the turn of the century.

  Treaty of Rome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the impact on Britain's defence industrial base from(a) the abolition of article 223 of the treaty of Rome and (b) the amendment of article 223 of the treaty of Rome. [27000]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's review of article 223 of the treaty of Rome, which I mentioned in my previous answer on 1 May,Official Report, column 84, will take into account the implications of any change for the UK defence industry.

  Ballistic Missile Defence System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with his(a) NATO counterparts and (b) WEU counterparts concerning the creation of a ballistic missile defence system; and if he will make a statement. [26995]

  Mr. Freeman
  Consultations with NATO allies have covered a range of BMD issues including risk, prospective defensive architectures, the scope for collaboration and its contribution to our non-proliferation work. There has been no recent consideration of these issues within WEU, although there was some discussion in 1994 of the issues arising from the possible proliferation of ballistic missiles.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any decision by his Department to acquire a ballistic missile defence system will be taken with full consultation with the UK's NATO and WEU allies. [26996]

  Mr. Freeman
  The UK continues to participate in work with our NATO allies to assess the potential threat from theatre ballistic missiles, and to assess any requirement for systems to counter it.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the development of a national ballistic missile defence system; and if he will make a statement. [26997]

  Mr. Freeman
  We are currently assessing whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence, and this task will be informed by the outcome from a contract awarded last October to a consortium led by British Aerospace to provide advice on options, capabilities, time scales, costs and technical risk.

  Sonar 2054
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical problems have been experienced on the Sonar 2054 system for use in the Vanguard class strategic submarines ballistic nuclear; and if he will make a statement. [27558]

  Mr. Freeman
  The problems experienced with sonar 2054 and its associated towed array handling system relate to the inboard reeling system and operability issues. They do not affect the sonar's ability to support operational patrols. A programme of work to address these outstanding issues is in hand.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards the sale of Portland naval base. [27822]

  Mr. Soames
  Portland Port Ltd. was selected to purchase the naval base on 6 April. Legal and other formalities are progressing. We expect to complete the sale when the naval base closes in March next year.

  Ethnic Origins
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest available figures, on the ethnic origin of those serving as officers in(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [27824]
  365
  Mr. Soames
  The latest available information on the ethnic origin of officers in the armed forces is contained in the tri-service personnel statistical return entitled "Ethnic Composition of the Regular Armed Forces", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it possible for those who volunteered to participate in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to have access to their medical records; and if he will make a statement. [27825]

  Mr. Soames
  Service medical records are the property of the Department but, in common with civilian medical records, individual access to them by the patient concerned is allowed in accordance with the Access to Health Records Act 1990. Under the provisions of this Act, medical records are normally released to the individual concerned only if they were compiled after 1 November 1991. However, for service medical records of former personnel compiled before this date, it has long been my Department's policy to release them on request to the individual's general practitioner when they are required for the management of a particular case. It has also been standard practice for many years to include with the volunteer's service medical record an enclosure indicating the results of medical examinations carried out during their attendance at Porton Down.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates he or other Ministers or former Ministers in his Department received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott's draft report; on what date comments were submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made. [27557]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence and we intend to respect this.

  Empty Service Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the past 12 months from hon. Members regarding empty dwellings owned by his Department in Weymouth. [27789]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received three representations in the past 12 months from hon. Members about empty dwellings owned by it in the Weymouth area.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department have been empty for over six months. [27793]

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

  RAF Turnhouse
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Turnhouse. [27595]
  366
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 November last year to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid),Official Report, column 1238.

  Kinterbury
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cargo was carried by the ship Kinterbury from Portsmouth to Coulport, arriving at Coulport on the morning of Wednesday 7 June. [28024]

  Mr. Soames
  As a matter of long-standing policy it is our practice not to comment on the details of particular operations.

  Nuclear Warhead Transportation
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions nuclear warheads have been transported to Coulport by sea. [28025]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to provide details of the movement of nuclear weapons.

  Defence Costs Study
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place in the Library a copy of the defence costs study into(a) catering and messes, (b) animals and vets, (c) travel and subsistence and (d) uniforms. [28023]

  Mr. Soames
  The reports prepared by the defence costs study teams are internal working documents. It is not our practice to publish such documents.

  Consultants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by(a) his Ministry (b) by agencies for which his Ministry is responsible for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25554]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: Individual budget holders in my Department have delegated powers to employ consultants as they see fit within the limit of their resources and consistent with all requirements for propriety and value for money. There are no centrally held records of the value of consultancy contracts let by the Department itself and such a record could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Total expenditure by agencies of the Ministry of Defence, as opposed to the Department directly, on consultants was £9.5 million in 1993–94 and £21.1 million in 1994–95. The projected figure for 1995–96 is around £23 million.

SCOTLAND

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland aged over 64 years living in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) national health service nursing homes have a spouse living elsewhere. [25974]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only information available centrally was obtained by the April 1991 census of population and is shown in the table.
  367

  Type of Communal establishment

  Number of married residents aged 65 and over other than staff

  (i) Residential Homes (not managed by the National Health Service, a local authority, or a housing association) including private and voluntary homes registered with the local authority or exempt from registration

  540

  (ii) Nursing Homes (not managed by the National Health Service, a local authority, a housing association)

  1,014

  (iii) Local Authority Homes

  509

  (iv) National Health Service Hospitals/Homes (all types)

  2,369

  It should be noted that residents are defined as those reporting the establishment as their usual residence. The numbers of married residents would include any persons married to another person in the same establishment.

  Kintore Bypass
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he expects to make an announcement on the line of route and the starting date for work on the proposed A96 Kintore bypass. [27948]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The public local inquiry into the A96 Kintore bypass raised issues which required to be considered before a formal decision could be announced. The essential consultations have now been undertaken and thus the decision can be made soon. Programming will of course depend on that decision and, if favourable, on the satisfactory subsequent completion of statutory procedures and the availability of finance.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from(a) organisations and (b) individuals on the proposed A96 Kintore bypass. [27949]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Forty nine formal objections were received to the draft orders and compulsory purchase order for the Kintore bypass, of which 28 were resolved by the adjustment and republication of the draft orders and by negotiations held thereafter. The remaining 21, which include one from a public body, were considered at a public local inquiry.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area(a) the annual funding for infertility treatment, (b) the number of patients receiving infertility treatment and (c) the number of patients waiting to receive infertility treatment. [27368]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: It is for individual health boards to decide on the level of infertility services to purchase. Information on the number of patients receiving or waiting on infertility treatment is not available centrally.

  NHS (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 702, if he will make a statement on the
  368
  nature of the NHS projects which are being considered for the involvement of the private sector. [23405]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: All current proposals for capital projects in the NHS in Scotland have been considered, as opportunities under the private finance initiative. The NHS trusts managing the schemes in progress to build new hospital facilities in Edinburgh and Lanarkshire are seeking private sector partners to design, build and finance the new facilities and also to operate a range of non-clinical services within the new hospitals.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of grants of regional selective assistance made to Scottish companies and the number of companies involved for each financial year since 1979–80. [25346]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 May 1995]: The available information relates to payments to companies with projects to 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.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  MINIS
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish his Department's annual MINIS return. [28342]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The MINIS 95 returns for the Department, which this year include the Department's efficiency plan, were published on 12 June 1995. A set has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Copyright Directive
  Sir Tom Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement in United Kingdom law the directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, 93/98/EEC, by 1 July. [27862]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A draft of implementing legislation has been circulated to interested parties for comment. The consultation period ends on 26 June. This means that we will not be able to bring the legislation into force by 1 July as we had intended, but our aim is to submit the legislation to Parliament as soon as possible after the end of the consultation period.

  We shall be liaising with interested parties.

  Gas Licences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 66, if he will identify the areas covered in the draft material sent on 27 January and the reasons for sending this material to Amerada Hess Gas Ltd. and no other company. [28087]

  Mr. Eggar
  The draft licence material covered technical matters relating to gas shippers. It did not relate to gas suppliers or consumer issues. The material was sent to Amerada Hess Gas Ltd. because the company was judged to have the appropriate expertise to assist DTI at that stage.

  Official Receivers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if official receivers will be required to enter into contracts with private sector providers; if they will be personally liable as part of these contacts; and if they will be formally indemnified against the liability to the provider and for the acts or omissions of the provider. [27683]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Official receivers will be the contracting parties to any contract for the discharge of their functions. As such they would be liable under the terms of such contracts and, pursuant to the provisions of section 72 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, for the proper discharge of those functions. Officials receivers will therefore need to be satisfied that any such liabilities are adequately provided for.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the local office information system computer project will be available for the private sector contractors in the Insolvency Service to use. [27682]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Yes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures will be put in place to guarantee a high quality level of service from the contracted out operations of the Insolvency Service. [27681]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The final specification and contract will clearly state the standards of service expected from contractors. Contract monitoring by official receivers offices will ensure these standards are met and maintained.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide training to Insolvency Service employees unused to contract management. [27685]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Planning to provide training to the Insolvency Service employees in aspects of contract management is currently under way. All staff likely to be involved in contract management will receive relevant training prior to the contracting out.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult Parliament before contracting out further services of the Insolvency Service, other than those that are already planned to be contracted out. [27677]

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

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures will exist to ensure that the private sector will(a) operate impartially and (b) respect confidentiality, when Insolvency Service operations are contracted out to the private sector. [27679]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The final specification and contract will clearly state the standards of performance, including impartiality and confidentiality, expected from contractors. Contract monitoring by official receivers' offices will ensure these standards are met and maintained.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much it will cost annually to monitor the contracts of providers in the Insolvency Service. [27686]
  370
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is still too early in the process to determine any costs of contracting out. The cost of monitoring any contracts entered into with private sector providers will be dependent on the total number of contracts let.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to ensure that an Insolvency Service investigation will not be prejudiced by part of the investigation being dealt with in the private sector and the other part being handled in the public sector. [27678]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The separation of the preliminary investigation and any further investigation currently works effectively in many official receivers' offices by increasing the efficiency of dealing with targeted cases in need of further investigation. Contract management and monitoring of private sector providers by official receivers' offices will ensure that contracting out will not have any detrimental effect on the investigation procedure.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that those people who will carry out the duties of the contracted-out services of the Insolvency Service will be obliged to hold the same qualifications as are required now of Insolvency Service employees. [27676]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The requirement scoping document which will be made available to selected potential bidders will set out levels of experience and competencies of staff that will be required by private sector providers. Any contractor must satisfy these requirements.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the suggestion of the official receivers that insolvency practitioners could be appointed either as a liquidator or trustee, with the payment of fees guaranteed. [27688]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This option was considered by Stoy Hayward whose report concluded that it would expose far less of the official receivers' work to competition from the private sector and, if insolvencies were once again to rise, would not prevent the official receivers' specialist investigative resources from being increasingly consumed in the initial stages of casework.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish the detailed specification of the contracting-out process. [27687]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The draft specification will be made available to selected potential bidders on 15 June 1995.

  Private Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the National Audit Office's report in respect of the levels of rejection of private sector insolvency practitioners' reports. [27680]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There is a significant proportion of cases where elements of unfit conduct have been identified by insolvency practitioners as well as by official receivers, but in relation to which, taking into account all the aspects of the insolvency, it is not in the public interest to institute proceedings under section 6 of the Company
  371
  Directors Disqualification Act 1986. There has been a discernible improvement in reporting by insolvency practitioners both in respect of completeness and timeliness and as a result of which the percentage not providing a basis for consideration of proceedings has fallen from 81 per cent. reported by the National Audit Office in October 1993 to 69 per cent. in 1994–95.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assistance his Department is giving towards the restoration of the Grand theatre in Doncaster; and if he will make a statement; [27389]

  (2) what assistance his Department is giving for the conversion of the Square chapel at Halifax west Yorkshire to a recital room; and if he will make a statement; [27398]

  (3) what assistance his Department is giving to the creation of a theatre in the Odeon cinema at Scarborough; and if he will make a statement; [27399]

  Mr. Dorrell
  English Heritage has contributed £342,228 towards the cost of eligible repairs to the Square chapel, Halifax. The Arts Council announced last month an award of £1.4 million from the national lottery to the Stephen Joseph theatre, which is developing the Odeon cinema, Scarborough. I understand that plans for the development of the Grand theatre, Doncaster, are still at an early stage.

  Both the Square chapel and the Stephen Joseph theatre receive funding for their artistic programmes from the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the expected deficit or surplus of Channel 4 in the years 1990 to 2000. [26444]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Forward financial planning is a matter for the Channel 4 television corporation. Figures for the period 1990–94 are contained within the annual reports published by the Independent Television Commission, for 1990–1992, and Channel 4, for 1993–1994. The figures are:

  Date

  £ million

  April-December 1990

  1.1 surplus

  January-December 1991

  0.2 surplus

  January-December 1992

  6.6 deficit

  From January 1993, when Channel 4 became a self-governing statutory corporation, its retained profit figures, after taxation and payments of excess qualifying revenue to the Independent Television Commission, were:

  Date

  £ million

  January-December 1993

  1.3 retained profit

  January-December 1994

  21.9 retained profit

  UNIDROIT Convention
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking in respect of the draft UNIDROIT convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects; who will be attending from the United Kingdom the June conference to be held in Rome on this subject; what support his Department is giving; and if he will make a statement. [27396]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The UK will be represented at the conference in Rome by officials from the Department of National Heritage and the Treasury Solicitor's Department. There is still work to be done on the draft UNIDROIT convention. However, the objectives behind the draft are laudable; and we will continue to work constructively with other countries participating in the discussions, to achieve a convention that could be a mutually acceptable compromise to as many states, both importing and exporting, as possible.

  National Lottery
  Mr Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that the odds of winning the national lottery are printed on the lottery ticket. [27794]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade of intervention by Her Majesty's Government to improve the non-price competitiveness of British industry at home and overseas are intended to restore the balance between price and non-price competitiveness; and if he will publish his assessment of the likely cost of such intervention on(a) output and (b) employment in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997. [27494]

  The Prime Minister
  The measures brought forward in the Government's recent White Paper on competitiveness are designed to improve the overall competitiveness of United Kingdom business and so help raise output and employment.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech on 31 May,Official Report, column 1001, how many Ukrainian United Nations peacekeeping soldiers were taken hostage by the Bosnian Government forces on 28 May; how long they were held; when and where they were released; what sanctions or threats were made against the Bosnian Government to secure their release; and on how many other occasions since 1992 UN forces have been taken hostage by the Bosnian Government side. [28112]
  373
  The Prime Minister
  We understand that six Ukrainian UN personnel were detained by Bosnian Government forces in Gorazde on 28 may. They were released later the same day and returned to their camp. We are not aware of any other occasion when the Bosnian Government took UN peacekeepers hostage.

  We condemn unreservedly all acts of hostage taking by all parties. The Serbs must release the hostages that they hold immediately and unconditionally co-operate with the UN in carrying out its mandate.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott's draft report; on what date comments were submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made by his Department for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made. [27554]

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have received a draft, or draft extract, of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry report into the sale of arms to Iraq affair. [27590]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criteria for determining whether the legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry of(a) Ministers, (b) ex-Ministers and (c) senior civil servants, should be covered by the Government; and if he will list all possible costs incurred or committed; and if he will make a statement. [28139]

  The Prime Minister
  Legal advice is available to witnesses to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry in each of the three categories listed where it is requested by the individual concerned and where their departmental legal adviser or the Treasury solicitor's department agrees that the request for the provision of such advice is reasonable. The total cost to public funds of providing legal services to witnesses to date is approximately £568,000. This figure includes the costs of legal services provided by the Treasury solicitor's department and by external lawyers. Some legal advice has also been provided by departmental lawyers as part of their normal duties. The cost of this advice is not quantifiable.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which civil servants, Government advisers or ministerial advisers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement; [27882]

  (2) which Ministers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimate cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [27781]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 9 June 1995]: Details of the costs of legal advice to witnesses to the Scott inquiry are not held centrally nor is the cost of advice in respect of draft conclusions identified separately from the cost of other advice. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would not right to identify the nature of the advice given to particular
  374
  individuals. This is a matter of confidence between them and their legal advisers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to establish an inquiry into the leak to the BBC of a provisional draft of the report by Mr. Justice Scott. [27894]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: Extracts of the draft report were sent by Sir Richard Scott to a number of people, some of whom are outside Government. Inquiries have been undertaken to establish whether there is any prima facie evidence that there has been an unauthorised disclosure of the information concerned from within Government. On the basis of these inquiries, there is no reason to suppose that the leak came from within Government.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to include the future of British fishing stocks in the agenda for the intergovernmental conference in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [27244]

  The Prime Minister
  Intergovernmental conferences deal with treaty change rather than adjustment of the content of individual policies. We will of course continue to work for improvements in the operation of the appropriate fora.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from his Russian and United States counterparts on the progress made by the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission on the Iranian nuclear programme and nuclear exports to Iran. [27649]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission has not met since the US-Russian summit in May, but is due to do so before the end of June. Progress has already been made on the question of nuclear exports to Iran with President Yeltsin's commitment at the Moscow summit not to transfer gas centrifuge equipment to the Iranians.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the call by Colonel Gaddafi of Libya on 16 May that the Arab states should collaborate on the production of nuclear weapons. [27653]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Libya, like most other Arab states, is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and we expect her to comply fully with her obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the letter, dated 9 May, from the permanent representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the president of the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference, NPT/Conf. 1995/30, claiming a special status for North Korea within the non-proliferation treaty; and if the United Kingdom within the non-proliferation treaty; and if the United Kingdom has discussed the implications of the letter with the other two depositary states for the treaty. [27655]
  375
  Mr. David Davis
  We have not discussed the North Korean letter with the other depositary states: we expect all states parties to the non-proliferation treaty to comply fully with their obligations. We have welcomed the framework agreement between the US and DPRK and we hope this will lead to a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposals by Japan to create a nuclear co-operation organisation for states in Asia along the lines of the European Union's Euratom agency. [27654]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We know of no Japanese Government proposals for a nuclear co-operation organisation in Asia on the lines of Euratom. However, there is considerable discussion at a non-government level on increasing nuclear co-operation in the east Asian and south-east Asian area, with particular emphasis on co-operation in the area of research, safety and operating standards. We welcome any moves by Japanese industry or Government to ensure that nuclear energy development in east Asia take place in a sound, safe and secure manner.

  Social Development
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the international commitments entered into by Her Majesty's Government through the signing by a Foreign Office Minister of the declaration agreed by participating states at the United Nations world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. [27805]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The declaration and programme of action of the world summit for social development were adopted by the consensus. No legal commitment was entered into. The advance unedited texts of the declaration and programme of action have been placed in the Library of the House. When the final text issues from the United Nations they will be placed in the Library.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement between the European Union and the Ukraine on the financing of the closedown of the Chernobyl reactors. [27887]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the EU and G7 summits in 1994, substantial sums were committed to an action plan for Ukraine's energy sector, including the closure of Chernobyl. Following a visit to Ukraine in April by a senior delegation from the EU and the G7, President Kuchma undertook to close the remaining Chernobyl reactors by 2000, which we warmly welcome. Discussions are continuing with the Ukrainians to draw up a final plan on closure. The EU, the G7 and international financial institutions will continue to work closely with Ukraine to achieve this aim as well as the wider objectives of the action plan.

  World Service
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current arrangements for broadcasts by the World Service to Iran and Iraq. [27459]
  376
  Mr. Baldry
  The World Service broadcasts to Iran in Persian for 22 hours a week. The emphasis is on news and current affairs, but programmes covering the arts, science, economics, medicine, culture and entertainment also form part of the output.

  The Arabic service is on the air for 12 hours and 15 minutes every day. All broadcasts are beamed to Iraq. As the World Service's biggest foreign language service, it broadcasts a wide range of programmes, with news and current affairs as the backbone.

  English language broadcasts are beamed to Iran for 18 hours a day and to Iraq for twenty-one and a half hours a day. English teaching programmes are also broadcast, either as part of the Persian and Arabic services, or as separate transmissions.

  World Service output reaches Iran and Iraq mainly through shortwave transmissions from relay stations at Masirah in Oman, Cyprus and from the UK. Some medium-wave transmissions from Masirah also reach the area. Arabic service transmissions have been jammed within Iraq in the past, but no jamming is taking place at present.

  Caribbean
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current expenditure incurred by Her Majesty's Government in the dependent territories in the Caribbean. [27982]

  Mr. Baldry
  The total expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on the five Caribbean dependent territories for the financial year 1994–95 is estimated to be £20.5 million.

  Eastern Europe
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the value of British investment for each of the last five years into(a) Hungary, (b) Poland, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovakia, (e) Romania and f Bulgaria and also publish corresponding figures for German, French, Italian and Dutch investment into those countries. [26742]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The value of British direct investment for the five years 1989 to 1993, the latest available, is as follows:

  Stock of UK direct investment (book value, £ million)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Poland

  0

  4

  6

  16

  18

  Hungary

  0

  0

  26

  84

  68

  Czech Republic

  0

  0

  1

  13

  8

  Slovak Republic

  Romania

  0

  0

  0

  2

  11

  Bulgaria

  0

  0

  1

  6

  7

  Source: Central Statistical Office

  The value of other countries' investment into the region is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Government of Turkey to allow the Armenian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches in Turkey to re-open their theological seminaries. [26883]
  377
  Mr. David Davis
  Decisions on the operations of the specific religious or educational institutions are a matter for the Turkish authorities. We have raised with the Turkish Government our concerns on the rights of religious and other minorities in Turkey including on the position of the Armenian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he or other Ministers or former Ministers in his Department received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott's draft report; on what date comments were submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made. [27591]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a young person is unable to remain within the United Kingdom without the requisite entry clearance whilst adoption formalities are being pursued. [27694]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  A child coming to the United Kingdom for adoption would on arrival normally be expected to be in possession of an entry clearance issued for the purpose. If my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case where an entry clearance has not been issued, I should be happy to advise him further.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Her Majesty's Government are required to provide information to(a) the European Commission, (b) the London dumping convention and (c) the Oslo convention the past disposal at sea in the north Atlantic and Irish sea by the United Kingdom of surplus chemical weapon munitions, redundant explosives or other military origin toxic materials. [26701]

  Mr. Jack
  There are no requirements to report any information on disposal at sea to the European Commission. The reporting requirements of the London and Oslo conventions do not extend to military wastes which are covered by sovereign immunity. However, the UK no longer disposes of such wastes at sea.

  Dogs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dogs were exported from the United Kingdom to non-EU countries in the last three years; and what was their country of origin. [27107]
  378
  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken on the application of sludge to farm land. [26940]

  Mr. Jack
  My Department is spending about £0.7 million in 1995–96 on six research projects concerning sewage sludge applications to farm land. The project titles, contractors and estimated costs for 1995–96 are as follows:

  Effects of sewage sludge on agricultural productivity and soil fertility.
  This project is funded Jointly with the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the United Kingdom Water Industry Research Limited. The Scottish Office is funding complementary work in relation to this project.
  Contractor: ADAS, IACR Rothamsted and WRc
  1995–96 costs: £393,000 (MAFF contribution £94,000).

  Accumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements by livestock grazing sludge grassland.
  Contractor: Chalcombe Agricultural Resource.
  1995–96 costs: £169.000.

  Assessment of the availability of heavy metals and their effects on soil microbiology.
  Contractor: IACR Rothamsted
  1995–96 costs: £145.000.

  The vulnerability of soils to pollution by heavy metals.
  Contractor: Reading University
  1995–96 costs £98,000.

  Effects of heavy metals from sewage sludge on the growth and yield of legumes.
  Contractor: ADAS
  1995–96 costs: £97,000.

  Effects of inorganic metal salt additions to agricultural soils on soil microbial activity and long-term fertility.
  Contractor: ADAS
  1995–96 costs: £28,000.

  In addition, the Scottish Office is spending £0.6 million in 1995–96 on research at the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and the Scottish agricultural college and the Department of the Environment has an on-going £0.25 million per year research programme on sewage sludge utilisation.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those nations which are members of the European Economic Community which impose more stringent regulations than those adopted by the United Kingdom on the application of pesticides or herbicides in agriculture and horticulture, in each case specifying the prohibitions or standards they apply additional to those of (i) the European Community and (ii) the United Kingdom. [27314]

  Mrs Browning
  The UK's regulatory system for pesticides, including herbicides, has the objective of protecting people and the environment while ensuring that pesticides are available to those who really need them. As the harmonised Community regime comes into effect, all member states will increasingly work to the same rules. Differences in decisions taken will then be attributable solely to differences in characteristics such as climate and farming practice.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his ministerial counterpart in the Republic of Ireland about a permanent agreement on fish quota swaps; and if he will make a statement. [27151]

  Mr. Jack
  I have had no discussions with my opposite number in the Republic of Ireland about a permanent agreement on fish quota swaps. A permanent agreement would risk undermining the principle of relative stability. Agreement on fish quota swaps is reached, however, on a year-by-year basis in the light of prevailing fishing opportunities.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations and individuals who have produced consultative documents to the proposed rural White Paper. [27224]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment have received written representations from 328 organisations and 53 individuals. A list of the organisations which had submitted representations by 20 February was deposited in the Library of the House on 22 February. I am today placing in the Library of the House an updated list of all organisations and individuals who have made written submissions. Copies of these submissions, except where confidentiality has been requested, are available for inspection in the Ministry's main departmental library.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all products on sale in the United Kingdom controlled under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992. [27203]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment has not issued any consents under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 for products consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms for placing on the market in Great Britain. The information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 together implement Council directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. In accordance with this directive, the products which have been approved for sale in the European Community are a vaccine to control Aujeszky's disease in pigs, a vaccine to control rabies in foxes and seeds of herbicide-tolerant tobacco.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Technology
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the past six months in implementing the proposals in the science and technology White Paper. [26063]
  380
  Mr. David Hunt
  Excellent progress has been made, particularly in building improved partnerships between government and industry to enhance our research and development record.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the technology foresight programme. [26064]

  Mr. Horam
  The foresight programme is a resounding success. The Government are grateful for the voluntary efforts of Foresight panels. We need to follow up vigorously on foresight priorities.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce and develop a code of conduct for civil servants. [26067]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I intend to introduce the civil service code after due consultation and consideration.

  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ensure that the civil service continues to be seen to be above party politics. [26066]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government will introduce a new civil service code summarising the values, including political impartiality, which civil servants are expected to hold.

  Internet
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to encourage more Government Departments to make more information available on Internet. [26068]

  Mr. Horam
  Staff at CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, are working with Departments to increase the breadth and depth of information available over the Internet. Already, more than 40 Departments and agencies have information accessible via the CCTA Government Information Service, and there are, on average, more than 80,000 requests for information each week.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what opportunities he has identified for the Civil Service College to co-operate with similar institutions overseas. [26069]

  Mr. Horam
  I mention the Civil Service College's services to overseas ministers and officials whenever appropriate. The college also makes direct contact and is co-operating with a number of similar institutions overseas.

  Charter Mark
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase public awareness of the charter mark scheme. [26062]

  Mr. Horam
  Charter mark is going from strength to strength. Over 3,000 members of the public have been involved in this year's scheme by nominating
  381
  organisations they think deserve an award. We are delighted with this response and will give people the opportunity to nominate services again next year.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new action he is taking to increase public access to information. [26057]

  Mr. David Hunt
  We are implementing the proposals contained in the White Paper on open government.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 56, on concessional loans agreements with Indonesia, what projects have been identified for funding under the concessional loan agreements which were signed in April 1993 and April 1994; and what progress has been made towards concluding agreements with the Government of Indonesia in respect of each of those projects. [28182]

  Mr. Baldry
  The current position on projects funded from the concessional loan arrangements signed in 1993 and 1994 is as follows:

  PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR FUNDING UNDER CONCESSIONAL LOAN ARRANGEMENT 1993

  Samarinda combined cycle power plant
  The agreement for the power station was concluded in March 1995 and for the transmission line in May 1995.

  Piston engines research laboratory
  The soft loan arrangement is being finalised and an agreement with the Government of Indonesia is expected within the next few weeks.

  PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR FUNDING UNDER CONCESSIONAL LOAN ARRANGEMENT 1994

  Cikampek to Cirebon railway Double Tracking
  An offer of aid was made to the Government of Indonesia on 23 May 1995 and their reply is awaited.

  Science and Technology Equipment for Java Universities
  Contract negotiations are in progress between the UK supplier and the Indonesians

  Navigational Aids
  The results of the appraisal were presented to the Government of Indonesia in April 1995. Their comments are awaited.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 58, if he will list the locations in Indonesia, at sea and on land, at which the lighthouses, light-beacons and lightbouys supplied under the navigational aids project have been installed. [28184]

  Mr. Baldry
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 31 May relating to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 6 December 1994,Official Report, columns 118–20, if (a) full and (b) formal appraisals were carried out in respect of each of the aid projects cited; and by whom each was undertaken. [28192]

  Mr. Baldry
  Appropriate appraisals were carried out in all cases. Details of these appraisals are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ms Emma Humphreys
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to refer back to the Court of Appeal the case of Emma Humphreys who was convicted in 1986 of murder; at what Her Majesty's prison she is currently being held; and if he will make a statement. [27415]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Ms Humphreys has been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I understand that the case has been listed for hearing on 29 June. She is currently held at Holloway prison.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measurable benefit has been achieved by the operation of the fast-track appeals procedure for safe third country asylum cases since July 1993; at what financial cost; and if he will make a statement. [27704]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information from the first quarter of 1995 indicates that the period between receipt of the appeal and promulgation of the determination for without foundation appeals—which include fast-track appeals—was on average about a third of that for substantive appeals. Costs cannot be attributed separately for fast-track appeals.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been removed to Belgium on safe third country grounds since 26 July 1993; and how many of those so removed have been returned to the United kingdom by the Belgian authorities. [27705]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  One hundred people who had been refused asylum in the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds have been removed to Belgium since 26 July 1993. Of these, eight have been returned to the United Kingdom.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hampstead Heath
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of capital expenditure on Hampstead heath(a) between 1981–82 and 1985–86 and (b) when it was under the control of the London residuary body; and what has been the level of capital expenditure since it became the responsibility of the City of London. [27320]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue bulletins to the public on air quality when the threshold of 50 parts per billion of ozone is exceeded over an eight-hour period; and if he will make a statement. [27393]
  383
  Mr. Atkins
  Up-to-date information on ozone levels is available to the public at all times on the Government's freephone 0800 556677, on Cefax page 404, and on Teletext page 106. Reports and forecasts are sent twice daily to broadcast and print media.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned into the economic impact of air pollution on agriculture, forestry and materials. [27852]

  Mr. Atkins
  The UK devotes of the order of £1.5 million to the determination of critical loads—maximum pollutant loading before the onset of damage—for various terrestrial ecosystems such as crops, vegetation and forests. Work has already been commissioned on the effects of acidifying pollutants on forests, soils and natural vegetation. The mapping of critical loads, and exceedances of them, across the UK allows the extent of environmental damage to be assessed, and the national materials exposure programme, which has been running continuously for the last eight years, has allowed determination of the rate of deterioration of various materials exposed to acidifying air pollutants. In addition, ozone damage to crop has been quantified as part of a programme of UK-led experiments within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's convention on the long-range transport of air pollutants. A new three-year research programme has also been commissioned in order to quantify the current and future effects and costs of damage to materials caused by ground-level ozone.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received on the potential economic costs of damage to materials in the UK from tropospheric ozone. [27851]

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1994, my Department commissioned a report to assess the potential economic costs of damage to materials by ozone. This scaled US estimates from the late 1960s, and provided a range of costs for the UK of £170 million—£345 million in current terms for damage to all stock at risk and antiozonant protection. I am pleased to announce that, following this report, I have commissioned a three-year research programme which will quantify the current and potential future extent and costs of damage to materials from atmospheric ozone.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is going to take in respect of the hedgerow removal at(a) Stamford bridge, grid reference SE 663529, (b) Kilburn, north Yorkshire, grid reference SE 507805 and (c) Balne crossroads, grid reference SE 567197; what assessment he has made of whether the removal of these hedgerows is in contradiction of his countryside stewardship scheme and other initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [27397]

  Mr. Atkins
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Repossessions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of repossessions which occurred(a) in Hornsey and Wood Green (b) Haringey, (c) Greater London and (d) England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [27661]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Berkshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify the geographical characteristics of Berkshire which justify its division into six unitary authorities. [27853]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Geography is among the factors considered in the Local Government Commission's final report for Berkshire which recommended a structure of five unitary authorities, based on existing districts but including a merger of Bracknell Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead. My right hon. Friend accepted the commission's reasons and recommendations for an all-unitary structure but rejected the proposed merger for the reasons given in his statement and written answers of 21 March,Official Report, columns 123 and 145.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he will compensate the six new unitary authorities in Berkshire for the extra costs incurred by entering into separate contracts for highway maintenance, electrical engineering and highway and planning services. [27854]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The effect of the regulations that we have made is that contracts of an abolished authority will normally pass to its successor authorities on reorganisation. Authorities may negotiate different contractual arrangements if they wish: presumably, they would do so only if they judged that making the change would improve cost-effectiveness.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to other Government Departments within the last year regarding urban development corporations to ensure their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. [27790]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names, style and variety of precast concrete materials used in the construction of public sector housing; and which types were deemed to be faulty and as such qualified for financial compensation. [28154]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Precast concrete has been used for a wide variety of purposes in public sector housing since the early 1900s; a definitive list is not available. The following types of properties have been designated in England by the Secretary of State under part XVI if the Housing Act 1985:

  Type

  Main construction element

  Qualifying defect

  Airey

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Boot

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Boswell

  In Situ concrete

  C

  Cornish Unit

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Dorran

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Dyke

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Gregory

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Myton

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Newland

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Orlit

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Parkinson

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Reema Hollow Panel

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  385

  Type

  Main construction element

  Qualifying defect

  Schindler/Hawksley SGS

  In Situ concrete

  A

  Smith

  Precast concrete

  B

  Stent

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Stonecrete

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Tarran

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Underdown

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Unity/Butterley

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Waller

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Wates

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Wessex

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Winget

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Woolaway

  Precast reinforced concrete

  A

  Qualifying defect:

  A: Ineffective protection of the embedded steel in the reinforced concrete loadbearing parts of the buildings.

  B: In effective protection of the embedded steel handling reinforcement in the concrete panels forming part of the loadbearing walls.

  C:

  (a) Aggregate containing excessive quantities of unburnt coal in concrete forming the walls, floors or foundations of the dwelling; or

  (b) ineffective protection of the embedded steel in any precast reinforced concrete parts of the dwelling.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his decision on the final caps for the nine local authorities which challenged their cap; and if he will make a statement. [28539]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have laid before the House a draft order, under section 57 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, setting out our decisions on the final caps for Devon, Gloucestershire, Shropshire and Somerset county councils, Barnsley, Newcastle and Sheffield metropolitan district councils, Norwich city council and Lincolnshire police authority.

  We have considered very carefully all the available relevant information, including the case made by the authorities in support of a higher cap, before taking our decisions. We have decided to increase the proposed caps for Somerset and Lincolnshire police by £2.6 million and £1.82 million respectively, to allow the budgets set by the authorities to remain unaltered; and to increase Barnsley's cap by £2 million, £1.09 million less than requested by the authorities.

  The cap proposed for the other authorities have been confirmed.

  The caps are, in our view, reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. These decisions will reduce public expenditure, and the burden on council taxpayers in the areas concerned by £24 million in 1995–96.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General on what dates he or other Ministers or former Ministers in his Department received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott's draft report; on what date comments were 386
  submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made. [27553]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the Inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence.

EMPLOYMENT

  New Earnings Survey
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to amend the new earnings survey to include low-paid workers. [24998]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are no plans to change the basis on which the new earnings survey is conducted.

  Epileptics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what training is provided for disability employment advisers and special needs careers advisers to enable them to advise appropriately people with epilepsy about employment and training; [27764]

  (2) what training welfare rights officers receive to enable them to advise appropriately people with epilepsy about welfare benefits to which they are entitled. [27765]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training currently provided by the Employment Service for disability employment advisers covers a wide range of disabilities, including epilepsy. From July this year, the training will be enhanced. Training will continue to include information on specific disabilities such a epilepsy.

  DEAs, like all ES client advisers, are trained on the full range of benefits available to unemployed jobseekers and to those in employment. Clients can be referred to benefits specialists within jobcentres or the Benefits Agency to assist them in making decisions about work and training opportunities or to ensure that they receive their correct entitlement to benefits. The new DEA training will include material on benefits for clients with all types of disabilities and special needs.

  The skills, knowledge and attitudes required of careers officers dealing with young people with special needs are included in the post-graduate diploma in careers guidance. Careers officers must hold this or an equivalent qualification. In addition, there are specific training courses run by higher education establishments in a range of topics relating to special needs.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving restart courses, for each year of their operation, including those who left before the completion of the course; [27520]

  (2) if he will list the numbers leaving restart courses, as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers, for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme, stipulating those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who become unemployed; and, of

  387
  these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all. [27510]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of people attending Restart Courses for each year of operation and the number of those who left to go into work or further employment schemes.
  It may help if I explain that Restart Courses have been in existence since 1986. In April 1994 a new two week Restart Course programme was launched. These new courses combine morning attendance on the course, with individual job search activities in the afternoon. They build on the success of the original shorter one week courses and are designed to boost confidence and job search

  Restart courses

  Starters

  Completers

  Non-completers

  Jobs

  Referrals1 Employment programmes

  Other

  1986/872

  108,885

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1987/882

  48,812

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1988/89

  43,010

  31,977

  11,033

  7,999

  12,714

  10,299

  1989/90

  41,940

  33,172

  8,768

  8,010

  19,372

  9,367

  1990/91

  57,976

  49,159

  8,817

  11,621

  23,891

  14,448

  1991/92

  133,840

  120,422

  13,418

  32,974

  43,176

  51,458

  1992/93

  124,705

  111,559

  13,146

  32,099

  55,885

  49,127

  1993/94

  143,280

  129,943

  13,337

  37,156

  57,844

  64,028

  1994/95

  147,120

  126,772

  20,348

  56,110

  71,605

  38,829

  Total

  849,568

  603,004

  88,867

  183,969

  284,487

  237,556

  1 Participants may be referred to more than one option.

  2 Information about completers and referrals is not available for this period.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving jobplan workshops, for each year of their operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27522]

  (2) if he will list the numbers leaving jobplan workshops, as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers, for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme, stipulating those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who become unemployed; and, of these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all. [27512]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobplan workshops. You have asked about the number of attenders and outcomes since the programme was launched in April 1993.
  388
  activity. There is an emphasis on making real applications for jobs and opportunities. They give people an opportunity to take a fresh look at their situation, become aware of the options open to them locally and plan positive steps back to work. During the course each person can plan the steps that they need to take to help them back to work.
  The table attached shows the number of people who have attended Restart Courses and the number of referrals to a further option during the period April 1988 to March 1995. Prior to this we did not collect referral information.
  From April 1994 information has been collected on the total number of starts resulting from a referral. Between April 1994 and March 1995, 21% of Restart Course completers started a job, an Employment Department employment or training programme or another option.We do not keep records of the qualification that Restart Course leavers go on to obtain.
  From April 1995 we will be able to supply separate figures for starts into jobs, and Employment Department or training programme or another option.
  I hope this is helpful.
  It may help if I explain that Jobplan workshops are short five day courses for people who have been unemployed for a year, who decline or fail to take up a job or a place on an Employment Department programme at their Restart interview. It aims to help people compete more successfully for jobs and opportunities by allowing them to review their strengths and skills and establish clear job goals. This will help them draw up a comprehensive Action Plan, which maps out the steps they need to take to get them back to work.
  Jobplan workshops were launched in April 1993 and the figures in the table attached show the number of people who have taken part in the workshops and the subsequent opportunities to which they were referred during the period April 1993 to March 1995. We do not keep records of qualifications that Jobplan leavers go on to obtain.
  Since April 1993, 94% of workshop completers were referred to a job or an Employment Department employment or training programme or another option to help them back to work.
  From April 1994 information has been collected on the total number of starts resulting from such referrals. Between April 1994 and March 1995, 26% of Jobplan completers started either a job, an Employment Department employment or training programme or another option. From April 1995 we will be able to supply separate figures for starts in each of these categories.
  I hope this is helpful.
  389

  Jobplan

  Starters

  Completers

  Non-completers

  Jobs

  Referrals1 Employment programmes

  Other

  1993–94

  301,807

  276,864

  24,943

  86,774

  165,873

  96.80S

  1994–95

  248,388

  228,309

  20,079

  79,046

  150,223

  73,932

  Total

  550,195

  505,173

  45,022

  165,820

  316,096

  170,741

  1Participants may be referred to more than one option.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving job clubs, for each year of their operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27521]

  (2) if he will list the numbers leaving job clubs, as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers, for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme, stipulating those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who become unemployed; and, of these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all. [27511]

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

  Jobclub management information 1987–88 to 1994–95

  Year

  Number attending (entrants)

  Number leaving (leavers)

  Number leaving into jobs

  Leaving into jobs (per cent.)

  Other final outputs1

  Other final outputs (per cent.)

  Other leavers2

  Other leavers (per cent.)

  1987–88

  117,748

  105,677

  57,080

  54

  14,883

  14

  33,714

  32

  1988–89

  136,672

  132,262

  71,495

  54

  20,056

  15

  40,711

  31

  1989–90

  145,089

  140,095

  72,977

  52

  21,336

  15

  45,782

  33

  1990–91

  140,774

  134,712

  65,498

  49

  21,377

  16

  47,837

  36

  1991–92

  190,117

  176,140

  76,831

  44

  26,082

  15

  73,227

  42

  1992–93

  220,997

  216,679

  96,925

  45

  30,953

  14

  88.801

  41

  1993–94

  249,107

  231,325

  105,678

  46

  29,992

  13

  95,655

  41

  1994–95

  266,422

  264,790

  113,768

  43

  29,849

  11

  121,173

  46

  Total

  1,466,926

  1,401,680

  660,252

  47

  194,528

  14

  546,900

  39

  1 Other final outputs—people leaving Jobclub who go into ES/ED programmes, further/higher education, other training, voluntary work etc. We do not track the progress of people centrally, after they leave Jobclub.

  2 Other leavers—people leaving Jobclub who do not go into jobs or other final outputs. We do not keep information relating to the unemployment status of these people centrally.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of state for Employment how many people are currently in part-time employment; and what was the position in 1979. [26385]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In December 1994, there were 6,290,000 part-time employees in employment in the United Kingdom. An equivalent figure for June 1979 is unavailable; however, the census of employment shows there were 4,472,000 part-time employees in the United Kingdom in June 1978.
  390
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to him about the numbers of people attending and leaving Jobclubs for each year of their operation and the outcomes from them. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobclubs were first introduced in Great Britain in 1984, but comprehensive figures on entrants, leavers and outcomes have only been collected since 1987. These are shown in the attached table, together with explanations for each category.
  We do not keep a record of the qualifications obtained by Jobclub members. Additionally, we have no way of breaking down the "other leavers" category between those who remain unemployed and those who leave for other reason.
  It may be helpful if I explain that Jobclubs are for those people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. Jobclubs offer a professional approach to jobhunting—they provide the support and resources to carry out an effective programme of job search. Jobclub is a long term programme and people may attend for a few weeks or up to 6 months depending on how long it takes to find work. Around 50 per cent. of members leave Jobclub with a job, and others go into training, further education or self employment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Age Discrimination
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many outstanding vacancies have an upper age requirement on them(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total. [27592]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Service conducts periodic sample surveys of age restrictions on jobcentre vacancies. The last survey was published in June 1994.

  Findings revealed that age restrictions were placed on 28 per cent. of all vacancies. This was an improvement

  391
  upon 1990 when 39 per cent. of vacancies had restrictions. An analysis of upper age limits revealed that 6 per cent. of the vacancies were closed to people aged 40 or over, while 8 per cent. were closed to those aged 60 and over.

  A copy of report entitled "A Study of Age Restrictions on ES Vacancies" will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) when he last issued guidelines to the Employment Service on how to combat age discrimination; [27593]

  (2) if he will publish the guidelines issued to the Employment Service about combating age discrimination. [27594]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chief executive of the Employment Service is responsible for issuing guidance on operational matters.

  Guidance to ES staff on how to combat age discrimination was last issued in March 1994. This guidance instructs staff in jobcentres to challenge age restrictions placed on job vacancies and to persuade employers to consider jobseekers on their merits.

  Where employers insist on imposing age limits, they are reluctantly accepted. However, jobcentre staff are then encouraged to approach an employer on behalf of an otherwise suitable jobseeker who falls outside the stated age limit.

  While it is not normal practice to publish guidance prepared for ES staff, a copy of the leaflet "What's Age Got To Do With It?" is available in the Library. This leaflet brings together advice contained in a number of handbooks which are issued to ES staff.

TREASURY

  Caravans and Leisure Parks
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current position in respect of the 1995 revaluation of caravan and leisure parks following the discussions between representatives of the leisure caravan industry and the Valuation Office agency; when he expects a national agreement to be reached similar to the one reached in 1990; what further meetings are planned; and if he will make a statement. [27795]

  £ million

  Manufacturing companies

  Financial companies

  Unincorporated business in manufacturing

  Gross trading profits

  Capital allowance claimed

  Stock relief claimed

  Gross trading profits

  Other income

  Capital allowance claimed

  Interest payments

  Gross trading profits

  Capital allowance allowed

  Stock relief claimed

  1981

  11,703

  6,140

  n/a

  -6,750

  22,747

  2,130

  14,823

  998

  99

  14

  1982

  14,025

  5,637

  1,403

  -7,491

  24,508

  2,300

  15,923

  938

  127

  13

  1983

  15,764

  6,673

  1,815

  -5,831

  23,869

  3,638

  15,060

  1,280

  164

  13

  1984

  16,597

  6,668

  625

  -8,668

  27,409

  6,088

  18,448

  1,700

  217

  -

  1985

  18,560

  6,257

  -

  -8,478

  34,888

  4,607

  25,328

  1,730

  166

  -

  1986

  19,880

  5,631

  -

  -8,146

  36,986

  3,165

  25,404

  1,600

  110

  -

  1987

  22,096

  6,180

  -

  -6,830

  40,379

  4,441

  26,466

  1,970

  159

  -

  1988

  26,648

  7,883

  -

  -10,549

  47,483

  7,216

  31,059

  2,390

  214

  -

  1989

  28,103

  9,565

  -

  -13,631

  70,172

  7,172

  48,855

  2,490

  216

  -

  1990

  30,539

  9,413

  -

  -14,973

  85,398

  7,538

  64,245

  2,920

  258

  -

  392
  Mr. Nelson
  Two meetings took place in April between the representatives of the leisure caravan industry and the Valuation Office agency. At the second meeting on 28 April, the representatives of the industry undertook to select representative sites to be considered in detail. It is expected that they will assemble financial and other information on the individual sites by mid-June to enable discussions to resume. If, as is hoped, a national agreement can be reached on the way in which the sites should be valued, valuation officers will take steps to implement any changes which are necessary.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of reducing the rate of value-added tax on energy-saving materials from 17.5 per cent. to 8 per cent. [28148]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no definitive list of energy-saving materials in existence; therefore it is impossible to quantify the cost to the Exchequer of taking such action.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost to the Exchequer of reducing the top rate of value-added tax from 17.5 per cent. to 16.5 per cent. [28149]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated cost in 1995–96, published by Her Majesty's Treasury in the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs", was £2.6 billion. A new estimate will be published this July.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue impact on the Government of reducing the rate of value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. [28141]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated loss in revenue in 1995–96 from a three percentage point reduction in VAT on domestic fuel is about £500 million. It will be revised this summer. The figure is based on the costings methodology in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Trading Profits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the table given in his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby dated 25 March 1982,Official Report, columns 393–94, concerning trading profits and relief from tax. [25619]

  Sir George Young
  The available information is shown in the table and notes.
  393

  £ million

  Manufacturing companies

  Financial companies

  Unincorporated business in manufacturing

  Gross trading profits

  Capital allowance claimed

  Stock relief claimed

  Gross trading profits

  Other income

  Capital allowance claimed

  Interest payments

  Gross trading profits

  Capital allowance allowed

  Stock relief claimed

  1991

  23,931

  10,010

  -

  -16,511

  78,700

  5,449

  59,914

  2,620

  221

  -

  1992

  23,078

  10,780

  -

  -15,480

  70,239

  5,329

  51,577

  n/a

  n/a

  -

  1993

  25,988

  n/a

  -

  -12,291

  57,333

  -

  38,741

  n/a

  n/a

  -

  n/a Not available.

  1. For companies and financial institutions gross trading profits are as defined for national accounts purposes and are before deducting capital allowances and interest payments.

  2. Manufacturing companies interest payments deducted from trading profits for tax purposes are not available.

  3. For unincorporated businesses in manufacturing, gross trading profits are estimated from tax assessments and are before deductions for capital.

  4. Stock relief was abolished during 1984.

  5. All estimates are subject to revision as more information becomes available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 1982,Official Report, columns 393–94, concerning trading profits and reliefs for tax, if he will now provide and bring up-to-date the figures for taxable profits in each case. [27126]

  Sir George Young
  The available information is shown in the table and notes.

  Income chargeable to tax

  £ million

  Manufacturing companies

  Financial institutions

  Unincorporated businesses in manufacturing

  1960

  1,752

  144

  89

  1961

  1,549

  181

  84

  1962

  1,454

  166

  88

  1963

  1,531

  174

  94

  1964

  1,660

  229

  104

  1965

  1,815

  380

  115

  1966

  1,923

  610

  126

  1967

  2,069

  881

  130

  1968

  2,532

  1,114

  152

  1969

  2,326

  1,025

  161

  1970

  2,248

  1,000

  178

  1971

  2,203

  1,281

  202

  1972

  2,295

  1,791

  240

  1973

  1,915

  1,624

  293

  1974

  1,556

  1,590

  311

  1975

  2,285

  1,859

  344

  1976

  2,949

  2,421

  380

  1977

  3,456

  3,563

  470

  1978

  4,117

  3,566

  605

  1979

  3,771

  2,852

  741

  1980

  3,973

  3,060

  796

  1981

  4,155

  3,053

  885

  1982

  4,759

  2,923

  798

  1983

  5,373

  3,313

  1,103

  1984

  6,969

  4,254

  1,483

  1985

  10,240

  7,716

  1,564

  1986

  14,561

  10,147

  1,490

  1987

  17,278

  10,333

  1,811

  1988

  19,177

  11,117

  2,176

  1989

  18,870

  10,430

  2,274

  1990

  14,999

  10,081

  2,662

  1991

  13,426

  9,079

  2,399

  1992

  15,320

  10,413

  -

  1. For companies, the estimates relate to income in accounting periods ending in the corresponding financial year. For unincorporated businesses, the estimates broadly refer to income earned in the calendar year.
  2. For companies, the estimates include income derived from trading and non-trading sources. For unincorporated businesses, the income is from the trading activities only.

  Engineering Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his press notice CSO (95)78 concerning engineering sales, if he will list for the categories closest to those covered by SITC division 75 the corresponding information on sales for 1994 together with his estimate of the import content. [26546]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on sales and orders can be found in the CSO publication "Engineering Sales and Orders", which is available in the House of Commons Library. The category closest to SITC 75 is the aggregate "Manufacture of Office Machinery and Data Processing Equipment". Data on a current price basis may be found in table 35 and constant price; seasonally adjusted information may be found in table 74. No estimates are available on the import content of these figures but data on all imports within SITC 75 may be found in the CSO publication MM20A "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with the World".

  Crown v. Abraham, Allen and Henderson
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid to leading counsel in the prosecution of the Crown v. Abraham, Allen and Henderson; how much was paid to the costs of the entire prosecution team in the Crown v. Abraham, Allen and Henderson; and what additional costs were charged to the cost of the case by (a) Customs and Excise and (b) the Treasury solicitors. [27172]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Fees, including VAT, paid to leading and other counsel in relation to the prosecution were £156,980 and £109,859 respectively. Customs and Excise estimates that its solicitor's office costs for the prosecution were in the region of £40,000. Costs billed by the Treasury Solicitor amounted to £28,300.

  Eamon Collins
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any money or other inducement was paid or offered to Eamon Collins in respect of his claim for unfair dismissal against Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—reference No. 1710/87. [27386]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  I can confirm that no inducement was offered or money paid to Eamon Collins in respect of his claim for unfair dismissal against Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the figures for loans to nationalised industries in table B20 of the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts", 1993–94 to give figures for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96. [27884]

  Mr. Nelson
  Outturn figures for loans to nationalised industries in 1994–95 are still being compiled. They will appear as usual in the supplementary statements to the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts", which is published each December. This exercise is constrained to outturn figures, and does not extend to the current year.

  Credit Expansion
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date his written answer of 10 May 1993,Official Report, columns 277–78, showing the expansion of domestic credit each year since 1952 in terms of sterling and as a percentage of the money supply and add a fresh column to show domestic credit expansion as a percentage of gross domestic product. [27435]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 July 1994,Official Report, columns 436–37.

  Information Technology Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards there are for(a) the public interest and (b) the individuals upon which information is kept, in the contracts with EDS in respect of Government data; what is the overall cost, estimated or actual, to the public purse of each of the contracts; what information his Department has of commissions paid in respect of these contracts; what increases in cost are allowable under the contracts; and if he will make a statement. [27570]

  Sir George Young
  There are two safeguards. The first is that the contract contains provisions obliging EDS to make all necessary arrangements to protect the privacy of personal information. The second is that contractors and their employees are subject, in the same way as Revenue employees, to the criminal sanctions—a fine, or imprisonment, or both—provided by section 182, of the Finance Act 1989, for unauthorised disclosure of personal tax information.

  The contract with EDS for the Inland Revenue's IT requirements is one which provides cost savings to the Department in cash terms of £225 million at 1994–95 prices with estimated expenditure of £1,033 million over the life of the contract to 2003–4.

  No commissions have been paid by the Inland Revenue in respect of the letting of the contracts to EDS.

  Price increases are allowable on the manpower element in the contract, subject to a cap calculated in accordance with the average earnings index.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to table 15.10 of the April 1995 issue of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics", if he will now combine the table on page 96 with those on pages 97 and 98 by removing the words "manufacture of" at the beginning of each line; and if he will add to each line the relevant weight. [27499]
  396
  Mr. Nelson
  The information in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" is presented in accordance with its periodical collection. The data on page 96 relate to those sectors where quarterly information is available—annual information is also presented—and the data on paged 97 and 98 relate to those sectors where only annual information is available. The Central Statistical Office will continue to publish the quarterly information on page 96 separately from the annual information on pages 97 and 98.

  Details relating to "weights" for the manufacturing sector will not be added to table 15.10, but this information can be found in table 2.5 of the "United Kingdom National Accounts 1994".

  Bank of England
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the long-term viability of the Bank of England branch in Bristol. [27777]

  Mr. Nelson
  This is a matter for the Bank of England. The Bank has recently completed a review of the work of its branches and agencies. The Bank will continue and enhance the economic liaison work conducted through its regional agents, including in Bristol. It has, however, decided to cease branch banking operations and will discuss the branches' work on note distribution with the major clearing banks.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in level of depreciation since 1955. [27580]

  Mr. Nelson
  Exchange rates are determined in foreign exchange markets.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of Her Majesty's Government's exchange rate policy in 1993 in respect of sterling and the development on the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures. [27500]

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the exchange rate were considered as part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setting monetary policy during 1993, as they are now. The Government did not and do not set a target rate for sterling.

  Government Shares
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a list of shares and securities held by Her Majesty's Treasury for the financial year 1994–95 on the same basis as table B13 of the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts", 1993–94. [27883]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Nominal amount £

  Description of Holding

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  Bank of England

  Capital Stock

  14,553,000

  14,553,000

  BAA plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  14,736,394

  29,472,288

  British Airways plc

  25p Ordinary Shares

  793,616

  793,586

  397

  Nominal amount £

  Description of Holding

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  British Petroleum plc

  25p Ordinary Shares

  25,305,722

  25,305,722

  £1 8 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares

  1,000

  1,000

  British Steel plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  17,044

  17,044

  British Telecommunications plc

  25p Ordinary Shares

  15,148,074

  7,623,444

  Loan Stock

  1,220,000,000

  667,970,000

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  10p Ordinary Shares

  1,241,180

  1,241,796

  Eastern Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  911,036

  911,036

  Debenture

  50,000,000

  Bonds 1999

  59,000,000

  -

  Bonds 2008

  59,000,000

  East Midlands Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  532,806

  474,850

  Debenture

  47,000,000

  -

  London Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  552,827

  559,496

  Bonds 1999

  70,000,000

  -

  Manweb plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  577,685

  582,666

  Bonds 1999

  20,000,000

  -

  Bonds 2008

  37,000,000

  -

  Midlands Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  628,562

  637,076

  National Grid Company plc

  Debenture

  150,000,000

  -

  Bonds 1997

  150,000,000

  -

  Bonds 2001

  150,000,000

  150,000,000

  Bonds 2008

  150,000,000

  -

  National Power plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  249,427,890

  2,958,821

  Bonds 1998

  350,000,000

  -

  Northern Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  438,505

  443,807

  Bonds 1999

  55,000,000

  55,000,000

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  25p Ordinary Shares

  -

  1,350,627

  Norweb plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  691,200

  697,741

  Bonds 1999

  77,000,000

  77,000,000

  Bonds 2008

  76,000,000

  76,000,000

  Powergen plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  156,516,610

  1,973,582

  Scottish Power plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  14,633,368

  9,332,184

  Bonds 2001

  142,000,000

  142,000,000

  398

  Nominal amount £

  Description of Holding

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  Scottish Hydro-Electric plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  6,586,865

  3,813,749

  Bonds 2005

  116,000,000

  -

  Seeboard plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  1,135,607

  1,149,782

  Bonds 2008

  54,000,000

  -

  Southern Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  447,211

  460,289

  South Wales Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  307,591

  310,990

  South Western Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  577,424

  583,415

  Bonds 2008

  80,000,000

  80,000,000

  Yorkshire Electricity plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  612,483

  544,756

  Anglian Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  2,559,604

  2,571,791

  Northumbrian Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  256,411

  256,411

  North West Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  2,699,482

  2,699,482

  Seven Trent Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  3,557,938

  3,567,089

  Southern Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  1,201,801

  1,209,388

  South Western Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  105,174

  107,800

  Thames Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  3,487,833

  3,487,933

  Welsh Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  1,012,677

  1,024,302

  Wessex Water plc

  50p Ordinary Shares

  594,202

  604,189

  Yorkshire Water plc

  £1 Ordinary Shares

  1,485,628

  1,500,230

  Earnings
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 99, what are the numbers and percentage in self-employment who receive (a) £30,000 to £35,000, (b) £35,000 to £50,000, (c) £50,000 to £75,000, (d) £75,000 to £100,000 and (e) over £100,000 annually. [27821]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: The table covers people whose main source of income assessable to 1993–94 tax was from self-employment. The bands are of profits assessable to 1993–94 tax; that is, generally, profits arising in accounting periods ending in 1992–93. Estimates for later years are not yet available.
  399

  Profits from self-employment

  Estimated numbers

  Percentage of all whose main source of income assessable to 1993–94 tax was from self-employment

  (a) £30,000 to £34,999

  72,000

  2.1

  (b) £35,000 to £49,999

  106,000

  3.1

  (c) £50,000 to £74,999

  62,000

  1.8

  (d) £75,000 to £99,999

  18,000

  0.5

  (e) £100,000 and over

  27,000

  0.8

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce the rate of excise duty for biodiesel produced from crops under section 11 of the Finance Act 1993. [27090]

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The rates of excise duty to be applied to biodiesel when used as motor fuel are already known. They are the same as that applied to the equivalent fossil fuel.

  These are:

  When used as a motor fuel for road vehicles: 31.32p per litre.

  When used as motor fuel for other purposes: 2.14p per litre.

  No duty will be charged when used as a heating fuel.

  A Treasury order implementing these charges is currently being drafted and will be circulated to those concerned before the House rises for the summer recess, with a view to implementation in the autumn.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to publish its annual report for the year 1993–94. [28253]

  Mr. Watts
  The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has now published it sixth annual report, covering the period from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994. I have today arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  A12
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current status and timetable of the dualling of each section of the Al2 Ipswich to north Lowestoft; and if he will make a statement. [27246]

  Mr. Watts
  The roads programme contains six schemes on the A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft as follows:

  A12 Martlesham—Wickham Market Improvement (dualling)
  Priority 2 (£11 million). Next step public consultation.

  A12 Wickham Market to Saxmundham Improvement (dualling)
  Priority 2 (£20 million). Decision awaited following March 95 public inquiry.

  A12 Toxford Bypass (single carriageway)
  Priority 2 (£4 million). Next stage preferred route announcement following public consultation.

  A12 Blythburgh Bypass (single carriageway)
  Priority 2 (£5 million). Possibility of local conference prior to public consultation in view of sensitive environment issues.
  400
  A12 Wrentham Bypass (single carriageway)
  Priority 2 (£3 million). Next stage preferred route announcement following public consultation.

  A12 Kessingland—Pleasurewood (standard not known)
  Longer term scheme.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to meet the commitment in the White Paper, "Roads to Prosperity", to dual the A12 from London to Great Yarmouth; and if he will make a statement. [27245]

  Mr. John Watts
  In March 1994, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced the results of his review of the trunk road programme. He announced that we are to improve some sections of the existing dual carriageway between M25 and Ipswich, but no longer plan a continuous dual carriageway on the environmentally sensitive section north of Ipswich. Here we propose to dual some short sections, but otherwise will concentrate on bypasses to relieve local communities.

  Manchester Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Manchester airport rail link, southern spur to begin operations. [28151]

  Mr. Watts
  In May 1996.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the dispute between Railtrack plc and Regional Railways, North West, over the funding of the Manchester airport rail link, southern spur. [28150]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for the financing and operation of the Manchester airport link, southern spur. [28152]

  Mr. Watts
  These matters are for Manchester Airport plc and the local authorities concerned, who have promoted the scheme and funded it from their own resources.

  Highway Authorities
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to whether the proposed division of Berkshire into six highway authorities, including three covering the urban area of Reading, will facilitate an integrated approach to transport provision in the county area. [27993]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no reason why the proposed restructuring of Berkshire to create six unitary authorities should hinder the delivery of local transport services. It is likely that the new authorities will need to work together in this, and other areas, where strategic issues straddle authority boundaries. We already encourage such joint working between authorities, for example through the package approach for transport funding.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the extent to which the targeting of expenditure on highway maintenance and road improvements will be as effective in achieving value for money and lessening road accidents if carried out within each of the six unitary authorities proposed for Berkshire as under the current arrangements. [27997]
  401
  Mr. Norris
  The Local Government Commission took account of the need for efficient and effective performance of all local authority activities in making its recommendations for the restructuring of local government in Berkshire.

  Drivers' Hours
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand liability for drivers' hours to employers; what plans he has to exclude as a defence that employers have complied with the regulations if they have warned drivers not to exceed the permitted hours; and if he will make a statement. [27760]

  Mr. Norris
  Under existing legislation employers can be, and are, prosecuted for drivers' hours and tachograph offences where it can be proven that they caused or permitted an offence to take place. In such circumstances, a warning given by the employer to the driver not to exceed the permitted hours might be taken into account but it would be up to a court to decide what weight, if any, to attach to such a warning.

  Automated First Registration and Licensing Project
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide the project timetable for the introduction of automated first registration and licensing and the estimated cost of the project; and by whom the cost will be met. [27866]

  Mr. Norris
  A firm timetable for the automated first registration and licensing project is not yet available.

  The cost of the project is to be met jointly by the DVLA and the motor industry. The DVLA's costs are a matter for negotiation with its computer contractor, EDS Ltd., and are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the saving to his Department from closing two traffic area offices; [27873]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the saving to an average coach or bus operator in operator licensing fees per vehicle per year from closing two traffic area offices; [27870]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the saving to an average haulage operator in operator licence and vehicle fees per vehicle per year from closing two traffic area offices. [27872]

  Mr. Norris
  No estimates have been made by the Department of the savings to operators of closing two traffic area offices.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average coach or bus operator pays in operator licence fees per vehicle per year; what element of this is directly attributed to traffic area office costs excluding his Department's headquarters and central on-costs; and what estimate he has made of the average running costs of an average coach or bus. [27869]

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of the licence for a PSV operator is £54 per vehicle per year; approximately £18 or 33.5 per cent. of the fee is directly attributed to traffic area office costs. The average annual running costs, for a new 53-seater diesel bus was estimated at the year end of 1993 to be £28,306. Running costs include depreciation, maintenance, fuel, tyres and lubricants.
  402
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of what the average haulage operator pays in operator licence fees, licence and vehicle fee, per vehicle per year; what element of this is directly attributed to traffic area office costs excluding his Department's headquarters' costs and central on-costs; and what estimate he has made of the annual running costs of an average heavy good vehicle. [27871]

  Mr. Norris
  The costs of operator licensing based on an average operator with three vehicles are £665 for a five-year licence. This produces an average annual cost of £133 or £44.33 per vehicle per annum. Traffic area office costs represent approximately 27 per cent. of the total costs of goods operator licensing which amounts to an average cost of £11.97 per vehicle per annum.

  Annual running costs of operating a heavy goods vehicle are not calculated by the Department.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has introduced with regard to(a) recommendation numbers 100 and 101, (b) recommendation numbers 98 and 99 and (c) recommendation number 102 of the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. [27865]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have welcomed the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's report as a valuable contribution to the wider debate we are encouraging on transport policy.

  We recognise the value of cycling transport policies and programmes and we have made it plain in statements and within the recent transport policies and programmes guidance that we expect highway authorities to work with others to achieve better conditions for cyclists. That will inevitably include the development of sound cycle networks, building on the experience from our cycle routes programme. The Government believe that cycling proposals are most effective when they are fitted into a balanced set of measures. Accordingly, we have accepted 37 local authority transport packages for funding, the great majority of which include cycle networks or other measures that benefit cyclists. One notable example is the London cycle network, for which £3 million support will be provided in this financial year. In reaching decisions on funding, my Department looks for evidence that authorities are pursuing viable cycling policies and promoting cycling as a better alternative to the car for many journeys. In addition, I recently announced my intention to develop a national strategy for cycling.

  Fatalities to cyclists and pedestrians are at their lowest level since records began in 1927. We shall continue to seek the maximum reduction in casualties, through a wide range of measures, including education, penalties for dangerous driving, research, engineering schemes and substantial publicity campaigns.

  British Rail's commercial policy is to welcome cyclists and to convey bicycles whenever and wherever possible, subject to certain fees, provided this will not unduly inconvenience other passengers or displace other revenue earning traffic.

  The cyclists' public affairs group, with the assistance of the Department of Transport, has produced a guidance document for rail service operators explaining how they

  403
  can make their services more attractive to the growing number of cyclists. The franchising director will send copies of the document to all bidders for rail franchises. In addition, the franchising director is currently considering whether the franchise agreement should include any provision for the carriage of bicycles on trains.

  A38
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to complete his study of the options for increasing capacity on the A38 between Exeter and Plymouth; if he has ruled out the possibility of the A38 between Exeter and Plymouth being upgraded to motorway status; and what environmental assessment he has made should increased capacity on the road be recommended. [27355]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has received the consultants' report. I await the agency's recommendations.

  M65 (Protestors)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 245, (1) which teams of contractors and which specialist climbers were awarded the contract by the under sheriff of Lancashire to evict the protesters from Stanworth woods; if this contract went out to competitive tender; and what were the costs incurred; [27343]

  (2) what sums of money from public funds have been paid, and to whom, in respect of the costs incurred by the under sheriff of Lancashire in respect of contract work to clear tree protestors from Stanworth woods between 1 and 5 May. [27171]

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport, which teams of contractors were appointed by the Under Sheriff of Lancashire to remove protestors from Stanworth Woods; what was the cost of the work undertaken; and whether the contracts were subject to competitive tendering.
  The action to evict protestors from Stanworth Woods was entirely the responsibility of the Under Sheriff. He directly recruited the specialist teams and there was no involvement by the Highways Agency.
  This is not a matter for which the Agency is responsible, but we understand that the cost, to date, of the work undertaken by the Under Sheriff is some £79,000.

  Overloaded Vehicles
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual cost of damage to roads and bridges caused by overloaded vehicles. [27148]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  404
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Denham, dated 12 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual cost of damage to roads and bridges caused by overloaded vehicles.
  In 1988 the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) published a report on road wear caused by overloaded lorries. This was based on the results of ten roadside surveys of goods vehicles carried out in different locations during the 1980s. The conclusion was that for the roads covered in the survey, overloading contributed directly to 5.7% of the road wear attributable to goods vehicles.
  The Highways Agency recently asked the TRL to review this figure. The latter concluded that, because of changes in the composition of the vehicle fleet, road wear caused by overloading had probably reduced slightly. Of the £360 million spent on maintaining roads comprising the trunk road network during 1994/95, we estimate that less than 5% (£18 million) was attributable to damage caused by overloaded vehicles.
  As for bridges, we use historical data on traffic distribution when developing the loading standards for their design. Although there is therefore some element of initial capital cost associated with overladen vehicles, we do not have an estimate of the annual cost of damage caused by them.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy his Department has put to the working groups on the Latham report as to the desirability of a single exclusive register for public sector work. [24356]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

WALES

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to date with regard to the establishment of new health authorities in Wales. [26044]

  Mr. Redwood
  No steps have been taken formally to establish the new health authorities. That will be accomplished by regulations, subject to enactment of the Health Authorities Bill.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS patients in Wales have been informed by their dentist in the last 36 months that they will no longer treat them on the NHS. [26046]

  Mr. Richards
  Around 43,000 patients have been removed from dentists registers since 1 August 1992, but many of these will have subsequently registered with another dentist. Between 1992 and 1994 the number of patients registered has remained at about 58 per cent.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) number of adult courses of treatment, (b) total national health service gross expenditure, (c) total cost borne by the Exchequer and (d) total cost borne by patients, for the general dental service, for each year between 1990 and 1994. [27196]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the following table:
  405

  Adult courses of dental treatment (thousands)(1)

  Total NHS gross expenditure (£ million)(2)

  Total cost borne by Exchequer (net) (£ million)

  Total cost borne by patients (£ million)

  1990–91

  1,190

  57,055

  38,923

  18,132

  1991–92

  1,327

  69,513

  49,426

  20,087

  1992–93

  1,398

  73,794

  53,327

  20,467

  1993–94

  1,399

  67,964

  48,928

  19,036

  1 Revised figures from Dental Estimates Board.

  2 Excludes refunds, which are netted off against patients fees.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of people aged five to 18 years with permanent teeth which are actively decayed, filled or missing due to decay. [27201]

  Mr. Richards
  A national survey of children's dental health was carried out, for the third time, in 1993 by the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and results published by HMSO in "Children's dental health in the United Kingdom 1993", ISBN O 11 691607 9, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The information requested is shown in tables 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 and 3.9 of the publication. Sixteen to 18-year-olds are not covered by the survey.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new programmes have been announced since the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to encourage mature students to learn Welsh; and if he will make a statement. [26047]

  Mr. Richards
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales is responsible for securing the provision of Welsh for adults in the further education sector. The council has ensured that Welsh for adults programmes have been maintained and developed. For the 1995–96 academic year, the council has established a new development fund which will provide an additional £300,000 in support of Welsh for adults projects to generate new provision and improve existing courses.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of part-time workers as a proportion of the overall working population(a) in 1985 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [26048]

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the labour force survey, in spring 1985, some 20 per cent. of employees of working age in Wales were in part-time employment. The figure for autumn 1994 was 24 per cent.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of male unemployment in Newport, Gwent and Wales at the latest available date. [26049]

  Mr. Redwood
  In April 1995, the unadjusted, male unemployment rate in the Newport travel-to-work area was 11.2 per cent. The corresponding figures for Gwent and Wales were 11.9 per cent. and 11.3 per cent. respectively.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for 1978–79 at constant prices. [26050]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available figure at outturn prices for direct grants is £14.1 million for 1993–94. The earliest financial year for which a directly comparable figure can be determined is 1988–89 when the equivalent expenditure at 1993–94 prices was £8.2 million.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the effect of the second Severn crossing on(a) industry and (b) tourism in Wales. [26051]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The second Severn crossing, which is due to open next year, is likely to have a beneficial effect on many aspects of life in Wales. A report by Pieda plc in 1992, based on a survey of businesses in south Wales and Avon, concluded that the crossing would have positive effect on local trading and commercial activity and stimulate investment opportunities in south Wales. The report added that the crossing is unlikely of itself to increase tourism activities in these regions. Copies of the executive summary of the report, entitled "The Economic Impact of the Second Severn Crossing", are in the Library of the House.

  Schools (Information Technology)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to encourage investment in IT in Welsh schools. [26052]

  Mr. Redwood
  On 6 April, I announced an initiative which will allow all primary schools in Wales to bid for 100 per cent. funding for IT equipment. Schools can choose between multi-media suites or portables, together with the latest and best available software on the basic subjects of the national curriculum.

  The initiative will cost up to £3 million during the school year 1995–96, and will include training on the use of the equipment and follow-on training funded separately through grant for education support and training.

  In addition, substantial provision has been made for primary and secondary schools through GEST to support the acquisition and greater use of IT across the curriculum. In 1995–96, this amounts to £2.7 million.

  Coastal Discharges
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in reducing the amount of raw sewage being pumped from Wales into the sea.
  407
  Mr. Redwood
  Considerable progress is being achieved in improving the treatment of sewage discharges to Welsh costal waters. Dwr Cymru is aiming to complete its programme of improvements to discharges affecting EC identified bathing waters by 1998. It plans to invest over £400 million in the next five years, mainly at coastal sites, so that nearly all the waste water it collects will receive sewage treatment.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the National Rivers Authority report on toxic contaminants entering the sea, published on 23 May, in regard to its implications for the Welsh coastline. [26743]

  Mr Gwilym Jones
  The report "Contaminants Entering the Sea" outlines the results of the National Rivers Authority's monitoring programme over the period 1990 to 1993, in line with international agreements and commitments. Progress toward meeting the commitments to reduce the quantities of contaminants entering the sea has been encouraging. For some of the most toxic metals, the authority's estimate show that the reduction targets have already been met.

  The results highlighted in the report do not necessarily signify pollution of the Welsh coastline: rather, they are examples of dissolved substances which, in many cases, occur naturally in Wales. The authority advises that in the overwhelming majority of cases the concentrations of substances found are not a threat to the biology of the river or marine environment in Wales. Areas of potential concern, such as those affected by pesticides or minerals, are being reviewed by the authority's Welsh region to identify appropriate action to be taken.

  Teachers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools teachers have been employed by each local education authority in each of the last five years. [26489]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is shown, as at January each year, in the following tables:

  LEA

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Full-time equivalent primary school teachers

  Clwyd

  1,662

  1,657

  1,686

  1,690

  1,643

  Dyfed

  1,754

  1,776

  1,819

  1,828

  1,825

  Gwent

  1,927

  1,943

  1,929

  1,998

  2,005

  Gwynedd

  1,062

  1,039

  1,047

  1,052

  1,027

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,538

  2,688

  2,643

  2,648

  2,649

  Powys

  581

  600

  616

  593

  581

  South Glamorgan

  1,747

  1,748

  1,859

  1,909

  1,970

  West Glamorgan

  1,803

  1,817

  1,810

  1,787

  1,831

  Wales total

  13,074

  13,268

  13,409

  13,505

  13,531

  Full-time equivalent secondary school teachers

  Clwyd

  1,869

  1,842

  1,856

  1,819

  1,520

  Dyfed

  1,614

  1,639

  1,654

  1,732

  1,651

  Gwent

  1,982

  1,982

  1,953

  1,954

  1,931

  408

  LEA

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Gwynedd

  1,245

  1,188

  1,196

  1,189

  1,158

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,470

  2,456

  2,519

  2,614

  2,567

  Powys

  632

  602

  607

  595

  615

  South Glamorgan

  1,821

  1,809

  1,768

  1,839

  1,614

  West Glamorgan

  1,665

  1,655

  1,671

  1,541

  1,579

  Wales total

  13,298

  13,173

  13,224

  13,283

  12,635

  Source:
  618G teacher statistics returns collected by the Department for Education.
  The figures include: qualified teachers including on secondment; student teachers and instructors; and peripatetic teachers, advisory teachers and teachers in centres for special education.
  The figures exclude: teachers at grant maintained schools; teachers at LEA maintained nursery and special schools; and teachers providing education other than at schools.
  The two sixth form colleges, in Clwyd and South Glamorgan, left LEA control in April 1993 and are excluded from the January 1994 data.

  Full-time equivalent of teachers employed by GM schools

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Primary schools

  Clwyd

  -

  -

  -

  -

  19

  Dyfed

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Gwent

  -

  -

  -

  -

  9

  Gwynedd

  -

  -

  -

  -

  11

  Mid Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Powys

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2

  South Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  West Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  41

  Secondary schools

  Clwyd

  -

  -

  -

  65

  220

  Dyfed

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Gwent

  -

  -

  25

  64

  107

  Gwynedd

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Mid Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Powys

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  South Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  147

  West Glamorgan

  -

  -

  63

  62

  69

  Wales

  0

  0

  88

  191

  544

  Total

  Clwyd

  -

  -

  -

  65

  239

  Dyfed

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Gwent

  -

  -

  25

  64

  116

  Gwynedd

  -

  -

  -

  -

  11

  Mid Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Powys

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2

  South Glamorgan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  147

  West Glamorgan

  -

  -

  63

  62

  69

  Wales

  0

  0

  88

  191

  584

  Figures taken from the 618G returns. GM schools only.
  Staff employed by the LEA, but contracted to a GM school are excluded.
  The figures include: full-time qualified teachers in regular service including those on secondment; full-time equivalent of part-time qualified teachers in regular service; full-time qualified teachers in occasional service; and full-time equivalent of student teachers and instructors.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) cases of heart disease and (b) deaths due to heart disease were recorded for each year since 1990. [27213]

  Mr. Richards
  Available information on mortality from heart disease is as follows:

  Number

  1990

  10,972

  1991

  10,974

  1992

  10,751

  19931

  11,873

  Note:

  1 Due to changes in coding practice, 1993 data are not strictly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  OPCS.

  Information on the number of cases of heart disease is not available. However, the following table shows latest estimates of hospital in-patient or day case activity in Wales where heart disease was recorded as the principal diagnosis.

  Number

  1990–911

  24,493

  1991–922

  29,754

  1992–932

  32,590

  1993–942

  33,413

  1 Deaths and discharges.

  2 Completed consultant episodes.

  Heart disease is defined as international classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death, ninth revision codes 390–429.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the transfer of resources from the Countryside Council for Wales to local authority control. [27651]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Where the Countryside Council for Wales and local authorities have general powers to act, we wish to move to a situation where a greater proportion of the work is undertaken by the local authorities. Much of this work is of a local nature and it therefore seems more appropriate that is should be undertaken by a local body. My right hon. Friend and I are consulting with local authority associations and wait their responses before deciding on the best way forward.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for home repossessions in Wales, West Glamorgan and Neath. [26054]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on the number of homes repossessed are not available. Figures for mortgage possession actions taken in county courts are published by the Lord Chancellor's Department and not all orders result in repossession. The numbers of possession orders, including suspended orders, made during the first quarter of 1995 in Wales, West Glamorgan and Neath are 1,091, 174 and 82 respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority and for Wales as a whole(a) the number and (b) the proportion of pupils in grant-maintained (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [26788]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Full-time and part-time pupils in grant maintained:

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Number

  As a percentage of the number of pupils in all maintained schools

  Number

  As a percentage of the number of pupils in all maintained schools

  Clwyd

  488

  1.2

  3,558

  13.3

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  216

  0.5

  1,485

  4.9

  Gwynedd

  254

  1.3

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  27

  0.3

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  3,107

  11.4

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  967

  4.1

  Wales

  985

  0.3

  9,117

  4.7

  Source:

  Pupil numbers relate to January 1994 and are from the schools census. The status of the schools—grant maintained or LEA maintained—reflects the current position.

  General Practioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those family health services authorities which have made payments under part VI, paragraph 34, section 2(u) to single-handed general practitioners' practices in their areas; [28081]

  (2) how many single-handed general practitioners' practices were in receipt of additional payments under part VI, paragraph 34, section 2(u) of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 in (a) 1992, (b)(c) 1994 and (d) in the current year in Wales; [28101]

  (3) what was (a) the lowest (b) the highest and (c) the average payment made to single-handed general practitioners' practices under part VI, paragraph 34, section 2(u) of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 in Wales in (a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) in the current year. [28082]

  Mr. Richards
  No payments were made by any FHSA in Wales between 1992 and 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas in which general practitioners' practices have qualified for additional payments for deprivation as defined under the Jarman index in each of the last five years and the current year. [28084]

  Mr. Richards
  From the introduction of the deprivation payments scheme in 1990–91 until April 1995, GP practices have qualified for payments for each patient who is resident in one of the wards in table 1. The wards qualifying for payments are derived in Wales using the Jarman index—based on 1981 census data—standardised morality ratios and an index derived from the housing conditions survey. The payments from June 1995 will be to GP practices for each patient resident in one of the wards in table 2. These wards qualify following the recalculation of the Jarman index using 1991 census data
  411
  and the updating of the SMRs. It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the two tables due to the restructuring of wards between the 1981 and 1991 censuses.

  Table 1

  FHSA

  District

  OPCS district code

  OPCS ward code

  OPCS ward number/name

  Clwyd

  Rhuddlan

  SJ

  AF

  No.6

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AA

  No.1

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AJ

  No.9

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AM

  No. 12

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AN

  No.13

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AP

  No.14

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AT

  No.18

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  AW

  No.20

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  AC

  No.3

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  AF

  No.6

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  AC

  No.3

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  AD

  No.4

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  AM

  No.12

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  AQ

  No.15

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  AT

  No.18

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  BB

  No.25

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  BC

  No.26

  Gwynedd

  Ynys Mon

  TC

  AG

  No.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AA

  No.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AB

  No.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AC

  No.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AD

  No.4

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AG

  No.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AH

  No.8

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AL

  No.11

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AM

  No.12

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  AP

  No.14

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AA

  No.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AB

  No.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AC

  No.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AD

  No.4

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AF

  No.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AG

  No.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  AH

  No.8

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ogwr

  TF

  AF

  No.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AA

  Ferndale

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AB

  Llwynypia

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AD

  Penygraig

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AE

  Porth

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AJ

  Tylorstown

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  AL

  Ystrad

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  AF

  No.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  AT

  No.18

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  AU

  No.19

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  AW

  No.20

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  AX

  No.21

  Powys

  Montgomery

  TL

  AX

  No.7

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  AA

  No.1

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  AD

  No.4

  West Glamorgan

  Afan (Port Talbot)

  TQ

  AK

  No.10

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea

  TT

  AA

  No.1

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea

  TT

  AP

  No.14

  Table 2

  FHSA

  District

  OPCS district code

  OPCS ward code

  OPCS ward name

  Clwyd

  Rhuddlan

  SJ

  FN

  Rhyl West

  Clwyd

  Wrexham Maelor

  SK

  GH

  Plas Madoc

  Clwyd

  Wrexham Maelor

  SK

  GK

  Queensway

  Dyfed

  Dinefwr

  SN

  FU

  Myddnfych

  Dyfed

  Dinefwr

  SN

  FZ

  Quarter Bach

  Dyfed

  Llanelli

  SP

  FG

  Felinfoel

  Dyfed

  South

  SR

  FN

  Pembroke

  412

  Table 2

  FHSA

  District

  OPCS district code

  OPCS ward code

  OPCS ward name

  Dyfed

  Pembrokeshire South Pembrokeshire

  SR

  FR

  Dock Llanio Pembroke Monkton

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FF

  Cwm

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FH

  Ebbw Vale North

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FJ

  Ebbw Vale South

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FM

  Llanhilleth

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FN

  Nantyglo

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  SS

  FR

  Six Bells

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  FN

  Pillgwenlly

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  FT

  Stow Hill

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  FU

  Tredegar Park

  Gwent

  Newport

  SW

  FW

  Victoria

  Gwent

  Torfaen

  SX

  FY

  Trevethin

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  FD

  Deiniol

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  FK

  Hendre

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  FU

  Marchog

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  FW

  Menai (Bangor)

  Gwynedd

  Arfon

  SZ

  FZ

  Peblig

  Gwynedd

  Dwyfor

  TA

  FM

  Llanaelhaeam

  Gwynedd

  Dwyfor

  TA

  FS

  Nefyn

  Gwynedd

  Dwyfor

  TA

  FX

  Pwllheli North

  Gwynedd

  Dwyfor

  TA

  FY

  Pwllheli South

  Gwynedd

  Dwyfor

  TA

  FZ

  Tremadog

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FA

  Aberaman North

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FB

  Aberaman South

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FC

  Abercynon

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FD

  Aberdare East

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FF

  Cwmbach

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FG

  Hirwaun

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FJ

  Mountain Ash East

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FK

  Mountain Ash West

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FL

  Penrhiwceiber

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FM

  Pen-y-waun

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  TD

  FP

  Ynysybwl

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FA

  Bedlinog

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FB

  Cyfarthfa

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FC

  Dowlais

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FD

  Gurnos

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FE

  Merthyr Vale

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FF

  Park

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FG

  Penydarren

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FH

  Plymouth

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FJ

  Town

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FK

  Treharris

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  TE

  FL

  Vaynor

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ogwr

  TF

  FA

  Bettws

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ogwr

  TF

  FL

  Llangeinor

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FA

  Cwm Clydach

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FB

  Cymmer

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FC

  Ferndale

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FD

  Llwyn-y-pia

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FE

  Maerdy

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FF

  Pentre

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FG

  Pen-y-graig

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FH

  Porth

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FJ

  Trealaw

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FK

  Treherbert

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FL

  Treorchy

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FN

  Tylorstown

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FP

  Ynyshir

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhondda

  TG

  FQ

  Ystrad

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FA

  Aberbargoed

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FB

  Abertysswg

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FF

  Darran Valley

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FN

  Moriah

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FQ

  New Tredegar

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FS

  Pontlottyn

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FU

  St. James

  Mid Glamorgan

  Rhymney Valley

  TH

  FY

  Twyn Carno

  Mid Glamorgan

  Taff-Ely

  TJ

  FG

  Glyncoch

  Mid Glamorgan

  Taff-Ely

  TJ

  FK

  Ilan

  413

  Table 2

  FHSA

  District

  OPCS district code

  OPCS ward code

  OPCS ward name

  Powys

  Montgomeryshire

  TL

  GQ

  Welshpool Castle

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  FA

  Adamsdown

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  FB

  Butetown

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  FG

  Ely

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  TN

  FX

  Riverside

  South Glamorgan

  Vale of Glamorgan

  TP

  FL

  Gibbonsdown

  West Glamorgan

  Lliw Valley

  TQ

  FK

  Graigfelen

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea

  TT

  FR

  Penderry

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea

  TT

  FX

  Townhill

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 72–73, what was the amount of the short-term loan, the time for which it was requested, the day on which the loan was made and the day on which it was repaid [27899]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: A short-term loan of £1.3 million was made on 3 April. It was requested for a period of 15 days and repaid on 21 April, three days later than planned.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 72–73, what steps he has taken to reconcile the financial viability consultation work carried out by Secta Consultation Ltd. on the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare national health service trust with the financial deficit currently reported; and if he will make a statement. [27849]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: None. The financial viability of the trust was independently confirmed by Secta Consulting Ltd. as part of the process of assessing the application for trust status. The trust have now identified a potential deficit and are introducing measures to address in this year.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his latest estimate of the cost of local government reorganisation in Wales. [27540]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: The costs of reorganisation will decided primarily by local government itself.

  I decide how much to allocate towards local government reorganisation costs in the light of estimates submitted by local authorities in Wales. The public expenditure statement sets out the grant and capital provision available.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), of 22 May,Official Report, column 460, if he will list the figures separately for the financial years 1990–91 and 1994–95; and if he will list the principle components making up the £9 million authorised retrospectively, by means of extra statutory payments. [27896]
  414
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: The level of expenditure by general practitioner fundholders from their management allowances between 1990–91 to 1993–94 was:

  £

  1990–91

  111,630

  1991–92

  519,556

  1992–93

  1,622,538

  1993–94

  2,004,934

  Expenditure figures for 1994–95 are not yet available, but provisional accounts suggest that the total sum amounted to some £3.8 million.

  Detailed information on the principal components are not held centrally.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 461, what further approaches he has had from the World Wide Fund for Nature. [27897]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: My Department responded on 6 June to a letter dated 30 May from the head of UK programmes and European liaison, World Wide Fund for Nature about Cardiff bay barrage bird compensation measures.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 80, what approaches have been made to landowners in Caldicot, Uskmouth and the Lougher estuary with a view to the acquisition of their land for the bird reserve connected with the Cardiff bay barrage development; on what date the landowners were approached; and if he will list the responses received. [27898]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: This is an operational matter for the corporation and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1090, what proportion of the transfer costs agreed on 27 March 1990 comprised the redundancy costs; and if he will list the non-redundancy items making up the total that his Department approved on that date. [27405]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 April 1995. The costs agreed on 27 March 1990 did not separately identify redundancy or other items.

  TACP Architects
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 206, which of the work was obtained by competitive tender. [25086]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The following Welsh Office work was obtained by competitive tender:
  Landscaping at Cadoxton Barry
  Commission for landscape advice
  I understand from the non-departmental public bodies concerned that the following work was obtained by competitive tender:
  415

  Development Board for Rural Wales: Landscaping Ystradgynlais

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation: Landscaping design services and 19 individual projects

  Countryside Council for Wales: Research on traditional orchards

  Welsh Development Agency: Warren Hall feasibility study

  Development Board for Rural Wales: Landscaping Ystradgynlais

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation: Landscape design services and 19 individual projects

  Countryside Council for Wales: Research on traditional orchards

  Welsh Development Agency: Warren Hall feasibility study

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of Education what is the total number of students in higher education in the United Kingdom; and what were the figures in 1979 and 1985; [27758]

  (2) what is the current number of overseas students studying in higher education in the United Kingdom; and what were the figures in 1979 and 1985. [27757]

  Mr. Boswell
  The readily available information is given in the table:

  Enrolments in higher education1 in the United Kingdom (thousands)

  Year

  Total

  Of which overseas students

  1979–80

  795

  256

  1985–86

  937

  254

  1992–93

  1,444

  110

  Sources: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1994 and 1983 editions, HMSO.

  Notes:

  1 Excludes enrolments on nursing and paramedical courses—85,000 in 1992–93.

  2 Full-time only.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps are taken to ensure that practising schoolteachers in all types of school continue during their teaching service to be provided with adequate and correct information concerning children with epilepsy; [27647]

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure that teachers in training are provided with adequate and correct information concerning children with epilepsy. [27646]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is planning to issue later this year guidance on managing children who require medication in schools, which will help inform both serving and trainee teachers about epilepsy.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are taken to ensure that all pupils are in receipt within their school curriculum, of appropriate and correct epilepsy awareness information. [26789]

  Mr. Forth
  There is scope within national curriculum science for the teaching of issues which relate to health and well-being. Opportunities also exist within the wider curriculum, for example, through programmes of 416
  personal, social and health education, for schools to provide information about a broad range of health issues, including epilepsy.

  Under-fives Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the standard spending assessment for under-fives education by each local education authority; and what was the actual spending on under-fives education by each local education authority at the latest date for which figures are available. [28017]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the standard spending assessment for under-fives education by each local education authority is contained in "The Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1995–96", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on spending on under-fives is not available disaggregated by LEA.

  Further Education Lecturers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many further education lecturers have taken early retirement; and how many did so on grounds of ill health for each of the last five years. [27556]

  Mr. Boswell
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Education Course Costs
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost and the average cost per student of the BEd/BAQTS in(a) year one, (b) year two, (c) year three and (d) year four on courses in England and Wales. [27994]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost and the average cost per student of the postgraduate certificate of education courses in England and Wales. [27995]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Teachers Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the Government's proposals to privatise the administration of the teachers pension fund will require secondary legislation. [28153]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Before a contractor could administer the teachers superannuation scheme, secondary legislation would be needed to delegate functions of administration to the contractor.

  We have made it clear that we shall let a contractor only if it would provide better value for money than keeping the administration of the teachers superannuation scheme in the public sector.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to make an announcement on the consultation document on ethnic monitoring of school pupils. [28020]

  Mr. Forth
  The consultation paper invited responses by the end of May. They are still arriving. My right hon. Friend is carefully considering them, and hopes to announce her conclusions as soon as practicable.
  417
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many responses she has received to the consultation on ethnic monitoring. [28021]

  Mr. Forth
  About 100, to date.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure that the ethnic monitoring of pupils analyses variations in achievement between different ethnic groups. [28022]

  Mr. Forth
  This is one of the issues raised in the consultations. My right hon. Friend is considering it in the light of the responses.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 690, if she will list the figures for the average teacher's salary in each of the education authorities who (a) do not receive and (b) receive area cost adjustment. [28086]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available data are set out in the table. The area cost adjustment reflects relative costs across all salaries as well as other expenses such as higher rates.

  Average Salary, as at March 1993 (provisional), of full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  LEAs which receive area cost adjustment

  Average salary £

  Corporation of London

  22,168

  Inner London Boroughs

  Camden

  22,801

  Greenwich

  22,922

  Hackney

  23,225

  Hammersmith

  22,633

  Islington

  22,501

  Kensington and Chelsea

  22,490

  Lambeth

  23,680

  Lewisham

  23,153

  Southwark

  23,475

  Tower Hamlets

  23,062

  Wandsworth

  22,546

  Westminster

  22,920

  Outer London Boroughs

  Barking

  21,926

  Barnet

  21,508

  Bexley

  21,572

  Brent

  23,743

  Bromley

  22,001

  Croydon

  21,881

  Ealing

  21,960

  Enfield

  21,841

  Haringey

  23,232

  Harrow

  21,437

  Havering

  21,646

  Hillingdon

  21,683

  Houslow

  21,136

  Kingston upon Thames

  21,698

  Merton

  22,307

  Newham

  22,603

  Redbridge

  21,849

  Richmond upon Thames

  21,171

  Sutton

  21,770

  Waltham Forest

  21,721

  418

  Average Salary, as at March 1993 (provisional), of full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  LEAs which receive area cost adjustment

  Average salary £

  Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  20,461

  Berkshire

  20,672

  Buckinghamshire

  20,554

  East Sussex

  20,402

  Essex

  20,945

  Hampshire

  20,415

  Hertfordshire

  20,835

  Kent

  20,787

  Oxfordshire

  20,545

  Surrey

  20,955

  West Sussex

  20,646

  Isle of Scilly

  20,361

  Isle of Wight

  20,294

  Average salary, as at March 1993 (provisional), or full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  LEAs which do not receive area cost adjustment

  Average Salary £

  Metropolitan Authorities

  Birmingham

  20,552

  Coventry

  20,877

  Dudley

  20,368

  Sandwell

  20,644

  Solihull

  20,452

  Walsall

  20,571

  Wolverhampton

  20,586

  Knowsley

  20,559

  Liverpool

  20,573

  St. Helens

  20,888

  Sefton

  20,511

  Wirral

  20,782

  Bolton

  20,155

  Bury

  20,372

  Manchester

  21,367

  Oldham

  20,158

  Rochdale

  20,880

  Salford

  20,434

  Stockport

  20,469

  Tameside

  20,415

  Trafford

  20,584

  Wigan

  21,059

  Barnsley

  20,182

  Doncaster

  20,431

  Rotherham

  20,340

  Sheffield

  20,989

  Bradford

  20,231

  Calderdale

  20,553

  Kirklees

  20,443

  Leeds

  20,778

  Wakefield

  20,295

  Gateshead

  20,777

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  20,495

  North Tyneside

  20,506

  South Tyneside

  20,397

  Sunderland

  20,196

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  20,402

  Cambridgeshire

  20,285

  Cheshire

  20,641

  419

  Average salary, as at March 1993 (provisional), or full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  LEAs which do not receive area cost adjustment

  Average Salary £

  Cleveland

  20,425

  Cornwall

  20,752

  Cumbria

  20,511

  Derbyshire

  20,651

  Devon

  20,441

  Dorset

  20,525

  Durham

  20,414

  Gloucestershire

  20,453

  Hereford and Worcester

  20,732

  Humberside

  20,671

  Lancashire

  20,512

  Leicestershire

  20,556

  Lincolnshire

  20,663

  Norfolk

  20,653

  North Yorkshire

  20,526

  Norhtamptonshire

  20,372

  Northumberland

  20,623

  Nottinghamshire

  20,732

  Shropshire

  20,655

  Somerset

  20,795

  Staffordshire

  20,656

  Suffolk

  20,372

  Warwickshire

  20,551

  Wiltshire

  20,491

  Source: Database of Teacher Records.

  Note:

  Average salary includes all allowances eg London allowance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of claimants experiencing delays in respect of appeals over disability living allowance giving the figures(a) in total and (b) for each month of delay. [26785]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, I am advised by the President of the Independent Tribunal Service that, as at 31 May, the case load of the disability appeal tribunal central office, which has responsibility within the independent tribunal service for processing appeals to disability appeal tribunals, was 19,808. This figure includes, in addition to disability living allowance appeals, appeals against attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability working allowance decisions. It is made up as follows:

  (i) Appeals which have been lodged with DATCO but are awaiting the adjudication officer's submission from the Benefits Agency—4,782;

  (ii) Adjourned appeals which are awaiting further information before they can be prepared for re-listing—1,648;

  (iii) Appeals for which DATCO has received the submission but which are not yet ready to list for hearing because they have not completed the pre-listing procedures—6,945;

  (iv) Appeals on which the pre-listing procedures have been completed and which are ready for listing—3,506;

  (v) Appeals which have been listed but not yet heard—2,927

  The average clearance time for an appeal to a disability appeal tribunal, that is from lodgment of the appeal to date of hearing, is 23 weeks.>

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the proposed changes in the calculations of housing benefit entitlement will not put at risk people with special needs whose rent covers a degree of social support given to them by their landlords. [26874]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation on the proposed changes to housing benefit. We will be considering carefully the position of housing where the rent covers a degree of social support as part of our response to the report.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to lay the new housing benefit regulations before Parliament. [28193]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation on the proposed changes. He is also considering views expressed by the local authority associations. We intend to lay regulations before Parliament around the end of June.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total amount of money spent by the Government on their family credit scheme in each year since the scheme's inception. [27261]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Family credit

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£ million)2

  1988–89

  394

  1989–90

  425

  1990–91

  494

  1991–92

  626

  1992–93

  929

  1993–94

  1,208

  1994–95

  31,480

  1 Source:

  Social security departmental report.

  2 The figures for the cost to public funds include benefit expenditure only. They exclude administration costs.

  3 Estimate.

  Incomes and Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the real income changes in the value of benefits to(a) single person, (b) a single parent with one child, (c) a single parent with two children, (d) a married couple and (e) a married couple with one and two children between 1979 and the latest available date; and if he will estimate the real increase in the average take-home pay of (i) a single person, (ii) a single parent and (iii) a married couple, including child benefit, over the same period. [27221]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. Average earnings are not available by family type and benefits payable to different family types will depend on their individual circumstances and, in some cases, family composition.
  421
  Government policy is to uprate benefits each year in line with inflation. In addition, since 1988, extra help now worth over £1 billion in real terms has been made available to low-income families with children through income-related benefits.

  EU Social Security Costs
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to require the funding in each member state of(a) social security costs and (b) state pension costs under the budgetary and expenditure arrangements of the Community. [27771]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The Government believe that member states should remain responsible for the funding of their own social security and state pension costs through their own budgetary and expenditure arrangements.

  Incapacity Credits
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people in receipt of invalidity or incapacity benefit are entitled to class 1 national insurance payments. [27901]

  Mr. Hague
  Yes. A person in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to 13 April this year or incapacity benefit thereafter is entitled to be credited with earnings equal to the lower earnings limit for class 1 national insurance contributions in respect of each week of incapacity.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the number of dependent children with United Kingdom citizenship who may no longer qualify for benefit as a result of the changes in social security regulations dealing with the criterion of habitual residence; and if he will make a statement. [27823]

  Less than £58.001 pw

  £58–£104.99 pw

  £105–£149.99 pw

  £150–£204.99 pw

  £205–£439.99 pw

  £440+ pw

  Full year

  nil

  75

  115

  245

  1,395

  1,085

  First year

  nil

  65

  105

  220

  1,250

  970

  1 The current lower earnings limit is £58.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the revenue which would be raised by charging employers' national insurance contributions at 20 per cent. for weekly incomes in excess of £1,000. [28145]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The additional revenue is estimated at £1.65 billion in a full year.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of abolishing employers' national insurance contributions for employees on weekly earnings of up to and including £204.99. [28146]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost is £2.5 billion in a full year.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of raising the starting point for paying employee national insurance contributions to the
  422
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Dependent children are not entitled to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit in their own right. No estimate has been made of the number of adult claimants with such dependent children who are not entitled to these benefits because they do not satisfy the habitual residence criteria.

  Child Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he is undertaking to establish to what extent unpaid child support payments are being improperly avoided; and to what extent they represent a genuine inability to pay. [27946]

  Mr. Burt
  The 1995–96 Department of Social Security research programme includes a planned survey of absent parents. It is intended that the survey will consider all aspects of the impact of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Where arrears of child support maintenance are due, the Child Support Agency will contact the absent parent to discuss means of repayment, including reasonable instalment arrangements. In cases where the absent parent refuses to make repayment, appropriate, action to collect and enforce the arrears will be taken. The proposed departure scheme will provide additional help for the small numbers facing genuine difficulties in making payment of maintenance because of exceptional circumstances.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the costs to the Exchequer of reducing the rate of employers national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. for each of the ranges of weekly earnings(a) below £59, (b) between £59 and £104.99, (c) between £105 and £149.99, (d) between £150 and £204.99, (e) between £205 and £440 and (f) above £440. [28147]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information in respect of the 1995–96 year is in the table.

  weekly earnings equivalent of the annual sum of £3,525; and what is his estimate of the number of individuals who would cease to be liable to pay employee national insurance contributions if such a change were to be implemented. [28144]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated reduction in national insurance contributions from employees would be some £450 million a year. At any one time some 500,000 employees, the majority of whom would be women in part-time employment, would no longer pay contributions.

  This answer assumes that employers would continue to pay contributions starting at the lower earnings limit and that there would be no change to the range of earnings governing benefit entitlements.

  (Estimates based on rates for 1995–96 and the April 1994 new earnings survey).

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Airliners: Width of Aisles
Lord Gainford: My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to declare an interest, in that I am president of the Air Safety Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether steps are being taken to implement the proposal by the Civil Aviation Authority that the minimum width of aisles in airliners should be increased from 20 inches (51 centimetres) to 30 inches (76 centimetres) to facilitate the escape of passengers from any airliner in a case of emergency.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, following the accident at Manchester Airport in 1985, the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned a study into the effect of cabin configuration on aircraft evacuations. That study concluded, among other things, that the optimum width for passageways between floor to ceiling rigid structures, such as galleys, was 30 inches. The study made no recommendation relating to the minimum width of aisles between passenger seating. The CAA proposals based on those studies are now being considered by the Joint Aviation Authorities' Cabin Safety Group.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and offer my commiserations on her unfortunate throat affliction. Further to the tragic accident at Manchester, can my noble friend say what lessons have been learnt and what remedies possibly put into effect in relation to passenger evacuation in an emergency?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his sympathy regarding my voice. The main lesson learnt from the Manchester accident is that behaviour of passengers in a real emergency evacuation must be taken fully into account in the design of passenger cabins. As well as changes to the minimum width of passageways between rigid structures—to which I referred—the Civil Aviation Authority is considering changes to the design of over-wing emergency exits. The main possibility being considered is providing the current disposable hatch with a hinged mechanism.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some proposals are in hand to try to fit additional seats in existing aircraft to increase the payload? Will she support opposition to that type of proposal? It is one of the worst features being considered in the carrying of people by aeroplane.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord but I did not hear everything he said. It appears that none of us did. There may be something wrong with the microphone. Will the noble Lord kindly repeat his question?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, there appears to be a tendency among certain airlines to try to fit more seats into existing aircraft against the interests of the travelling public. Wherever that is suggested, will the Government oppose the idea?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will oppose the idea. As your Lordships are aware, we consider safety to be paramount at all times.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the great experience of the Civil Aviation Authority in matters of air safety—probably the most effective experience anywhere in the world—will my noble friend indicate that the Government are paying serious attention to its recommendations?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, indeed they are.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, the House has every sympathy with the noble Baroness in her plight. I have promised to be especially nice to her on this occasion. Can the Minister indicate when the Joint Aviation Authorities' considerations are likely to be complete and when it is likely, in consequence, that the Government will be able to announce to Parliament their consideration of its recommendations?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Civil Aviation Authority has been pursuing the proposals through the Joint Aviation Authorities. Any amendment to Joint Aviation Requirement 25, such as the increased minimum width of passageways, would have to be progressed through the JAA and the EC Aviation Safety Committee, in consultation with airlines through the normal notice of proposed amendment procedure. We believe that the consultation period will start in a few months' time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether she saw the reports in the weekend newspapers of the difference in accident results arising from the different brace positions adopted by passengers in crashing aircraft and the difference in the types of fracture sustained? The position adopted can have a significant effect on one's chances of escape from the plane. Can my noble friend inform me also whether such matters are the responsibility of the CAA and whether it is possible for research to be carried out into claims that our brace position causes spinal injuries?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am happy to tell my noble friend that it does come within the ambit of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is due to publish a document later this year. My noble friend may be pleased to know also that British aeroplanes seem to have a better record from the point of view of fractures sustained than some European aeroplanes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will consideration be given to seeking the views of the crews on aircraft who look after the passengers? If we ask that they tell us of their difficulties, I am sure that they will give us first-hand information of what can be done to improve the situation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the consultation with the airlines should take in the views of cabin staff. I shall make that point known.

Nuclear Arms Control
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as proposed by Germany, they will agree to a verifiable nuclear weapons register under the auspices of the United Nations; and if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, after discussions with our allies, we concluded that the proposal would not make the positive and practical contribution to nuclear arms control that the German Government had hoped.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, and does he agree, that now that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been concluded it is absolutely essential to make sure that it works? Is he further aware that Russia and the USA have declared their missile strength and that it is only Her Majesty's Government's refusal to do the same that is holding up the conclusion of an addition to the treaty which should provide the necessary transparency?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, but he would not be surprised at that at all. We welcome the unanimous decision to extend the Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely and we attach great importance to it. As regards declaring exactly what our strength is, our position is very different from that of the United States and the Russians. We have only a minimum nuclear deterrent and revealing the exact size of our forces would compromise their effectiveness, with consequences that are obvious even to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a serious proposition from the German Government? The German Government seek to have greater transparency in the declaration of nuclear weapons. While we have no doubt about the veracity of the Government's statement that each Trident boat will deploy no more than 96 warheads, is it not the case that Trident is capable of deploying many more than that? Therefore, in the spirit of transparency, would it not be sensible for the Government at least to enter into negotiations on this matter? As I understand it—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—it is only Her Majesty's Government and France who are opposed to this.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I had better start by correcting the noble Lord. My understanding is that it is the United States, France and Her Majesty's Government and other members of NATO who have opposed this
1534
suggestion. My understanding is further that the German Government have dropped it and put forward further proposals which we understand have not been taken any further. As regards the capacity of Trident, I can only say, as I think the noble Lord knows full well, that we intend that Trident shall deploy a maximum of 96 warheads and on some occasions fewer.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the Government's position on this matter quite out of keeping with their enthusiastic support for the United Nations register of conventional weapons? Is it not even more necessary that everyone shall be aware of what the position is in relation to nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction? If that is not the case, how can one be sure that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is working?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the position of nuclear weapons is totally different from that of conventional weapons. I can take the noble Lord no further than what I said earlier. We have a minimum nuclear deterrent and we believe that revealing the exact size and nature of our forces would compromise their security.

Japan: EU Proposals
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union of 29th May, and in particular what was their response to the proposal of the Commission (COM (95) 73 final) of 19th March 1995, which provided for an extension of the Commission's export promotion in Japan and for European Union representations to the United Nations for Japan to become a member of the Security Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Council approved conclusions on the Commission's communication on Japan which broadly endorsed the strategy outlined by the Commission in it. In examining any Commission proposal for export promotion expenditure, the Council will expect the Commission to demonstrate the effectiveness and value for money of each programme. The Council did not endorse the Commission's support for Japanese membership of the Security Council because there is no consensus in the Council on the question of Security Council enlargement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in asking this Question perhaps I may offer my apologies to the House for an error that has appeared in the reference number of the Commission proposal referred to. The reference on the Order Paper should be COM (95) 73 final and not COM (95) 13 final. I apologise to the House.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. But is she not a little surprised that there should be no consensus in regard to the proposal of the Commission that the European Union should make representations to the United Nations in regard to the admission of Japan to the Security Council, as quite clearly there is no competence under the Treaty of Rome as amended under

1535
Title V? Is she not surprised that there should not have been unanimous rejection of the Commission proposal? Will she say who dissented from the Government's view that it lies outside Community competence? I should be most grateful if she would give some information on that point and also indicate what will be the Government's attitude at the next meeting of the Council, under the French presidency, at which, according to the Government's own memorandum, the proposal is likely to be made again.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is our firm belief that the Community does not have a locus as regards questions relating to the structure of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, we have made clear our national support for Japanese permanent membership of the Security Council and indeed that of Germany. But Security Council enlargement is a political question and, therefore, it is not for the Community. There is certainly no consensus among members of the European Union. As far as I could find out, Belgium was in favour, but nobody else. I have no doubt that that is exactly how it will be at e next meeting.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why the Commission is involved in this matter at all? Surely, it has no locus in matters relating to foreign policy and defence. Ought not the Council of Ministers to tell the Commission that it should stop meddling in affairs which do not concern it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that that is exactly what the Foreign Affairs Council did on 29th May.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the Government ratified the Maastricht Treaty, did they envisage the Commission using Title V, or the common foreign and security policy, to undermine our export initiative in the Far East and elsewhere?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no question of the Commission undermining our export initiative in the Far East. As I told the House last week—my noble friend may remember this—the UK share of Japanese investment in the European Union is 41 per cent. and our visible exports last year were up 13 per cent. on 1993. But it does not do any harm to have a Commission executive training programme to which the United Kingdom sends more people than any other country in the European Union. The work that we do with the European Union enhances our bilateral activities and we get the benefit. That is just how it should be.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, has not the Minister made the Government's position crystal clear? As regards the Government's position and Japanese membership of the UN Security Council, is there any support from any other major country in the world? For example, is there any support from the United States or the Commonwealth? Can she say something more about the current position?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Baroness anything definite about the Commonwealth, although I believe that a number of individual members of the Commonwealth think that it
1536
would be a good idea. I know that there are several views within the United States. We shall see which one finally wins the day.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not right that the activities of the Commission in this regard cannot possibly help or further the interests of the United Kingdom in any way at all?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is exactly why, apart from there being no locus as regards the UN Security Council, we do not believe that it would be a good idea, and neither do a number of other members of the European Union.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most anxious to support the noble Baroness in the stand which the Government are taking. Will she kindly confirm the statement in the Government's explanatory memorandum that they do not endorse the expansion of the Commission's export promotion activities as being a sentiment that they will carry with them to the next meeting of the Council under the French presidency, at which the matter will undoubtedly be raised again? Can we have an expression of her fierce determination that that will be resisted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships are well aware of my fierce determination on such questions. What is important is that we support programmes if they are complementary to our bilateral programmes and demonstrate value for money. We shall not give competence to a body which should not have that competence. That remains the position for the next and all subsequent meetings.

Offshore Structures: Disposal
2.55 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to support proposals to dispose of disused offshore oil platforms and other structures by sinking them in the open sea and if so, how they will ensure that they do not contain potentially hazardous substances.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the disposal of offshore oil and gas installations will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in line with our international commitments. If deep-sea disposal is an option, the presence of potentially hazardous substances and their implications for human health and the environment, together with the practicable steps proposed for their removal, would be an essential element of any assessment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, the first part of which was predictable. I found the second part helpful and useful. Does the noble Lord not believe that dismantling onshore is a perfectly feasible option and no more costly, even for the Brent Spar, which is currently in the news, with the possible exception of a few concrete structures? Does he not recognise that, as well as avoiding the unpredictable effects of possible contaminants in the open sea, the option of dismantling ashore provides orders for a declining industry and thus

1537
saves unemployment benefit, and provides large amounts of material, such as structural steel, which is highly suitable for recycling?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the manner in which any particular structure might be dismantled obviously depends on its inherent characteristics. That in turn will determine what the cost might be. I understand that in the case of the Brent Spar, to which reference has been made, the cost of horizontal dismantling on shore would be of the order of £45 million, while deep water disposal would be of the order of £11 million.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the decommissioning of offshore structures was fully discussed in this House during the passage, as a Bill, of the Petroleum Act 1987, which did provide for each to be considered individually in accordance with the policy of the International Maritime Organisation? Has he noted that marine scientists suggest that the deep ocean is the most suitable place for disposal, in certain circumstances; for example, in a letter in The Times on 22nd May?
Lord Inglewood: I am very grateful to my noble friend for his two comments. As regards the first part of his comments relating to the Petroleum Act 1987, I myself was not a Member of your Lordships' House in those days, but the Government have a collective memory. He is absolutely right, in that these provisions determine our policy as regards these matters in accordance with our international obligations. As far as the disposal of structures is concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are certain circumstances when the clear, scientific view appears to be that the most environmentally benign way of dealing with the problem is the way which my noble friend has described.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister tell us under whose authority we can give permission for someone to sink an installation of this kind into the Atlantic, bearing in mind that no more than any other country do we own those waters? Is there some international agreement? Is the Minister aware that on the news this morning, when reference was made to the protestations of Greenpeace, a spokesman on behalf of the company which is to sink this oil installation said that the adverse effects would be negligible? Cannot that word be much misused? Is it negligible to the public in general? It is certainly negligible to the oil company, which will save a great deal of money. Is the Minister aware that everyone agreed with the view taken?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I did not see the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, refers. From the statement it is not clear what everybody agrees with. The legal position as regards this kind of matter is complicated, but, once it has been unravelled, it is relatively straightforward. Under international law, the London Convention applies, together with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As regards the North East Atlantic, the provisions of the London Convention are supplemented by the Oslo and Paris Conventions, which in turn are being subsumed in another convention which this country has ratified but not yet implemented in domestic law. I refer to the OSPAR Convention.
1538
As far as this particular proposal is concerned, three permits were required before the structure can be lawfully sunk in the manner proposed. First, approval is needed under an abandonment programme. This is granted under the Petroleum Act 1987, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred. Secondly, a licence is necessary under the Food and Environment Protection Act, which implements our obligations under international law. Finally, in this instance, a licence is needed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain something about the amount and type of hazardous substances that are present in such structures? In the event of disposal at sea, who is responsible for checking that the hazardous substances have been disposed of and who will monitor the situation thereafter?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are talking about a generalised description of offshore installations. Clearly, what is required will be decided on case-by-case basis. The detail of what is proposed to be done in taking off all the bits of the structure that can be removed before any sinking might take place is described in the abandonment programme and then becomes a legal obligation. I understand that the Brent Spar installation contains about 100 tonnes of toxic sludge, of which about 90 per cent. is sand. The rest comprises heavy, stable oil residues somewhat similar to bitumen. I understand that within that bitumen is a very small proportion of heavy metals which are not significantly different from those found in a similar weight of plankton or marine sediment. In addition, something like 30 tonnes of scaling, of a very low level of radioactivity, derive from the oil which comes through the terminal. In terms of its power, that amounts to about the same as would emanate from a group of granite houses in Aberdeen and is many orders of magnitude within international standards. In addition, there is paint on the structure, as well as some sacrificial anodes which are zinc-corrosion preventers. Everything on the structure is being removed—down to the last lightbulb.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with regard to the cost of onshore dismantling of the Brent Spar, is the Minister aware of the detailed engineering feasibility report by Schmidt Engineering of Rotterdam which was given to Shell in 1992 and which stated that the installation could be dismantled at a cost of less than £10 million, which is less than one-quarter of the sum which has been quoted by Shell? Is not that another reason for putting on hold the decision to dump the Brent Spar in the Atlantic?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers. However, the proposals which were considered in the abandonment programme were checked by Her Majesty's Government when forming a view on the merits of the prospective options of either dismantling onshore or using deep-water disposal. Another point that I believe to be relevant is that it is estimated that in terms of human safety, it is likely to be six times more dangerous to dismantle onshore than to have deep-sea disposal.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on both the volume and quality of the information that he has given to the House this afternoon?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but of course it depends on the quality of the briefing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in his otherwise very clear answer to me, the noble Lord did not mention monitoring. Will be now answer my question about who will be responsible for monitoring, since presumably we are talking about international waters?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I know that it is monitored, but I cannot recall whether by the British Government or the Oslo Commission. However, I assure the House that the company is liable for any results that may arise from the material that is disposed of in the sea.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when he said, "This is a complicated issue but once unravelled is relatively straightforward", he should have used the adjective "confused"? Is it not a fact that decommissioning onshore is more expensive, but that that cost can be offset against tax, so that the taxpayer picks up 60 per cent. of the burden under relief that was afforded by Mr. John Major when he was either Chancellor or Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Has not this decision rather more to do with cost than with the environment?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is "yes", and to the second, it is "no". This matter was dealt with in accordance with the provisions laid down by Parliament and our international obligations.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that, when dismantling one of these objects, the cost of human life cannot be offset against tax?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, of course.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the third report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee he agreed to (HL Paper 65).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. BLACK ROD
The Queen has approved the appointment of General Sir Edward Jones as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms with effect from 9 May 1995, in succession to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas.
The Committee wishes to record its gratitude to Sir Richard Thomas on the occasion of his retirement for the assistance which it received from him during the three and a half years he served as Agent of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.
2. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
The Committee has agreed that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill now going through Parliament should apply to the House of Lords. This is in line with the Committee's policy that the House should move from voluntary compliance to statutory application in the case of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; and the Committee's recent acceptance of the removal of Crown exemption from the Palace of Westminster in respect of planning and health and safety legislation.
3. CAR PARKING
The Committee has considered the present rules for car parking in the precincts of the House of Lords and the parking problems which might be caused while building works are in progress over the next year. Black Rod will be inviting applications for additional parking spaces which have been acquired in the Abingdon Street car park to compensate for the temporary loss of spaces in the House precincts. He will be reviewing the use of the Abingdon Street car park and the terms of the contract with National Car Parks. The Committee wishes to emphasise that only those Lords who are attending business in the House are entitled to use the Lords parking facilities, and that pass holders for Abingdon Street should not park elsewhere in the House of Lords.
4. RESTORATION OF THE BAR IN THE LORDS CHAMBER
The brass gates at the Bar of the Lords Chamber, which are very worn, will be replaced by new brass gates to match existing railings around the Throne.
5. FEES ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
The Committee has agreed to a revised scale of judicial fees with effect from 1st November 1995, as follows—

£

Petitions for leave

Presentation

500

Entering Appearance

100

Appeals—Mandatory Fees

Presentation

1,000

Entering Appearance

200

Setting Down

3,000

Appeals—Occasional Fees

1st Extension of Time

200

2nd Extension of Time

300

3rd and Subsequent Extensions

500

Agreed Interlocutory Petitions

200

Opposed Interlocutory Petitions

500

Waiver of Security

100

6. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has agreed that the temporary post of screen corrector in Hansard should be made permanent, bringing the complement to six.
The Committee was informed of the appointment of Mrs. Sylvia Jay as a temporary Senior Clerk in the Committee Office.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for introducing the report, to which I am sure that we shall all agree without dissent. However, perhaps I may ask a question about paragraph 2, which refers to facilities for disabled people. I am sure that we are all glad that the House is to bring its facilities up to the right standard for enabling disabled access. However, with regard to toilet provisions, what timetable is envisaged for the full provision of toilets accessible to disabled people? Furthermore, during that programme, will facilities be made available to ensure that female Members of this House, female staff and female visitors also have adequate toilet provision?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is already in train some provision for improved toilet facilities for disabled people within the precincts of your Lordships' part of the Palace of Westminster. It is envisaged that that work will be completed during the coming summer Recess. On the noble Lord's other point, I shall write to him if I am able to give him any information on the timetable beyond that which I have already indicated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise briefly, not to delay the progress of the Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, well knows, has our full support, but to raise a matter which could not conveniently be raised as an amendment but which remains outstanding. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having given him notice of the matter but it came to my attention only in the past hour or so.
I refer to an undertaking that was given at Report stage of the Bill in another place on 31st March. The undertaking was given by Mr. David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office, in response to an amendment proposed by Mr. John Greenway about the extension of the provisions of the Bill to the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Trade Marks Act 1994. The Minister expressed sympathy with the amendment and said that an interdepartmental exercise was under way. He stated that,
"considerable progress is being made, and I should be in a position to make known the outcome of our deliberations shortly. I certainly expect to be able to do so before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage".
The Minister told Mr. Greenway:
"I assure him that the Government will consider very sympathetically the addition of these offences to schedule 4 by means of an order".
He added:
"I should be able to inform the House before the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/95; col. 1306.]
If the Bill is now passed, that is the end of its parliamentary consideration. I wonder whether the Minister in this place has anything to say on the matter. I apologise to her for not having mentioned it previously, but I know that the Home Office has been aware of the issue over the past few days.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, if the House will permit me to respond to that point, the noble Lord is right that the Minister of State in another place explained that the Government were considering adding certain counterfeiting and copyright infringement offences to Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 with the aim of bringing them within the reach of the confiscation
1542
legislation but that they had not completed their deliberations when the subject was debated on Third Reading in another place.
As the Minister explained in another place, the addition of offences to Schedule 4 of the 1988 Act is not entirely straightforward, and, as a result, it was necessary to set in train an interdepartmental consultation process before the Government could agree to the addition of the offences in question.
I know that promises were made. The noble Lord is absolutely right to press us on that point. Progress has of course been made since the matter was discussed in another place, but the Bill's rapid progress through this House has not permitted all the issues involved to be resolved before now.
The Government have decided that the question of the funding of the provisions must be resolved before the statutory instrument can be made. On that point, I expect a decision to be reached by a very early date, and I propose to make known the outcome to the House shortly. I trust the noble Lord is satisfied that the work is in hand and that our commitment will be met, but not within the timescale that we had envisaged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill or to the other three consolidation Bills standing in my name on the Order Paper and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or speak in Committee on any of them. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall beg to move in each case that the order for recommitment be discharged. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment he discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995
3.13 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995 which was laid before this House on 20th April be approved. At the same time, I shall speak to the second Motion standing in my name relating to the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995 and hope to move that Motion formally later.
Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 empowers me to prescribe the types of proceedings in which conditional fee agreements should be available, the maximum percentage uplift which solicitors can charge on their fees when they take a case on that basis, and any other requirements of an agreement. It is those matters which are set out in the draft order and regulations which are before your Lordships. These drafts have now been approved in their current form in another place without a Division.
The consultation exercise which has given rise to the order and regulations has been a lengthy and extensive one. I am required by Section 58 to consult the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor, and also the Law Society and General Council of the Bar. In addition to the statutory consultees, I approached consumer bodies and other organisations with an interest, including my Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. Drafts of the order and regulations were circulated to numerous members of the profession and to members of the public.
In developing the conditional fee scheme as it now stands, I have given a great deal of consideration to the advice which I have received from all sources. My purpose has always been to develop a scheme which will increase access to the courts and consumer choice. That cannot be achieved by stifling the scheme with over regulation. Clients and solicitors must be given the freedom to reach an agreement which reflects their mutual interests according to individual circumstances. Of course that must take place within a framework which provides protection for the client, who is naturally in the weaker position at the negotiation stage because he or she is unlikely to have much knowledge of the law and procedure. It is that balance which I have sought to achieve within the order and regulations.
I propose that conditional fee agreements should be allowable in personal injury cases, insolvency actions and cases before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. A limited scheme of that kind should enable us to observe how conditional fees work in practice, with a view to extending the scheme to cover other cases if it appears sensible to do so. I also propose that the maximum permitted percentage uplift which a lawyer may charge on his fees should be set at 100 per cent. That figure is exactly what has been allowed since August 1992 under the Scottish speculative fee scheme, and that percentage was decided by the Scottish courts not the Government. It is this proposal which has perhaps provided most discussion and is at the root of many of the misgivings which have been expressed. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to explain the reasoning which led me to the conclusion that 100 per cent. was the right figure at which to set the maximum uplift.
First of all, I must again emphasise that the whole purpose of conditional fees is to extend access to justice. The fact that lawyers can charge an uplift of up to 100 per cent, will encourage them to accept cases with a 50:50 chance of success, which, if the uplift were lower, it would not be appropriate for them to take. With a low uplift of, say, 10 per cent.—which was the first proposal—the range of cases which would be taken would be very much more restricted.
In approaching this matter one has to assume that the ordinary fees that lawyers charge are based on the view that they will be paid those fees for the work done with a reasonable level of profit as part of the practice of their profession. Therefore, their fees do not include any element for the risk of litigation so far as concerns the outcome for the client. That is the right way of doing it.
It is obvious that if one is to take a case which involves a degree of risk, the correct balance is to allow the proper percentage of risk to be taken into account in fixing the fee. For example, if one takes a case where the chance of success if 50:50, the correct uplift for that—unless one is going to charge other clients for that case—is 100 per cent. Of course, if one has a case in which the risk is much less then it is appropriate that the uplift should also be much less. Under Section 58 I am entitled to fix a maximum uplift that may be charged. That is what I have done and that is why, in response to the consultation, I took the view that that was the right figure.
Those who oppose the 100 per cent. uplift must recognise that as an inevitable consequence the range of risk which can appropriately be taken is thereby reduced. I can see no good reason why those clients who have a viable case, but for whom the prospects of success are of the order of 50:50, should not be able to take advantage of the scheme if they wish to do so.
It follows that if the lawyer is successful he or she will receive an uplift in fees of 100 per cent. That is seen as conferring a great benefit on the lawyer but the other side is that there is a 50:50 chance that for all the work done the lawyer will receive nothing.
I would add that I do not anticipate the figure of 100 per cent. becoming the normal uplift for all conditional fee cases. There has been a suggestion in some papers that that will happen, but I do not accept that. I must determine the maximum percentage uplift. Nor can I see why it should be assumed that that will happen in practice. My intention has always been to provide sufficient scope for the conditional fee scheme actually to work. We will not be serving the interests of the consumers of legal services by stipulating a low maximum uplift and effectively limiting the kind of actions which solicitors would be prepared to take on a conditional fee basis to those of low risk.
In relation to the concern which has been expressed about the 100 per cent. uplift, there have been calls for the regulations to impose a statutory cap to ensure that only a certain percentage of any damages recovered can be taken by way of the uplift. I do not believe that I have the power to do that under Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The power given to me is to prescribe the maximum percentage increase on the lawyer's normal fee. However, it seems to me that there would be other difficulties with imposing such a cap even if I had the power. How would a cap, imposed by regultaion, operate in cases in which there is a structured settlement whereby the plaintiff may receive a lump sum and then a regular payment during his or her lifetime? A statutory cap may also have the same effect, as I have mentioned with regard to lower uplift, in discouraging lawyers from accepting cases with a high risk. The relationship between cost and the amount in claim varies a great deal, in practice, with the amount that is claimed.
It may well be that a cap such as the Law Society recommends in its model agreement will prove a useful tool. It certainly helps to focus attention on this aspect of the matter in discussions between the lawyer and the client. However, it is important for the client to be aware of the implications of the uplift and it is for this reason that I have included within the regulations a requirement for the agreement to state whether or not there is to be a cap on the amount of damages to be taken by way of the uplift. This will ensure that the matter is addressed in all cases if the agreement is to be a conditional fee agreement obtaining the protection of the law and therefore enforceability.
I ought to emphasise another aspect of the matter. An additional safeguard against excessive costs will be provided by taxation, which will be available to clients under a conditional fee agreement in respect of all the fees in question. The proposed taxation amendments have
1546
been circulated for consultation among taxing experts and I expect them to come into force within the next few months. That is on the assumption that your Lordships approve the draft order.
It may also be helpful if I direct your Lordships' attention to the other requirements in the regulations which will provide protection to the client. The regulations require a conditional fee agreement to state, first, to which proceedings or parts of them it relates. It is possible to have a conditional fee agreement relating only to part of what would otherwise be a composite proceeding.
Secondly, it should state the circumstances in which the legal representative's fees and expenses, or part of them, are payable. That is to define what is to be success for the purpose of the agreement. It is most important that client and solicitor should have their minds focused on that matter, which may vary according to the circumstances of the case.
Thirdly, it should state what payment is due upon partial failure of the specified circumstances, irrespective of the specified circumstances occurring and upon termination of the agreement for any reason. In other words, the agreement must state what happens if for any reason it is to be terminated or what happens if the result or outcome is only a partial not a full success within the meaning that the parties have agreed upon for success.
Fourthly, it should state the actual amount payable in the event of success or, if that is not specified, the method to be used to calculate it. However, the client and solicitor must direct their attention at the outset to the question of how fees are to be calculated if the amount of the fee in question is not specified.
Fifthly, it should state whether the amount payable is to be limited by reference to the amount of any damages which may be recovered on behalf of the client. In other words, the lawyer and the client are to discuss and agree the question of whether there is to be a cap on the amount of the fee which can be taken under the agreement by reference to the amount of damages in question. Of course, that can vary and it is a matter for the parties to agree upon.
In addition, the agreement must state that before it was entered into the legal representative drew the client's attention to the availability of legal aid and taxation and the liability of the client for the costs of his legal representative and for the costs of any other party to the proceedings. These requirements, supported by the guidance and recommended forms of agreement, which I know the Law Society is to distribute to solicitors, will, I believe, provide an appropriate degree of protection to the client.
I believe that the conditional fee scheme will provide greater access to justice and will increase choice for the consumer; and I thank the Consumers' Association for its view that,
"conditional fees offer a means of support for those who would otherwise be deterred from pursuing their legal rights by the fear of legal costs".

1547
The scheme that I propose combines consumer protection with sufficient flexibility to encourage take-up of the scheme and the adjustment of protection to the particular circumstances of the client and the proceedings in question.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he can help me with regard to the suggestion that he has no power to cap the amount which can be taken out of the damages. Has the noble and learned Lord had the opportunity to reconsider an amendment that he moved on Report on 22nd February 1990 to the Courts and Legal Services Bill? The amendment proposed that the conditional fee agreement,
"complies with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor".
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the matter arose in this way. In discussing the amendment the noble and learned Lord said:
"Your Lordships will see that the second of the two amendments provides for the prescribing of requirements rather than information. While the former includes the latter, it also seemed wise on reflection to include the possibility of prescribing, for example, how conditional fee agreements should define success in the client's action".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made this short intervention:
"None of us quite knows how it is going to work"—
that is, conditional fees—
"I should have thought that when one has something which is highly controversial, when one needs to see how it works out and how it ought to be regulated—indeed, how it may be stopped—the requirement is for flexibility, to give this power to make regulations from time to time to condition the fee, to limit rights or to extend them in some way",—[Official Report, 22/2/90; cols. 490–1.]
In moving the amendment, the noble and learned Lord said that the fact that the matter is somewhat controversial is a very good reason for giving the Lord Chancellor power to make additional requirements if that seems to be necessary. In saying that there is no power, has the noble and learned Lord overlooked the fact that it appears that that power was taken specifically by the amendment moved on Report?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships have heard what was said about that matter. It will be seen that there is no reference whatever to any suggestion of a modification of the idea that control should be by reference only to the percentage uplift.
The amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred sought to make it clear that I would have power to make requirements not only in relation to the substance of the agreement but also as to information which would be laid before the client preparatory to that agreement. I was of the view at the time, and I remain so, that it was wise to make it clear that those powers included the power to require information to be laid before the client as well as to require the agreement to take a particular form. I am absolutely satisfied that I never intended to add any power to prescribe a cap for the very good reason that I sought to devise a scheme which would answer the criticism made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone that the contingency fee system, which we were not accepting, had the disadvantage that it applied only to plaintiffs. I was devising a scheme to apply equally to plaintiffs and
1548
defendants. Therefore, it was not in my mind at any stage that a power of the kind to which my noble and learned friend has drawn attention should be added. I certainly did not have that in mind when I was moving the amendment to which he referred.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committed]—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert, ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995 and re-lay it in a form which gives effect to the following recommendation of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct that either:
(1) the maximum permitted percentage by which fees may be increased in respect of each description of proceedings specified in article 2 of the order is 20 per cent.; or
(2) the maximum amount payable expressed in percentage terms in relation to the amount of any sums which may be recovered shall not exceed a specified figure.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amending Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to stress at the outset four quite distinct points. First, my Motion recognises fully that, as Parliament nearly five years ago approved the principle of conditional fee agreements, full effect must be given to that decision so as to enable such agreements to work effectively and fairly. As is apparent from the terms of my amendment, it is in no way a wrecking amendment; quite the contrary.
Secondly, the purpose of my Motion is to protect the client from, in the words of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, "the glaring injustices" which could arise if the proposals of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were accepted.
The uplift of 20 per cent. which I propose, instead of 100 per cent., is not a figure which I have conjured out of the air. In fact, it was proposed originally by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and represents double his initial suggestion.
Fourthly, my amendment, which would reduce the uplift from 100 per cent. to 20 per cent., or alternatively cap—that is, prescribe the maximum amount expressed in percentage terms; I would suggest 25 per cent.—the amount which the successful lawyer may take out of any damages or other sums which may be recovered from the litigation, represents the recommendations consistently, vigorously and forcibly put forward by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee which was presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn.
In case it should be suggested that those recommendations are in any way impractical or out of touch, I should point out that among the 17 members of that committee are a recent past president of the Law Society, the head of the litigation department of one of the City of London's most respected firms of solicitors and a recent past

1549
president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The majority of the committee, who are laymen, were appointed by the Lord Chancellor to ensure, so we were informed, that:
"the views and interests of the users of legal services are properly and fully represented".
Perhaps I may now explain why we should be especially concerned to protect the client and why we should proceed with particular caution in this new field. Conditional fees are a species of contingency fees and were so described in the Government's 1989 Green Paper. In undertaking a case on the basis of no-win, no-pay, a lawyer is clearly involved in speculative litigation. By allowing the lawyer to have a personal financial interest or stake in the outcome of a case, it has hitherto been accepted generally that that might affect his objectivity, distort the advice that he gives and, further, might lead to improper practices, thereby undermining the integrity of the administration of justice. Of course, the greater the stake, the greater the danger. Those were the essential reasons why, since the Statute of Westminster in 1275, contingency fees were considered to be contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable; hence Section 78 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which for the first time made an agreement to enter into that species of speculative legislation enforceable.
Of course, it is water under the bridge that the section was enacted in the teeth of opposition from seven Law Lords, the Master of the Rolls, a former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, a former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell—who I am delighted to see in his place—and the Law Commission. But the history that I have recounted and the opposition to which I have just referred surely make it incontrovertible that in this new field one should proceed gradually and with caution. Indeed, the approaching five-year period since the enactment of that section without, as yet, the approval of the necessary order and regulations is clear confirmation of the validity of that proposition. Why else has there been that delay?
I turn now to what has been happening during the past five years since Section 58 was enacted. The prospectus under which your Lordships were invited to accept the clause which became Section 58 was fundamentally different from that which provides the basis of the current invitation made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to approve his draft order and regulations. In 1990 the proposal was to limit the uplift to a "small" or "modest" percentage of the solicitor's proper costs. Indeed, in Committee the noble and learned the Lord Chancellor gave an example using a 5 per cent. uplift. In 1991, a year later, he issued a consultative paper in which it was proposed to set the maximum uplift at 10 per cent. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee agreed that that maximum uplift appeared to be about right.
However, two years on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposed to double the figure to 20 per cent. But apparently that did not satisfy those solicitors who might be interested in this new field of work. In August 1993, the Lord Chancellor announced—I stress this—without further consultation with his own advisory
1550
committee, that he intended to set the maximum permitted uplift at 100 per cent; that is, 10 times the initial figure which he had proposed in his consultative paper.
The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee was so concerned that the practical implications of the decision should be understood by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it issued a press notice in November 1993 stating in terms that the Committee was not persuaded that,
"the startling implications of the 100 per cent. permitted uplift have been fully appreciated".
The committee pointed out that in personal injury litigation, which will form the bulk of the litigation affected by the new proposals, the plaintiffs were often vulnerable people of limited means, the typical victim being relatively unsophisticated in both his knowledge of legal matters and his capacity to bargain over legal fees. Moreover, the rate of success in those claims is exceptionally high, most of the litigation being straightforward, with little risk of a lawyer not being paid his fee. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, gave two examples when we debated the matter last November of victims in two railway disasters whom his firm were proceeding to act for without any fees to be paid until the matter was concluded.
If your Lordships need further confirmation, it is to be found in the remarkably low premium—less than £100—payable by a plaintiff for a policy of insurance recently negotiated by the Law Society against his liability to pay the defendant's costs and his own disbursements in the event that his action failed. As the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee pointed out in its press notice, it is common for a plaintiffs costs to reach an amount equal to half or even more of the damages recovered. Accordingly, if the 100 per cent. permitted uplift comes into force, the successful plaintiff may have to pay his solicitors an additional sum equal to the whole of the damages awarded to him.
Of course, if there is a finding of contributory negligence, those damages are reduced accordingly and the risk of losing everything to his advising lawyer is that much greater. Indeed, in correspondence passing between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale (of which I was sent copies), the Lord Chancellor accepted that there may well be cases where the damages could be swallowed up even with an uplift lower than a 100 per cent. He gave examples of such a situation. It was for that reason that in its press notice the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee pointed out that,
"one way of eliminating some of the most glaring injustices would be to restrict the uplift to a limited part of the damages";
in other words, to cap the proportion of damages which the successful plaintiff has to sacrifice to his lawyer. Indeed, I have already referred to the 25 per cent., as has my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, being the figure which the Law Society will put in a model agreement.
Following the debate that I initiated on 1st November last year, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor revised the drafts of the Conditional Fee Agreements Order and supporting regulations and sent the final drafts to my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn on 13th March.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was not prepared to restrict the uplift to a limited part of the damages. All he was, and is, prepared to do is to provide in Regulation 3 that a conditional fee agreement should state whether or not the amount payable to the lawyer is to be limited with reference to the amount of damages recovered.
While, of course, that will ensure that the question must be addressed in every case, it imposes no cap on the proportion of the damages which can be swallowed up by costs. I respectfully submit that the provision does not provide adequate protection for the client. That was the view expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn in a letter dated 24th March this year to the Lord Chancellor (of which I was sent a copy), following a meeting to discuss his current proposals. In his letter my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn said:
"The chief difficulty remains your proposal to permit a maximum uplift of 100 per cent. of the legal adviser's fee. The Committee is still concerned that such a high percentage will create far too great a risk that any damages recovered will be swallowed up in legal fees … I have to say that none of the arguments against this view appears convincing to the Committee. As you know, the Committee much preferred your original proposal of a maximum of 10 per cent. increase. However, subject to safeguards, the committee was prepared to accept that 20 per cent. maximum would be reasonable. But, for the reasons repeated above, I must leave you in no doubt that the Committee remain wholly opposed to the current proposal to permit a maximum increase of 100 per cent. The primary position of the Committee is that the maximum uplift should be no more than 20 per cent".
He continued:
"On the assumption that you might wish, despite the Committee's view, to permit an increase of 100 per cent., the Committee took the view, as set out in my letter to you of 26th May of last year, that an essential safeguard would be for the Regulation to set a limit on the proportion of damages payable towards legal fees. On this matter, too, I have to say that the Committee is not convinced by the argument that it has heard against the implementation of that safeguard".
Your Lordships may remember that in the debate on 1st November my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor took the point that he is taking today; namely, that he has no power to make the provision to cap. I respectfully submitted that I and a number of my judicial colleagues with whom I informally discussed the matter did not accept that view. I drew attention inter alia to his wide regulation-making power in Section 120(3) of the Act which provides:
"Any such regulations … may contain such incidental, supplemental … provisions or savings as the person making the regulations… considers expedient".
In his letter of 24th March of this year, my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn informed the Lord Chancellor that the committee did not agree that he had no power to impose such a limit or that to do so would be to attempt to modify his power to set a maximum increase in fees. My noble and learned friend gave his reasons in detail. They were as follows:
"The committee finds that in the Act no express or implied restriction on that power such as to prevent its exercise in order to limit the proportion of damages payable to the legal advisers. The Committee recalls your substitution of the words 'requirements' for 'information' in an earlier draft of the provision at the Committee stage in the House of Lords. You then explained that 'requirements' included, and went further than 'information' so as to include, for example, the power to prescribe how conditional fee agreements should define success in the action. The Committee does not agree that a limit on the proportion of damages would modify your power to set
1552
a maximum uplift. Permission to increase a fee is logically distinct from any limit on the proportion of a particular source from which that increase may be satisfied. Moreover, the argument has no reasonable limit; it could presumably be said to apply even to your own example of a prescription of the way success in the action is to be defined. Such a definition would undoubtedly affect the amount of fees the legal adviser could recover".
As I pointed out in the debate on 1st November, if the Lord Chancellor does not have the requisite power then he should obtain it. After all, nearly five years have gone by since the Act was passed and a little extra delay in ensuring that the very real concern expressed by his own advisory committee is met would be time well spent.
If the Lord Chancellor does not have the power, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said in the debate of 1st November,
"for heaven's sake, he should seek it".
He added:
"I do not believe that there would be any impediment either in this House or the other place in obtaining the power".—[Official Report, 1/11/94; col. 802.]
Perhaps I may end by again emphasising that I am in no way seeking to prevent effect being given to Section 58 of the Act; on the contrary, both I and the Lord Chancellor's own Advisory Committee are concerned to ensure that the client receives proper protection from—again I quote from that committee—
"the glaring injustices which could arise",
as a result of the implementation of the draft order and regulations. Surely this is an area in which one should proceed with great caution. Why not start with a 20 per cent. uplift and see how it works? It can always be increased. If you start with a 100 per cent. uplift, the prospects of it ever being reduced are exceedingly remote.
These are the essential reasons for tabling my amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who is currently abroad, has written to me supporting my Motion. I beg to move.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has made his arguments so fully that I can be brief. I oppose the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the draft order and regulations be approved and support the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I do so not on the basis of opposition to conditional fees in principle, but in the interests of protecting consumers of legal services. I start therefore from an acceptance that Parliament has sanctioned conditional fee agreements which comply with such requirements as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may prescribe for them. The issue therefore is what the requirements should be and what minimum floor of protection should be prescribed as mandatory terms of conditional fee agreements.
Conditional fee agreements may, in an age in which the eligibility limits for legal aid have been cut most harshly provide an alternative means of access to justice. But that must not be achieved at the expense of what might reasonably be thought to be the exploitation of litigants for the benefit of lawyers. I would add that the noble and learned Lord should use his powers under the 1990 Act to

1553
legislate for consumer protection in a way that is both clear and certain and not in a way that is dependent for its effectiveness on the good will of the legal profession.
First, "no win, no fee" does not mean exactly what it seems to say. Even under a "no win, no fee" agreement the client who does not win still has to pay the costs of the successful party and the expenses, the disbursements, which his solicitor has incurred; for example, barristers' fees. Secondly, I accept that conditional fees are not contingency fees in the full or traditional sense. A contingency fee arrangement means that the lawyers are entitled to a percentage "slice of the action"—that is, of the damages recovered—whereas under a conditional fee agreement the solicitor will be entitled if the case is won—admittedly, that is a contingency—to an agreed uplift on the amount of the fees for the work he has done above the level they would otherwise have been. So the basic question seems to be this: how much uplift is necessary, in the category of cases to which these arrangements will primarily apply, to compensate solicitors for the cases they lose where they will recover no fees for themselves?
The principle surely should be that the maximum permitted uplift in cases that win should not be disproportionate to the risk of losing. The Law Society has said that the current proposals,
"will enable conditional fees to be widely used in personal injury cases whilst also providing appropriate measures to ensure proper consumer protection".
I agree with the first part, but not the second. Personal injury cases, as the noble and learned Lord has rightly observed, are a low risk area of litigation from the standpoint of plaintiffs. In the vast majority the plaintiff succeeds in whole or part. In fact I understand that around 95 per cent. settle, to the advantage of plaintiffs, without any court order. In my view the first thoughts of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on this subject were correct. A 10 per cent. or at most 20 per cent. uplift was sufficient incentive. He should have adhered to that.
I endorse also a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The fact that insurance cover against the risk of losing can be purchased through the Law Society's accident line scheme for less than £100, demonstrates that in the class of case, personal injuries, to which conditional fee agreements will primarily apply in practice, the risk of loss is very low. I therefore think that a 20 per cent. uplift for succeeding is proportionate to the low risk of losing.
It is argued—we have heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack argue in this way—that a maximum success fee of 100 per cent. is necessary for lawyers to undertake on a "no win, no fee" basis cases with only a 50:50 chance of success. I could at least see that argument if 100 per cent. success fees were confined to 50:50 cases. But they are not. In any event I think that solicitors practising in the personal injuries field would be compensated for their unremunerated time in cases they lose by their 20 per cent. uplifts in the vast majority of cases where they win. I would predict that unless a 20 per cent. maximum is fixed we will be returning in future years to figures that will show that uplifts close on 100 per cent. will have been applied in a disturbingly high proportion of cases.
1554
The next question is whether the noble and learned Lord, if he is insistent on retaining a maximum of 100 per cent., should be imposing a statutory cap on the uplift of, say, 20 to 25 per cent. of the damages recovered. I regard such a cap as an essential protection for the consumer of legal services. Particularly in cases where the damages are low and the fees high, it would be possible to win but to have to pay out literally all the damages recovered in legal costs plus success fees. That would be litigation which would in practice have been conducted—this is how the public would see it—for the benefit of the lawyers alone. The Law Society itself sees the merit of such a cap because it will be recommending to its members a cap of 25 per cent. of the damages recovered. The noble and learned Lord should himself be imposing a 25 per cent. cap as the only sure means of protecting the consumer.
The noble and learned Lord maintains that he lacks the power to impose such a cap. I am not entirely clear what his position is. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that he would impose such a cap if he had the power to do so, or is he simply maintaining that he lacks the power to impose a cap which he would not wish to impose in any event?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make my position clear. My position is this. I wish to devise a scheme which is applicable both to plaintiffs and defendants and therefore I do not intend to impose a cap of this kind as part of a regulatory mechanism. I thought I had made that clear; I am sorry if I have not done so.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am much obliged. I, however, for my part, do not agree that Section 58 of the Act does no more than permit the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the level of uplift and so does not permit, or impliedly precludes, a cap being imposed on the amount of the uplift. There is no bar, in my view, on his prescribing such a cap. The issue is whether he should do so.
I believe that both prongs of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, are well founded. The issue is the protection of the consumer. Why not, I ask, in the interests of the consumer, introduce the scheme on one or other of the bases proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner? My preference is for a 20 per cent. uplift and then to monitor the use of conditional fee agreements in practice to see whether they turn out to be widely used in practice and have succeeded in their objective, with the consumer subject to no more than a 20 per cent. uplift.
I predict that to begin with a maximum possible uplift of 100 per cent. will be seen in future years to have sold the consumer short. Even at this late stage I urge the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to revert to his earlier judgment of what the maximum uplift should be.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I shall be grateful if he will assist me and the House by explaining how he proposes that capping should work when the assistance is provided to the defendant rather than to the plaintiff.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I confess that I was addressing the situation of a plaintiff who gains a recovery and not of a defendant. However, I have made plain that my strong preference is for a 20 per cent. uplift, full stop.
4 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I felt so strongly about many provisions in the 1990 Act that, for the first time in 40 years in one House or the other, I was driven to vote against the party of which I have been a member all my life. I oppose this particular order because I cannot bring myself to accept any scheme which seeks to identify the reward of the lawyer with the result of the litigation. Parliament may have passed the 1990 Act, but that does not reconcile me to the principle. Any step which changes the English concept of the role of the lawyer is a very serious matter and one greatly to be deplored.
Many jokes are made about lawyers, but throughout the history of this country and the history of the common law the conduct of lawyers, standing for justice and principle, is something of which the country can and should be proud. Anything which alters that great tradition of the lawyer's role and his relationship with the client and the court is very serious. This is another step on the road to Americanising the English practice of the law, which is being accomplished step by step. It was commenced by a former government under a former Prime Minister who was bewitched by all things American, and whose voice is being heard again in the land engaged in the modern tradition of retired Conservative Prime Ministers of rubbishing the policies of the governments of their successors.
When I talk about the Americanising of the English law, I make it plain that I am a member of the American Bar Association. For nearly a quarter of a century I have been a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. I have great ties of family and blood with America. However, I do not admire the manner in which the Americans practise law, not only in the criminal law.
Noble Lords may have some experience of the practice of American criminal law, having seen it on their television sets recently. In the great debates five years ago about whether we should amalgamate the two professions it was said that there would be three lawyers—a QC, a junior and a solicitor—defending people. In the O.J. Simpson case I have seen six different advocates presenting the prosecution, under a prosecutor who has no command of the laws of evidence and is wholly unable to examine without asking leading questions. The conduct of the defence lawyers, the television coverage, the absence of any principles of contempt of court and the lack of authority of the judge, which is the most important aspect of all, present an idea of how the United States system can end up. That is a criminal case, but it illustrates the different attitude to the practice of law, which is founded on identification between the client and the advocate, the intimate association between the two, the planning done together, the interviewing of witnesses, the coaching of witnesses, the scheming, the PR activities and, above all, the reward identified with the result in civil cases.
1556
Compare that with the English system. The English advocate is not even allowed to interview witnesses, let alone coach or rehearse them. In the proper tradition (of course it is abused) of the English Bar and the English solicitor, counsel and solicitor are officers of justice with a duty to the court as well as to the client. The identification of the lawyer with the success of the suit by giving him a contingency interest at once alters the concept of independence and of integrity, and in this order "conditional" is the same as "contingency".
It will be said, "This is just a minor alteration. Why are you making such a great fuss? This is pursuant to what Parliament has approved. The effect will be to cut the legal aid bill", as I have no doubt the Treasury masters have told my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor he must. It is said that it concerns only certain cases and the civil field. Who believes that it will stop there?
If one is going to provide legal assistance and representation to people of little or no means there has always been a choice. One is the road of legal aid—publicly paid representation. It is an expensive road, but one which this country decided upon. It is a rather noble road. There has always been the other road—giving the lawyers a cut of the cake to persuade them to take on cases. That is the difference. An order of this kind, which is the first of many which will come before your Lordships' House, alters the whole concept of the practice of the law. We shall not be able to stop it now. It will progress step by step. It will be said that it saves the great legal aid bill.
There is the comical attitude of editors who say that the proposal is opposed by lawyers and that it is a very good scheme. Those editors are briefed by the legal equivalent of the "teenage scribblers" of the memorable phrase of my noble friend Lord Lawson. However, they are blind to what will ultimately happen. Inevitably there will come a time when there is the new tort of privacy and conditional fees will be available in cases of libel. Then there will be some squealing by the press as opposed to the Bar.
I shall not go into the detail, which has been dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. What does the uplift fee really mean? Of course it is linked to the amount of damages. First my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor decided on 10 per cent. Why did he do that? He had the advice and backing of his department. However, he has been driven to a 20 per cent. uplift, and then to a 100 per cent. uplift which, as The Times put it, is high enough to tempt lawyers to take on cases. What a noble prospect!
All that this order does is gingerly, gradually and piecemeal destroy the English concept of the practice of law and replace it with the system from across the Atlantic.
This is a matter of principle. It may be said that the principle has already been decided by Parliament, but in my 40 years in Parliament I have seen it change its mind sometimes. For that reason I oppose this order and shall support the amendment. That is the least that can be done to prevent a step which I feel takes the English law along a very dirty, ugly road.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: My Lords, I apprehend that the only issue before your Lordships' House concerns the terms of the draft order and the draft regulations. There are those, including Members of your Lordships' House, who have been and still are much troubled about the whole concept of conditional fees. They are concerned that whatever the care with which it is watched, this new plant—it is not indigenous to England and Wales and has not previously been grown here—will inevitably become out of control rather like rhododendrons on the Welsh hillsides. That issue is not before your Lordships, the principle having been approved by Parliament.
As I understand it, the chief concern of those who are critical of the draft order is the possibility of abuse by lawyers. They are worried that high street solicitors acting for plaintiffs in personal injury cases will charge excessive uplifts in fees not justified by the comparatively modest risks involved in acting on a conditional fee basis in such work. They are concerned that there is an unequal bargaining position between lawyer and client.
Some risk of abuse must be inherent in any new scheme such as this. However, I suggest that one should not underestimate the extent today of real competition for work among high street solicitors. House sellers and buyers shop around. That has had a marked effect on the fees which solicitors can charge for conveyancing in the domestic field; likewise, charges for making wills. I can see no good reason why high street solicitors should not find themselves competing for this new type of work. That will serve a useful purpose in curbing any tendency to charge excessive uplifts in fees and take excessive profit margins.
When solicitors were first given rights of audience in the higher courts, there were those who feared that the established legal order would be shaken to its very foundations—likewise, some 20 years ago, when solicitors' scale fees for conveyancing were abolished, and, much later, when licensed conveyancers were introduced. But what has happened? The Royal Courts of Justice building stands as sturdily as ever. The Land Registry has not been struck by lightning.
There are real risks involved in the scheme, but I suggest that they are worth taking in pursuit of increasing access to justice. In the nature of things it is not a scheme which can be introduced experimentally on a piecemeal basis for a few months in one or two selected locations like a new form of credit card. As I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, or will indicate, that he intends to monitor the progress of the scheme. On that footing I am content. I suggest that the scheme is worth trying, and that we should get on with it without further delay.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may copy the beginning of the extremely lucid speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, by stating the points I wish to make and the reasons why I make them. The points raised by the noble and learned Lord numbered three. I apologise for enlarging upon that number; mine number four.
1558
First, it is my duty, out of sheer courtesy, to say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that so far as I know and have heard the legal profession much appreciates the fact that he indulged in extensive consultation before coming forward with the order. I wish to acknowledge that factor, especially in view of other remarks I shall make.
The second matter I wish to acknowledge is the disturbing gap in our system of adjudication of the law and of rights as between subjects. The poor man is covered by legal aid; the wealthy man has his bank balance and bank manager. All of us who stand in between find that our legal system is so expensive in practice that we cannot enter the gates of the courts let alone the doorways of the Savoy Hotel.
The conclusion must be that there is something wrong with our system. The answer to that must be one of the main considerations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, at this moment. The answer might lie in more conciliation than arbitration and alternative processes. We ought to be looking closely at the way in which these heavy bills arise. I belong to a profession which is responsible for such heavy bills; I admit it at once. But that does not necessarily mean that we have to embark on a course which is contrary to a tradition which goes back over the centuries, as has been said.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, was absolutely right. I refer to a phrase used, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The question of whether we go ahead with the scheme is water under the bridge with regard to the principle.
However, my fourth point arises out of something the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, at which I trembled a little. If I remember correctly, and I took a note, he used the words "with a view to extending". I find those words very ominous. They are my excuse for going a little into the rights and wrongs and results of such a scheme. I plead with the noble and learned Lord. Let this scheme not be extended beyond personal injuries and liquidation matters without a great deal of thought and much experience. It is strange—is it not?—that an issue that was contrary to public policy yesterday seems to be at least partially in accordance with public policy today. There is every reason for considering whether that transformation has taken place.
I am a lawyer. I act for a client who asks my advice as to whether he has a case. He makes clear that he has not much money. When trying to assess his chances of success in the opinion that I give, I hope that I would be honest without having at the back of my mind that in a moment I am to discuss with him an agreement in which the question of the chances of success will regulate the surplus fee I intend to charge and discuss with him. I ask this rhetorical question: can one get a better example of conflict of interest at the commencement of my interviewing the client?
What happens in the middle of a case? I have forecast to that client that I believe he has a bad case and, therefore, please, my uplift is 100 per cent. If we embark on further litigation, apart from personal injuries, I reach the stage of discovery. I find that the other side has disclosed a document which sends the chances of my winning the case rocketing. That often happens. I am unfortunate

1559
enough on discovery to find documents that make my case worse, but that is a personal experience. Some of my professional colleagues are more fortunate. What is my duty then? Is it to summon the client and say, "No, the uplift we had in our original agreement was X per cent., but I can now tell you that the chances are greater. I ought therefore to alter it"? However, subsequently I receive a devastating blow. I interview a witness who, I have been told, is lucid and clear in favour of my client. I take a statement from him and find that he is a lamentable witness. I wonder whether I dare call him. Do I then summon my client back again and say, "Well, I told you we were in a far better position after discovery. I must now tell you, having interviewed this witness whom you told me about, that I am afraid that our chances have plunged. In those circumstances, shall we take out this agreement and come to another percentage?"
This proposal is supposed to be for the protection of the client. However, it is just not practical to say, "If you believe that I have unjustly charged you too high a percentage because of your chances in the case you have the right to go before the taxing master. He will adjudicate whether I have wrongly forecast your chances of success." I have a veneration for taxing masters, but they know nothing about judging the chances of success in litigation. I doubt whether some of the taxing masters, bless them, have ever conducted a piece of litigation in all their lives.
Lord Hacking: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: It is pleasing to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Apart from the point about the taxing masters, ought I not to advise the client, "You had better go to another solicitor to argue the case before the taxing master as to whether I have charged correctly because I have an interest in it and there would be a conflict. You must go elsewhere". Will the solicitor who now takes on the case of arguing that I far too pessimistically and wrongly forecast the case be subject to a success rule? If the other solicitor manages to bargain me down and the percentage is lower, does that solicitor collect?
Unfortunately, it is something that one witnesses year after year. The legislation is turning the professions in our country into something different; it is eroding the dignity of the professions and their traditions. Only last Friday The Times carried a headline in regard to the medical profession:
"What have we done to our nice old doctors? By treating them like plumbers we are making them behave like tradesmen".
I do not want that to happen to my profession. I do not want to be turned into a bookie.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with all that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and those who agree with him. I am sorry that it causes me to disagree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, with whom I would much rather agree, as I usually do. However, as a matter of principle I am wholly in sympathy with the words that fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. It seems to me that the contingency fee is an alien creature
1560
in our justice system. I would much rather that it had never made its appearance. I believe that it will lead to speculative litigation and that, as has been graphically illustrated by an experienced solicitor a few minutes ago, there is a danger of a conflict of interest and possibly a lowering of standards.
It has been said more than once, and I accept it, that the issue of principle is now to be regarded as water under the bridge. The most important point at issue is that we should ensure that the alien creature is not allowed to run amok. The object of having the alien creature is, so we are told, to improve access to justice. We must ensure that it grants impoverished litigants better access to justice, not simply lawyers better access to fees.
I do not understand how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor reached the figure of 100 per cent. He began with 10 per cent. and when he was put under pressure he doubled it to 20 per cent. We have all had experience in the law of trying to settle cases and I never went from 10 per cent., to 20 per cent., to 100 per cent. in all the cases I ever sought to negotiate. How the noble and learned Lord reached 100 per cent. is quite mysterious. He told us that 100 per cent. has been the situation in Scotland. There are two points about Scotland. First, in so far as there have been conditional fee agreements there, they have been used minimally and have made hardly any impact on access to justice. If the noble and learned Lord knows that that is the level in Scotland, why did he start with l0 per cent. if the was going to end with 100 per cent.?
In my personal experience, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has always shown a canny caution when it comes to money matters. It would be most unfair and improper for anyone to suggest that his caution with regard to money is confined to occasions when money comes from the Treasury, but not to occasions when it is to come from impecunious litigants. That would be unfair. However, it will undoubtedly be from the impecunious litigant that the 100 per cent. would come. I consider that it is outrageous to reach that percentage in what must be the nursery slopes of such a scheme. As has been said, one can increase by starting low. If we start with 20 per cent. or even 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., it would always be possible to increase the amount if solicitors found that it was simply not economic for them to take on that form of work. But we cannot go down from 100 per cent. My guess is that it would be easy for the solicitor in the stronger position with regard to his client to negotiate higher percentages—perhaps not 100 per cent. but higher than would be justified by the risks that have to be taken.
I wish to adopt all the arguments that were so well presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor should go back and reconsider this matter. He made a virtue of having taken the opinion of the Heads of Division and of having consulted his own advisory committee. But despite the views of both those bodies, he has gone ahead with this figure although they all advised against it. They did so not because of any desire to stifle the scheme, but simply because they are truly anxious about whether the percentage that he has in mind can really be regarded as reasonable. I ask the House to support this amendment not to defeat the whole

1561
exercise, but to ask the Lord Chancellor to go back and reconsider what would be the appropriate level at which to pitch the uplift.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I had come here today absolutely convinced that the proposals put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were correct, I am bound to say that over the past hour or so I should have been severely shaken. I cannot conceive of the possibility, having heard the arguments advanced, of my views not being very much shifted. As things are, I did not enter the Chamber in that state of mind. I am opposed to this proposal. The mere fact that Parliament has approved it does not entirely stifle me in the wish I have to express my objection to it. We are still free to do that.
I apologise for intruding for the first time in this debate an element, if not of total unlearning, at least of very small learning. I am perhaps prompted to do so by the fact that I learned such law as I have in a prison camp in Germany, where notions of the common law did not prevail. I had the good fortune to sit at the feet of a very remarkable academic lawyer, the late Professor Hamson. I know of no one who had a greater regard for the structure of the common law than he. He taught it brilliantly. Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that he accompanied the instruction with a very clear rider that it was more than possible that those eminent and very learned men who sat on the Woolsack could get things very badly wrong. Today, I find myself rather daringly echoing that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is exceedingly persuasive. But I do not think I have ever heard him express himself quite so strongly as he did this afternoon when, in concluding his speech, he said:
"I do not want to be turned into a bookie".
Those words will stay with me for a very long time.
There is very little that I can contribute by way of experience to what has been said this afternoon. Therefore, I have just two questions. First, I am puzzled by the lack of reference to the position of the defendant. What will he know of the position of the plaintiff? I am not clear about that. It seems to me that he may well be faced with a man of straw who is engaged in a speculative case with the aid of a very bright lawyer, and the defendant will know nothing of that and will have the immense handicap of not knowing that, if he loses, he will face a very heavy bill for his own costs. My second question is a very simple one, but I am not quite sure that there is a very easy answer to it. What is the purpose of an advisory committee? The noble and learned Lord has one. He has the benefit of the advice of men of immense experience and learning, so far as I know. I have a copy here of the letter (which has been widely circulated) that my noble and learned friend wrote on this subject to the chairman of the committee on 19th April. He states:
"I understand the Committee's views on the percentage uplift, but I do not agree with them".
That is the first rejection. He continues:
"I remain persuaded that it is right to fix the maximum figure for the percentage uplift at 100%".
1562
That is the second rejection. He goes on:
"Similarly, I remain of the view that I do not have the power to impose a limit on the proportion of damages that can be taken by the uplift".
The advisory committee takes a very flat-footed view to the contrary.
On taxation, my noble and learned friend states:
"I agree that conditional fees will be a new and unusual challenge to the taxation system, but I believe that taxation does have a role to play".
That is the third rejection. He adds:
"I do not believe that there is any need to hold up the Order and Regulations … on this account".
There again, the advisory committee had suggested some delay, echoing the point made previously by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; namely, none of us knows what the result of all this will be, and therefore let us proceed with caution.
There were other points on which the noble and learned Lord was unable to go along with the advice that he had received. So far as the professional rules are concerned, my noble and learned friend did not agree with the committee as to whether the regulation was ultra vires. He simply states the fact that he does not agree with the analysis and is satisfied that the regulation is intra vires. My noble and learned friend goes on to say that he agrees that monitoring is important, but then appears to have very little enthusiasm for it, being prepared even at this very uncertain stage to rely entirely on sampling.
I am not sure that I know how to express myself. There is a very grave danger that with the system we have—despite what has been said by a very impressive col lection of speakers—it is quite possible that when the bells go the opinions expressed will not be reflected in the Division Lobby. I therefore make this plea, very much as a layman, to my noble and learned friend. I do hope that, bearing in mind what he has heard this afternoon, he will be broadminded and have the courage to have second thoughts.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, like some noble Lords I must begin by declaring a bias. I have great misgivings about the whole idea of conditional fees and the rather skeleton scheme which at present we can see for bringing them into effect. But I recognise the need to try to fill the gap between the very poor who, so far at least, are able to resort to legal aid and the seriously rich who may be supposed not to require it. However, I shall put aside my prejudices for today at least and try to concentrate on the matter in hand. I have two anxieties: first, the 100 per cent. uplift which, in ordinary language, might be called the power to charge double what one's services are worth in the event of winning the case; and, secondly, the marked difference which seems to exist between my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and his advisory committee.
The purpose of the uplift must be to induce lawyers to undertake these cases and reward them suitably overall, if excessively on the individual occasion. I dislike the idea of any uplift. A client should not have to pay and the lawyer should not receive more than the lawyer's services are worth. There again, for the sake of argument, I shall leave that point on one side.

1563
The proposal started tentatively at 5 per cent. It went to 10 per cent. on paper; then to 20 per cent.; and it is now 100 per cent. I shall try not to repeat what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said. Like him, I have tried to settle a few cases but not on the basis described. If we were at an auction and the bidding went from 5 to 10, to 20 and then to 100, that would indeed be a brisk rise in the bidding. The committee was happy with 10 per cent., yet accepted 20 per cent.; but it still strongly disagrees with 100 per cent. I hope I am not being impertinent when I say that if 100 per cent. is the logical and proper figure, why should such a grave miscalculation have crept in at the beginning of these calculations?
The reason for the uplift is the risk of failure. Let us consider the facts for a moment. Most of the cases, as far as I can see, will be plaintiffs cases in personal injury litigation. To those with experience of that kind of litigation it ranks among the most easily predictable in a somewhat unpredictable field. That is especially true if the case is to be tried by a judge without a jury, or so it is thought. Predictability accounts for a high proportion of settlements in this field because both the plaintiffs and the defendant's advisers have a pretty good idea of the value of the case and there are a lot of settlements in this field.
I speak of personal injury cases because that field of litigation offers the best prospect of recovering money out of the damages. As we have already heard—I paraphrase what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on a previous occasion—there is a duty in Scotland and will be a duty here to satisfy oneself that a good case exists before it is taken on. That is a serious duty owed to the client, to the court system and to the opposite party if the lawyer is a conscientious person, as most of them are. One does not want to be starting a bad case for one's client and it is quite wrong to start a bad case against another party—the less acceptable name for that is blackmail.
We have heard that there is a modest premium to insure against having to pay the defendant's costs. That is another indication of the likely outcome of many of these cases. The statistics on which those premiums are based—no doubt that is the way in which the premiums are arrived at—support, not surprisingly, what has been said. What is the real effect of that? It is that the money is taken out of the damages of successful plaintiffs to pay for the mistakes and misfortunes of solicitors who take on bad cases. In other words, legal aid above the statutory legal aid limit is provided by the legal profession which is in turn to be reimbursed by successful litigants out of the damages which they ought to have received. That may be tolerable if the tax on success is 10 per cent. of the costs or even 20 per cent., but not, I venture to say, if it is 100 per cent.
The 100 per cent. uplift assumes a likely failure rate of 50 per cent. It is not a true comparison to say that a 50:50 case deserves to be heard and therefore the 100 per cent. uplift is needed. First, there is something like taking the good with the bad in this field; secondly, one should have regard to the overall likelihood of a practice being successfully conducted and remember that when dealing with personal injury cases the solicitor should
1564
not—and certainly does not have to—look at cases which are less than 50:50. The majority of cases he will see will have a very much better chance than 50:50. It is hard, if this is a question of a variable scale with a maximum of 100 per cent., for the solicitor to say—however honestly he is behaving and however experienced he is—just what the right tariff is.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has allowed me to shorten my speech, your Lordships will be pleased to learn, with his good examples of those chances. I shall not go into further detail in that regard therefore except to speculate whether, when he is at odds with his client in front of the taxing master and sends him to another solicitor, that other solicitor will feel that he had better have a 100 per cent. uplift.
We are told, quite correctly, that what is being said is that 100 per cent. will be the maximum and not the norm. But I share the misgivings voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—who I am pleased to see in her place and from whom I hope we shall hear—and mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, that there is a great danger that the maximum will become the normal.
What is the machinery of control? We are told that there is no machinery of control except that the 100 per cent. is the maximum. We are also told that at present there is no means of introducing control—something I cannot quite understand. I have read what purport to be the relevant provisions. But I am not going to quibble. My experience of legislation and rule making is that one ought to decide what one wants first and then draft the primary and secondary legislation which will achieve one's object.
If there is no control, imagine the unequal position of the client, worried, ignorant and in a strange environment, and the solicitor who says, "There is no other way to success but to authorise me to take on your case and charge 100 per cent. uplift if you win". That would not arise if we were dealing with taxed fees or if we were dealing with a modest 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent. standard uplift. There would be no bargaining and no question of oppression or deception. As the chances in the case changed from hour to hour, there would be no recrimination, no feeling that this case is now a sitter or that that case could never be won. This is a very serious matter to consider—the question of the maximum figure with everything else left in the air.
Another possibility is to relate the fees to the award of damages. That is a most unattractive alternative but at least it would be clear. We must remember that costs against the defendant are awarded here in the ordinary way whereas that is not true in America, which has been responsible for the entirely different approach of the speculative lawyer in that jurisdiction. They are not necessarily alternatives. What is wrong with combining two limits: a limit on the uplift and a limit on the proportion of the damages which can be resorted to in order to satisfy fees.
So far I have tried to address the practicalities, but I do go a little further. I submit that, in any circumstances, for a professional person to take from the client a fee amounting to twice what those services rendered are worth is not only unacceptable but quite scandalous. I

1565
have long been aware that hyperbole in an advocate does not assist his case. But I can think of no adjective less emphatic to describe my view of a step like that.
I can be very brief about my second point. There are a great number of loose ends here in what is by any standard of judgment a new and controversial scheme. The advisory committee, comprising a majority of lay people and headed by a most experienced and distinguished chairman, has given clear and strong advice of which, I respectfully suggest, very great account should be taken.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord. I agree with everything that he said and in particular with the three points that he made with such total clarity. The 100 per cent. uplift—"unacceptable" and "scandalous". How could it better be put? Disagreement with the advisory committee or the loose ends—again, how could it better be put? How can one go further with this miasma of dissatisfaction and doubt, such as we have heard in this Chamber today? There is then the question of control.
I do not conceal my prejudice in this matter. I am proud to assert it. It was so wonderfully asserted by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, and even, if I may say so, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Lord—I was about to say my noble friend—Lord Mishcon, in one of the most remarkable speeches that I have ever heard the noble Lord make in your Lordships' House.
Lord Renton: That is saying something.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: And that is saying something. But your Lordships will appreciate that I have not had the privilege of hearing all of them.
I accept that one's prejudice, of which I am proud and which I shall always retain, must not cloud one's judgment. All other noble Lords who have spoken are quite used to the position of having to put aside one's own prejudice and approach the problem totally objectively. I listened with attention to everything said by your Lordships today. I listened to the argument of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, to which I shall come in a moment, and to every other speech in your Lordships' House. I agree with all that has been said by all noble Lords save for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls.
One question puzzles me, but obviously I must have got it wrong somewhere. Somehow this question of vires was introduced. But what on earth that has to do with this debate I am totally unable to understand. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the vires he would not use it anyway, so what is the object of arguing whether or not he has it? Perhaps I missed the main point but, at least for the moment, I am rather foxed about its relevance.
1566
With regard to the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, dealt with the matter, I accept that one has to approach the matter as to how to implement Section 58, which is established in primary legislation. The question is whether the way proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or the way proposed by the very advisory committee he set up is the better way of doing it. Limiting it to PI, insolvency and the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights is one thing, but to use it as a fulcrum to develop this without the question of control, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, is objectionable.
In any event, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, says, as he did, that competition between the high street solicitors will resolve the question of the 100 per cent., I ask, "Will it, my Lords?" Does the noble and learned Lord know a number of solicitors in the high street who will not take legal aid at the moment because they do not get enough out of it? Competition on this basis on the high street solicitors is so much pie in the practical sky. There is no question about that. And we are not concerned in this area with the examples of wills or conveyancing, to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
There is really nothing more that I wish to add to the merits of the argument. But it seems that the amendments to these Motions to approve the draft order and regulations are entirely well-founded. These drafts as they stand should be withdrawn and relaid in a form which reflects the recommendations of the advisory committee. These amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, although in form amendments to the Motion, are in substance a reasoned rejection of the draft order and regulations laid. If that is so, then so be it and let them be rejected, if we have to divide on the matter.
The distinction between an amendment to a Motion and a reasoned rejection is too fine to be drawn by your Lordships. This is no exercise in confrontation and brinkmanship. We are only concerned with what is the better way of implementing Section 58 of the Act. It is entirely appropriate that if such be our opinion we should reject the method proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in favour of the proposal by his own independent advisory committee. In this situation parliamentary prudence plays no part and party political affiliations do not have any direct bearing. As my noble friend Lord Peyton urged, this is a matter where, if it is the opinion of your Lordships, how can we do otherwise in this unusual situation than to reject the order and the regulations as laid? It is unusual because there is disagreement. It does not happen as a rule when subsidiary legislation comes before your Lordships, but there is disagreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his advisory committee.
The negotiations are bogged down in stalemate. If this amendment to the Motion is carried on a Division, no doubt that logjam or stalemate can be re-opened and resolved by some acceptable compromise. After all, it is ordained by statute, as some kind of parliamentary safeguard, that we either accept or reject the Motion as

1567
it stands. If in our honest opinion, having considered all that has been said, we feel today that it should be rejected, then reject it we should. In any such situation I shall support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when I saw the list of speakers for this debate I felt that I had to check once again with the Clerks of the House as to whether it was in order for a layman to speak. Fortunately, I have had that reassurance so I shall add a few words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, spoke about bringing competition into the profession. I am happy to be able to tell him that I have already told the House about my appointment card for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which has on the back an advertisement by a solicitor seeking custom in personal injury cases. He may or may not think that this is appropriate.
Throughout this debate and in the literature, which I have tried to read conscientiously, there has been a great argument about uplift and whether it should be 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. Nowhere have I seen any mention at all about the amount which is; being uplifted. The question of fees being charged by some members of the legal profession I have mentioned before. I am astonished that a debate of this nature can take place with no reference to it whatsoever.
I shall not weary the House at length on this. I have mentioned before the Written Answer I had from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on 10th October 1994 about Dr. Jawad Hashim. The answer states that Mr. Colin Ross-Munro had already drawn £671,111 and Mr. Hugo Page, £438,523. It concludes,
"Final costs will not be known until final bills have been submitted and the bills have been taxed".—[Official Report, 10/10/94; col. WA 94.]
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made some rather censorious remarks about taxing masters and suggested that they might never have conducted proceedings in court. But, in my very limited experience, taxing masters have been vindicated. I refer to the appeal proceedings on 1st December 1993, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, speaking about the challenge to a taxing master's decision, said to the appellants,
"The amount of fees you and your leader were claiming for a four day case would have hired three very competent headmasters for a year".
He went on to say—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord will give way. I want to make it clear that I said that I venerated taxing masters. Quite apart from that, I said that, if they were being asked to adjudicate as to the chances of success of an action, I felt that that was a field in which they had had little or no experience.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. But, inexperienced though this particular taxing master was, the noble and
1568
learned Lords, Lord Templeman, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Goff, all found in his favour. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said,
"These fees would have been unheard of even three or four years ago. The whole thing has come across from America and it has just gone up and up and up".
I believe that a noble and learned Lord made that point earlier on.
Such reticence on the part of the legal profession about their own money does not extend to other people's money. Only yesterday we were told by the Sunday Times that Mr. Mears was calling in his presidential manifesto for a £100 levy to make up the cost of the appeals and the damages compensation fund which they run. He goes so far as to suggest that £100 should be added to conveyancing bills. Clearly, the electorate to which he was appealing was not that of the usual house purchaser.
In the Mail on Sunday there was a report about lawyers' calls for cash for victims, saying that the Bar Council was,
"against the proposals in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill".
There is a quotation from Mr. Robert Latham, who sits on several victim support committees. He said,
"We urge you to show two fingers to this new scheme".
This is where a layman is at a disadvantage because the phrase "two fingers" is clearly some sort of legal technical phrase with which I am not familiar.
The serious point is that it seems to me, with the greatest respect, that these debates are conducted in a vacuum. There are some unfortunate children who suffer from what is called SCID, which is severe, combined immune deficiency. It means that they must be kept free of any possible source of infection. Their early life is lived in a bubble where their victuals are passed into them. It seems to me that some of the debates about legal matters held in this House and in another place are conducted without any relationship to the world outside.
I shall try briefly to make a little clearer what I mean. The scheme we are talking about today extends to personal injuries. There appeared in The Times an extremely interesting article by Michael Baum, who is an eminent cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital. The article was called, "Does Screening Really Work?". He pointed out,
"Something like 80 per cent. of men dying of other unrelated diseases in their eighties will be found to have prostate cancer at post mortem".
The tenor of his remarks was that there are many cancers which are never discovered unless there is a post mortem because they do not develop to a stage where they can be diagnosed. He said that it is possible that testing can be overdone.
That was reinforced in The Times on Saturday 10th June in an article by the health correspondent, Jeremy Laurance, who wrote that fear of litigation makes smear-test staff over-cautious. Dr. Angela Raffle claimed:
"Staff live in fear of being blamed for failing to prevent cases of invasive cancer. The desire to avoid over-diagnosis, which in the past kept the detection rates low, has now been outweighed by the need to avoid any possibility of being held responsible for missing

1569
The report goes on to state that 5,500 women were referred for further investigation and treatment,
"for a disease that would never have troubled them and are being left with problems that include lasting worries about cancer, difficulties in obtaining life insurance and worries concerning the effect of their treatment on their subsequent reproductive ability".
I shall not weary the House with more details of that, but we are talking about people in the caring professions now who are becoming worried about the increasing tide of litigation. We have to think forward to people who are contemplating what to do with their life. If the situation deteriorates very much further, people will be reluctant to enter the caring professions. I believe that such considerations should have equal prominence when we are discussing these other matters.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I spoke in the debate on 1st November which was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I have come here today to renew the support that I offered then to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I do not propose to go over old ground again, except to the extent that it is made necessary by the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which raise again two issues about which he spoke in November. I suggest that neither amendment should command our support.
First, the noble and learned Lord asks the House to agree that the maximum costs uplift should be 20 per cent., not 100 per cent. As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack suggested—it seems a long time ago now—fixing that low figure would deprive the injured plaintiff, with only about a 50:50 chance of success, of the opportunity to proceed with the benefit of a conditional fee agreement. Those 50:50 cases are cases where there is a good chance of success but at the same time a real possibility of failure. Those are cases which deserve support.
Judge Michael Cook, in an article in The Times of 6th June which I expect many of your Lordships read, makes particularly hard-hitting points about the amount of uplift. He writes:
"The Lord Chancellor originally proposed a maximum uplift of 10 per cent., but the Law Society argued that this would require solicitors to win ten out of 11 cases merely to break even".
The judge is a serious commentator, but he is wrong. As I understand the position, the actual objection to the 10 per cent. uplift was simply that the cases to which it might apply were cases in which there was almost no chance of the plaintiff losing—in other words, the scheme (if so limited) would simply not reach many of those plaintiffs who need conditional fee agreements.
The article goes on:
"When an increase to 20 per cent.—reducing the odds for breaking even to five wins out of six—still did not satisfy the Law Society, the Lord Chancellor weighed in with a massive 100 per cent. uplift. The Law Society welcomed the proposal and revealed that 92 per cent. of personal injury claims, to which conditional fees are to apply, succeed. A 100 per cent. uplift had been secured for an eight per cent. risk".
That tendentious argument is, with all respect to the judge, more than a little misleading. The regulations cannot reasonably be read as permitting the maximum
1570
uplift for open and shut cases, but that is what the passage is implying and what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, seems to think when he says that the maximum uplift will not be confined to 50:50 cases, and it is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, also thinks. However, the maximum uplift will and should be applied in only those cases where there is a good chance of success but also a real chance of failure—the 50:50 cases. All that Judge Cook's meagre statistic shows is that 50:50 cases may be relatively few in number, but nothing can be made of that in relation to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, or in relation to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, about the low take-up in Scotland. It may be that there are not all that many people who require such assistance in 50:50 cases, but that is not a reason why they should not have it.
As to the amendment requiring that there should be a cap on fees, I would consider the compulsory imposition of a cap at best unnecessary but at worst in some respects operating against the interests of litigants. Indeed, I do not find myself in entire agreement with the Law Society, whose brief advises me that the Law Society will recommend to practitioners that,
"A cap should normally be included in agreements".
There are obviously cases where a solicitor would recognise that the offer of a cap was appropriate to his client's financial and other circumstances. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred in November and today to the example of the damages in an otherwise successful claim being so reduced by a finding of contributory negligence that the uplift left the plaintiff out of pocket. It is on that sort of basis that he recommends the compulsory cap. But under the draft regulations, any solicitor offering a cap would be able also to offer an agreement without a cap, and it stands to reason that the uplift without the cap would probably be smaller than the uplift with the cap. The noble and learned Lord would remove from the plaintiff the element of choice, and leave him only the cap and the higher uplift. I consider that the imposition of a compulsory cap would be a retrograde step to take in this matter, and so I oppose it. It is inherent in litigation that even a successful plaintiff may be out of pocket at the end of the day. I have not heard either side of the profession—barristers or solicitors—recommend that when that happens the lawyers should forgo their fees in an effort to make things right for their plaintiff client. What is important is that there should be choice, and informed choice, and that honest proposals should be put by the lawyer to the client.
That leads me finally to say a word in relation to the amendments about a point which John Mark Taylor, the Parliamentary Secretary, brought out in the Commons in the debate on 15th May. It is a most important point which it is easy to overlook. There will be an undenied and binding legal duty imposed on a solicitor, in preparing and advising on a conditional fee agreement, to give the right and proper advice to his client; otherwise the agreement will be struck down at the end of the day as an agreement entered into by the client

1571
under the undue influence of the solicitor. In the last resort, that is what is going to make the regulations and the order work.
We should be looking to the future now. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is still fighting the battles of 1990. I remind the House that the order and the regulations have been passed by another place. I commend to the House the Motions in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I hope—
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but as he is well versed in the Law Society's figures, I wonder whether he can say how it managed to secure insurance cover against the other party's costs for less than £100 if the risks of losing were so substantial.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am not in the cognisance of the Law Society on that matter. I consider that the question of insurance is a complete irrelevance. Whether or not they get insurance is entirely up to the clients. The only effect of the insurance is, if it is correct, to make it possible for litigants to litigate without risk. I am not sure that that is a good idea. I do not know the answer to my noble friend's question, but 1 hope that the House will reject the amendments and support my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he also consider irrelevant the difficulties explained in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as regards the assessment of risk, which is fundamental to the scheme? Does my noble friend consider that irrelevant?
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, no, indeed I do not. I recognise that there will be cases where it is difficult to find an acceptable conditional fee agreement. On the other hand, there will be many cases where it is possible to do so. I am asking the House to let this proposal go forward. As it works out, we shall discover where it is necessary to amend it and what type of agreements are practical and what are not.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am not a lawyer and like the other two lay Members who ventured to intrude into this lawyers' paradise, I can claim no expert knowledge of the subject. So it is with some diffidence that at this late stage of the debate I make a modest contribution. I derive some comfort from the fact that it is, after all, the non-expert, the non-lawyer, the ordinary person, who is intended to be the beneficiary of the proposals put before us by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
It could not be denied that most of today's critics intensely dislike the whole concept of conditional fees. That has been made abundantly clear. It is true that it has always been followed by the disclaimer that one has to accept the will of Parliament, but the melody, as it were, lingers on.
It is perhaps not surprising that the detailed implementation of a policy of which those critics profoundly disapprove turns out not to be to their taste.
1572
It looks rather different if one is just an ordinary person who is not poor enough to qualify for legal aid and not rich enough to embark upon litigation with equanimity. To people like that—to people like me—it seems that at last there is some prospect of access to justice becoming more open.
I looked back at the debates on the Bill leading to the 1990 Act, and I see that not only did I welcome the relevant clause but also that I incurred the grave displeasure of some of my legal friends by rather rashly moving, without success, an amendment which would have given the Lord Chancellor even greater powers. I therefore greatly welcome the order and regulations laid before us today, with only the regret that we have had to wait so long and possibly also with the feeling that they might have covered rather more types of case.
As it is, almost the whole argument has centred on just one category—namely, personal injury cases—and that, too, from the point of view of the plaintiff only. The arguments which have been put forward with considerable forensic skill—that if there is to be a mark-up, 20 per cent. would be better than 100 per cent.—have lamentably failed to convince me at all; 100 per cent., just on the arithmetic, strikes me as being unobjectionable in a 50:50 case. There is some weakness in the argument that that is too much because in the vast majority of cases personal injury claims are straightforward and almost always succeed, since it seems to me that the argument disguises the fact that a number of cases which are not so clear and which might indeed be 50:50 are never brought under the present circumstances, and that is one of the points at which the proposals are aimed.
It has been suggested that 100 per cent., or something near it, might become the norm. I do not believe that that will be possible. With all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe that there is something in the argument that the citizen would be able to shop around. We know that when there is competition, as in conveyancing, even legal fees can come down quite a bit.
One can hardly expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to welcome the other part of the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for a specific cap on the proportion of damages which can be taken by way of fees, when he takes the view that the statute gives him no power to do that. In a long life in public affairs, I have found that on the whole it pays to take advantage of the legal views reached by the Lord Chancellor.
A good deal of the problem is met by the provision in the regulations that the amount payable to the lawyer is to be limited with reference to the amount of damages recovered, or that there is power for that to be provided in the agreement, which at any rate will ensure that the matter is discussed between the lawyer and the client. Although some scorn has been poured on the taxation arrangements, the fact remains that they provide some safeguard. The arguments, very skilfully put, as one would expect, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would apply, it seems to me, to any form of uplift and are not conclusive on the question of whether one would go for 20 per cent. or 100 per cent., which is the main issue

1573
raised in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. There will be cases too where the client will be as much interested in clearing his name as in obtaining some money.
There is one crucial difference between this scheme and the American scheme which is not to be overlooked and which has only just been touched upon. That is that the American contingency fee system works only if there is a prospect of damages from which the lawyer's fee can be deducted, whereas the Lord Chancellor's scheme works on both sides of the litigation. So the citizen who finds himself as a defendant in a personal injury claim will be able to make use of it. Indeed, I would not be all that surprised if the insurers for their part got round to seeing considerable merit in the scheme.
I recognise that the question of costs, which has been touched on from time to time, presents a problem which does not arise in the United States. The possibilities again will have been discussed between lawyer and client before the agreement is signed, and, although it is not a complete answer, the insurance scheme worked out by the Law Society, which I do regard as relevant, can go some way towards coping with that problem. It will apply only when the solicitor's firm is a member of the Law Society's accident line scheme and is an approved participant in the insurance arrangements. That incidentally should ensure that the client is helped by lawyers who know their way around. It will not cover some types of case, including medical negligence and pharmaceutical drug and tobacco-related actions, but where it is applicable cover will be provided for a pretty modest premium.
There is just one other point. I noticed that on previous occasions—I believe on one occasion this evening also—reference has been made which suggests that the speculative fee arrangement in Scotland, which hears a family resemblance to what is now proposed, has fallen into complete disuse. I have made some inquiries, and my understanding is that those reports of the scheme's demise are considerably exaggerated and that it is not the case that it has been found to be generally unacceptable.
As a conscientious Cross-Bencher, I naturally support the Government when the Government are right. It is not my fault that so often they prove to be wrong. However, tonight I believe that the Government's proposals are right. Much as it grieves me to differ from my fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I hope that the House will reject his Motions and approve the order and regulations.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, almost every participant in the debate has acknowledged that Section 58 is in the Courts and Legal Services Act and that Parliament has decreed the introduction of conditional fees. However, it is clear from most speakers today that there is deep opposition to conditional fees and that if they are to be introduced they should have minimal effect. That will be the consequence of the House agreeing the amendments
1574
tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. As was rightly said by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, the scheme would reach almost no one whom it is designed to help.
We would then be left with, as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the disturbing gap—I would describe it as the ever-increasing disturbing gap— between the poor man covered by legal aid and the rich man supported by his bank balance. When your Lordships debated the matter in November I quoted certain figures as regards the fall in eligibility for legal aid. I told your Lordships that at the beginning of the 1980s about 70 per cent. of families within the jurisdiction of England and Wales were eligible for legal aid. By the end of the 1980s, that figure had fallen to about 50 per cent. and has been falling ever since.
The Consumers' Association in a survey dated June 1993 ascertained that one-third of people in this country who considered taking legal action did not do so and that a significant factor in that was concern about the cost of legal proceedings. Therefore, the question is: what is to be done? Alas, the answer cannot come with a revival of the legal aid scheme as I remember it as a young member of the Bar in the early 1960s.
We therefore have before us the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships may not like the proposals but I say firmly that many outside the House support the scheme; members of the Consumers' Association, members of the Law Society and others who come face to face with clients and the issue of costs.
Being also a member of the Bar of the State of New York, I am tempted to address your Lordships on the contingency fees system and perhaps that alien creature to which the noble and learned Lord made reference. However, I shall turn to what I believe to be the vital issue before your Lordships; it is the curious situation which we now face in this debate. The consumers clearly support the proposals. The opposition comes almost entirely from the lawyers—from some sections of the legal profession and the judiciary—on the grounds, I emphasise, that lawyers will abuse the system by dishonest practices because of financial interest in the outcome—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the main criticism as articulated has come from the advisory committee of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At the noble and learned Lord's insistence under the Courts and Legal Services Act, the majority of the committee are laymen. Therefore, to lay the blame for the criticism on the lawyers is hardly consistent with that situation.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am of course aware of the composition of the advisory committee. However, any of your Lordships who have listened to the debate and heard comments outside the Chamber will know that there is substantial opposition from the lawyers on the ground that the lawyers will abuse the system by dishonest practices because of their financial interest in the outcome of cases and by manipulating the uplift percentages so that costs will swallow the damages.

1575
I have greater faith. There has always been an incentive to win cases. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was a prominent and successful member of the Bar. Although he may be too modest to remember, I am sure that clients went to him and said words to the effect, "You have a great reputation for winning cases. I would like you to take on my case and do your best to win it". If clients went to the noble and learned Lord with those words, they were well judged, because my recollection from my early days at the Bar is that the noble and learned Lord was, indeed, very good at winning cases—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Hacking: My Lords, there has always been an interest in winning cases. Secondly, lawyers have always had some financial interest in the outcome of a case. I ask former and present members of the Bar to recall the many occasions on which they have had to advise a client whether to settle. Of course a lawyer has a financial interest in the continuing of a case; that is especially so for a member of the Bar who has cleared his diary for three to six months with no other court work booked.
The simple answer is that when faced with such issues there is only one judgment to make—what is in the best interests of the client. I suggest that that is the judgment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, used when he was at the Bar and I suggest that it is the judgment that any self-respecting barrister or solicitor makes—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend give way?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I shall not give way now. I am moving on to the next point, which is costs swallowing up damages. That is already a problem. I am cautious about citing cases in which I have been involved because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will proceed to recite them back to me in our next debate. However, I was recently involved in a case in which I was conducting a personal injuries claim on behalf of a client and in which considerable costs were involved because of a substantial and complicated loss-of-future-earnings claim. At a late stage the plaintiff received and accepted most generous redundancy retirement proposals. As a result, the loss-of-earnings claim went out of the window. My client was therefore left with a small personal injuries claim; so small that under taxation the uncovered costs would have exceeded the remaining damages.
I saw my client and told him that the good news was that he had won the case and that he had achieved damages of some £15,000. But I did not tell him that, in view of the uncovered costs, the bad news was that he would not benefit at all. I could have composed a letter which would have run something along the lines, "Dear Client, I am glad that I represented you in that case and it was a great pleasure to win it for you. However, that pleasure will result in you paying me because all the damages have been swallowed up and there are still costs owing".
1576
No self-respecting lawyer would behave in that way. If he did so it would be highly damaging in the relationship between client and lawyer. It would quite likely visit upon him serious professional discipline. I remind your Lordships that under the Law Society code it is wrong and a breach of the Law Society rules to take advantage of a client or to overcharge for work done. Under those rules, it is also a requirement to give impartial and frank advice to clients. In any event, there is power in taxation to reduce or remove the uplift altogether. More fundamentally, the regulations and the Law Society model agreement will require these matters to be properly considered between the solicitor and the client as set out in writing.
When we last debated the issue the Opposition supped with a long spoon. I had hoped that today they would shorten that spoon by recognising the need for the scheme and by having greater faith in the professional behaviour of our fellow lawyers and in our professional bodies in exercising discipline. It was therefore with alarm that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, say that we should not—I hope that I repeat his words accurately—rely on the good will of the legal profession for the scheme is for the exploitation of litigants for the benefit of lawyers. Is that the way we should he behaving?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord in the middle of his reading his autobiography. But I wish to ask him whether he thinks it is quite fair to criticise members of the Bar, of whom he was once one, by saying, "Well, if you do not have any work, you have to fight the case, hut of course, if you are very busy, you settle because it is much better to settle and get on with the next case". That is just not a fair criticism of the profession of which he was once a member.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend misjudges the comment that I made. As regards his reference to reading from my autobiography, one of the most important contributions that we can make in your Lordships' House is to give the benefit of our experience, and I willingly do that.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not put down my name to speak and did not intend to do so. I venture to intervene now only because one important matter occurs to me which I feel obliged to raise and which has so far not been mentioned.
The order before us relates to proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights and says that they should be specified proceedings for which conditional fee arrangements may be made with, if necessary, a 100 per cent. uplift. Section 58 of the 1990 Act does not mention any proceedings before an international court. Therefore, it seems to me that it may be that a question of ultra vires arises in relation to making this order put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

1577
Quite apart from the narrow scope of Section 58, it seems to me that we have no power in our Parliament to make an order governing the rules of conduct, fee arrangements made, and so on, before an international court unless there has been at least consultation with the judges of that international court, just as there has been consultation with the Heads of Divisions in our country. I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether there has been any such consultation and if so, what was the outcome of it.
But beyond that, we should think further. The question arises whether we have power to make such arrangements for conditional fees before an international court unless the other courts and parliaments which established that court by treaty, duly ratified, have been consulted, have agreed that we should do so, and, indeed, agreed that they would do so. Perhaps my noble and learned friend would be so kind as to comment on that.
Of course, if this order is in part ultra vires for either of the two reasons which I have given, it would seem to me that the whole order is ultra vires unless we amend it in addition to the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Perhaps I may say in passing that I fully agree with him.
There is only one other point which I wish to mention with regard to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, and so on. "Specified proceedings" in the order in relation to our own courts are actions for damages for death or personal injury and winding up in liquidation proceedings. I believe that it is just possible to get an action going in the European Court of Human Rights for damages in some things but it is never heard of that that court has considered liquidation for winding up proceedings. Therefore, in the order we must turn to paragraph 2(1) (f), the last point, which refers to:
"proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights established",
as described. It seems to me that all the proceedings before such a court can be made subject to a conditional fee order. I have not had the experience of appearing before international courts in the way that some noble and learned Lords, and others, have, but it seems to me a very strange situation, bearing in mind the very wide jurisdiction which the European Court of Human Rights has—almost going into moral matters—that we should have those conditional fee arrangements in operation, with the possibility of a 100 per cent. uplift.
Therefore, we must be very careful and I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would let me have the answers to those important questions.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly from the Back Benches and, therefore, I speak before the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and with her consent.
I wish to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Some of us share the intrinsic dislike expressed by the noble and
1578
learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, for the idea of conditional fees. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, this is not the time to revisit the battle of 1990.
Surely it must now be for Parliament and in particular for your Lordships' House, which has a wealth of both legal experience and expertise, to fight a battle in 1995 to try to ensure that this order and the regulations which go with it provide the best possible scheme for the public.
The time has passed when legal aid was available to virtually all those who needed it, and it will not come again in the foreseeable future. Other methods must be found to fill the gap which, as many other noble Lords have already said, is denying access to our system of law for those who are deemed to be too rich to qualify for legal aid but who are too poor to pay for it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been somewhat beleaguered this evening. In fairness to him, he has had to perform a difficult balancing act in trying to determine the correct level of the uplift by which fees may be increased. If he makes the uplift too low, solicitors will not bother to offer the scheme to the public. If he makes it too high—I use another technical expression like the one used by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—the public will find that the scheme is a con.
To put it frankly, "no win no fee" sounds mightily attractive, but if the result is to win and no damages or virtually no damages are received because the lawyer has pocketed the lot, dissatisfaction with both the lawyers and the legal system will rightly increase.
As others have said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, proposed initially a 10 per cent. maximum uplift which he then raised to 20 per cent. In this order, he raises it to 100 per cent.; in other words, adopting double or quits. He maintains, as he did at the outset in introducing the order and regulations, that he has no reason to suppose that 100 per cent. will be the norm. He says that he has no power to impose a cap and if he did have power, he would not do so. He says that it is open to the parties to discuss the matter and reach their own agreement. But a lay litigant who is desperate for help is not in a strong position to bargain with a lawyer who he is anxious should pursue his case with energy and enthusiasm. If there is no cap and the uplift maximum is 100 per cent., there is no safeguard that that maximum will not become the norm and there is no safeguard that the whole of the damages will not be taken in costs and legal fees.
We were reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee (which is independent of Parliament and of the legal profession with a majority of non-lawyers) says that 20 per cent. is the correct level to attract solicitors and to protect the public. These agreements must benefit the public and not the lawyers. It is because I am afraid that, as presently drafted, the order and the regulations do not do so that I must oppose the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ackner.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a practising solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors. I do so because I believe that the

1579
protection of the client is to the benefit of the reputation of my profession. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, reminded me very vividly this evening that the reputation of lawyers is almost as bad as that of politicians. Therefore, some of us tonight will not win.
When the matter was debated on 1st November last, my noble friend Lord Hooson said that the basic problem which faced the House was put to him by a "solicitor colleague" who said:
"This is more a consumers' than a lawyers' issue. At present, lawyers often cannot be afforded … I believe that if people like me can't afford people like me, then the system needs changing".—[Official Report, 1/11/94; col. 800.]
I was the solicitor colleague, but my noble friend put the matter even more cogently than I could. I believe that legal costs are too high. I share the concerns expressed, among others, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that one must look at all possible measures to reduce them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will find alternative processes that will help to do so.
It is because I want the conditional fee scheme to succeed that I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, this evening. My concern arises partly from my own experience. I accept that anecdotal evidence is often poor evidence, but it is only human to rely upon it to some extent. In negotiating the settlement of a dispute with an American lawyer I had the experience to find that the dispute was settled in a manner which I thought was very much to the disadvantage of his client. The lawyer—and he more or less told me this—wanted to settle the case because he wanted to get his fee. Although I accept that there is no intention to transfer the American system lock, stock and barrel here in this country, one must at least recognise the fact that some lawyers will be affected by matters of cash flow, if not matters of amount, when forming a view and giving advice to their clients.
My other recent experience took place while I was negotiating, on behalf of an English client, a conditional fee agreement with another American lawyer. I should point out that it is such an agreement, although it has some elements of contingency. It has taken weeks to negotiate the agreement, necessitating pages of documents. It is so complicated that I believe it well shows the absurdity of the need for another lawyer to negotiate on behalf of a client with his overseas lawyer.
In mentioning the question of the agreement, I see from the monitoring arrangements proposed that it is anticipated that the agreement can be varied during the course of the proceedings. Indeed, there is a reference to that in the arrangements. However, I wonder about the effect of the possibility of renegotiating an agreement during the proceedings. Most of all I share the concern expressed about the maximum uplift and the possibility that it may quickly become the norm. We have talked about 100 per cent. and perhaps it would be appropriate to remind ourselves that the 100 per cent. is not a matter of doubling profit. I say that because the base fee, which may be doubled, contains in itself an element of profit. I would not like to mislead myself in that respect. I am sure that your Lordships will have taken the point, but I have tended to forget that it is in fact more than a question of an extra 100 per cent. profit.
1580
As I said, I agree with the approach of trying 20 per cent. to see how it works and then, if necessary, looking at an increase. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, about the effect of the market, although I am not convinced that shopping around to the extent practised by some clients is in fact to their benefit. My noble friend Lord Wigoder commented to me that there is perhaps an analogy with doctors in Harley Street: they do not seem to have reduced their fees even though there is quite a market in the area.
We have talked about taxation and its role in ensuring that fees are appropriate and proportionate. However, with taxation being assessed after the event I cannot help feeling that hindsight will be too tempting on some occasions to ignore. As regards the question of the cap, I am not convinced that it should be ruled out because it is more difficult, perhaps impossible, to apply in the case of a defendant. An attempt should perhaps be made to apply it where it can be applied for a plaintiff to see how it works.
There is also the question of insurance. I share the scepticism about insurance that has been voiced by some speakers. I would add to that the dangers that many of us will have experienced of an insurer finding a way to get out of paying what one thought was a certain sum of money from a policy that one thought would provide protection. There has been much experience recently in another field; namely, that of mortgage protection. House owners have tested their insurance arrangements only to find them wanting because the small print tends to protect the insurer more than it does the person who has taken out the policy.
I should be most unhappy if your Lordships were to think that I was suggesting that my firm would take advantage of clients. However, I shall report a conversation that I had this morning with a litigation colleague. I asked him what his view was about the proposals. After expressing concern about the unequal bargaining power between client and lawyer, he said, "If the system had been in operation for a while, I would have retired by now". In these days of charters, I hope that we shall see the best possible charter for the client and not what the public might regard as another charter for lawyers.
5.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships would be surprised if I were deliberately to introduce a system under which lawyers could properly exploit clients to the clients' disadvantage. In introducing the scheme it is not my purpose to do so. It has been said that the Advisory Committee that I appointed and whose services I greatly value—although not all of your Lordships who spoke today valued the committee in advance—has required me to examine closely the problems that it has raised. That I have done. It is one of the reasons why I have taken some time in arriving before your Lordships with the proposals, which, as I said, passed through the other place without a Division.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice reminded your Lordships that I started off at 10 per cent., then went to 20 per cent. and finally went to 100

1581
per cent. He said that that would not be a way to settle an action. Well, of course, I was not settling an action; indeed, I certainly have not settled this particular action. What I was doing was responding to the consultation which Parliament enjoined me to have with the Law Society, with the designated judges and with the Bar Council. I also consulted the advisory committee.
I saw—and my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry addressed the point—that there was a great danger that, if one did not approach this as a matter of principle, the uplift would be regarded as a tax. That is the way that my noble and learned friend approached it—that successful litigants would be taxed at some rate, 20 per cent. for example, in favour of the unsuccessful. That is not what this scheme is about. This scheme is about fixing an uplift for the particular case which is appropriate to that case.
The first point of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, seeking to reduce the uplift to 20 per cent., is not a device that will protect clients. It is a device that will limit the application of the scheme to cases in which the chances of success are of the order that would justify 20 per cent. I can see no justification for doing that at all. I learnt that as a result of the consultation, and I have heard no answer in principle to that this afternoon.
Obviously if I wanted a quiet life, which I must say I am as keen on as anyone else, I would have gone along with this. But surely I have to approach this as a matter of principle, and the principle is that the uplift should be related to the chance of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his characteristic flair for advocacy, does not want to be a bookie. I can understand why. But the courts have had to evaluate the chances of success in actions. If a solicitor by chance forgets to raise an action in time, the amount of the damages will have as one of the factors the chances of success in the action as well as the amount of damages that the action would have incurred if it had succeeded. Therefore this idea that one has to evaluate the chances of success in an action is nothing new in the law. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says it is new for taxing masters. If it was as easy as the question of my noble friend Lord Boardman would suggest, it would not be very difficult for a taxing master to see that, if one could get insurance for £100 against costs of £100,000, the chances of success must be pretty good.
This brings me to another fact. It has been said that the insurance covers all personal injuries. The insurance is a matter for the Law Society's negotiators who negotiated with an insurance company. But my understanding is that it does not cover all actions of personal injuries. It would be surprising if it did. It covers only some. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, a lot of personal injury actions are successful, which is why I was talking about a minimum originally. But there are other actions for personal injuries where the chances of success are doubtful. What is the correct measure of the limit to which one should go in allowing doubtful actions under this scheme? Surely it is that of 50:50.
1582
Recently the Bar Council has given guidance to the profession about how it evaluates claims for the purposes of legal aid, because one of the fundamentals in legal aid is to find out what the chances of success are. The Bar Council put it in this way in its recent guidelines:
"A barrister should estimate the prospect of a successful outcome by reference to one of the following categories, namely, very good, 80 per cent.; good, 60 to 80 per cent.; reasonable, 50 to 60 per cent.".
My submission to your Lordships is that it is absolutely proper for a lawyer to take an action in which the prospects of success are reasonable. If he does so and judges that the prospects are 50:50, he should charge that client what his services are worth. My noble and learned friend Lord Lowry said it should not be twice what they are worth. I say no because one has to take account of the risk which the lawyer is carrying, and therefore the services have to take account of that risk because if the risk turns out against the lawyer and the client, then the answer will be that the lawyer gets paid nothing based upon the chances of success in that particular case.
In my submission, as a matter of principle the maximum uplift that should be allowed, in the light of all the consultation, is 100 per cent. I have heard nothing that justifies reducing that. Of course I understand perfectly that, if someone charges a 100 per cent. uplift when it is a sure-fire case in which one can get insurance for £100, that is highly undesirable. I entirely agree with that. It is equally undesirable that he should charge a 20 per cent. uplift if that is the situation. There is nothing in a 20 per cent. uplift—it makes it a little smaller perhaps—that justifies charging 20 per cent. if it is a sure-fire case. The argument of my noble and learned friend is obscuring this principle. The principle has to be that the actual uplift is measured by the chances of success in that particular case. Anything that obscures that and tries to spread it over the whole range of personal injuries, as if it were a statistic, is just nonsense. All of us who know anything about statistics know that statistics do not apply to the individual case. It is only if one has a large number of cases that the statistics apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for whose views, as he knows, I have great respect, gave us a most interesting argument, which of course is equally applicable to any form of the scheme. Your Lordships may recollect the argument, which was interesting and fascinating at the time but applies to any form of the scheme because I, and I think he, have the ultimate control of the taxing masters as regards any form of the scheme. As I said, the advisory committee took this view. I have of course discussed it with the committee. But the matter is one of principle and I am seeking to explain to your Lordships today what that principle is.
I hope that your Lordships will go along with the principle because, if you in any way fudge the principle, you will be teaching the legal profession that, instead of looking at the risks of the particular case, they should take the view that this is in the nature of a reasonable tax and a reasonable tax should be about 20 per cent. I am all in favour of reducing taxation, as your Lordships

1583
know, but this is not a tax. It is the reasonable charge which the client should suffer who has this particular type of case where these are the odds.
The idea that the lawyer becomes a bookie if he gives odds seems to sit badly with the advice that the Bar Council has given to the banisters' profession that I read out to your Lordships. It is essential to be able to give a view about what the chances of success are. It is utterly wrong to suggest that insurance is available in cases where the outlook is of a 50:50 success rate.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice asked: if the arrangement in Scotland is 100 per cent., why did I not start with that? I thought I had explained that, perhaps before my noble and learned friend was able to be in his place. I pointed out that the decision of the court in Scotland came in August 1992. I did not have sufficient vision to know exactly what it would decide under its powers. However, I was convinced by the argument and I thought that one of the aims of consultation was that, if a good argument was put to me, I was supposed to listen to it and give effect to it. That is what I have done. I went along with a principle and I would strongly ask your Lordships to be good enough to support me in that.
I understand all this about fudging. It is unfortunate that a lawyer should profit at 100 per cent. But if that is the lawyer's fair right, he should get it. I do not for a moment condone people taking more than they are entitled to. I think my record of trying to make changes in your Lordships' House to the legal aid system would bear that out. I am in favour of the client, but I am in favour of the client being able to take a case at 50:50 if the client wants to do that and is properly informed about the risks. I see no reason in the world why my scheme should exclude such clients, which is what in effect the scheme of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner does. Of course it is always possible for a lawyer to take a 20 per cent. uplift in a 100 per cent. case. But then, if he is going to remain in business financially, he will have to recover that money from other people. That is the unfairness that I see in the fundamentals of what is proposed against me. It is utterly unfair to the clients who have a sound case to have to pay in this way.
The arguments that I have heard against me this evening—and I have discussed the arguments with the committee—are all based on that assumption. In my submission to your Lordships, it is a wrong assumption. It is a mistake in principle and it is damaging to fairness to the individual client in the cases to which the scheme will apply.
On the subject of the cap, I have taken the view that it is extremely difficult to apply a cap generally by regulation. I instance the case of the structured settlement. Your Lordships will know that a structured settlement is one in which a capital sum is payable immediately, with income payments made over a period. As an illustration, it would be difficult to apply a cap of 25 per cent. of the damages unless one gave the lawyer a pension. That would be an unworkable arrangement.
It may be that a cap is right in a particular case, but the merit of what I propose—which recognises the concerns of my advisory committee—is that the client
1584
and the solicitor will have to sit down and examine that matter before agreement is reached. The lawyer may say at the beginning, "Are you willing that the uplift I take may use up all your damages?" The client may say, "No, I am not. I would like it to be not more than half." On the other hand, there may be a matter on which the client feels that his honour is at stake. For example, relating to an accident at work he says one thing and another employee says the opposite and the question is which is truthful. The honour of the plaintiff is at stake. Your Lordships will have experience of that happening. For the sake of being vindicated, the client may be willing to go a fair distance in that matter. Why should I prevent him?
Those are the points of principle that I want to put before your Lordships. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said in earlier debates, I believe that fairness requires that the system I propose should apply equally to plaintiffs and defendants. All the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was not able to show how the cap could apply in respect of defendants, unless it applied to costs alone. That would not be a fair arrangement if the plaintiff could incur costs up to damages plus costs and the defendant only costs. That would be utterly unfair.
Therefore, as a matter of principle, I have approached this as a matter of fairness. The 100 per cent. figure in Scotland was fixed by our judicial colleagues there. It is my understanding that the Scottish speculative system, with 100 per cent. uplift, is used to a considerable extent. The amount varies, but on Friday three leading firms in Edinburgh had between them 30 or 40 actions on this basis. The great thing about the scheme is that I have never known of a complaint.
That brings me to the last point that I want to make. The agreement is made at the beginning of the litigation. It is capable of being altered by agreement. It cannot be altered unilaterally once it has been made, but it can be altered by agreement. The kind of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred would certainly be one which might arise for renegotiation. That already applies in relation to legal aid. A solicitor who suddenly discovers a cast-iron statement against him is supposed to advise the legal aid authorities so that they may reconsider whether legal aid should be granted. Noble Lords will know how often that happens.
Renegotiation is possible, but ultimately the only time the person has to pay out any money and anything is done to the detriment of the client is after the case has been successful. Therefore, the client has succeeded before that arises. In that connection, I want to remind your Lordships of a fundamental point; namely, this is an agreement between solicitor and client. If there is anything in it which is disadvantageous to the client, since the solicitor is always regarded as having influence over the client, unless the solicitor can prove that the agreement was a fair and proper one he cannot succeed in enforcing it on the ground of undue influence. Therefore, at the stage at which that arises, the client will have succeeded and, if the agreement is disadvantageous to the client, the burden of proof will rest on the solicitor to justify it. If he cannot justify it he will not get the benefit of the uplift.

1585
I have dealt with the matters of principle. I ought to deal with the question of my noble friend Lord Renton. My understanding is that the law in this country disadvantages a lawyer who makes an agreement about going to service a case either in the European Commission or in the European Court of Human Rights. It is the law of this country which is dealt with. My orders are intended to deal with that aspect of the matter; namely, the enforceability of such an order in this country. Obviously, people could go from Scotland to the court in Strasbourg on the basis of the law there if the agreements were made there.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before he sits down, will my noble and learned friend confirm that he is therefore saying that when, for example, a London solicitor makes an agreement with a British subject who happens to be abroad at the time in relation to conditional fee arrangements before the European Court of Human Rights, the terms of the order which my noble and learned friend is asking the House to approve would not apply?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am saying that if the conditional fee agreement in question falls to be judged by English law then these regulations will apply if the agreement is covered by the regulations.
Since the point has been raised, perhaps I should say that I originally intended to limit the conditional fee regulations to personal injury cases. However, the Law Society and insolvency practitioners pointed out special problems in that regard, to which I need not refer in detail, and others concerned with European legislation pointed out problems there. It seemed to me relatively easy to deal with those problems. However, I have limited the scheme. It does not apply to all forms of action which are permissible. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said, I have approached the matter with a degree of canniness in relation to the types of proceedings which can be covered.
It would be wrong for me to detain your Lordships further. I strongly suggest to your Lordships that what I propose here is correct in principle and that your Lordships should approve it in principle. Otherwise your Lordships would be approving a kind of fudge which would only encourage people not to treat these as individual cases but as if we were allowing a form of modest taxation on all successful plaintiffs in order to service the claims of those who fail.
I invite your Lordships not to support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have appeared in this House on a number of occasions on matters relating to legal subjects. This is clearly an important debate because I have never seen the House so well attended on any legal issue. It is an important debate because if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has got it wrong, then very serious injustices, which his committee warned him about, would come about.
At the outset I wish to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who have supported my amendment. It is fundamental to the whole
1586
of the submission of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the uplift should not be disproportionate to the risk. The strange thing is that one finds no reference to that in the order or the regulations. The uplift features in the very last paragraph in the order which states:
"For the purpose of section 58(5) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 the maximum permitted percentage by which fees may be increased in respect of each description of proceedings specified in article 2 is 100%".
That is all. No indication is given as to when one should charge what.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says, "We are giving thought to taxation so that we have a method of dealing with the situation." Why has it taken nearly five years for thought to be given and for nothing to be achieved? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicated the practical problems with regard to seeking to relate the uplift to the proportion of the risk, and, once an agreement has been reached, how difficult it is to challenge.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has a detailed letter from his own advisory committee dated 7th April, 1995. It is a long letter stating that the committee remains gravely concerned that taxation will not in practice prove an effective safeguard. The letter states that there will be clear difficulties regarding a taxing master who is not an expert on assessing risk in actions and who will have considerable difficulty in knowing at what stage he should reach that decision. However, an important comment is made on page 2 that it will undoubtedly be argued, and probably successfully, that Parliament has sanctioned increases across the personal injury field of up to 100 per cent., that the client agreed the increase and that no reduction is therefore warranted. But taxation does not follow as night follows day. It could do so if the Lord Chancellor looked upon that method as being the system to provide such vital control. He could provide in the regulations that taxation must take place in every case. He could do better still. Instead of leaving it to a taxing master post hoc to seek to unravel the degree of proportionality to the risk, he could provide that before every agreement is put into effect it should receive the approval of a master of the High Court who would be expert in such matters. The written agreement would be handed in to the master with any supporting statements, and he would be asked to approve it. There one has the control.
However, we do not have obligatory taxation, and taxation is expensive. If the litigant demands taxation— he will have to demand it, the solicitor will not offer it— he will be told, quite rightly, "This can be a very expensive operation and if you do not accept what I am telling you about the reasonableness of my uplift, then you go ahead. But if you fail you will pay a costly figure for querying my judgment."
This matter has not escaped the attention of the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee. If I were standing before your Lordships saying, "Would you please implement my views on what is appropriate and my views as to how to protect the litigant who is often vulnerable and at a difficulty?", I could understand the situation. But the Lord Chancellor has had the consistent, definite and quite firm advice—firm enough for the committee to feel so concerned that it published such advice in the press— that what is being done is fraught with danger for the

1587
litigant. That committee of 17, presided over by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, includes judges and other experts and has a majority of laymen. I have already described how the committee—so that it should not be thought to be in any way out of touch—has among its members a past president of the Law Society, a partner of the litigation department of one of the most experienced firms, and a past president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Its detailed criticism is brushed aside as fudging. Some committee to fudge in the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggests! The committee is concerned with one essential feature. If you bring in this new concept, as must happen—it is accepted—of conditional fees you have to take great care to ensure that the litigant is properly safeguarded.
I have dealt with taxation. Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the cap. As the committee said to the Lord Chancellor, "If you will not come down to 20 per cent. and insist on 100 per cent., the only way of safeguarding the litigant from having the whole of his damages swallowed up in the 100 per cent. figure"— a situation which the Lord Chancellor has conceded in correspondence can easily happen—"is to impose a limit from which the damages can be resorted to".
Perhaps I may deal with the points raised. First, my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls accepts that there is potential abuse available, that the 100 per cent. could be an excessive figure. The figure of 100 per cent. without abuse can still absorb all the damages; it does not have to be a "guilty" 100 per cent. It is a question of figures. However, the noble and learned Lord accepts that there is potential for abuse. The idea of the cap is to prevent that abuse. Therefore, why not have it?
Secondly, there has been reference to the fact that the conditional fees are designed to apply not only to a plaintiff but to a defendant. How can one operate a cap on a defendant? The answer to that is perfectly simple. A cap has no relevance to a defendant. A cap protects damages or other sums recovered from being swallowed up. The defendant is present, unless he has a counter claim, in order to resist the claim. When he has resisted the claim successfully, there is no cap and therefore the risk of damages being swallowed up does not arise in any way.
The reason that the damages aspect is so important is this. The Law Commission brought out a short paper representing its views on the conditional fees and other proposals made by the Lord Chancellor in his Green Papers in 1989. One of the observations that the paper made was that to require the litigant—this must be the plaintiff—to pay any significant sum out of his damages detracts from the fundamental principle of English law that the courts strive to put a wronged person back into the position in which he would have been had he not been wronged. One writer said that any time a litigant has to pay representation expenses from his award, justice is not done. Those were the views recorded by the Law Commission. The cap seeks to face up to the position that the uplift will come out of the damages, but it will not wipe out the damages. That is its function; that is its principle. That is why the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee has stated consistently that if one wishes to hang on to the 100 per cent., the only way
1588
to avoid a situation in which the litigant receives nothing, or virtually nothing, is a cap. What on earth is against that? I wave to one side the absence of power. It can be obtained. I do not accept, and nor do others who have considered it, that there is no power. What is against it? There is the reference to the defendant. It is an irrelevant concept to cap the defendant.
The other point is structured settlements. There can be an exception in regard to structured settlements. We spent five years contemplating the regulations and it is not beyond the wit of man to allow an exception. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, obviously realised that it is a difficult point. It is significant that a cap of 25 per cent. appears in the model agreements drafted by the Law Society. Why has the Law Society said in those agreements that there should be a cap of 25 per cent.? Because it realised the injustice of the applicant winning and then being left with under 75 per cent. Even 25 per cent. would not give him 75 per cent. because there is a difference between the costs that he receives by order of the court and what are called indemnity costs which he has to pay to his solicitors. So the cap is the opportunity to safeguard the situation.
I have had the greatest difficulty understanding the constant firm resistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The suggestion that he had no power came late in the day and it is followed similarly late in the day with structured settlements. It is now said that the defendant's position would produce an anomaly. That is not so.
There have been references to the consumer and consumer organisations and what they wish. I have received briefs from such organisations for the purpose of the debate and they all accept that the cap provides an enormous amount of protection. One said that if matters did not work out by the optional opportunity, then legislation would have to be considered. But the concept of the cap is obvious. It provides the protection. If, as the Lord Chancellor's committee suggested, the noble and learned Lord insists on 100 per cent., this is the appropriate compromise.
I make only one point about Scotland. If I had realised that point would be raised, I would have brought the document with me. There was a Bar meeting not long before our debate on 1st November when either the dean or the vice-dean informed the company present that conditional fee agreements were not being used. On Thursday or Friday I spoke to the Lord President about the experience in Scotland. He said that there was a small take-up and explained why. It was because the 100 per cent. was kept down. Because of the base fee, as he called it, to which the 100 per cent. could be applied, the method of taxation and fixing fees which can be obtained is quite different. Those were not his words but generally the base fee being screwed down meant that the 100 per cent. was of little advantage. Perhaps it is not a useful analogy to draw between the two countries. They are in an entirely different situation with regard to the supply and demand of that form of litigation.
I respectfully but, I hope, not too emphatically emphasise that if my noble and learned friend's proposals come into force without the cap being

1589
available, there will be occasions when this country will exceed the worst excesses of the United States. Let me make that proposition good. In the United States matters differ from state to state but the fee that is earned on the conditional fee basis is a percentage of the damages— 30 per cent., 40 per cent. But one cannot obtain more than 40 per cent. So the litigant is always left with 60 per cent. of the damages that are recovered. But, as the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee pointed out, what the noble and learned Lord proposes without a cap—as he has conceded over and over again—can result in the litigant who has won obtaining nothing at all. In my respectful submission, that situation is worse than the American system. Not only is it worse. To introduce such a situation would do a great disservice to the administration of justice in this country.
In the edition of The House Magazine of 22nd May, there is an article by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor vigorously defending some of his law reforms. The penultimate paragraph contains this sentence:
"If on any aspect of my reform proposals they can suggest improvements, I would be most grateful and delighted to consider them".
While, of course, I accept without hesitation the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord's expression of gratitude and delight—which no doubt applies to this debate—his lack of sensitivity to the weight of argument not only in this House but to the continued representation by his own advisory committee obliges me to seek the opinion of the House on my amendment.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Addington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Barnett, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Birk, B.

Healey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howell, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Howie of Troon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Desai, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leigh, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Longford, E.

1590

Lowry, L.

Seear, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNair, L.

Serota, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mar, C.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strafford, E.

Monkswell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Nicol, B.

Templeman, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tope, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Varley, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Waverley, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rees, L.

Whaddon, L.

Renton, L.

Wharton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

White, B.

Roskill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Russell, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sandwich, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hives, L.

Aldington, L.

Hogg, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blaker, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byron, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McConnell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chesham, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Colwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Nicholls of Birkenhead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundonald, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Erne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll, E.

Rawlings, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Hacking, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Shannon, E.

Harman-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

1591

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Wakeham, L.

Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Whitelaw, V

Stewartby, L.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS HOOPER in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Power to require appointment of investigating officers]:
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 19, leave out from ("may") to end of line 20 and insert ("either themselves appoint an investigating officer to carry out the inquiries or, if they think it appropriate, require the appointment of an investigating officer as provided in section 19.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I propose to be very brief in moving this amendment, because the proposal contained in it has been the subject of so much discussion and debate both inside and outside Parliament. Indeed, very considerable disquiet has been expressed, again both inside and outside Parliament, over the fact that the commission does not itself have power to conduct an investigation, and thus invariably consults by requiring the appointment of an investigator, himself a policeman, who will be selected by a chief of police. That being the situation, I ask myself why it is that the commission has been denied the power of conducting an investigation. Why must it invariably use the police?
As the Bill stands, the commission can only "require" the appointment of an investigating officer and the investigation must be carried out by that officer, that officer being himself a policeman appointed by the chief of police of the force where the trouble arose. It is true that the commission has the right to veto the appointment; it has the right to direct and supervise the conduct of the inquiry; but it does not have the right to appoint an investigating officer and conduct the investigation itself.
I accept that in the majority of cases the commission will go to the chief officer of the police force concerned and require the appointment of a police officer as the investigating officer. I accept that in most cases that is an admirable way of conducting the investigation. The trouble is that inevitably, from time to time, cases will be referred to the commission in which public confidence will be damaged if the matter is made subject to a police investigation. That is not a reflection on the quality of our policemen; it is merely that there will be cases—perhaps sensational cases—where the police role has been such that, if the commission is to be able to act independently and strongly in the eyes of the public, it needs itself to conduct the investigation and appoint its own investigating officer. In principle, therefore, there is a strong body of opinion that we give the commission, in a case referred to it which needs to be investigated, the right to appoint its own investigating officer and itself to conduct the inquiry.
A number of objections have been raised. I shall mention only two, but they are both important. The first is, simply, that it will be too expensive. There has been no study of the cost. I see no reason why it should be more expensive to do it by an investigating officer and the staff of the commission, with the assistance of others who may well have investigating experience. As we know, both the membership of the commission and no doubt the membership of its staff, will include a number of persons highly qualified in the type of investigation that the commission would undertake from time to time. I cannot see why that should be more expensive than when the police do it. Until such time, therefore, as we see a detailed cost analysis, we should disregard that aspect, particularly as what is being argued is not a matter of finance but a matter of principle and a commission is being set up which must be seen to be strong and independent. "Independent" means, in a proper case, being independent of the police.
The other objection which I understand has some force is that it is said that only the police possess the powers to carry on an investigation of this type. It is said that members of the staff or others who are not in the police who may be required by the commission to conduct the investigation or participate in it do not have the powers of the police. Again, that position should be analysed. Of course they do not have the power of arrest. But under the Bill the commission possesses certain important powers of investigation. If Amendment No. 40 is accepted by the Committee, it will be given further powers. Let me briefly relate those powers to your Lordships.
First, under the Bill the commission can call for documents to be produced—documents which are in the possession of a public body. It can retain those documents and take copies of them. Also, the commission has the ordinary powers of investigation, which perhaps are not legal powers but they allow it to ask questions, to ask people for help and so forth. If Amendment No. 40 is accepted—this is important—the commission will be able to obtain a warrant which will operate against private persons in possession of a document, requiring them to produce that document. More important still, the amendment contains the

1593
suggestion that the power should be given to magistrates to issue a warrant allowing the commission to enter premises, to search for documents, to take possession of them, copy them and so forth. Here perhaps I should correct something I said earlier. I said that Amendment No. 40 also covered the right to question. That right is already in the Bill.
The commission therefore will possess adequate powers for carrying out its investigation and it should have no difficulty in ensuring that the members it appoints to carry out the investigation, and the investigating officer himself, have the sort of experience needed. I suggest therefore that it is essential to give the commission the support of this amendment; that is to say, if it wishes to investigate a matter itself, for one reason or another, it should possess this reserve power to do so without in any way derogating the importance of what the Bill provides in the ordinary case; that is, for the investigating officer to be appointed by a chief of police upon the requirement of the commission. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I wish to speak in support of the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I shall do so briefly because we discussed the matter at Second Reading, and, if nothing else, I hope we can be clearer as to how the system will work. At a later stage we shall deal with the matter of "direct" and "supervise" with regard to the new commission. In the old days, C3 in the Home Office certainly did not "direct" and "supervise" in this sense so it had no great powers to "direct" and "supervise" what the police were doing.
I am sensitive to the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, but the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, whose report instigated the Bill, said:
"Although the Royal Commission envisage investigations being carried out by a designated police force under the direct supervision of a new review body, that body should not be precluded from recruiting on to its own staff trained investigators who would not necessarily be police officers".
Why not? Given the powers of the new commission, which will be far greater than those of the old C3—this is the new concept of how to deal with miscarriages of justice—why should there not be on the commission trained investigators who would not necessarily be serving police officers? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has argued that normally the investigation would be conducted by a police force. There are questions to be answered—perhaps at a later stage—about how investigators would be appointed and how they would be controlled, but I agree that there ought to be reserve powers to provide that they would not necessarily be serving police officers.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: Before I speak in support of the amendment, which stands also in my name, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, to convey his apologies for not being able to be present this evening due to a speaking engagement which has to have priority. He also asked me to say that he would have spoken in support of the amendment in his capacity as chairman of the
1594
organisation Justice, whose arguments on this very point are well known. I should like to add that the experience of that admirable body, which was of great help to us at the time the Royal Commission was sitting, lends strong support to the arguments in favour of the amendment and the arguments which have been very forcefully and eloquently advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
We considered this matter very carefully on the commission and, as I think your Lordships are all aware, we were quite clear that we were not recommending the creation of a kind of Pinkerton's army of police directly employed by the new review authority. We expected (this seems to be common ground) that in the majority— I would be prepared to say the very great majority—of cases the powers which the Bill provides for the review commission to supervise investigations carried out by a police force, and if necessary by a police force selected in effect by the review commission in consultation, as appropriate, with the inspector of constabulary, would be all that would be required to enable the commission to place before the Court of Appeal its conclusions as to whether the Court of Appeal needed to consider whether a miscarriage of justice might have taken place.
I do not have very much to add to the arguments, all of which I endorse, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, put before the Committee. I would, however, like to add that unfortunately I was abroad at the time of the Second Reading debate but I read that debate extremely carefully. I understand the concerns which Ministers voiced as to why there are arguments— and, indeed, there are—against giving the new commission this power, but I should like to endorse the view, if anything more strongly than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that these fears are groundless.
We on the commission were careful not to attempt to lay down exactly how the new review authority, as we called it, would operate. We thought it was very important that before legislation was introduced there should be widespread consultation with all interested parties so that by the time a Bill came before Parliament all the relevant arguments should have been canvassed by interested parties and by those best qualified to make recommendations as to how the new body could best do the work for which it was to be created. But, as I envisage it, in the rare minority of cases where the review commission—or, in practice, someone who, for the sake of argument, I would call the case controller who will be in charge of looking at a particular case— has reason to think that the interests of justice require that an independent investigator directly employed by the review commission should be put on to a particular investigation, I cannot see an argument against it.
It is quite unrealistic to suppose that that is the thin end of a wedge which would lead to those who staff the new review commission using their own investigators to duplicate, interrupt or impede the normal run of investigations. I envisage the investigators directly employed by the commission only being used—this again is common ground—where there is a particular reason to think that the investigation will be more effectively carried out by that route. The particular cases

1595
that are well documented by Justice, the organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, chairs, show precisely the types of case which in themselves constitute perhaps the most powerful argument for the new commission being given this power.
There are a very small number of cases but they are those—and they will continue in the future to be those— which quite rightly arouse the greatest public concern. It is not simply, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, that it must be seen that the new commission is independent and can demonstrate its independence in contentious cases of this kind. It is also that the most disturbing cases on record are those where it turns out that a would-be appellant has been serving several years of a prison sentence for a crime which someone else in fact committed. In a small number of cases the reason why it has taken so long to discover that a miscarriage of justice has taken place can be directly traced to the conduct—not necessarily the misconduct, although it may be so—of the police force initially concerned in the inquiry and to what was done or not done when it should have been by that force which led to a conviction at the court of first instance.
Surely that, above all, is what we in this House and in the other place would like to see the new review commission rendering as unlikely as possible in what we all recognise will continue to be an imperfect world. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to recognise the force of the arguments and to accept the amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that there had been so much discussion and debate on this issue that he intended to speak only briefly. But, as always, he did so most persuasively. The question which we must ask ourselves is this. In view of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and others who have already contributed to this debate, why in the limited circumstances that they anticipate this different procedure being followed should Ministers so far remain obdurate? We must always hope that the arguments themselves this evening will make the Minister change her mind or, better still, that having taken wise counsel in the interval since Second Reading, she will be able to make an announcement tonight. Were that not to be the case, it is reasonable for us to ask ourselves what is in the minds of Ministers which means that they are unable to make a concession of this kind.
As has been said before in this House, when this Bill was first referred to in the debate on the Address last November, the Home Secretary in another place made it clear that he hoped that it would receive Cross-Bench support. It has received it, but if we are obliged to make concessions to the Minister in so far as the Bill is not quite what others may have drafted, it is reasonable to expect concessions from her in view of the arguments which took place at Second Reading and which we are hearing now.
So what are the objections to this concession, if one can try to read the minds of Ministers? The first one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1596
Scarman, is cost. Without in any way seeking to suggest that the Minister has misled the Committee in that respect, would it really be as expensive as has been implied to have this fall-back reserve position? It is reasonable for the Committee to ask, as it was asked at Second Reading, for at least some figures to sustain that argument.
I find it very surprising indeed that some Figuring has not been done within the department about the present cost that falls on the police forces. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to make some assumption of what an inquiry of this kind would cost in view of the very tight budgets with which most of our police forces work at present. I am not saying that it is possible to give a detailed figure. It would depend on how many inquiries were undertaken. But surely some information must be available from the police forces themselves about the cost which has fallen on them in the past for the Minister to tell the Committee what significant additional costs might be involved if these inquiries were undertaken by the commission.
There is a further point which is relevant to forming any view. If indeed the police forces were relieved of an inquiry from time to time because the commission carried that responsibility itself, surely it would be simply a matter of transferring costs from where they fall now on the police force to the commission, and it would be no more than that. I fully understand that the Treasury is always reluctant to see these sorts of transfers or to admit that they would take place. The Treasury would much rather see the cost of these inquiries lost, as it is lost now, apparently, in the overall cost of the police forces which undertake them. We have a right to ask either for figures or for transparency of some kind if the Minister is seriously to argue that cost is a major consideration, or even a significant one, in ruling out this option.
Beyond the question of cost there are two other factors which may well be in the minds of Ministers. The first is something which is subtle but very real. In the absence of a better description I call it the orthodoxy of government. By that I mean the orthodoxy of all governments and not simply this one. It is what happens when Ministers are required to find a method of following a new course to achieve new objectives. It is always the safe way which is adopted: it is to use the tramlines on which other things have been done in the past. The great advantage of that is that, if criticism were to arise, officials who advised that course and Ministers who adopted it would be able to say, "We simply followed precedent. We followed the practice which has been found adequate before". I believe that an element of orthodoxy has come into this because, if the method indicated in the Bill is followed, the department will at least feel that it has some control and understanding of how the process has been gone through.
The third point is one on which we must all give the Minister the benefit of the doubt in so far as the Minister will say, "We do not know that this procedure will work but we believe it to be the best one". That is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt. But, as I suggested at Second Reading, the Minister does not know whether this procedure is the best one and the House does not

1597
know either. The commission, which has not yet been appointed, cannot know either. It may well be that in the experience of the commission, after perhaps a relatively short period of time, it will take the view— and Ministers may be persuaded by the commission that it is the right view to accept—that, as both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, said, in a very small minority of cases that may be the right course to adopt.
If the Minister and her colleagues genuinely believe that this is the most effective way, will they at least concede that they could be wrong and that the views expressed in this Committee may be the ones which turn out to be right? In those circumstances it would be easy to accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. All he is asking the Committee to do is to accept a reserve power. It will not often be exercised, but it will be there. I would have thought it very reasonable to ask the Minister to make that one minor concession. Nothing will be lost. There would certainly be no loss of face. Unless we have evidence to the contrary, there will be no significant additional item on the total bill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the noble and learned Lord's amendment but I am puzzled at the Government's attitude to this matter at Second Reading. The arguments for this amendment and for an independent power of investigation for the commission have been put with great authority by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and I do not need to repeat them. But what puzzles me is that in these clauses generally the Government are taking a very sensible and rational line.
In Clause 19 in particular the Government are providing for very wide powers of supervision of investigations by the commission's staff. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees teased some of those out at Second Reading and he got some very good and satisfactory answers from the Minister. Therefore, the more reasonable the rest of the arguments are—and I believe that they are reasonable—the more this particular restriction sticks out like a sore thumb. I beg the Government to realise that the unanimity of view which has been expressed, and in particular the evidence from the chairman of the Royal Commission, means that it would be perhaps a small step for the Government, but quite a big one in asserting the independence of the new commission, if they were to accede to this amendment or to something very like it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who has a reputation second to none as a guardian of justice, has introduced an interesting and stimulating debate on one of the most important parts of the Bill. Two propositions have come through very strongly in all the debates here and in another place on investigations by the commission: first, that police forces have played a valuable and respected role in uncovering evidence of wrongful convictions and that the commission must be able to draw on that expertise,
1598
skill and commitment; secondly, that there must be a strong, independent element in miscarriage of justice investigations, which should not simply be handed over to police forces to carry out alone. The Government agree with both these propositions. There is no great gulf between any of us on the principles involved here. The question we are debating is how best to achieve that balance of police work and independent skills and resources.
In drawing up the Bill we thought a lot about that balance, and we have listened carefully to what has been said about it in debates both here and in another place. Where we have concluded that improvements could be made, we have introduced amendments, and I have tabled further amendments to do with the commission's investigations, to which we shall come later.
Words like "investigation" and "inquiries" can have a very wide meaning and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to go over in some detail what the commission's investigations are likely to entail in practice. In some respects investigations of this kind are similar to other criminal investigations; in some respects they are different. One difference is that a good deal of the investigation in a possible miscarriage of justice case is likely to be about re-evaluating material which is already available, or which has recently become available, rather than looking for new material. This important work of gathering and analysing the available evidence is something the commission can be expected to do itself and it will have substantial resources to enable it to do so. Under Clauses 16 and 17 it has the power of access to all the relevant documents and other material including physical evidence. It does not need to look to a police force or to anyone else to achieve that.
The commission may decide, after an initial look at a case, that some fresh inquiries are needed. Scientific tests, or the opinion of a psychiatrist or psychologist, may be called for. In a fraud case there may be reason to engage an accountant to apply his expertise to a trial of financial dealings. All this the commission will be able to do without going through a police force or any other intermediary.
Another need which commonly arises in such cases is for new witnesses to be interviewed or old witnesses to be re-interviewed. Here, as I believe has consistently been recognised on all sides during the passage of this Bill, there is advantage in the commission being able to harness the skills and experience of detective officers employed by police forces. There are other ways in which such officers could be of considerable assistance to the commission: the tracing of witnesses who may be hard to locate, particularly in older cases; the search for evidence that may either support or contradict what is asserted by a witness; questions of who could have seen or done what at which particular times; the use of sophisticated police technology and databases. Those are all matters on which experienced, trained detectives with up-to-date experience of a wide range of investigations will be ideally placed to assist the commission in its task.
Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill exist to enable the commission to harness that assistance. I would understand better the criticism that has been made of

1599
those clauses if they merely required the commission to hand over its examination of the case to a police force and wait for the investigators to report. However thoroughly and conscientiously the investigators applied themselves, that might well not inspire sufficient public confidence in the conduct of the case as a whole. But that is emphatically not the approach in the Bill. To begin with, the commission will have the power to approve or to veto the choice of investigating officer; to require that officer to be appointed from an outside force; and, if your Lordships agree to amendments which I have tabled in order to strengthen the commission's powers still further, it will have the power to approve or to veto the choice of force if it has stipulated an outside force.
The commission's powers go further, however. The Bill empowers the commission to direct what inquiries should be made, and to supervise the conduct of those inquiries. What will those powers mean in practice? The answer is that they can be exercised as flexibly as the commission sees fit. The commission may direct, for example, that a particular witness be located and interviewed, and that particular questions be put to that witness. By way of supervision, a member of the commission or of its staff will be able (if they see fit) to attend such an interview; to accompany the investigating officer to an examination of the scene of the crime; to hold a conference with the officers at which the progress of the investigation is reviewed and its emerging results discussed—indeed, as the Bill precisely says, to take
"any steps which they consider appropriate"
for supervising the inquiries which are being made on the commission's behalf.
Those are entirely new powers in miscarriage of justice cases. For sound constitutional reasons, it is not open to the Home Office to take such an active part in investigations. But no such constraints need bind the commission, and that is one of the major advances secured by this Bill, powerfully reinforcing the excellent work done by police detective officers with a new, independent oversight which will both add a fresh dimension to the pursuit of these inquiries and at the same time promote the confidence which all of us wish to see.
I find it hard to see that such an approach will not meet the needs of almost any investigation which the commission might wish to undertake where detective work is called for. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to deny the possibility that, in some exceptional circumstances, the commission might itself wish to take a statement from a witness privately, for example. There are good reasons why in the general run of criminal cases we look normally to trained police officers to undertake the questioning of witnesses especially where there may be any possibility of the witness incriminating himself or another person. Nevertheless the commission will have among its members and staff people such as lawyers and those with investigative experience who could properly undertake such a task if it became necessary; and nothing in the Bill precludes the commission from proceeding in that way. That is
1600
already clear from Clause 20 in the Bill as it stands; but in order to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
I have sought to explain that the powers in Clauses 18 and 19 are an important part, but only a part, of the means which the commission will have at its disposal to investigate cases. The powers to appoint an investigating officer, and then to supervise and direct that officer's inquiries, are necessary because, without them, the commission would not be in a position to harness police expertise to its advantage. But that, as I have explained and as Clause 20 makes clear, does not preclude the commission from pursuing other means of investigation according to the needs of the case, and doubtless in many cases it will wish to use a variety of means to examine the matter. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, it is unnecessary to provide for the commission to appoint its own staff as investigators, because that is what its staff are there to do. If the commission needs to look for assistance outside itself and other than under the terms of Clauses 18 and 19, then it will need to contract the service required and will be able to settle the terms of the assistance in the contract.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, raised a number of other points. He said in particular that other investigators would not have police powers. As the noble and learned Lord said, the commission has important powers of its own but, for reasons that I shall explain when we come to Amendment No. 40, I doubt whether it is desirable to confer coercive powers on people other than police officers when those can be exercised by the police themselves. Indeed, such powers are not often needed in miscarriage of justice cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, referred to having trained investigators on the commission's staff. The Government intend that there should be three or four people with investigative experience on the commission's staff. Therefore, we see no reason why they should not be, for example, police officers on secondment; but we believe that such people would be best used in assisting the commission to plan, direct and supervise investigations by the police and others rather than conducting investigations for the commission itself.
Reference has been made to rare cases which could require an independent investigator. The police have an excellent track record in investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. The cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Darvell Brothers are all examples of convictions quashed following referral. Patient, thorough police work turned up the evidence in each of those cases to justify the referral. We are not aware of any case in which an investigation by the police at the Secretary of State's request has been anything less than thorough and effective.
A major change from the current arrangements will be the use of police investigators working under the active direction and supervision of the commission. That, and the power of the commission to insist on an outside force, provides the necessary independent element in such investigations. The difficulty with complex and rare cases is that those are just the cases

1601
in which we need police expertise. Their knowledge is necessary if such cases are to be investigated properly. We believe that, with the supervision of the commission, we are providing the right balance to ensure both the independence and the expertise that is required.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, referred also to cases of a miscarriage of justice attributable to police misconduct. No one denies that there has been misconduct in some original police investigations, but we are not aware of any case in which there has been malpractice when the police have looked into a case again at the request of the Home Office—that is even without the commission's powers to direct and supervise.
Having explained the approach in the Bill in some detail, it is important that I should also make clear what the Bill will not do. The Bill does not provide for the establishment of a sizeable in-house team for the purpose of carrying out the sort of detailed, on-the-ground investigations that are currently carried out in a number of these cases by police forces. There are reasons both of practicality and of principle for our decision not to put forward such a proposal.
The advantage of the approach in the Bill is that detective officers based in police forces can, in effect, be co-opted to work for the commission but on a flexible basis. Suitable officers can be made available to the commission and then returned to their general duties, with the minimum of delay and disruption at either end of the process. If, by contrast, an in-house team were to be set up, how large would it have to be in order to be both flexible and effective? By what criteria would it be decided that a case should be looked into by the commission's own force of investigators rather than by officers serving in a police force? Would not there be a danger of a two-tier system developing, with applicants whose cases were investigated by the "ordinary" police being left unsatisfied because they had not been attended to by the in-house team? And what would be the effect on police investigators in the cases they were permitted to investigate under the commission's superintendence, knowing that the applicant would be likely to regard that inquiry as a second best option? On top of those difficulties, the creation of an in-house force large enough to make any kind of impression would add significantly to the administrative and resource burden on the commission in terms of accommodation and other overheads, personnel management, training and discipline, whereas under the Bill those responsibilities would remain in police forces which have to exercise them in any case.
There are also good reasons of principle for not divorcing the responsibility for police work in miscarriage of justice cases from criminal investigation generally. If we were to do that, I believe we should be sending entirely the wrong message to police forces. We should be saying to the police service, "Your job is to investigate the original offence as well as you can and not to worry too much about what happens after that. If something has been missed or gone wrong, whether it was your fault or not, don't worry. It is not your responsibility to help sort it out, although we may allow you to try your hand at some of the more routine cases".
1602
We must ask ourselves the question: which approach is most likely to help prevent miscarriages of justice in the future? Is it the approach which shuts police officers off in some of the most important cases, telling them this is a specialist matter and not for them, or is it the approach in the Bill whereby detective officers from police forces can work closely as part of a team with the independent members and staff of the commission, benefiting from their guidance and supervision and learning lessons which they can apply in their general criminal work?
None of that is to deny that the commission will benefit from having some in-house investigative expertise. We intend to provide for that. Experienced investigators employed directly by the commission will help it to make the best use of its powers and facilitate communication between the commission and outside investigators, working, as it were, on the nitty-gritty of inquiries on the ground. But once again we have to confront the question of what will best serve the commission's purpose. Is it to have a group of experienced investigators who are for ever away from the commission, buried in detailed inquiries in one or two cases, or will their contribution be more effective if, as we propose, it takes the form of advice to the commission on a wider range of cases according to the needs and priorities of the moment?
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for initiating this debate on one of the most important facets of the Bill. I have sought to explain how the Bill empowers and enables the commission to investigate cases by a number of different means, and I have explained why we do not believe a sort of shadow police force located in the commission would be either practicable or helpful to the cause of preventing and remedying miscarriages of justice.
Costs were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. As I said in a previous debate on the Bill, it is difficult to estimate the cost of an in-house investigative team as it is difficult to establish its size or training needs, but it is clear that it would add to the commission's costs in terms of staffing, accommodation and training if it were to take on its own staff. So whatever the costs, and whatever concerns the noble Lord has, we know that that proposal would add to those costs.
The team that was taken on directly would have to be given extensive training in investigative work and kept in touch with any new developments. That training would have to be given by the police. The commission would have to pay the cost of the training, while the training would place an extra burden on the police. It would not be as cost effective as using police officers who would receive that training as part of their job.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that it is just a matter of transferring costs from the police to the commission: we just hand one job over to the other body. It is not as simple as that. Where police forces investigate, they use officers whose training, accommodation and other such costs are already paid for as part of the force's general costs. An in-house team in the commission would require all of those costs to be borne afresh, in addition to the costs of the police forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said also that the Government are merely following orthodoxy. The noble Lord is known for his hostility to government and

1603
government thinking, but that is a remarkable statement given that the Bill gives the commission powers to direct and supervise police officers, which the Home Office does not have now and which have not existed before in these miscarriage of justice cases.
I hope very much that as a result of these explanations the noble and learned Lord will not consider it necessary to press his amendment. However, if he were to do so, I have to say that it would make both an unnecessary and a misleading addition to the Bill, and I therefore cannot advise the Committee to agree with it.
Lord Scarman: With much of what the Minister has said I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree. She made a speech in which she included many of the Bill's virtues, and she has shown herself—I hope that it adequately represents the spirit of the department— anxious to conciliate and to meet our various points. Yet why does not she trust the commission with this reserve power? We are not shutting out the police from the investigation into miscarriages of justice; on the contrary, we are saying that almost every case will be examined by the police, some of them supervised and directed by the commission, some of them without that need.
No one here supporting the amendment, I venture to say, is suggesting that we come here because we do not trust the police. Of course we trust the police. They have done extremely well. One has only to think of some of the miscarriage of justice cases which have been revealed and dealt with. They were the consequence of admirable police inquiry. What we are saying is that we believe that the commission should have this reserve power. We are not suggesting that it should be used every day of the week or every day that there is a case referred to it which requires some investigation. What we are saying—one cannot possibly visualise what will happen until it happens—is that there may be cases which have a tremendously disturbing effect upon the public, in which suggestions are made that the police have been guilty of this, that or the other misconduct. The police of course strongly deny that.
Why cannot we trust the commission, which is supposed to be a strong and independent body, to say, "Well, this is the sort of case in which, to satisfy public opinion, we will depart from our normal practice and ourselves investigate"? Surely the commission has the judgment, strength and independence to conduct an investigation, to appoint its own investigating officer and, in such rare cases, to do so without the aid of the police. It is important not only that justice should be done but, in cases of alleged miscarriages of justice and so forth, that justice should be seen to be done to the satisfaction of the public. One does not want to go into the detail.
The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I have pointed out the many ways in which the Government have come forward with sensible suggestions and sensible amendments. Cannot they see that they are not introducing anything but what is exceptional? Surely the body, coming into existence as a result of a strong recommendation from the Runciman Commission, can be trusted to handle this reserve power so that in the unusual case, which I fear sooner or later will arise, the public can see that there has been an absolutely
1604
independent inquiry—not because the police are dirty beggars but because the police are, so to speak, possibly an interested party.
I was delighted with much of the noble Baroness's speech. I liked its sentiments, its manner, its understanding and its approach. However, we have one point on which, flattered as I am by the approach of the noble Baroness, I regret to say I do not feel likely to give away.
Before I sit down I wish to associate myself with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, about the Justice written observations on the amendment. I commend the whole of it to the attention of the Ministry. I am afraid that I now beg to move the amendment—
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether before the noble and learned Lord sits down he will allow me to pose one question. In saying that we need a reserve power in the Bill, does he agree that Clause 20 contains a reserve power for the commission to make inquiries of its own without the need for this present amendment? Does he also agree that even where the police are carrying out inquiries it is possible to accompany them, to question independently and to carry out as much of the independent inquiry as is necessary to make sure that people are not left believing that the police are investigating themselves alone and unaided by the commission?
Lord Scarman: Yes, that power is given to the commission but why cannot the Minister take her courage in her hands, go the whole way and say that in the exceptional case which demands it the commission is empowered to go the whole way in the investigation of the matter? To give it this power, that power and the other power is marvellous but we are dealing with an exceptional situation. It is exceptional in the sense that we may have to wait a long time before it ever arises but I am afraid that it will arise one day. Although I am a very old man, I am quite certain of that. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Airedale, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Barnett, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Birk, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Desai, L.

Haskel, L.

Diamond, L.

Healey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dubs, L.

Howell, L.

1605

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jeger, B.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Scarman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Templeman, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Ailsa, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Aldington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Balfour, E.

Leigh, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Coleraine, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Sharples, B.

Dundonald, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hacking, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hogg, B.

Torrington, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 38, leave out ("such other police force as the chief officer thinks fit") and insert ("another police force selected by the chief officer").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will address his Amendment No. 34.
Some concerns were expressed during Report and Third Reading of the Bill in another place that the commission's powers under Clause 18 would be insufficient to enable it to prevent the situation from arising where two forces would be mutually investigating one another on behalf of the commission. It was suggested, for example, that the commission could decide to look into a particular West Midlands case and in issuing a requirement to the chief officer of that force to appoint an investigating officer require him to bring in someone from another force. The chief officer of the West Midlands force could then appoint an officer from the West Yorkshire constabulary. That might be undesirable if the West Midlands force was already investigating a West Yorkshire case for the commission. Although such a scenario seems a little improbable, not least because our current experience would suggest that an outside force is needed in relatively few cases, we nevertheless think it best to enable the commission to prevent it if it thinks fit. Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 to 38 therefore empower the commission to approve or disapprove the outside force—or, in the case of an offence investigated originally by another public body, the outside public body—to be brought in.
The amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would have the effect of giving the choice of outside force to be brought in to the inspectorate of constabulary. This would represent an entirely new role for such inspectors and one which would fall outside their existing remit. Inspectors of constabulary play no part in allocating people to operational duties. The Government believe that it would be wrong to add such a task to their responsibilities. I have to say to the Committee that we cannot therefore accept the noble Lord's amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, Amendment No. 34:
Line 2, leave out ("chief officer") and insert ("Inspector of Constabulary").
The noble Lord said: The Minister will be aware that I tabled Amendment No. 34 before she tabled her Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 to 38. Therefore, whatever may be the defects of trying to extend the role of inspectorate of constabulary, I hope and believe that the purpose of my amendment is the same as government Amendment No. 37, which I take to be the really important amendment in this group. I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment and for the assurances that she has just repeated that the commission will have the power to disapprove the selection of another police force by the originating police force. To that extent the need for my amendment is less than it would otherwise have been.
However, the route seems an awfully long way round. The originating police force has a choice in the matter but if either the originating police force or the commission thinks it is appropriate to go elsewhere the originating police force must then make its choice and the commission may then refuse that choice and make another choice. The purpose of giving the role to the

1607
inspectorate of constabulary was deliberate. In general, nobody outside the police service knows what is the availability of resources in different police forces. The Government are now proposing that the commission shall embark on a trial and error supposition. For example, the West Midlands force says that it wants the job to be done by West Yorkshire; the commission says that it does not want that to happen and that its choice is the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. The originating police force can then say that it does not want the job done by Devon and Cornwall but by another force. At some stage a decision must be made as to who is available and suitable to do the work. It seemed to us that it was not a very great extension of the inspectorate's role to make sure that the choice was made within the police service but not, as is agreed to be undesirable, by the originating police force.
However, those are relatively minor matters. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 34 as an amendment to Amendment No. 33.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes that attitude because although I share most of his views on the Bill I should not have been happy about accepting his amendment. Inspectors of constabulary have entirely different responsibilities. In my view acceptance of the amendment would have created a high degree of confusion. The inspectorate is not staffed to carry out such responsibilities. It has area and subject responsibilities and it would feel a great deal of tension were the responsibility proposed in the amendment to be passed to it. I am sure that there would be very little enthusiasm within the inspectorate for carrying out those responsibilities.
The noble Lord has indicated that he does not wish to move his amendment and therefore I say no more about it save that it would be an error to have entrusted responsibilities of this sort in the way the noble Lord proposed.
[Amendment No. 34, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 33 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 38:
Page 14, line 44, leave out ("such police force, or in such") and insert ("a police force, or in a").
Page 14, line 46, leave out ("as the appropriate person thinks fit") and insert ("selected by the appropriate person").
Page 14, line 48, leave out from ("direct") to end of line 2 on page 15 and insert ("—

(a) that a person shall not be appointed, or

(b) that a police force or other public body shall not be selected,

under subsection (4) or (5) without the approval of the
Commission.").
Page 15, line 11, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 13 and insert ("without the approval of the Commission.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
8 p.m.
Clause 19 [Inquiries by investigating officer]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 19, at end insert:
("(2A) The Commission may at any time, if they think there is good reason to do so, authorise an investigating officer directly appointed by the Commission, on producing (if so required) evidence of his authority, to require any person to produce to him forthwith any document in his custody or power which the investigating officer may reasonably require.
(2B) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if satisfied on information on oath given on behalf of the Commission, or by a person directly appointed by the Commission, to exercise powers under this under this Part, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are on the premises documents the production of which has been required, and which have not been produced in compliance with this requirement.
(2C) A warrant under this section shall authorise the investigating officer together with any other person named in it—

(a) to enter the premises specified in the information, using such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose;

(b) to search the premises and take possession of any documents as appear to be the documents mentioned in subsection (2A) or (2B), as the case may be, or to take, in relation to any such documents, any other steps which may appear to be necessary for preserving them or preventing interference with them;

(c) to take copies of any such documents; and

(d) to require any person named in the warrant to state where they may be found.

(2D) Any documents of which possession is taken under this section may be retained for as long as is reasonably necessary.
(2E) If in the case of a warrant under subsection (2B) the justice of the peace is satisfied on information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are also on the premises other documents relevant to the investigation, the warrant shall also authorise the actions mentioned in subsection (2D) to be taken in relation to all such documents.
(2F) A warrant under this section shall continue in force until the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is issued.
(2G) Any person who intentionally obstructs the exercise of any rights conferred by a warrant issued under this section or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed in accordance with subsection (2C) (d) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
(2H) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I should move the above amendment because it was referred to at some length in the debate on Amendment No. 32. Its purpose is to show that it is perfectly possible to give an investigating officer directly appointed by the commission—and I still think that we may have to return to the matter at a later stage because, as the Minister rightly said, it is one of the most important issues in the Bill—the power which is necessary, and no more than that, to carry out investigations which would otherwise be carried out by the police or by other public bodies with investigative powers.
I move the amendment knowing that I shall withdraw it because of what the Minister said as regards Amendment No. 32. She said that she found the powers provided in Amendment No. 40 to be too coercive. I was puzzled by that; I did not feel that we had gone any further than the powers which are provided for many investigators who are not part of the police—for example, the DTI investigators or those from Customs and Excise. Indeed, there are many other examples of

1609
comparable powers. It would be useful to have on the record the Minister's arguments so that we can combat them when we return to the issue of independent investigation at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: Perhaps I may use the occasion to raise a matter which has been discussed tonight and which no doubt will be discussed again. I noticed that my noble friend used the word "coercive". I was very pleased both at the earlier stage of the Bill and tonight with the words that the Minister used as regards "direct" and "supervise"; indeed, they are very powerful words. But I do not really know what they mean. I do know that C3 did not direct or supervise.
Let us suppose that the West Yorkshire police are asked or appointed to carry out an inquiry, and someone in the commission is to supervise them as regards what they are doing. If the exercise is taking place in the Midlands, does it mean that someone from the commission moves to the area and asks "What have you done today? Have you looked into this?, followed by, "Because I have read the papers, I direct you to go and have a look at what is going on over there", and then supervises the proceedings? In other words, that person asks later, "What have you done? Have you carried out my instructions?"
I genuinely do not understand what the words "supervise" and "direct" mean in that respect. As I said, they are most powerful words. Perhaps we can use this occasion to clarify their meaning.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: In view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, I should like to make a contribution. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has moved the amendment so that we may explore and illustrate how the principle of an in-house investigating team could work. I return for a moment to an earlier discussion. I must say that I find it difficult to understand why, under the terms of the Bill, the commission shall be empowered to employ police officers to supervise an investigation but not be empowered to employ those who carry out the investigating. That is exactly the provision in the Bill as drafted.
I was grateful to the Minister for spelling out in a great deal more detail how the process would work. In fact, she reassured me in a number of respects. But, nevertheless, given the Minister's argument for flexibility, I believe that the terms of the amendment where it says that the,
"Commission may at any time, if they think there is good reason to do so",
set out exactly the sort of tone which would be reflected in the provisions of the Bill.
At one stage in our previous discussion—and I am sure that I recall this correctly—the Minister said that we must ask the question: what best suits the commission's purpose? Of course, the Minister is right to ask that question, but I believe that what best suits the commission's purpose is for the commission to decide. The argument that we had earlier, and to which the amendment refers, is whether this place, or more particularly the Government, or, indeed, the commission
1610
should decide what best suits the commission's purpose in achieving the Bill's objectives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, asked why we could not trust the commission. That is a most important question. If this place cannot trust the commission, how can we expect the commission to be trusted by the public once it has been established?
Baroness Blatch: The amendment would give sweeping powers of unprecedented scope for the commission and its agents to enter premises and search for and remove documents. Although apparently modelled on provisions in the Companies Act 1985, the present amendment goes far wider than the powers in that Act, which relate to very specialised offences and circumstances.
Parliament has rightly been cautious about extending invasive and coercive powers of regulation and investigation. It has insisted that there should be a genuine need which cannot be met by less draconian means; that there should be strict control over who can exercise such powers and in relation to what kinds of material; and that there should be sufficient safeguards and assurances of accountability. I have to say that I am doubtful that the present amendment satisfies any of those important conditions.
The powers in the Companies Act are there because of the special nature of the investigations involved and the special position of those being investigated. The powers relate only to material sought in connection with a limited range of financial offences which it would be exceptionally difficult to prosecute without unusual powers to obtain evidence of the trail of transactions involved. By contrast, the present amendment would extend similar powers to the commission in relation to any material whatsoever across the whole range of its cases, however great or small, and whatever the nature of the matter being investigated.
Further, the amendment appears to enable the commission to appoint anyone it likes to exercise those powers, even in the case of the first subsection, without applying for a justices' warrant. No indication is offered as to who might be an appropriate person, or what qualifications or standing the commission or, indeed, the justices should look for. It is difficult to see how accountability for the exercise of those invasive powers could be effectively maintained in those circumstances.
Powers of entry and search, especially when, as here, they may be exercised against private citizens in their homes, are normally confined to police officers, for very good reasons to do with training, discipline and public accountability. Even when it is necessary for the powers to be exercised by someone with special professional knowledge, there is generally provided the added safeguard—as in the Companies Act—that that person should be accompanied by a constable. The amendment, on the other hand, does not even make that requirement.
Amendment No. 40 also sets up a dangerous anomaly. It attaches no restrictions to the type of material that could be seized, including material which is unlikely to be admissible in evidence, such as that protected by legal privilege—that is, communications between a lawyer and his client in relation to legal advice

1611
requested by and provided to that client. Moreover, the conditions for obtaining access to sensitive material under the amendment are less stringent than those set out in Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The amendment would, therefore, impose fewer safeguards and restrictions on those powers of investigation than apply to those exercised by the police. We cannot sensibly have two standards applying at different stages of the criminal justice process.
No doubt the proposed amendment could be tempered to meet those points if it were thought that the commission needed additional powers of that kind, but I have heard nothing to suggest that it does. I am not aware of any case in the experience of the Home Office in which existing means of investigation—including the exercise of normal police powers—have proved insufficient to locate documents necessary to consideration of a case. The Royal Commission rightly recognised this, and recommended that the need for extra powers should be kept under review—not that they should be provided on the off-chance they might be needed one day.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, posed an important question—namely, whether the commission could go to the Midlands—in trying to tease out precisely how "direct" and "supervise" would happen in practice. First, I should say, yes they can. What we would envisage in practice is that the initial prescriptive direction would come from the commission to the investigator of a particular case. If the commission at any time was concerned about the way that investigation was taking place and if it was unhappy about the service it was receiving from either an individual police officer or a police force, it is within the powers of the commission to call that person or indeed the force off the investigation, but it is also within its powers to accompany a police officer during an investigation and to direct the questions that are asked of a particular person. All the safeguards are there for the commission to satisfy itself that the police service is providing the service which is prescribed in the first place by the commission. I think the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, together with myself, would accept that the police in almost all cases will deliver a quality service to the commission. But, should it not in a particular case, then the commission has powers to do something about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a fascinating answer and I shall read it with great care. I am temperamentally sympathetic to the idea that we should be cautious about extending powers of entry and police powers. Therefore, quite apart from the fact that the Committee decided earlier not to give the commission its own investigative powers, I believe the Minister is right as regards the extent to which we propose to extend such powers in this amendment. I was encouraged to hear her say that no doubt a more modest amendment could be devised. Those were not her words but I think that that was what she was driving at. If, as I hope and believe, we persuade the Government or the Chamber that the commission should have its own investigative powers, I am sure that we can come up with a series of powers
1612
which would be appropriate without being unduly coercive, as I am now convinced the present amendment appears to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 45, leave out ("and opinions obtained, and any reports commissioned,") and insert (", opinions and reports received by him").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 41 with Amendments Nos. 27 to 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) The Commission shall issue a Code of Practice giving guidance on—

(a) the duties of an investigating officer,

(b) the nature and extent of the supervision of inquiries to be exercised by the Commission, and

(c) the general conduct of inquiries.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 42 was intended to plug another of the possible holes in the argument for Amendment No. 32 for investigative powers for the commission. However, looking at it, despite the earlier decision of the Committee, I rather think that Amendment No. 42 stands in its own right and deserves the support of the Committee regardless of what we said previously. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees referred to the difficulty of understanding what is meant by direction and supervision. I am sure he is right. Inevitably, if a distinguished ex-Home Secretary finds difficulty with that, I think the commission and those responsible will be feeling their way as regards the quite wide powers of direction and supervision of investigations which, as the Minister reminded us, have never been held before by C3 for perfectly good constitutional reasons.
Therefore it seems to me sensible that we should attempt to codify the extent to which there should be rules for an investigating officer, and the degree of supervision and direction which is to be imposed, because if we are feeling our way in these matters and if these powers are as extensive as they appear to be, surely it is desirable that as soon as possible—perhaps not immediately; we do not set down any date for the introduction of a code of practice—they should be set out in a form which is available to the public, the police, the legal profession and, of course, for the commission's own benefit. The analogy we should draw is with the code of practice which the Crown Prosecution Service has published for Crown prosecutors. To that extent, although the original motivation for the amendment no longer exists, I hope that the Government will feel that it has merit in its own right and that the Minister will be sympathetic towards it. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There is a powerful case to be made for the amendment. I suspect the noble Baroness will say that it is unnecessary on the grounds that the police know perfectly well what their duties are when carrying out investigations of this character. However, a further reason why, in my view, it is desirable is to inform the public of the responsibilities of the police

1613
in matters of this sort. After all, why do we have this Bill? We have the Bill and we will have the commission because of a series of major miscarriages of justice. It seems to me highly desirable that the commission should be in a position to publish some form of code of practice not only for the benefit of the police and for police training, and for other reasons which are special to the police service, but so as to indicate to the general public what sort of service they expect the police to carry out on their behalf. The case for the amendment is, I think, a strong one. Although the noble Baroness no doubt has on her briefing papers at the top left hand corner the word "Reject", I believe that there is a good case to be made for incorporating the proposal in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I see the virtue in openness and transparency in the commission's operating procedures, which the noble Lord advanced. The question is whether a statutory requirement in the amendment is either necessary or even helpful. Like other non-departmental public bodies, the commission will be subject to the code of practice on open government and there will therefore be an expectation that it will make available information about its procedures and policies, including those relating to inquiries and investigations.
The amendment seems to me to raise a number of difficulties. It seems curiously circumscribed. By applying only to inquiries under Clause 19, does it imply that clear, transparent policies and procedures are somehow less important in other areas of the commission's work? That seems a very worrying implication.
It is apparent that the code envisaged by the amendment would deal not only with matters of conduct and propriety but also with policy and possibly with efficiency as well. It may not necessarily be most helpful for these very different things to be covered in the same way or in the same document. We must allow the commission a reasonable scope to determine how best, and in what form, to make available information about the way it will carry out tasks which are complex and which will develop over time.
As I said, the commission will be bound by the same principles of openness that apply today in other areas of public administration. Furthermore, the Bill provides for the commission to report annually to the Secretary of State. Its report will no doubt describe the manner in which cases have been investigated over the reporting year. The report will be laid before Parliament and the Chamber will have an opportunity to debate the issues it raises if it so wishes. The commission can be examined by Select Committees of Parliament. The Bill also provides for the commission to keep proper accounts and for these to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. Again it will be open to the Chamber and to the Public Accounts Committee to consider the commission's report and accounts. It is hard to see therefore what more is needed to ensure that the commission's methods are open to scrutiny.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the commission will be both open about its procedures and properly accountable. I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was moved but the proposal in it seems to risk
1614
producing a requirement on the commission which is curiously narrow, inflexible and obscure. Despite the fact that I am inviting the Committee to reject the amendment, I believe the answer I have given has intellectual validity.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I must say with great respect to the noble Baroness that that is a deeply unpersuasive contribution. It seems to me that she read out a speech which she had prepared in advance assuming that the arguments would have a different character to those that were deployed. It is deeply disappointing. I hope that she will think about the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
We are talking not about the annual report of the commission which, as she rightly said, may be discussed, considered and debated in Parliament, or the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We are talking about a code of conduct which, in my view, will be of benefit to the police service and to the general public, who would know what the commission expects of the police service when carrying out its responsibilities. That seems to me to be highly desirable. I would find it remarkable were the commission to take the view that that would be in any way damaging to its general responsibilities laid down in this statute.
I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this matter again because she has adopted a position of inflexibility on the amendment, which deserves more consideration than it has so far been given.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I, too, found that a very strange answer. My first reaction was that you cannot win. We are accused of being too broad in the powers that we seek for investigation in Amendment No. 40, and then accused of being too narrow in the terms of the code of practice. The Minister appeared to suggest that there were other clauses than Clause 19 which required a code of practice and it was peculiar for this code of practice to apply only to that clause. I do not understand that.
Clause 19 is the clause which describes the inquiries by the investigating officer. Clause 18 deals with the issue of who the investigating officer shall be. Clause 19 lays down all of the complex new issues of supervision of the investigating officer and the investigating force by the commission. Everybody, not least my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees but also the Minister herself, has recognised that there is a great deal of new practice to be discovered in the early period of the commission's existence. Therefore, we have set out here relatively simple, but not particularly inflexible, provisions covering, first, the duties of the investigating officer; secondly, and perhaps most important, the nature and extent of the supervision of inquiries to be exercised by the commission; and, thirdly, the general conduct of inquiries. That fits in very well with the content of Clause 19, which is the most important area in relation to which the commission will have to find its feet and learn to operate effectively.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rightly said, it is important that the code of practice should be in the public domain and that the commission should have accountability beyond that which is available from other government regulations and other open government provisions in this new area of government activity.

1615
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister in saying that there are other ways of achieving accountability to the public. However, a code of practice specifically designed for this purpose, relating to the most difficult areas in the Bill, and put on the face of the Bill is of considerable importance and virtue. Those virtues, and the provisions suggested in the amendment, have a validity which I do not believe has been overturned in any way by the Minister's arguments.
If it were not for the lateness of the hour I would be inclined to seek the opinion of the Committee. As it is, I shall consider what further action is needed on this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Other powers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 16, line 2, leave out from ("steps") to ("which") in line 4.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 43 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 44.
The Bill gives the commission a range of powers to assist in its task, including the important powers in Clauses 18 and 19, to harness the expertise and knowledge of detective officers in the police under its independent direction and supervision. Clause 20 makes it clear that none of the powers specifically conferred on the commission by the Bill are to be read as limiting its ability to take other steps to investigate cases.
The question has been raised in earlier debates in this Chamber and in another place as to whether the commission is invariably bound to undertake inquiries through a police force or other public body. The purpose of the present amendments is to make it clear that the commission is not constrained in this way. The commission will no doubt want to consider very carefully which kinds of inquiry it is best placed to make itself and which are best undertaken by police officers or others on its behalf. There are good reasons why the questioning of witnesses, for example, is normally carried out by trained police officers, but the commission would not want to be precluded from undertaking that task itself in an exceptional case, nor from undertaking other forms of inquiry.
I hope that the amendments are acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 16, line 5, at end insert ("including, in particular—

(a) undertaking, or arranging for others to undertake, inquiries, and

(b) obtaining, or arranging for others to obtain, statements, opinions and reports.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Availability of legal aid
. The Secretary of State shall make regulations to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 made under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to ensure that in appropriate cases persons who have been convicted of offences have advice and assistance from solicitors to assist them with any necessary communications with or representations to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 45 is to ensure that legal aid can be made available in an appropriate case—and I stress that that is to be determined by the Legal Aid Board—to provide legal assistance where it is necessary to a prisoner before he or she applies to the commission and, where necessary, to prepare the submission for consideration by the commission and, where necessary, to assist the prisoner with any subsequent negotiations or correspondence with the commission.
At the Second Reading of the Bill a number of noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Mishcon, expressed doubts as to the adequacy of the present legal aid provisions in relation to the new commission. In her reply, the Minister said:
"Legal aid through the green form scheme will continue to be available to those wishing to make representations to the commission—whether initially to the commission or at a later stage in the light of the results of any investigations by the commission—but no additional provision is needed, because once the commission looks into a case it will of course be doing any necessary investigations".—[Official Report, 15/5/95; col. 329.]
I hope to persuade the Committee and the noble Baroness that the provisions of the green form scheme simply do not begin to meet the needs that are likely to arise. Perhaps I may indicate initially, as I am sure the noble Baroness will accept, that it is likely that the majority of people wishing to place applications before the commission are serving sentences of imprisonment. It follows that many of those will be if not illiterate at least not trained lawyers and certainly not skilled in the ways of preparing documents for consideration by legal and other minds.
At present a prisoner in such a position has four possible sources of outside help open to him. He can try to attract the attention of an author or journalist to take up his case, but necessarily those sources are limited. He can try to persuade the solicitor who acted for him, or some other solicitor, to take up his case and act for him. That may be extremely time-consuming. I understand that the solicitor who was involved in the Birmingham Six case estimates that she did approximately one month's work every year for 10 years before the outcome of that appeal. He can try to interest an organisation such as Justice to take up his cause, but a vast number of applications and limited resources mean that only a certain number of those can be adopted.
Alternatively, he can rely on his friends and family to do what they can by contacting Members of Parliament, pressure groups and so on. His last resort is to write. As many Members of this House and another place know, large numbers of letters come from people in custody anxious that their cases should be reviewed.
As I understand it, the green form scheme is available in connection with this commission and would continue to be available following the establishment of the commission. However, there are problems connected

1617
with its use which I ask the noble Baroness to consider. It seems to us on these Benches that the green form scheme simply cannot fit the bill.
First, a solicitor can carry out only two hours' work under the scheme. If he wishes to undertake more than that, he has to go to the Legal Aid Board to ask for grant of an extension. But that has to be done in advance of the work to be done. An extension can be granted only after the green form has been signed by the applicant. That cannot be done through the post; it has to be signed in the presence of a solicitor. Therefore the solicitor must travel to see the prisoner in order to have the form signed. Usually—certainly in my experience as counsel going to interview prisoners, in particular those serving long sentences—the journey time alone to the prison is likely to use up the two hours paid for under the green form scheme.
Unless the solicitor has read the papers before he sees the prisoner, he is in no position to give properly informed advice about the merits of the case. Yet under the green form scheme this can be paid for only up to the two hours' limit and only after completion and signing of the form. In other words, there is a hopeless and inadequate Catch-22 situation. A solicitor needs, first, to be able to give proper advice to the applicant as to whether he has any valid grounds; secondly, if the applicant has such grounds, the solicitor needs to be able to take steps to ensure that the commission has all the relevant papers; and, thirdly, he needs to be able to assist in, perhaps even to draft a precis of, the case which will direct the attention of the staff of the commission to the real point in the case. Unless he is able to do that, it seems to us that cases in which there is a valid point will be missed and a number of cases which ought to have been sifted out by short, proper advice at the outset will burden the commission—unmeritorious cases which a solicitor, acting properly having read the papers, could have advised had no chance.
The staff of the commission will face a difficult, if not impossible, task in sifting the wheat from the chaff. Unlike the solicitor who was previously involved in the case, the staff will come fresh to the case. Without some help in a complex case, they cannot reasonably be expected to go straight to the point made by the complainant.
In many of these cases a number of steps will have to be taken before any meaningful application can be made. For example, if the Government maintain the position expressed last week in Committee that only applications involving fresh evidence or fresh argument are to be entertained, it may be necessary to seek the recollection of counsel and solicitor about what went on at earlier hearings. It may be necessary to obtain transcripts of parts of those earlier hearings. It may be necessary to interview potential witnesses. It is only necessary to say that to see how undesirable it is for witnesses to be interviewed perhaps by friends or associates of someone serving a lengthy prison sentence rather than a solicitor.
All those matters need to be covered properly by legal aid. Extensions of the green form scheme are granted, as I understand it, but area officers vary in their practice. In other words, there is no uniformity. However, the real disadvantage of extensions to the green form scheme are
1618
these. In any case each extension has to be for a specified number of hours and for a specific purpose. That may involve repeated applications for extensions which result, as one knows when seeking a quick extension of legal aid to gain an additional expert's report, in those applications being bogged down in a quagmire of bureaucratic delay which may be entirely understandable.
The green form scheme was designed in essence to allow preliminary work to be done before a full legal aid certificate was granted in appropriate cases or, indeed, to knock on the head those cases which had no chance of success by giving appropriate advice at the outset. Full legal aid will be available, I understand, once the case has been referred by the commission to the Court of Appeal. But it is that initial submission of evidence and arguments to the commission which is likely to be crucial in the decision as to whether a reference is later made. If proper legal assistance is not available in appropriate cases—and I stress that factor; it is a matter for the Legal Aid Board to consider—to provide help where it is needed in those cases, it seems to us that miscarriages of justice could well remain uncorrected because the essential point has not been pin-pointed and may be missed by the commission. For all those reasons, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am aware of concerns which have been expressed during the passage of the Bill that people who wish to make representations to the commission should be able to obtain legal aid so that they may be advised on their application. The effect of this new clause would be to require the Secretary of State to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 which are made under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to ensure that advice and assistance under the green form scheme would be available to applicants wishing to communicate with or to make representations to the commission.
We believe that the proposed new clause is unnecessary. Legal advice and assistance through the green form scheme are available to those who are financially eligible on any matter of English law, with the exception, of course, of certain matters which are specifically excluded from the scheme by regulation. No one is proposing that the relevant regulations should be amended to exclude advice and assistance on making representations to the commission. Therefore green form advice and assistance will be available to people wishing to make such representations provided they satisfy the financial eligibility conditions of the scheme.
Once an application has been made to the commission, it will be for the commission to pursue any inquiries, as I said at Second Reading. The commission will be investigative rather than adversarial. It will not be necessary therefore for applicants to be legally represented while the investigation is in progress.
As the Committee knows, the Bill will allow the commission to disclose the results of its inquiries to applicants so that in the interests of fairness they can make further representations in the light of matters that the commission has found. Again legal advice and assistance through the green form scheme would be available to those eligible to assist them in preparing any further representations that they may wish to make. Legal

1619
assistance will similarly be available to those wishing to make new representations to the commission, even where the commission has previously refused to refer their case.
Where a case has been referred to the courts, the appellant may apply for legal aid for the appeal in the usual way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to legal aid being needed for investigations. I have some doubt about the idea of legal aid being used for extensive investigations, given that this work would overlap with the work for which the commission is set up and resourced to carry out. However, perhaps I may refer to the problems to which the noble Baroness referred. With regard to the two hours' limit on the green form scheme, our belief is that the scheme works effectively in relation to prisoners and other applicants. However, I am willing to look carefully into the difficulties that she outlined in moving her amendment. Perhaps she will allow me to do so without prejudice to the outcome. Perhaps I may consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill. Alternatively, no doubt the noble Baroness will present the House with another amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am encouraged by what the Minister said. There are obvious and clear difficulties in using the green form scheme in its present form for such cases. I believe that the noble Baroness understands that there is an advantage, first, in having properly presented cases sent to the commission, and, secondly, in having some filter so that everyone in prison does not immediately seek to obtain their papers and send them. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to further discussion with the noble Baroness perhaps before the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Offence of disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Exceptions from obligations of non-disclosure]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 17, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) in order to assist in dealing with an application made to the Secretary of State for compensation for a miscarriage of
justice,").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment inserts a further gateway into Clause 23 through which the commission may disclose information gathered in the course of its investigations. It empowers the commission to disclose information to the Secretary of State and to the assessor to enable them to deal with an application for compensation when a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The provision will allow the commission, for example, to give the Secretary of State and the assessor copies of the transcripts of proceedings in their possession and the results of their investigations where relevant so that they do not need to make their own inquiries to obtain the same information before making their respective decisions. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment comes in the second of two complex clauses on disclosure, Clauses 22 and 23. Some of the issues of disclosure were
1620
already debated when we considered amendments to Clause 17, although that is a different kind of disclosure. We do not oppose Amendment No. 47, which is an increase in the gateways, as the Minister calls them. To that extent, it is to be welcomed. We shall consider the issue of compensation when we take the Government's Amendment No. 52.
However, I cannot let the amendment pass without saying that the architecture of Clauses 22 and 23 seems curious. Instead of having the presumption of disclosure, we start by defining in some detail in Clause 22 an offence of disclosure. In Clause 23 we go on to consider exemptions from the obligations of non-disclosure. The Minister has given assurances for which we have been grateful that disclosure to applicants shall not be worse than the standard applied by the divisional court in the case of ex parte Hickey and others in November last year. That will be a considerable relief to those concerned with miscarriages of justice. However, it is still the case that the way in which the Bill has been structured means that the presumption is against disclosure, with exceptions for disclosure rather than the other way round. I still find that curious and although I have not been able to work out to my own satisfaction the best way to tackle the matter in the form of amendments—I am not prepared with a whole series of Committee stage debates—it is a matter to which we may wish to return at a later stage. However, as the amendment stands we do not oppose it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Extension of power of courts in England and Wales]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) After that subsection insert—
"(1A) The power conferred on a magistrates' court by subsection (1) above shall not be exercisable in relation to any sentence or order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if—

(a) the Crown Court has determined an appeal against—

(i) that sentence or order;

(ii) the conviction in respect of which that sentence or order was imposed or made; or

(iii) any other sentence or order imposed or made by the magistrates' court when dealing with the offender in respect of that conviction (including a sentence or order replaced by that sentence or order); or

(b) the High Court has determined a case stated for the opinion of that court on any question arising in any proceeding leading to or resulting from the imposition or making of the sentence or order."").

The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 48 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. As many Members of the Committee may know, magistrates in England and Wales may vary, or rescind, a sentence or other order imposed or made by them within 28 days of the sentence or order being imposed or made. Similarly, they may only order a rehearing within 28 days of the date a person is found guilty and only where that person did not plead guilty. There are no such provisions at present in Northern Ireland.
It is generally agreed that the time limit is too restrictive. It means many minor matters go to the higher courts on appeal, or to the Secretary of State to consider a recommendation that the Royal prerogative of mercy be exercised. This is time-consuming and expensive.
The provisions in Clauses 25 and 26 will enable magistrates to reopen a case at any time, and regardless of the original plea, but only where it is in the interests of justice to do so. However, the removal of the time limit means that a case could be reopened by the magistrates after an appeal has been determined in the Crown Court or the High Court (by way of case stated) in England and Wales, or in a county court or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. This cuts across the principle that a lower court should not interfere with the decisions of a higher court. We wish to maintain that principle.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 51 ensure that where the higher court has determined an appeal, whether against sentence, order or conviction, that case cannot be reopened by the magistrates and nor can any sentence be varied by them.
We anticipate that the amendments will affect very few cases. The vast majority of applications for rectification will remain in the magistrates' courts. Magistrates will be able to review a case at any time, in the interests of justice, unless the case has been appealed to a higher court and the appeal has been determined. If an appeal to the higher court is dismissed and the defendant then, for example, Finds evidence that indicates that he was not guilty of his conviction, he should approach the criminal cases review commission for his case to be further considered.
I hope that the House will agree that these are sensible amendments which are necessary to preserve an established principle which will not disadvantage a defendant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) The power conferred on a magistrates' court by subsection (2) above shall not be exercisable in relation to a conviction if—

(a) the Crown Court has determined an appeal against—

(i) the conviction; or

(ii) any sentence or order imposed or made by the magistrates' court when dealing with the offender in respect of the conviction; or

(b) the High Court has determined a case stated for the opinion of that court on any question arising in any proceeding leading to or resulting from the conviction."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Introduction of power in Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) The power conferred on a magistrates' court by paragraph (1) shall not be exercisable in relation to any sentence or order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if—

(a) the county court has determined an appeal against—

(i) that sentence or order;

1622

(ii) the conviction in respect of which that sentence or order was imposed or made; or

(iii) any other sentence or order imposed or made by the magistrates' court when dealing with the offender in respect of that conviction (including a sentence or order replaced by that sentence or order); or

(b) the Court of Appeal has determined a case stated for the opinion of that court on any question arising in any proceeding leading to or resulting from the imposition or making of the sentence or order.").

Page 19, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The power conferred on a magistrates' court by paragraph (2) shall not be exercisable in relation to a conviction if—

(a) the county court has determined an appeal against—

(i) the conviction; or

(ii) any sentence or order imposed or made by the magistrates' court when dealing with the offender in respect of the conviction; or

(b) the Court of Appeal has determined a case stated for the opinion of that court on any question arising in any proceeding leading to or resulting from the conviction.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
Assessment of compensation for miscarriage of justice
. In section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (compensation for miscarriages of justice), after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) In assessing so much of any compensation payable under this section to or in respect of a person as is attributable to suffering, harm to reputation or similar damage, the assessor shall have regard in particular to—

(a) the seriousness of the offence of which the person was convicted and the severity of the punishment resulting from the conviction;

(b) the conduct of the investigation and prosecution of the offence; and

(c) any other convictions of the person and any punishment resulting from them."").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 52 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 68, which is consequential upon it.
From time to time, usually in regard to an individual case, there is some confusion and even misunderstanding among the public as to how the current compensation arrangements work. This modest amendment seeks to cast some light on the matter and to enshrine current good practice into statute.
The Committee will know that it was in this House, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, that an amendment was introduced to place compensation for miscarriages of justice on a statutory footing. The wording of Section 133 follows closely that of Article 14.6 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1976. The gist of Section 133—forgive me if I do not cite the exact words—is that compensation for a miscarriage of justice shall be paid: if a conviction is quashed on an out-of-time appeal; or if a conviction is quashed after the case has been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Secretary of State; or if a pardon is granted. In each case it is where new evidence has arisen the non-disclosure of which at an earlier stage is not wholly or partly attributable to the applicant.
The new clause proposed makes no changes to the entitlement to compensation under Section 133. Nor will it, of course, affect our international obligations. What it does is to indicate the main factors which the assessor will take into account. Section 133 extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland where an assessor is appointed on an individual case basis. The current assessor for England and Wales is Sir David Calcutt, QC. Again, this amendment will not affect Sir David's method of work or that of the other independent assessors; it simply places on a permanent footing the approach which he and they take to calculate the amount of compensation payable in any case to which Section 133 applies.
Amendment No. 68 makes a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister was good enough to write to me and to a number of my colleagues about the amendment when she first tabled it. I accept her assurances that it does not affect the scope of Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act; nor does it affect our obligations under international law. To that extent the amendment is satisfactory.
However, there is more than one aspect to compensation. There is the statutory aspect that is provided under Section 133 and which is compatible with the seventh Protocol for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. But there is also the ex gratia part of compensation payments, as outlined in November 1985 by Douglas Hurd when he was Home Secretary. That limits other payments to those cases where there has been a serious default on the part of a member of the police force or some other public authority. That is not statutory. Perhaps Members of this House should have been more on the ball when we considered the Criminal Justice Bill in 1988, but we were not. The result is that part of the compensation process is an executive decision of the type which the European Commission recently criticised. So compensation is of a civil character, and it ought to be determined in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Convention, which states:
"everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
Executive decisions of the kind that make up the ex gratia part of the compensation scheme are not covered in that way and may not—I am not saying that they are not—always be impartial and independent. So there are defects in the procedures of the ex gratia part of the compensation system.
There are also defects in the coverage. As I understand it, the ex gratia system does not cover misdirections by trial judges on questions of law. Therefore defendants who have been substantially acquitted on appeal are not necessarily entitled to compensation. In the absence of new or recently discovered facts, compensation is left to the determination of the Home Secretary in accordance with the statement that I quoted from 1985. This situation is not satisfactory. Compensation to those whose convictions were quashed under some of the more famous miscarriages of justice cases is still under negotiation, and is indeed the subject of considerable argument and disagreement. Although we shall not oppose this amendment, it must be made clear that it does not deal
1624
with the major anomalies which still exist in cases of compensation for miscarriages of justice. This, again, is a matter to which we may have to return at a later stage.
Lord Airedale: The new subsection 4A that is proposed refers to,
"suffering, harm to reputation or similar damage".
What do those words "or similar damage" mean? What do the Government have in mind as to damage which is similar to harm to reputation? To what do those words "similar damage" refer?
Baroness Blatch: On that particular question, I assume that these are the kinds of consideration that are made by anybody considering the damage. I should have to take advice as to how a judge or somebody adjudging such a situation would determine "similar damage". The reason it is given to people with those particular skills is for a judgment to be made about damage or similar damage. Quite a lot is set out in the tariff as to what should be considered a similar injury. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord. If he would like to discuss the matter with me, or with my officials, after this particular amendment has been discussed, then I should be glad to do so.
Perhaps I may address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. First, I hope he will agree that this particular amendment impacts on Section 133 and that it sets out on the face of this Bill the particular aspects that have to be taken into account when considering compensation. But it would not be appropriate for compensation to be available as a rule in cases which are satisfactorily dealt with by the normal trial and appeal process, since well-founded and justified prosecutions may fail simply on a technicality, all because the high standard of proof was not met. But an application for ex gratia compensation will always be carefully considered on its merits.
Again, I should like to think more about what the noble Lord said in the course of speaking to this amendment. If there is anything more that I can say on the matter or if any modification needs to be made to accommodate the point, again, without prejudice, I should like to go away and read what has been said.
Perhaps I may return to the point on "similar damage". I am told that hurt feelings, embarrassment or a sense of outrage are examples of similar damage.
I turn to the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no limit to the payment that may be made under the ex gratia scheme. They are exceptional payments where there is no entitlement in law to compensation. For that reason, there is no question of civil rights or obligations. I am advised that the European Convention on Human Rights is not relevant—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, but that really is not a satisfactory answer. We know, of course, that the ex gratia payment scheme has been made to work for the past 10 years; and we know that it works on the basis of guidelines from the Secretary of State. But what the European Commission is saying is that executive decisions of this kind are no substitute for statutory rights. Far too much of the compensation for miscarriages of

1625
justice is in the form of ex gratia payments rather than in the form of statutory rights. I would have hoped that the opportunity would have been taken when an amendment of this kind was being put down to extend the scope of statutory rights and to reduce the scope for executive decisions and ex gratia schemes. That is the kind of thing that I was looking for. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will consider the matter further. Perhaps we can talk about it between now and a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 32 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Commission: further provisions]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 21, leave out lines 36 to 43 and insert:
("(1) The Commission shall—

(a) pay to members of the Commission such remuneration,

(b) pay to or in respect of members of the Commission any such allowances, fees, expenses and gratuities, and

(c) pay towards the provision of pensions to or in respect of members of the Commission any such sums,

as the Commission are required to pay by or in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 63.
As the Committee may know, the Treasury has now decided to assume a more strategic role in relation to the oversight of non-departmental public bodies and in relation to their funding and pay arrangements. As part of this process it is looking at ways of withdrawing from its current role in approving the pay arrangements and so forth of such bodies. With this aim in mind it does not wish to acquire any responsibility in this respect for any additional NDPBs.
Amendments Nos. 21, 23 to 27 and 29 therefore delete the references to the consent of the Treasury in relation to the proposed arrangements for paying the commission and its staff, the numbers of staff that the commission may employ and their terms and conditions of service. In preparing the amendments to make the necessary changes, we came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the commission should not in fact handle the calculation and processing of the salaries and pension arrangements of its members. Amendment No. 21 therefore also makes this change—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is there some confusion about the numbering? We are talking about amendments in the 50s. Is the Minister referring to page 21?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I have to say that I do not have the relevant brief with me. I do not know whether the Committee is sufficiently indulgent as to allow me to go on to speak to Amendment No. 62 and return to this amendment, or whether that is not allowed.
9 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What will happen? We are in a state of mild confusion and difficulty. What exactly is it suggested that we should do?
Baroness Blatch: I am advised that the best I can do now is not to move the amendments and return to them at the next stage of the Bill if that is agreeable.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 61 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) In every report made under sub-paragraph (1) the Commission shall, on the basis of their investigations into cases and references to the Court of Appeal, make such recommendations to the Home Secretary as they consider necessary for changes in law, procedures and practices.").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest amendment, as befits its place in a schedule rather than the main body of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will feel that it is a reasonable but small extension of the responsibilities of the commission in compiling its annual report.
At the moment the schedule is entirely vacant in what it says should be included in the annual report. But from the public point of view, and that of ensuring that the improvements in the criminal justice system which are supposed to be brought about by the Bill actually come about, it is a matter of great concern. No body is better qualified than the commission to make recommendations for such further consequential changes as may be necessary. Only the commission has the control, supervision, direction—or whatever word we choose to use—of the investigations and can therefore bring together the case experience of its work and of the submissions it makes to the Court of Appeal for public consideration by means of its annual report to the Home Secretary.
One can imagine a number of examples of the opportunities that it may have and the contribution it may make; for example, the application of the complex rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act formulated in codes of practice which we agreed in this Chamber only a couple of months ago. They are enormously complicated. They evolve over time—without any criticism being made of those who devise them in the first place—and whether or not they work will be more apparent to the commission than to any individual police force.
A less happy example perhaps is the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Some of us, as the Minister will know, felt at the time that short cuts were being taken in the Act, notably the increase in comment that might be made on the exercise of the right to silence, which posed a serious danger to the criminal justice system. Many of the changes have only come into force in the past month or two. But over time and during the early life of the commission, we shall need evidence in regard to the extent to which the changes introduced by the 1994 Act have affected the risk of miscarriages of justice. The possibility cannot be ruled out that miscarriages of justice may be greater as a result of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act than they were before.
The Minister does not have to agree with that analysis of the 1994 Act, but I hope that she will agree that it will be in the interests not only of the commission but also of the criminal justice system and the public as a whole for the commission to be positively encouraged, as it is in Amendment No. 62, to make recommendations in the context of its annual report on matters upon which the commission knows far more from detailed investigation than anybody else. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I shall be able to allay the fears of the noble Lord because the point he makes with regard to informing the Secretary of State is important. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and agree that if the commission comes across some aspect of the criminal justice system which causes concern it should draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State and no doubt will do so from time to time.
The Bill as drafted does not preclude the commission from doing that. Indeed, the requirement that it places upon the commission to produce an annual report on the discharge of its functions affords it the opportunity to do so if necessary. But that is a different matter from requiring the commission to make recommendations for change in its annual report. Placing the members of the commission under a duty to make recommendations would have the effect of extending the commission's role and require that part of the commission's resources to be devoted to monitoring current arrangements and developing proposals for change.
The commission is not intended to be a watchdog on the criminal justice system and its individual components. Its role is to investigate possible miscarriages of justice and refer those cases, which in its view meet the criteria for referral, to the courts. Its resources must be devoted to that task. It is absolutely essential that where it believes that points are coming through about which it would wish to recommend changes to the law it is absolutely free to convey that to the Home Secretary. To alter the commission's role in the way proposed would not be right and I cannot therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If a form of words was devised which gave a clear indication that the commission would be encouraged to do precisely that, would that be acceptable to the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My understanding of statute is not that it is words of encouragement. That can be given in guidance or by other forms of exhortation. As I understand it, legislation relates to duties and obligations.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I understand that the role of the commission is that in appropriate cases it draws to the attention of the Secretary of State what it regards as a defect in the law following its consideration of a case. Were such an approach to be put forward, is the noble Baroness prepared to indicate that she will consider it?
Baroness Blatch: I have made it absolutely clear that the commission can do that. There is absolutely nothing to prevent or preclude the commission from giving the Secretary of State advice about possible changes to the
1628
law. If one accepts the Pepper v. Hart guidance, then the words are now on the pages of Hansard, or will be by tomorrow morning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is asking for. It says that,
"the Commission shall"
I admit that it says "shall" rather than "may"—
"make such recommendations to the Home Secretary as they consider necessary for changes in law, procedures and practices".
Therefore, all of what the Minister said about putting all these terrible obligations on the commission is quite wide of the mark. If it does not want to make any recommendations, if it does not think it is necessary, it does not have to do so. All we are doing is seeking to take advantage of the unique position of the commission to understand the way in which miscarriages of justice occur all over the country and to say to it, "As you go about your day-to-day work of investigation, think always what it means and how it might be possible to take advantage of your knowledge in order to reduce the occurrence of miscarriages of justice in the future".
The Minister has said that nothing precludes the commission from saying that—on that basis, I shall not press the amendment to a vote—but she is quite wrong in saying that there is anything unusual in putting an obligation of this kind on a commission of this kind. It is the commonsense continuation of the work it is doing on a day-to-day basis. It is a way of ensuring that it does so under the eye of the cosmos, so to speak, and that it does so in full consciousness of the implications of its work in a wider sense. Indeed, I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed an opportunity to encourage the commission actually to seek a reduction in its workload by improving the law, improving practice and improving procedures in order to make sure that fewer cases have to come before it in future years. I do not know whether the Minister wants to add anything to what she has said.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the commission can do that. If the commission feels that it wishes to give advice to the Home Secretary, it can do that. The amendment says:
"In every report made under sub-paragraph (1) the Commission shall",
and so on. All we are saying is that there is very little between us in that we should do nothing to inhibit the commission from giving the Home Secretary advice about its view of improvements to the law.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I see the point that the noble Baroness has made and I am encouraged to hear that she thinks there is nothing between us on this matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I both hope that there is not anything between us. However, I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Baroness will agree to look at this matter. I take her point about the use of the words "in every report" and the use of the word "shall". But having made that concession at her direction, I really do hope that she will consider this matter.

1629
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is absolutely right. It is highly desirable that this should appear on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness is quite right in saying that the commission can, if it so chooses, make any representation it wants to any Minister. But we are talking here about an important new commission which has been established because of major miscarriages of justice. In that situation it is highly desirable to try to reach some common agreement on this point. All I am saying to the noble Baroness is that I hope that she will agree to look at this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether in fact we can reach some form of agreement.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to rise in this debate but one of my concerns, which I am sure is shared by other Members of the Committee, is the reference which the Minister made to Pepper v. Hart. In effect she was saying that what is written on the face of the statute does not matter and that as long as it has been uttered by a Minister it is okay and that is the interpretation the courts will make of it. It is one thing to enable the courts to interpret statutes which may be difficult to interpret in later years with regard to what Parliament wanted to see happen. It is quite another to say, "We do not need to write this on the face of the Bill because a ministerial statement has been made and therefore Pepper v. Hart will sort it out". It is quite important that wherever possible we write things clearly on the face of Bills.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not accept the interpretation of my amendment given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said that we ought perhaps to consider having "any report" instead of "every report" and "may" instead of "shall". However, the amendment is absolutely clear. It says that the commission shall,
"make such recommendations … as they consider necessary".
The commission can leave them out if it wants to. I do not think the Minister has made a good case. It is desirable for the instructions to the commission not only to be administrative instructions, as they are in Schedule 1 and, indeed, to a lesser extent in Clause 8, but that the commission should be reminded in public of the opportunity that it has to make progress and to undertake preventive as well as remedial action on miscarriages of justice. To that extent I disagree with the Minister's reply. It may be a matter I shall want to return to at a later stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may have a reply from the noble Baroness. I asked her whether she is prepared to do what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested; namely, to look at this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether it is possible to get some agreement on it. I am not asking her to commit herself finally, but it would be extremely helpful were she to say that she will look at the matter again.
Baroness Blatch: It is my practice to consider everything very carefully. I shall look particularly at that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 63:
Page 24, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert:
("11. The Secretary of State shall defray the expenses of the Commission up to such amount as may be approved by him").
The noble Baroness said: In not moving this amendment I apologise profusely to the Committee. Now that I have composed myself, perhaps I may say that I spoke to this amendment but simply used the wrong number, which threw all Members of the Committee.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 67:
Page 24, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) In section 5 (disposal of appeal against conviction on special verdict), in subsection (1), for "by a person in whose case" substitute "in a case where".").
Page 25, line 2, at end insert:
("The Costs in Criminal Cases Act (Northern Ireland) 1968
(c. 10 (N.I.))
. In section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (costs awarded by Court of Appeal), at the end insert—
"(5) Where section 47A of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (death of convicted person) applies, any reference in this section to the appellant includes the person approved under that section."").
Page 26, line 8, at end insert:
("The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c.23)
. In section 21(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (interpretation of Part II), before the definition of "defendant's costs order" insert—
""accused" and "appellant", in a case where section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (death of convicted person) applies, include the person approved under that section;".").
Page 26, line 31, at end insert:
("The Legal Aid Act 1988(c.34)
. In section 21 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of representation for the purposes of criminal proceedings), after subsection (10) insert—
"(10A) Where section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (death of convicted person) applies, the reference in subsection (1) above to the convicted person shall be construed as a reference to the person approved under that section."").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 12 to 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 68:
Line 6, after ("section;") insert ("to amend section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report
  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report
  Working Mothers: Select Committee Recommendations
  Working Mothers: Select Committee Recommendations
  Overseas Opposition Groups: UK Policy
  Overseas Opposition Groups: UK Policy
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches