Sitting of 6 March 1995

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

  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after Question Time; otherwise they take time away from hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

  Oral Answers to Questions
    TRANSPORT

      European Rail Link
      Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom north of London is connected by rail to Europe.
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Channel tunnel freight services from north of London have been operating since last June. Last October I instructed Railtrack to ensure that the infrastructure needed for the passenger services is ready for the start of 1996.
      Mr. MacShane: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that unilluminating reply. He will know that Yorkshire is to be provided with one single passenger train per day, compared with the several that flow from London. When will Yorkshire and the north of England get the same treatment as the regions of France and Germany, where a
      2
      public service rail network is being created to plug the regions into the Euro-network? When will there be a Government policy to serve the regions, especially the north, by linking them to the rest of Europe?
      Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will find that only in this country is there to be a non-stop service from north of the capital, or beyond the capital, through the tunnel.
      Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by Eurostar last week that it intends significantly to extend the number of British cities that will have through services directly to Paris? Will it not be magnificent to be able to go to sleep in Manchester and wake up in Paris—and, even better, to be able to go to sleep in Paris and wake up in Manchester?
      Dr. Mawhinney: I am glad that my hon. Friend added that last comment. I certainly welcome the continued expansion of services through the tunnel; it is one of the great success stories. It will transform both passenger and freight services. I hope that that can be common ground across the House.
      Mr. Tyler: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept that confidence in the channel tunnel service is still fragile and that traffic from all parts of the United Kingdom is still dependent on that confidence being reinvigorated and assured? In the light of recent disclosures, is he prepared to add to his exchanges and correspondence with me on the issues of fire safety and evacuation procedures in the tunnel?
      Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman needs to make up his mind—either he wants to build confidence or he wants to raise scare stories, which have the effect of undermining confidence. He knows as well as I do that there are well-tested and well-developed policies for dealing with emergencies in the tunnel, and they work.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), will my right hon. Friend also welcome the announcement by

      3
      Eurostar of the overnight service from Glasgow to Paris, which will stop in Preston and so serve my constituents well? Will he further welcome the announcement of the £150 million investment in rolling stock, which will be an added bonus for my constituents?
      Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The development of the night services, the development of north of London services and the development of the freight services—in addition to the services from London—across the channel are all good news. They are good news for the constituents of a number of hon. Members, but most of all they are good news for passengers, for business and industry and for United Kingdom plc.
      Mr. Meacher: Having been a decade behind the French in building a high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel and two decades behind them in building a TGV network, why are the Government now being so slow in preparing a specifically high-speed rail link from London through the heart of Britain to Scotland and Ireland? Why have not the Government yet even set out their plans for upgrading the rail freight routes from the regions to the continent to the larger continental freight gauge standards to provide the capability for lorry piggy-back services, which would cost as little as £70 million—one tenth of what the Government have already frittered away on the preparation for privatisation?
      Dr. Mawhinney: First, on the hon. Gentleman's last point, he is precisely wrong. The Labour party continues to pluck figures out of the air and believes that, if it keeps repeating erroneous figures frequently enough—
      Mr. Meacher: They are the Government's figures.
      Dr. Mawhinney: They are not our figures, as the hon. Gentleman will shortly find out in an answer to a question by one of his hon. Friends. I am glad—no, I am not: I am sorry—that the general support for the tunnel, which has been evinced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, has not broken through the hon. Gentleman's normal doom and gloom. This is a success story. The private sector will develop it even further. Everyone bar the hon. Gentleman is supportive.

      London Transport (Ticketing)
      Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport on future ticketing arrangements.
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Ticketing arrangements are generally an operational matter for London Transport, but I discuss developments with the chairman and others from time to time.
      Mr. Corbyn: In response to that rather blank reply, will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the travelcard will be either made into a smart electronic card, or phased out in favour of a unit ticketing arrangement, whereby people will be able to travel only on a season ticket, with clipping-off for each journey that they
      4
      undertake? That will vastly increase the cost of transport in London, which is already the most expensive public transport in Europe.
      Mr. Norris: Deny.
      Sir Michael Neubert: When my hon. Friend discusses ticketing arrangements with London Transport, will he press on it the principle of having through ticketing on a River Thames passenger service, because a travelcard facility will be essential to the success of such a service, which we hope will be established before not too long?
      Mr. Norris: I welcome my hon. Friend's constructive intervention on the subject of the travelcard, which is an essential part of the framework of public transport services in London. There is no question about its continued survival. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the issue of integrating a river service into the travelcard raises a number of issues, and that I am not able to give him an outright assurance to that effect today. We are always willing, however, to consider propositions for the promotion of river services on the Thames. If such a proposition were put to me, I would be happy to discuss it.

      Cyclists
      Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take further steps to improve the safety of cyclists.
      The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Fatalities to cyclists are at their lowest level since records began in 1927. We shall seek to continue the improvement by means of education, publicity, research and advice to local authorities on cycling matters.
      Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that, where accidents do take place, one of the most frequent causes is the failure to show a clearly visible light when cycling at night-time? Is he aware that a number of police authorities strongly recommend that bicycles should be fitted with integral lighting systems at the point of manufacture? That would overcome the problem of lights failing through faulty batteries. Will he seriously consider making that a mandatory requirement when cycles are manufactured?
      Mr. Watts: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I remind him that it is an obligation for cyclists to show lights when travelling at night, and that it is clearly in their interests to he responsible in the way that they use roads.
      Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in the 1930s when we had mass unemployment on the scale that we have today, it was decided that one of the ways to provide work was to build cycle routes in many parts of Britain? That was true in north Derbyshire, where many of the miners were not in work. To some extent, it helped to mop up unemployment. Why do not the Government start such a scheme throughout Britain today?
      Mr. Watts: This year, £3 million has been made available for a 1,000-mile cycle network in London which, it is estimated, will reduce casualties by 25 per cent. The Department is extremely supportive of the development of cycling. My right hon. Friend the

      5
      Secretary of State visited Holland earlier this year to look at cycling policy and the lessons that can be learnt from there.

      Traffic Improvements
      Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further assistance he is giving local authorities to improve parking and traffic flow arrangements in their areas; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Watts: We encourage local authorities to include appropriate traffic management measures in their transport policies and programmes which form the basis for the allocation of transport supplementary grant.
      Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Ealing, we greatly regret the devolution to Labour-controlled Ealing council of powers to control parking and other measures related to that, because we have continuing inadequate parking provision? People are parking where they should not park and the council does not deal with the matter to the satisfaction of the residents. Will my hon. Friend do something about Ealing council? Will he wake it up on this matter or will he bring back the police to control this important part of people's lives?
      Mr. Watts: De-criminalising parking enforcement and the new powers available to local authorities enable them to match their enforcement priorities to local needs. My hon. Friend draws attention to the poor performance of a particular Labour-controlled authority. I have no doubt that he will continue to draw attention to its shortcomings and that he will encourage his constituents to seek their remedy the next time the council faces the electorate at the ballot box.
      Mr. Fraser: Is not it a fact that in central London at any rate, increased parking simply increases traffic flow? We need more pedestrian areas, of which we are lamentably short in central London compared with the provision available in almost any other major city in Europe.
      Mr. Watts: The powers available to local authorities enable them to make sensible and balanced judgments about the priorities between parking, parking enforcement and the important aspect of facilities for pedestrians—the non-motorised form of transport.

      Supplementary Grant
      Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the level of transport supplementary grant approved for North Yorkshire for 1995–96.
      Mr. Watts: Three of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, have made representations about the level of TSG approved for North Yorkshire county council for 1995–96.
      Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern at county hall and among the district councils about the need to strengthen and repair many of North Yorkshire's bridges? He will know that it is England's biggest and most rural county. It is all very well to concentrate on national priority routes for bridge strengthening, but if many of these bridges have to have
      6
      weight restrictions or closure, there will be detours of many miles. In the moors and dales, there are some access-only roads where there are important bridges. Will my hon. Friend bear all that in mind and will he ensure that North Yorkshire gets a much better settlement in future years?
      Mr. Watts: As always, my hon. Friend is assiduous in pressing the claims of his constituents and of his county. The bad news, to which he draws attention, is that in the allocation for 1995–96, the provision for bridge strengthening and assessment in North Yorkshire has been reduced by 15.5 per cent. compared with 14.5 per cent. nationally. The good news, which my hon. Friend and his county have overlooked, is that in the current year, the allocation for bridge strengthening has more than doubled—an increase of 102 per cent. We recognise that canny Yorkshiremen seek to get the best they can. However, an increase of 102 per cent. followed by a reduction of 15.5 per cent. should lead my hon. Friend to conclude that North Yorkshire has not been treated terribly unfairly.

      Women Passengers (Safety)
      Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve the safety provisions for women on London Transport.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to assess the specific needs of women with regard to public transport.
      Mr. Norris: Identifying and meeting the specific needs of women passengers is a priority for my Department. Key issues are personal safety and physical access in terms of the design and planning of transport systems.
      Mr. Banks: We all know that the Minister does not like travelling with weirdos on public transport in London, although he has no great problem about sitting with them on the Front Bench. Is he aware that many women in London find travelling on the underground and on buses physically threatening? The latest opinion poll has shown that 73 per cent. of women questioned felt that staffing and safety were big issues in terms of their travelling decisions. In view of the fact that it is International Women's Week, can we have a series of initiatives aimed positively at making travel for women much safer and more comfortable?
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is very good at sniping from the Back Benches, but remarkably short of any actual good ideas. The reality is that crime on London Underground has fallen for six years in succession. That extraordinarily good achievement has been brought about because London Transport takes the issue seriously and recognises that many passengers feel vulnerable, particularly if they have to travel on a relatively isolated part of the system. It has therefore recognised that special needs must be met. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the help points that have been installed throughout the system and the other safety measures that have been introduced. They are all designed to try to reassure passengers that they are significantly safer travelling on the underground—as indeed they are—than they are in any other normal environment.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Although the Minister continues to promote the convenience of the private motor

      7
      car, he must be aware that the needs of public transport users, particularly women, go largely unmet. I wonder whether he would like to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to join me in a journey across either Peterborough or Cambridge with two children, a push chair and a heavy bag of shopping. He would then see how difficult it is for many women who use public transport.
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways: either she agrees with me or she does not. She seemed to suggest that she did not agree with me, but promptly went on to demonstrate that she did agree with me. The points that the hon. Lady has made are perfectly straightforward; that is why we are looking, for example, at introducing low floor buses, to ensure that buses are accessible not just to disabled people, but people travelling with young children or heavy bags of shopping. The measures are designed to make the transport system more efficient, effective and accessible both to vulnerable passengers and passengers generally.
      Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a reduction of no less than 40 per cent. in the number of violent crimes committed on London Underground in the past five years? Does he expect the safety and comfort of passengers to benefit from the investment in new trains on the Northern line and from the extension of the Jubilee line?
      Mr. Norris: I guarantee to my hon. Friend that, tomorrow, none of his comments will appear in any report of our proceedings despite the fact that they represent the kernel of the matter: the system is significantly safer than it has been for years. My hon. Friend is right to say that the new train stock to be deployed on the Northern line will offer us further opportunities to make the system even more secure and reliable in the future.
      Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that the safety of women travelling on London Underground, particularly those of my constituents who must travel up the Fenchurch Street line to get on to London Underground, is an important issue? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the criteria considered to determine who will get the franchise for the London-Tilbury-Southend line will include the safety of women?
      Mr. Norris: One of the most encouraging features of the forthcoming privatisation of train operators is the private sector's instant recognition that the security of potential passengers is absolutely paramount. It has recognised that passengers will not travel if they do not believe that they are safe. One of the most encouraging features of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others are having with train operators is those operators' recognition of the importance of the precise point that my hon. Friend has raised.
      Ms Walley: Does the Minister agree with the Opposition that as we celebrate International Women's Week, he should do more with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to put women's transport issues at the top of the agenda? The Minister has said an awful lot about his view of travelling with other people, commuters, in the middle of London. Would he like to feel what it is like to be a woman, concerned because many private hire vehicles are not yet properly regulated? Will he particularly explain why he has refused to look at the
      8
      proposal from the all-party Select Committee on Transport that people guilty of sex offences should be banned from driving either taxis or private hire vehicles?
      Mr. Norris: I shall pass over the first part of the hon. Lady's invitation for reasons of which I hope that you, Madam Speaker, would thoroughly approve. On the second half of the hon. Lady's question, I hope that she will tell her friends in the Transport and General Workers Union—who have incited taxi drivers to oppose the checking of minicab drivers for suitability on the ground that that somehow offers a spurious legitimacy to their activities—that they are wrong? I am grateful to her for her endorsement of our response to the Select Committee on Transport, when we recommended the very measures that she has outlined.

      Newbury Bypass
      Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the Newbury bypass.
      Dr. Mawhinney: As soon as possible.
      Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Newbury are holding their breath, waiting for the right decision to be made on that important issue? Is he further aware that they need to hold their breath to avoid breathing in the pollution in Newbury that is caused by continuous traffic jams? Does he agree that a road as important as the A34, which links the port of Southampton with the midlands, needs to be dualled throughout its length to give relief to the people of Newbury?
      Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point to the problems that occur around Newbury and the difficulties that they cause to residents of the town and surrounding areas. I have recognised the problem and said that it needs to be addressed—it will be as soon as we are confident of the appropriate and proper way forward.

      Red Routes
      Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with motoring organisations concerning red routes or similar schemes in London and other conurbations.
      Mr. Norris: We frequently discuss matters of common interest with representatives of motoring organisations. They were formally consulted on the proposals for red routes and the other measures contained in the Road Traffic Act 1991, and also subsequently on the composition of the red route network itself.
      Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that the power to stop vehicles should rest solely with the police? Does he further agree that the provisions in the London Local Authorities Bill, which give the same powers to private contractors for the purpose of emission testing, would set a dangerous precedent and impair the safety of motorists, passengers, and particularly lone women?
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the dangers of allowing people who are not properly trained to stop vehicles. The police have made that point and it should be given proper attention. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that more enforcement activity

      9
      is extremely desirable and we are, in future, likely to look to technology to help us in our enforcement efforts, as police resources are bound to be stretched.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I recognise the importance of good traffic management in reducing congestion and, thereby, pollution, what is my hon. Friend's Department doing to investigate oxygenated petrol? Since it was introduced in the United States in 1990, it has reduced by more than 95 per cent. the number of days on which clean air standards are subjugated. It is an important new innovation—will my hon. Friend look at it?
      Mr. Norris: I can confirm that my Department is looking at oxygenated petrol. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that some of the technical claims made for the fuel are still subject to confirmation by technical experts. I agree that it is, potentially, an important development.

      State Airlines
      Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that no further state subsidy is made available by member states to loss-making state airlines in the EEC.
      Dr. Mawhinney: It is already the Government's policy to oppose state aid in air transport which distorts competition.
      Mr. Steen: Since the losses in Air France last year were the equivalent of two thirds of the losses of all the airlines in the world and since France uses money to underscore and underpin its airline, but attacks British airlines by reducing fares and thus the profitability of English airlines, when the matter comes up in Europe will the Secretary of State tell the Europeans that enough is enough and that he will use his veto and say "Non" if the French want more subsidies?
      Dr. Mawhinney: This subject has already come up since I assumed my responsibility, when the Commission recommended that Air France should be the recipient of £2.4 billion of state aid. I took the view that that was a distortion of competition and that it disadvantaged the passenger. As a consequence, we are taking the Commission to the European Court. My hon. Friend should understand that that is a strong policy of Her Majesty's Government, from which we are unlikely to depart.

      Thames Riverboat Service
      Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about reintroducing the riverboat service on the Thames.
      Mr. Norris: I have received representations from a number of organisations who have expressed an interest in the operation of some type of commuter service on the Thames. Those proposals are at various stages of development.
      Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the most recent proposal is that from Transport on Water, suggested by the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and by others; that the core of the proposal is that there should
      10
      be a partnership between private provision and public provision; and that London is crying out for the Government to give the idea of a decent riverboat service, which can be used for commuters and visitors, a fair wind and real encouragement? Can he confirm that he supports that, and that he will do everything to ensure that the Department of Transport delivers that public sector support that is needed to ensure that it succeeds this time—that it floats, instead of sinking, as the past two initiatives did?
      Mr. Norris: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are keen that a viable proposal for passenger services on the Thames be established. I can confirm that I am very happy to consider carefully any proposal that is made to me in that respect.
      Naturally, there has been a limit to the amount of public subsidy that that type of service can attract, given that, at the height of its operations, River-Bus, for example, proposed to carry fewer people in a year than London Buses carries in any one day before about 9 o'clock in the morning, or London Underground carries in one day of its operations. With that important qualification, I am certainly very happy to do what I can to help.
      Sir Anthony Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems that River-Bus ran into was the lack of piers and jetties? Will he talk to the Port of London authority and persuade it to allow more landing stages?
      Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend may know, that problem was discussed in the deliberations of the Thames working group, which laid its report before Parliament a few weeks ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and at the time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, if the Department of Transport could help by encouraging more pier provision, it would be only too happy to do so. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that that it is an important part of the provision of any transport service.
      Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the Transport on Water study, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, has been drawn to the attention of four central London boroughs and the City of London, and that we are hoping that Transport on Water—the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and I are members of the working party—will institute a consortium to investigate the practicalities of the type of proposal described, especially the matching of public provision of piers and private provision of craft?
      Mr. Norris: I am delighted to hear of it. The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience of those matters. I know that he has spent many years researching several projects on the Thames, and for many years my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has been an assiduous supporter and follower of many of those projects. I am delighted that two such eminent colleagues are prepared to unite in preparing that proposal. I shall certainly give it every consideration when it reaches me.
      Mr. Dunn: If a scheme is finally proposed to re-introduce the River-Bus service on the River Thames, will my hon. Friend ensure that the community of Dartford is involved with such a scheme, given that there

      11
      would be a significant possibility of increasing access to London, for leisure and by commuters, if the scheme were to stop at Dartford?
      Mr. Norris: Again, I can say to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already expressed to me his wish to ascertain whether there may be prospects of a viable commuter service from places throughout my hon. Friend's constituency. There appears to be a considerable logic in removing passengers from the crowded road networks in those areas, apart from the creation of an attractive journey pattern into the centre of the City. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we will look to the private sector to bring forward the proposals, but that we stand ready to be as constructive as we can in every case.

      Rail Privatisation
      Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs were incurred by rail privatisation up to and including January 1995; and what are the projected costs to his Department until January 1996.
      Mr. Watts: The total cost of rail privatisation from 1991–92 until the end of January 1995 was £209 million, including costs of new financial and information systems. Estimated costs of the Department from February this year to January 1996 are £26 million. Projected figures are current estimates and exclude the main sale costs for the flotation of Railtrack, which are yet to be determined.
      Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he tell the House what percentage of that figure can be attributed to consultancy fees paid to firms which make financial contributions to the Conservative party?
      Mr. Watts: I have no knowledge of which consultancy firms make contributions to my party or to any other political party. As the hon. Lady knows from answers to earlier questions that she has tabled, the total expenditure on consultancy is £22.5 million, which is included in the total that I gave in reply to her initial question.
      Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend will know that the Calder Valley line is a most important east-west line and that my constituents look forward to rail privatisation. Will my hon. Friend spend whatever money is necessary to ensure that they receive fair and honest information about every aspect of privatisation?
      Mr. Watts: I agree that it is vital that people receive true, factual and honest information about rail privatisation. If they have that information, they will be as enthusiastic about it and about the benefits that it will bring to the travelling public and to freight users as my hon. Friend and I.
      Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the quarter of a billion pounds cost of preparing for privatisation that he quoted, it is also reported that the Secretary of State intends to write off £1.5 billion in debts as a sweetener in order to secure the sale of Railtrack? Is the Minister also aware that senior officers have been offered up to double their present salaries—up to six-figure levels, excluding additional share options—to secure their co-operation in the run-up to privatisation?
      12
      Is it not the ultimate absurdity that the cost to the public purse of selling off British Rail is now likely to exceed the total revenues from that sale? Does it not speak volumes for the Government that they can suddenly find billions of pounds to subsidise the privatisation programme when they have starved British Rail of desperately needed cash investment for years?
      Mr. Watts: Investment in railways is running at £1 billion this year, it is planned to be at £1 billion next year and it was at an all-time high of more than £1.5 billion very recently. I make £209 million rather less than a quarter of a billion pounds. As to the other figures which the hon. Gentleman adduced, we know how good he is at conjuring figures out of the air and how bad he is at substantiating any of them.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of privatisation is to remove burdens from the taxpayers so that the system will ultimately deliver benefits to them, as occurred with British Airways and with all of the other privatisations that have taken place? Instead of taking from the taxpayer, privatisation contributes benefits to the taxpayer.
      Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right to say that we wish to remove unnecessary burdens from the taxpayer. However, I remind him that we are planning to give the Franchising Director a budget of £1,800 million to secure the socially necessary services which the Opposition claim, quite falsely, will be abolished under privatisation.

      Low-floor Buses
      Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the transport industry about the introduction of low-floor buses in the past 12 months.
      Mr. Norris: My Department has had a number of discussions about the introduction of low-floor buses over the past 12 months with both the manufacturing and operating industries.
      Ms Lynne: There is no mention in the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill about access to transport vehicles. What time scale does the Minister envisage for bringing forward legislation to make buses and trains accessible to disabled people? Does he accept that deregulation of buses and the proposed privatisation of the railways could set back that process?
      Mr. Norris: As to the hon. Lady's latter point, I see privatisation as doing more to accelerate the provision of decent facilities for disabled people than anything that nationalisation has achieved over the past half century. On the hon. Lady's main point, we have concentrated on ensuring that European Community construction and use directives allow us to specify low-floor buses. That is exactly the right way to proceed, but that process will take time because the Commission must deliberate on the issue. Low-floor buses will bring significant advantages, which I welcome. Not only will they advantage the disabled and others but they can be financially profitable because they allow much faster loading times.

    DUCHY OF LANCASTER
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gordon Prentice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Perhaps the Opposition Whips will take note. I call Mrs. Jacqui Lait.
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER

      Public Services
      Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for further devolution of public services close to the users of services.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): Extensive plans—including the launch next week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and by me of a campaign for customers to nominate excellent services for the charter mark. That is an important way of giving people influence over the services that they receive.
      Mrs. Lait: I begin by expressing regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has resigned from a post that he graced with skill and good humour. I welcome my hon. Friend the new Minister to the Dispatch Box and to duties that I know that he will undertake with great ability. I thank him for his information about the charter mark. Can he assure me that Liberal-led East Sussex county council will not receive a charter mark until it changes its policy and encourages schools to become grant-maintained? Does my hon. Friend agree that only through organisations such as grant-maintained schools and health trusts can public services be delivered closer to those who use them?
      Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I also pay tribute to the commitment and humour of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who will he much missed. My hon. Friend is right and makes well the point that grant-maintained schools are the epitome of the devolution that we are talking about. If East Sussex county council would pay more attention to that prospect, it would make much greater progress than clearly it has done.
      Mr. Henderson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. The last time that he held office, it was for a term of three years. The people of Gateshead were terribly disappointed when the Conservative party was removed from office and the hon. Gentleman had to switch sides. The people of Gateshead may be less disappointed on this occasion, if he holds office for fewer than three years.
      I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to have fully mastered his brief in the way that his predecessor did, but he told the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) that the Government are intent on devolving power to local people and gave a couple of examples. Is that not a travesty of what is actually occurring in the delivery of public services? Is not ours the most quangoised and centralised society in Europe? Health services, training, economic development and, increasingly, education are delivered by quango. Is it not ironic that at a time when public support for the Government is so low, they have had to advertise for Tory worthies to serve on quangos, to do their dirty work?
      Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are absurd. The fact is that the number of quangos has declined by 36 per cent. Secondly, the actual services are
      14
      delivered by grant-maintained schools and by GP fundholders—precisely the sort of small organic organisations that we need to run services successfully, and infinitely preferable to the large bureaucratic organisations that flourished under the fiat of Opposition Members.

      Ministers (Performance)
      Mr. Dowd: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to impose minimum performance standards on Ministers with regard to replies to hon. Members' correspondence.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Ministers always do their best to reply to all ministerial correspondence in as short a time as possible.
      Mr. Dowd: I am sure that the Minister must be aware that all hon. Members have to deal with a wide variety of public sector organisations and departments, nearly all of which have set down some sort of minimum time in which we can expect a response of them. Lewisham council, for instance, will reply—this applies to any department—within 10 working days. The great exception is of course the Government, Ministers and the Departments for which they are immediately responsible. I do not doubt that people try their best, but is it not slightly hypocritical of the Government to refuse to impose on themselves standards that they freely inflict on everyone else?
      Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of the detailed targets, set out by Ministers and reported on to this House, covering the number of working days within which correspondence will be answered. All Departments have those ministerially agreed targets, and their performance against them is monitored centrally, the results being published in the Official Report.
      Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving response times is very much part of the citizens charter initiative?
      Mr. Hunt: Yes, I completely agree. It has been part of the charter philosophy that people should be entitled to have their correspondence dealt with within a reasonable period. When I was Secretary of State for Employment, I took pride in the fact that the Employment Service met some testing targets for responding to correspondence. I applaud it for what it did and for what many other public organisations are now doing as a result.

      Civil Service
      Mr. RobathanTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in encouraging individuals with relevant outside experience to apply for senior positions in the civil service.
      Mr. Horam: We have doubled the number of recruits in two years.
      Mr. Robathan: I join others in welcoming my hon. Friend back to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome his response. I welcome, too, the programme of cross-fertilisation of quality as between the civil service

      15
      and the private sector; but will my hon. Friend ensure that it does not undermine the morale and high quality of our excellent civil service?
      Mr. Horam: I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with the Army. I have no more wish to undermine the morale and high quality of the civil service than I have to harm the Army. I assure my hon. Friend that we have that at the forefront of our minds when implementing the measures that we have adopted, which are in other respects very valuable.
      Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I sympathise with his predicament? Having started off with such high hopes in this House, as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, he ends up as a junior Minister in the most discredited Government of this century.
      The Minister will be aware of the convention, in the run-up to a general election, that it is usual to consult the Opposition about certain senior appointments in the civil service. That convention has always been honoured. Should it not now, however, be applied when senior appointments of persons outside the civil service are being made—even though a general election may not be immediately imminent? In particular, should it not also be applied to the appointment of senior civil service commissioners?
      Mr. Horam: We shall always consider reasonable requests. The hon. Gentleman knows that the composition of the senior appointments selection board is open and known. We would certainly take account of any reflections that he may have on it.

      Cabinet Committees
      Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those Cabinet committees of which he is currently chairman.
      Mr. David Hunt: A full list is in the Library of the House.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Chancellor tell us how many times the committee on women's issues has met in the past three months? Can he give us three examples of subject matters that the committee is examining?
      Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has never been the practice for Governments to publish details of the subjects discussed in Cabinet or in Cabinet committees, but we shall have an opportunity in the course of tomorrow's debate to outline the many successful initiatives that the Government have taken. I shall supply the usual information, but not the information that the hon. Gentleman requests, which has never been supplied.

      Science
      Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about science week.
      Mr. Horam: The national week of science, engineering and technology—SET 95—will begin on Friday 17
      16
      March. There will be more than 3,000 events in every part of the United Kingdom—twice as many as last year. I expect it to be a great success.
      Mr. Marshall: I join with those who have congratulated my hon. Friend on his promotion. May I ask him in turn to congratulate Christ's college in my constituency on its ingenuity in finding a project that has won the support of the Sir John Cass foundation and local firms and at the same time has given children the excitement that comes with practical problem solving?
      Mr. Horam: Yes, I am happy to congratulate Christ's college in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know from my experience in Orpington, where a similar week was held by the Priory school, of the sheer enthusiasm of young people when they are exposed to engineering, talent and people coming in from outside and arousing that instinct that we used to develop. That is the essence of the SET week.
      Mr. Miller: I welcome the Minister to his position on the Government Front Bench. I hope that he now has some sympathy with those Government laboratories that are being market-tested. That is surely what is happening to him.
      In the light of the national week of science, engineering and technology, does the Minister agree that while the British Association has done remarkably well in developing the programme, there has been a disappointing response from the private sector? Will he, in time for future years of national science weeks—that is, if the Government are in office—ensure that there are urgent consultations with the science-based private sector organisations that ought to have participated in this year's exercise?
      Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but at the same time, I am slightly surprised. Why are there twice as many events as there were last year? I shall examine his point most carefully. We shall make every effort to encourage private sector organisations.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to increase public awareness of the importance of science.
      Mr. David Hunt: I attach the greatest importance to increasing public awareness of science, engineering and technology.
      Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend will know that my qualifications are in science. Does he agree that one of the reasons why young people are put off pursuing science as a career is that it is a harder subject than arts at school? An equal deterrent is the widespread and erroneous belief that the only career for scientists is in laboratories. With that in mind, will he tell me how much he proposes to spend in promoting science, and public awareness of it?
      Mr. Hunt: First, I have much sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend has raised. We must ensure that we make the prospect of science education as exciting as possible so that youngsters can see the opportunities that lie ahead in science, engineering and technology.

      17
      Secondly, we have decided to increase the public understanding budget within the science budget by 25 per cent. for the coming year, to £1.25 million.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given that flat-screen television technology has huge potential implications for the balance of payments of the United Kingdom, should its development be left to the marketplace?
      Mr. Hunt: I have, on several occasions, referred to what I describe as the development gap, which I define as meaning a gap between a good research idea and a marketable product. We must find better ways of overcoming that gap.
      A great deal of work has been done in our universities and research institutions on television technology. That work has been carried forward by many firms within the United Kingdom.

      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Japanese.
      Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position, "Japanese." When I was Secretary of State for Wales, I took great pride in the fact that Sony had decided to establish its European headquarters for colour televisions within Wales.
      Mr. Hawkins: Further to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial for science education to be supported to the hilt? Does he agree in particular that steps should be taken to ensure that public awareness of science includes an escape from the so-called "mad professor" syndrome? Children should be encouraged to think of science as a serious career, and it should be promoted especially among girls, as there has been a disappointing tendency to reduce the number of girls studying science subjects at A-level and university. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that science is promoted as a serious subject among schoolchildren of both sexes?
      Mr. Hunt: I agree that it is very important to highlight the opportunities for both boys and girls not only to obtain science education at school but to pursue science as a career. We have established a special unit in the Office of Science and Technology to promote greater opportunity for women in science, engineering and technology. It is important to ensure that the opportunity of a career in science is available to young women, and we are determined to achieve that.

      Funding Priorities
      Ms Lynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent discussions he has had with the Office of Science and Technology about its funding priorities.
      Mr. Horam: Many and continuing.
      Ms Lynne: I am delighted to hear that, because the Minister's predecessor said that it was no responsibility of his to discuss funding with the Office of Science and Technology or with the Medical Research Council. Perhaps the Minister will now look at my previous
      18
      questions about breast cancer research and research into aids for disabled people, and perhaps I can he given a fuller answer than his predecessor gave me.
      Mr. Horam: I am aware of the hon. Lady's continuing interest in those matters, and I well understand her sincere concern. I shall study her questions carefully. Let me repeat that, as the hon. Lady knows, such issues are decided on merit; but I shall take into account what she has said.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: A moment ago, the Chancellor referred to the development gap that appears to have mysteriously evolved between basic science and what is industrially applicable. Is that not the same as something called "near-market research", funds for which were slashed by Lady Thatcher in the last Conservative Government?
      Mr. Horam: That is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade.

      Next Steps Agencies
      Mr. Couchman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of civil servants are now employed in next steps agencies; and what the figure was two years ago.
      Mr. David Hunt: Sixty-two per cent., whereas it was 51 per cent. two years ago.
      Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Public Accounts Committee's concern that the high standards of service and probity that have always been symbolic of our civil service should be maintained in the next steps agencies and other non-departmental public bodies. Will he assure the House that he will keep a close watch on probity and integrity in the public service, whether in the civil service itself or in the next steps agencies?
      Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will. I was very pleased not only by the point made by the Public Accounts Committee, but by what was said in the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. That Committee said:
      "We share the Government's view that the Next Steps reforms are in principle compatible with the maintenance of the traditional values of the Civil Service."
      Those traditional values—impartiality, integrity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability—are extremely valuable. We are arranging for a new handbook to be issued to all agency chief executives, to ensure that service-wide rules on conduct and financial propriety are always available in readily accessible form.
      Ms Eagle: Would the Chancellor care to comment on stories that the chief executive of the Prison Service agency was not the first choice for the job? That would not have happened if the traditions of the civil service had been upheld. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell us precisely how the appointment was made?
      Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady should refrain from peddling scurrilous stories in the Chamber. She should concentrate on the fact that the next steps agencies have been a remarkable success, and on the fact that we have been able to find some extremely good people to lead them, not only in the civil service but outside it.

      Information Super-highway
      Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to help with the introduction and use of the information super-highway.
      Mr. Horam: We are leading and co-ordinating its use by Government Departments, stimulating public discussion on super-highway issues and, at an international level, leading a G7 pilot project on "Government on-line".
      Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his journey from highways to super-highways and thank him
      20
      for his answer about the Government's involvement in the Internet and on using that technology. Has he seen the report that came out of the G7 conference? The first two points that it suggested were dynamic competition and private investment in the Internet. Does he feel that the Government's role is to be an enthusiastic customer of that technology so that they give the encouragement for the investment that we need from private industry to get in and provide the networks?
      Mr. Horam: Yes, I entirely take the point that my hon. Friend made. The Government should be a demonstrator of the value of the Internet. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, when I walked into my office this morning, I noticed that I could call up the Internet on my PC. I was also pleased by that.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday last, the Chancellor made a statement to the House, following the collapse of Barings bank. On Friday, on the BBC, he was good enough to say that he had withheld certain details when he made his statement.
In the light of what has happened over the past week, especially the concerns over the role of the Bank of England in the affair, and as the takeover is now going ahead—bonuses are being paid, although the position of the investors and depositors is not yet clear—I wonder whether there is any mechanism whereby the Chancellor is required to come back to the House to explain what he meant when he said that he had not revealed the whole story to us? I understand that he is reluctant to make a statement, for reasons that we can understand, but it cannot he satisfactory that the Chancellor does not tell the House the whole story when he makes a statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I shall deal with this point of order first, thank you.
As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I have no authority to require any Minister to come and make a statement. The hon. Gentleman has some ingenuity and I am sure that he will find ways in the course of our proceedings or through the Order Paper to get the Government to come forward if he wishes further statements to be made or on any point of clarification.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On that matter, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: No, there is no further point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a related matter, Madam Speaker. When the Chancellor made his statement last week, he did not say that the Bank of England might be responsible for actions of which it now stands accused by the Singapore authorities. Would you be prepared to show some flexibility in deciding what questions can be tabled, because I have a whole series of questions that I want to table about the actions of the Bank of England, but am concerned that when I seek to table them I will be told by the Clerks that I cannot do so because those questions are the subject of the inquiry that has been ordered by the Chancellor and are covered by the statement that was made at the Dispatch Box last week? All that I am asking
22
is that we he permitted to ask questions freely and that there is no rule to allow the Clerks to hide behind the statement of last Monday.
Madam Speaker: I must make it quite clear that the Clerks of the House hide behind no statements. They are available to help any hon. Member from any part of the House, and they do so willingly. The hon. Gentleman's point is somewhat hypothetical, but I understand his concerns. I am certainly not going to give a ruling about it, but perhaps he will attempt to table his questions and we shall see where we go from there.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which a statement can be made by the appropriate Minister, not necessarily the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it has now been discovered that, over the years, Barings bank allocated more than £700,000 to Tory party coffers? On the basis of that evidence and the collapse of the bank, I believe that the public demand a statement from the appropriate Minister so that we can question what has happened to that money and whether it should be paid back.
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a little earlier.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that, three years ago, there was a frightening accident that involved many of my constituents and in which 108 people were injured in the Severn tunnel. You may he aware, too, that, three years on, the local fire brigade in Gwent has said that the safety improvements that it called for in the tunnel have not been carried out. Have you had any request from the Department of Transport to make a statement on this alarming situation?
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from the Secretary of State for Transport or from any of his Ministers to make a statement on that matter.
Mr. Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have seen, as I did, in this morning's press articles saying that the advisers who originally advocated the programme of hospital bed closures in London have now changed their minds and have acknowledged that that is extremely damaging. Have you had any word from the Secretary of State for Health to the effect that she intends to announce that she has changed her mind as well?
Madam Speaker: Let me make it clear to all hon. Members who wish to know whether a statement is to be made today that none will he made today. If any were to be made news to that effect would be put on the annunciator by 1 o'clock. We shall now proceed with the business of the House.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Appeal Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the whole House will agree, any miscarriage of justice is a serious matter, not only for the person wrongly convicted, but for all of us, because it affects public confidence in the criminal justice system. We share a common interest in ensuring that our system is the best we can provide, that it contains all the necessary safeguards to minimise the possibility of a wrongful conviction, the most effective appeals procedures that we can devise, and the best machinery for investigating possible miscarriages of justice.
  We have done a great deal in recent years to improve the operation of the criminal justice system. Measures range from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, from the tape recording of interviews with suspects to the establishment of the first comprehensive national DNA database anywhere in the world, and from improvements in police training to the great strides made in forensic science. Major advances have been made in the fight against crime and in protecting the public.
  The Bill represents the next step. It will create the new and independent arrangements for identifying possible miscarriages of justice, and it will reinforce and extend the powers of the courts in criminal appeals. In so doing, it implements some of the key recommendations made by the Royal Commission on criminal justice in July 1993.
  My current powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal as a last resort have been in place since the turn of the century. They have served us well in the past, but there is now universal agreement that a fresh approach is needed. In particular, we need a new investigative body that is constitutionally separate from, and visibly independent of, both Government and the courts. We also need to clarify and strengthen the powers of the Court of Appeal to identify and resolve doubtful cases at the earliest opportunity. The Bill fulfils those aims.
  I make no apology for refusing to rush into legislation. The Bill contains the most significant changes to the structure of our criminal appeals system for almost 30 years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I thought it right and necessary to consult in detail about our proposals, and we have benefited greatly from the opinions and advice of many who work in the criminal justice system and beyond.
  The Bill is in three main parts. Part I clarifies and strengthens the powers of the respective courts of appeal in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. Part II establishes the new criminal cases review commission. The two parts are, of course, closely linked. Part III extends the powers of magistrates courts to reopen cases to rectify mistakes.
  The commission will examine cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and decide whether to refer them to the courts in the respective jurisdictions. It will be
  24
  independent, accessible and open. It will have strong investigative powers, and it will be well resourced. Between them, its members will bring to bear a wide range of qualifications and experience. They will need all those, because the task that they face is difficult and complex.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What is the Home Secretary's most up-to-date assessment of the number of cases that the new body will deal with in the first year? Will he confirm that it will not balk at any conviction as long as the person concerned is still alive?
  Mr. Howard: It will have to take into account the criteria that are set out in the Bill. As I shall shortly say, we have made an assumption about the number of cases that the new body will deal with in its first year. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall explain precisely what the assumption is.
  The final decision on any case which is referred will rest either with the relevant Court of Appeal—if the case was tried originally on indictment—or with the Crown court, or the county court in Northern Ireland, following a referral in a summary case. The courts will therefore continue to be responsible for determining all appeals whether made to them direct or on referral by the commission. That is the right approach; matters of guilt and innocence are properly for the courts to determine.
  I come now to the detail of the Bill. All the provisions in part I either respond to the recommendations of the royal commission or else improve the operation of the Court of Appeal in other ways.
  The Bill places appeals against conviction on a point of law on the same footing as other appeals against conviction and sentence. Leave to appeal will be required in such cases except where the trial judge has certified the case as fit for appeal. That will provide a filter mechanism for appeals on a ground of law which are obviously without merit.
  The Bill clarifies the grounds for allowing and dismissing an appeal. The present formula involves three overlapping grounds and is widely felt to cause confusion. Under the Bill, the Court of Appeal will allow any appeal where it considers the conviction unsafe and will dismiss it in any other case. That simple test clarifies the terms of the existing law. In substance, it restates the existing practice of the Court of Appeal and I am pleased to note that the Lord Chief Justice has already welcomed it.
  Mr. Jack Straw: As the Home Secretary will know, the royal commission suggested a rather different test—that the conviction should be set aside if it is or may be unsafe. The test in the Bill is that it is unsafe. It appears to Justice and others that that may be a much more narrow and restrictive test than the royal commission had in mind. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House his observations on that?
  Mr. Howard: The test in the Bill is the result of our consideration of the matter in the light of the consultation exercise. It is a simple test, a straightforward test and, I believe, an easily understandable test. As I said, the Lord Chief Justice has already welcomed it. That is why we have opted for the test in the Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's point will be the subject of detailed consideration in Standing Committee.

  25
  The Bill also lowers the threshold for the admission of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal along the lines recommended by the royal commission, and provides a means of beginning or continuing an appeal on behalf of a person who has died.
  The respective Courts of Appeal in England and Wales and Northern Ireland will also be able to direct the new commission to investigate certain matters relating to an appeal before the court and to report their findings to the court. I think that that power will rarely be needed, but it is there for the exceptional case and it is an important addition to the court's powers to remedy wrongful convictions.
  Part II of the Bill establishes the criminal cases review commission with powers to investigate possible miscarriages of justice and refer appropriate cases back to the courts. It will he able to refer a case on grounds of conviction or sentence or both, as I may already do at present; and it will be possible for the first time to make referrals in summary cases.
  The commission will be independent both of the Government and the courts, with members appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. There will be a chairman and a minimum of 10 other members. At least one third of the members at any one time will he legally qualified and at least two thirds will have relevant experience of the criminal justice system. All appointments will be made on the basis of the particular experience, expertise and other abilities that the applicant will bring to the work in hand.
  All the posts on the board of the commission, including that of chairman, will be advertised publicly. We want the best candidates for the job and we think that this is the best means of ensuring that.
  We have provided sufficient resources to enable the commission to deal with its expected case load as swiftly and effectively as possible. We have assumed that it may receive, at least initially, at least twice as many representations as come to the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office at present. The commission will need to employ up to 60 staff, which is about three times the number currently engaged in such work within my Department and the Northern Ireland Office. Although the recruitment of its staff will be a matter for the commission, we expect that its staff will reflect the broad mix of legal, investigative and administrative skills and experience needed to do work of this sort. As with the posts of the members, those of the commission's staff will be filled by open competition following advertisement.
  As Home Secretary, I will remain responsible for the law under which the commission will operate, but I will take no part in its day-to-day decisions and administration—those will be matters for the commission. The Bill does require the commission to keep proper accounts and to submit an annual report to me. I will lay that before Parliament. The accounts will also he laid before the House following their audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  At present, the only means at my disposal and at the disposal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for correcting a miscarriage of justice in a summary case is to recommend to Her Majesty that she grant a free pardon under the royal prerogative of mercy. But although a free pardon removes the effect of the punishment, it is clearly unsatisfactory that it does not quash or reverse the conviction. That is
  26
  something that only the courts can do. The Bill therefore provides for the first time for summary convictions, following investigation, to be referred to the Crown court in England and Wales and to the county courts in Northern Ireland respectively.
  Most miscarriages in summary cases are straightforward. They do not require detailed investigation of the sort that the commission will undertake before referring any case to the courts. The Bill therefore provides a simpler remedy for the straightforward case. It extends the existing powers of magistrates courts in England and Wales to reopen cases to rectify earlier errors where that would be in the interests of justice, irrespective of the plea entered at trial. The Bill makes comparable provision for Northern Ireland. That is an entirely new power for the Province.
  In view of the changes that will be made as a result of the Bill, we have also considered whether the royal prerogative of mercy should continue to be available in conviction cases. Like the royal commission, we have concluded that it will still be needed for the very exceptional case—but only the very exceptional case. For example, it will still be needed where there is new evidence which, for some reason, is inadmissible.
  The decision as to whether I should recommend the exercise of the prerogative in relation to any conviction usually necessitates some investigation of the facts of the case. The Bill therefore gives me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland power to refer any matters requiring investigation to the commission. That will ensure that any inquiries needed will be undertaken by a body empowered and resourced to consider possible miscarriages of justice.
  It is vital to the success of the new arrangements that Ministers are not seen as an alternative to the commission or as a court of appeal from its decisions. The new power enables Ministers, in reaching a decision on the exercise of the prerogative in relation to a conviction, to rely on the results of any investigations already undertaken by the commission and, where inquiries may be needed, to ensure that the commission has the opportunity to fulfil its proper function, thus obviating the need for any separate investigations to be carried out under the auspices of Ministers.
  The Bill gives the commission all the powers that it needs to carry out its investigations effectively and thoroughly.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a moment, he will find that I am about to deal with the points that I anticipate he is going to raise.
  The commission will be able to obtain the assistance of police forces and other bodies by requiring them to appoint an investigating officer to make inquiries on its behalf, in accordance with its directions and, if necessary, under its supervision; it will be able to require the appointment of an investigating officer from a different police force from that which investigated the crime originally; it will be able to insist that it approves the choice of the officer appointed before an investigation takes place; it will be able to commission its own expert opinions and tests; and it will have power to obtain access to documents held by police forces and other bodies.

  27
  The commission will also be able to obtain relevant papers and other material held by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a consequence of our having considered possible miscarriages of justice cases under our existing powers. It is clear from this that the commission will initiate and take responsibility for any investigations undertaken on its behalf by the police and other public bodies.
  We believe that, in the majority of cases, the commission must have access to the knowledge, expertise and other resources of the police. Indeed, we think we would be doing the cause of justice a gross disservice if we denied the commission access to the wealth of expertise available in police forces. I am aware of the concerns expressed on this point by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. Mullin: And by one or two others.
  Mr. Howard: Plainly, one or two others. The hon. Gentleman believes—
  Mr. Mullin rose—
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue for a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman believes that the use of the police in the manner that I have proposed is a fatal flaw in the new arrangements. He says that it flies in the face of almost all the advice that I have received. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work over the years as a standard bearer for the cause of those who have been wrongly convicted, but I must take issue with him on this point.
  The Government's proposals do not run counter to all the received advice—far from it. They are in line with the royal commission's recommendations. Indeed, the royal commission concluded that there was "no practicable alternative" to the commission using the police, given
  "the size and scope of the inquiries"
  needed in miscarriage cases. Most of those who have responded to our consultation papers on this point, including Viscount Runciman, the chairman of the royal commission, the Police Complaints Authority, the Bar Council and the Justices' Clerks Society, as well as the representatives of the police services, agreed that the new body should be able to commission investigations from the police.
  Many of the best-known cases in recent years came to notice through the efforts of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and others. Each, crucially, required thorough police investigation to uncover the evidence on which the cases were referred and the convictions quashed. The cases of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Darvell brothers, who were convicted of the murder of a Swansea sex shop manageress in 1986, and Stefan Kiszko are all examples of referrals following patient, thorough police work.
  The Bill requires the commission to be satisfied before making a reference that there is some new element, whether argument or evidence—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend not shut his mind to the fact that there is a body of young, retired police officers who do not have
  28
  a great deal of future, as the system presently operates, within the criminal justice system, in which they have massive expertise? Would he consider the possibility of having a panel of retired police officers, which might go some way towards answering the concerns of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) because the people concerned would not be serving members in a police force? They could, nevertheless, deploy their expertise in the taking of statements and the investigation of possible miscarriages of justice and, thereby, continue to make a contribution to the criminal justice system when, in all other circumstances, they would have to seek fresh pastures elsewhere. That might also relieve the pressure on police forces.
  Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend will be considered in Committee. I cannot pretend that I am immediately attracted to it. I confess that I think that the natural people to whom the commission will want to turn, having regard to the fact that the commission will have the power to direct and supervise closely the investigations that are conducted on its behalf, will be the police.
  I do not accept that there is anything unsatisfactory about the police carrying out these investigations. I have already said that they are entitled to the credit for the investigations that have been carried out in the past. It will, of course, be possible, as I have said, for the commission to go to a different force. I am not immediately attracted by the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence). No doubt it can be considered further in detail in Committee.
  Mr. Mullin rose—
  Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
  Mr. Howard: I should give way first to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
  Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary accept that no one is suggesting that all investigations should be kept away from the police? What people are suggesting—and just about everybody who has first-hand experience of dealing with miscarriages of justice suggests this—is that the commission should have a reserve power which would enable it to order investigations by people who were not police officers if it appeared that the police were not trying hard enough. I am sorry to say that in some of these cases, that has been so. Cardinal Hume, in a letter to The Times today, which I am sure the Home Secretary has seen, makes precisely that suggestion. Will the Home Secretary respond to that?
  Mr. Howard: Yes, I have read the cardinal's letter. He suggests that the powers available to the commission to direct and supervise inquiries carried out in such cases are unduly limited. I very much hope that he will reconsider that view when he has had more of an opportunity to study the terms of the Bill, because the key to the matter is that there are no sensible limits on the power of the commission to direct and supervise the inquiries that are carried out on its behalf. The answer to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is to be found in that power of direction and supervision.

  29
  I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the police have been dilatory in the past. Whether or not that is the case—it is not an argument that we need to get into this afternoon—the new body will have available to it powers of direction and supervision, and will have available on its staff those whose expertise and experience it needs to ensure that the powers are used effectively so that the necessary investigations carried out on its behalf are thorough, expeditious and effective. We must look to those powers to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Miller: The Home Secretary will be aware of a dilemma in a particular case, because we have corresponded about it. I will not mention it in detail, because it would be improper to do so at this stage, but the investigating authorities have changed several times during the investigation. Police officers have retired in mid-stream and other changes have occurred which have caused a great deal of consternation in that case. Will he assure the House that the powers of appointment, which he envisages being vested with the new commission, will be used to ensure that the police officers appointed to a case, according to his model of the authority, will be in place for the duration of an inquiry and under the sole control of the commission?
  Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is not always possible to predict the retirement of police officers. It is not always possible to predict that a police officer appointed from the best of motives and with the best intentions, on the basis that he will deal with a particular inquiry for its duration, will continue to be available to do that. Life is, by its very nature, unpredictable.
  Subject to that, I see no reason why the commission, when discussing with a chief constable the arrangements to be made for carrying out a particular investigation, should not seek assurances that the chief constable will use his best endeavours to choose officers who will be available for the duration of the investigation to obviate the kind of difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  The Bill requires the commission to be satisfied before making a reference that there is some new element, whether argument or evidence in conviction cases, or argument on a point of law or information in sentence cases, which the courts have not previously considered and which gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld by the relevant court. That is a broad and sensible criterion. It clearly defines the boundaries between the commission's functions and that of the courts. There is no purpose in the commission referring a case where there is nothing new for the courts to consider—indeed, it would be unhelpful if the legislation appeared to leave that possibility open.
  The commission will give its reasons to the courts for referring the case, but that will not amount to a recommendation on the merits of the resulting appeal. As I have already said, it is for the courts to decide whether any appeal is to be allowed or dismissed.
  We agree with the royal commission that those seeking a review of their case by the commission should be kept properly informed of the progress of any investigation into their case, and that they should be given a full and reasoned explanation of any decision not to refer their
  30
  case to the courts. The Bill therefore provides for the commission to give a statement of its reasons to the court when referring a case, which it will copy to the parties to the resulting appeal, and its reasons to the convicted person when it decides not to refer. Subject to the need to preserve confidentiality, the commission will be able to keep applicants informed of the progress made in investigating their cases and to disclose information to them so that, in the interests of fairness, they can make further representations to the commission in the light of any matters found.
  Investigating possible miscarriages of justice can raise sensitive issues, which need careful handling. The Bill therefore makes it an offence for a member of the commission or one of its staff or an investigating officer to disclose any information gathered by the commission in the course of its activities, save in the circumstances set out in the Bill. The gateways provided in the Bill are sufficient to enable the commission to disclose relevant information in the way that I set out earlier.
  The public are rightly concerned about the quality of criminal justice. They demand a system which is effective in every respect and in which they can have confidence—confidence in relation to justice for victims, justice for defendants and justice for society. The Government will not shrink from their duty to provide what the public rightly expect. Our strategy is ambitious and far reaching, and it is broad. It is both careful and valuable. It is concerned with safeguards for the innocent, as well as with the apprehension and punishment of the guilty.
  The Bill is of the greatest importance in promoting the aim of a criminal justice system which is strong, effective and fair, and in which the guilty are justly punished and the innocent have nothing to fear. I think that it will be widely welcomed and I commend it to the House.
  4 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: The Labour party supports the Bill and will give it an unopposed Second Reading tonight. However, as I shall explain, we have serious reservations about some of its aspects, particularly those relating to the form of investigation undertaken by the proposed commission. We shall pursue those reservations in detail in Committee and on Report.
  The Bill's central proposal, for a criminal cases review commission the better to investigate miscarriages of justice, formed one of the key sets of recommendations of the royal commission on criminal justice, which reported in June 1993. Although the terms of reference were wide, the royal commission owed its very establishment to mounting public concern about the ability of the criminal justice system to secure justice for the Birmingham Six and, before them, the Guildford Four and the Maguires.
  The royal commission was, commendably, appointed by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who I see is in his place today, on the day the Court of Appeal quashed the sentences of the Birmingham Six, who had been convicted of murder following bomb explosions in public houses in Birmingham in November 1974 and had served more than 16 years in prison for crimes that the Court of Appeal finally found that they had not committed.

  31
  Although the number of miscarriages of justice is a tiny proportion of the total number of criminal cases processed in any one year, the effect of such miscarriages on public confidence is huge. On the issue of public confidence, the royal commission said:
  "The widely publicised miscarriages of justice which have occurred in recent years have created a need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. That need has not diminished since we were appointed. In addition to the terrorist cases where the convictions were quashed in 1990 and 1991, there has been since our appointment a fourth such case (Judith Ward) where the conviction was quashed in 1992. There has also been a number of cases not connected with terrorism, the most notable examples being those of the Broadwater Farm Three, Stefan Kiszko, and the Cardiff Three. We are particularly concerned that the last occurred after the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its related codes of practice."
  The royal commission continued:
  "the damage done by the minority of cases in which the system is seen to have failed is out of all proportion to their number. The maintenance of law and order is critically dependent on public goodwill, not only in the need for the law as such to command general assent but in the dependence of the police, whose duty it is to enforce the law, on the willingness of individual citizens to cooperate with them. The proportion of crimes solved by the police without help of any kind from members of the public is negligible, and the ability of the police to perform their function is impaired twice over if victims and witnesses are unwilling to give evidence in court because they no longer believe that trials are conducted fairly."
  A miscarriage of justice involves the conviction, and usually imprisonment, of the innocent, but it also involves the escape of the guilty. Those who committed the outrages in Guildford and Birmingham have not spent one day in prison for those crimes. However, in any fair system of criminal justice, the burden of proof must be weighted in favour of the accused because of the extreme consequence to an individual and his or her family of a wrongful conviction.
  I have nowhere read a better description of the peril of miscarriage of justice than that given by the parliamentary ombudsman in the Preece case. He said:
  "A miscarriage of justice by which a man or a woman loses his or her liberty is one of the gravest matters which can occupy the attention of a civilised society. And it seems to me that when an unprecedented pollution of justice at its source is discovered, quite an exceptional effort to identify and remedy its consequences is called for."
  From 1907 until the Bill before us, the source of that exceptional effort to identify and remedy each miscarriage of justice has been the Home Secretary, acting on the advice of officials. Over time, and under pressure from Committees of the House and groups outside the House, such as Justice and the National Council for Civil Liberties, those powers of the Home Secretary and the parallel powers of the Court of Appeal have been widened a little.
  None the less, as Sir John May noted in his report on the Maguire case, officials and Ministers have consistently adopted strict self-imposed limits on their discretion to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal. Sir John May said at paragraph 10.7:
  "However, there is no doubt that the criterion so defined was a limiting one and has resulted in responsible officials within the Home Office taking a substantially restricted view of cases to which their attention has been drawn, as it was in the case of the Maguires. The very nature and terms of the self imposed limits on the Home Secretary's power to refer cases have led the Home Office only to
  32
  respond to the representations which have been made to it in relation to particular convictions rather than to carry out its own investigations into the circumstances of a particular case or the evidence given at trial. As it was expressed to me on a number of occasions in the course of the evidence the approach of the Home Office was throughout reactive, it was never thought proper for the Department to become proactive".
  Although that attitude is understandable, given the importance of the separation of the judicial process from political decision making, it has led to a number of miscarriages—no one knows what the total might be—escaping the net. It was the feeling that the current system had fundamental flaws which led the law reform group, Justice, in 1968 to recommend independent machinery similar to, although not the same as, that now proposed in the Bill.
  That proposal by Justice was followed by the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee report in 1982, recommending independent machinery similar to that contained in the Bill— recommendations which, sadly, were rejected by the Government of the time.
  In 1988, Sir John Farr, a former distinguished Conservative Member of the House, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), moved amendments to give effect to the 1982 proposals of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Sad to say, those were rejected at that time on behalf of the Government by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten).
  The fact that it has taken more than 20 years' pressure and the incarceration of some innocent people for almost as long a period to persuade Ministers and their advisers of the need for change will, I hope, lead to some humility and cause the same Ministers and advisers to be ready to listen to some important criticisms that we and others have to make of the Bill's scheme of operation.
  By their nature, miscarriages of justice arise when there is a failure by police and prosecuting lawyers or by defence lawyers. Those miscarriages have often been compounded by failures in the existing official and ministerial system for considering allegations and referring them to the Court of Appeal.
  The Bill clearly recognises the unsuitability of having Ministers make not just so-called quasi-judicial decisions but almost wholly judicial decisions on referrals. That position is remedied by transferring that power to the new commission. The Bill also implicitly recognises that it would be inappropriate for those directly responsible for the prosecution process to be involved in judging whether that process has operated properly in specific cases, or whether it has contributed prima facie to a miscarriage of justice. At no stage, therefore, in the Bill's scheme are the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service given any role to investigate failings by prosecuting lawyers, even if it could be argued that CPS staff are more likely to be au fait with that prosecuting process.
  The Bill establishes a new separation of powers in respect both of Ministers and of prosecuting lawyers. In commendably achieving that separation of powers, there is no implication that the public no longer have confidence in Ministers or lawyers to make fair-minded decisions. However, there is a strong implication that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done and that a clear separation of powers, visible and transparent, is therefore required.

  33
  The Home Secretary made that point in his speech commending the Bill to the House when he said that the commission will be
  "constitutionally separate from and visibly independent of Government and the courts".
  That is entirely correct, but I find it difficult to understand why the Home Secretary expresses with such clarity the need for that body to be visibly independent from the courts and from Ministers but does not apply the same clarity when it comes to the need for it to be visibly independent from the police.
  There is no clear separation of powers when it comes to the role of the police in investigating alleged miscarriages of justiceBill—notwithstanding the fact that a high proportion of serious miscarriages of justice are likely to involve the police and may include anything from an innocent misjudgment on their part about the credibility of a key witness to serious misconduct of an investigation, including perjury by some of the officers concerned.
  Clause 19 gives the commission the power to direct and supervise investigations, but the investigations will generally be carried out by the police. Under clause 18, the basic duty of investigation falls on the chief constable of the force which investigated the original offence. When the commission requires an officer from a different force to investigate a matter, the original chief constable may choose from which force he should come.
  I do not believe that the scheme is right in principle. It would be far better if the system of investigation were independent, and were seen to be so. It would be better for public confidence in both the criminal justice system and in the police, and it would save money in the long run. I am not criticising the police, any more than the Home Secretary was criticising the courts or Ministers by proposing a clear separation between them and the commission. I have the highest regard for the police and the difficulties that they face in pursuing the duties that we impose on them, but if the police are seen as judge and jury in their own cause public confidence in them and in the system will not be properly established.
  As the Home Secretary said, the new scheme is based on a parallel with the Police Complaints Authority. When I first came entered Parliament I took an extremely close interest in the handling of police complaints and I must say that I do not regard the Police Complaints Authority parallel as helpful. I know of the dedication and commitment of the authority's staff and its members, and I know of the exacting standards that senior investigating officers and their teams of police officers set in seeking to root out corruption and other unacceptable practices committed by a tiny minority of police. No group is more offended by corruption or malpractice in the police force than the 99.9 per cent. of police officers who do a difficult job exceptionally well and to the highest standards.
  Despite the commitment and dedication of the PCA and of police at all levels, however, the unpalatable truth about the Police Complaints Authority is that it has failed to instil public confidence because the public believe that, under this system, the police are investigating themselves.
  34
  When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which established the Police Complaints Authority came before the House, the Police Federation perceptively noted:
  "It will not enhance public confidence in the system and will probably not improve police morale either. We remain firmly of the view that only a wholly independent system of investigation will satisfy all parties."
  That lack of full public confidence has had severe consequences for the PCA. I believe that it has led to an increased case load and an elaborate waste of resources on patently unmeritorious complaints because of the public's reluctance to take no for an answer. How often have hon. Members on both sides of the House been visited by members of the public who are dissatisfied with the results of PCA investigations?
  More significantly, that lack of confidenceBill—however unfairBill—in the authority's system is leading to increasing use of more direct remedies to alleged police malpractice, bypassing PCA procedures. In the 12 years from 1981 to 1992 in the Metropolitan police area alone, there was a fivefold increase in cases pursued through the civil courts against the police for assault, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Those actions were consciously brought to bypass PCA procedures. In 1981, 92 such cases went to court; by 1993–94 the figure had increased to 494.
  The problem with the PCA is that it has lagged behind public opinion. It is essential that does not happen with the new criminal cases review commission and that we get it right first time. Above all, we must get it right in terms of public confidence, which can be secured only if the commission is seen to be independent.
  There are practical reasons for ensuring that the commission's independence is beyond doubt. From its inception, the CCRC is likely to be overwhelmed by a huge backlog. Many cases, almost by definition, will be unmeritorious but they will all have to be sifted and carefully reviewed. It is vital that when the commission says no to an application, that will be taken as no by the applicant, his or her advisers, those who monitor the system and, above all, Members of Parliament. If the review process's independence is not established in the public mind early on, the commission will be under constant and costly pressure to reopen cases.
  Those who argue in favour of the Bill's investigation scheme, whereby principal responsibility rests with the police, do so on the ground of practicality. Although the Home Secretary did not say this, my reading of the royal commission's recommendations was that they were an implicit admission that, in principle, it might be better for investigations to be undertaken by a core staff dedicated for that purpose and employed directly by the commission; but in the view of the royal commission, shared by the Home Secretary, that approach was overwhelmed by questions of practicality.
  I do not find those arguments persuasive. The first argument, which the Home Secretary deployed, is that the commission must have access to the knowledge and wealth of expertise of the police. Others argue that it is essential for investigators to have up-to-date knowledge of police methods. I believe that that view is held by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is important that we should take account of the views of ACPO and others directly involved. The point is made also that police methods change rapidly and radically. I accept that premise, but not the conclusion that it is possible to draw

  35
  on police knowledge and expertise, or to have access to current police methods, only through the use of currently employed police officers.
  We believe that there should be a corps of investigators employed directly by the commission, some of them permanently. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made the important point that, with all the changes which followed the assault by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on the police service, a large number of extremely skilled and relatively young police officers are approaching redundancy. They are not all ready for the retirement heap. They are experienced, and they could form part of the commission's core staff.
  Mr. Mullin: May I put it to my hon. Friend that this corps of dedicated staff should not consist only of retired police officers? There are one or two well qualified journalists who have built up some knowledge in this area and who might prove suitable.
  Mr. Straw: I share one thing with the Home SecretaryBill—I had anticipated my hon. Friend's comments. The next page of my speech goes on to say that not only police officers are skilled in this area; journalists and solicitors are, too. The most serious miscarriages of justice, which my hon. Friend played such a crucial part in remedying, were uncovered initially not by the work of the police but by the work of journalists, Members of Parliament and solicitors.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides police officers who are nearing the age of retirement, there are also many officers who have unfortunately been injured in the course of their duties and who cannot continue to perform as full constables? They are perfectly capable, however, of carrying out this type of investigation.
  Mr. Straw: I accept that. Another result of the assault on the police by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has been the removal of quite a number of the inside jobs which used to be available to such police officers but which have now been passed over to—
  cheaper—civilians.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger in journalists of the kind whom he has in mind being asked to take an active role in these investigations? They are usually campaigning journalists with a political axe to grind. Surely it is important to ensure that those who take part are politically impartial.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that, but I do not subscribe to the hon. Lady's assertion that all journalists with an investigative bent follow a particular political agenda. Evidence of the serious and endemic corruption in the Metropolitan police, from which so many of the police's problems with public perception stem, was produced in the late 1960s and early 1970s not by the
  36
  police but by courageous journalists employed, for example, by The Times and the "World in Action" programme—
  Lady Olga Maitland: And the New Statesman and Society.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady reads that august journal.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: But she does not understand it.
  Mr. Straw: Nor do the rest of us, of course. I write for it, though, and I can understand what I write.
  To continue my point about the possibility of some police working directly and permanently for the commission while others are seconded for a period, there is a long tradition in the police service of some high-flying police officers being seconded to national squads, or to the Home Office to work alongside HM inspectors of police. There is no reason why such officers should not be seconded to the new commission. In large forces some officers are in any event seconded from operational duties to run the complaints service, so I see no major issue of principle at stake.
  As for whether police will have an intimate knowledge of the police service, the culture of different police forces varies so much—as those of us with experience of more than one force will know—that it would, indeed, take an officer from the same force to know all the wrinkles of that force's culture. Nevertheless, people on all sides of the argument have accepted that the last people who should investigate allegations of serious miscarriages of justice are officers from the force involved.
  I do not, therefore, honestly believe that there is much force in the argument of the Home Secretary and of those who support him—that it would be wrong for the commission to have a corps of staff investigators to take on the central burden of investigating the cases that come before them. The corps could, of course, draw on other police forces elsewhere in the United Kingdom as the caseload and the types of cases required.
  The other argument advanced by the Home Secretary in the consultative document was that the caseload would vary. That, too, was an argument against having such a corps. It is true that the case load will vary, but the case load of police forces varies enormously, especially that of specialised squads. No one is proposing that there should be a large standing army of investigators to deal with the maximum caseload. Instead, we are proposing that there should be a corps of investigators employed or seconded to the commission, which will be there to deal with the minimum foreseeable case load, which is likely to be quite substantial for the next five to 10 years.
  The Home Secretary's consultative document described a corps of staff as the
  "worst rather than the best of both worlds."
  Having read the relevant passages with great care, I do not understand the argument that is advanced in the document. There was no evidence to support it. In our view, a corps of staff would produce the best of the options rather than the worst.
  The final argument in support of having a corps of staff relates to costs. It is claimed that the costs of a corps are likely to be greater than those of using police officers who are brought in on a case by case basis from either the

  37
  originating force or another force. Unless it is suggested—which it is not—that there should be an enormous standing army of investigators sitting idle at their desks, there is no reason why a corps of investigators directly employed by the commission should be any more expensive than the alternative approach. In our judgment a corps of inspectors would probably be cheaper because directly employed investigators used properly are likely to be cheaper than officers brought in on a contract basis.
  As I have said, the more a corps of inspectors establishes its independence the more quickly it can dispose of unmeritorious cases and the more quickly, and with less cost, it can proceed to pursue the serious allegations that come before it.
  For perhaps the first three quarters of the century, crime in its formal, legal sense was something that happened to other people. As a result, most people lived their lives with only the most tangential contact with the criminal justice system—for example, perhaps a short period on jury service and one appearance in the magistrates court on a motoring charge.
  A culmination of changes in the past two decades has brought crime much closer to the lives of this country's citizens. Crimes of violence used almost always to be perpetrated on victims known to their assailants. Terrorist bomb outrages have made random victims of shoppers, children and passers by—as has football hooliganism, though in a more limited way. Increases in national wealth and consumer spending combined with widening inequalities of income and life's chances, along with the scourge of drug addiction, have led to rocketing levels of crime. Almost everyone these days has experienced crime within their own recent memory, or knows someone who has. People have a much closer and more personal interest in whether the criminal justice system is working for them than ever they did in the past. It is sad that in many respects the criminal justice system is failing. It is not meeting what the public expect of it.
  The royal commission was right to draw attention to the
  "force of criticisms which can be directed against a thoroughgoing adversarial system which seems to turn a search for the truth into a contest played between opposing lawyers according to a set of rules which the jury does not necessarily accept or even understand."
  The police, at the sharp end of the fight against crime, are placed in personal danger in a manner that few of us would accept for ourselves. They are right to draw attention to the failings elsewhere in the criminal justice system, to the increasing public demand for stronger regulation and to the need for higher standards to be exercised by the legal profession.
  Of all the failings which can arise within a criminal justice system, none is worse, or more calculated to bring the entire system into disrepute, than a serious miscarriage of justice. The Bill is certainly a great improvement on what has gone before, and we intend to introduce further improvements in Committee. I hope that at that stage Ministers will listen. Had they listened before and accepted the overwhelming need for change years ago, some innocent people might not have had to spend the best years of their lives locked up unjustly for crimes that they did not commit.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I welcome the Bill; I also welcome the news that the Opposition will not divide the House. In matters of this sort, the more that we can proceed with agreement between the parties the better—although I accept that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will table amendments in Committee to reflect his reservations.
  The hon. Gentleman reminded us that way back in 1991, on the day when I exercised my powers following the release of the Birmingham Six, I announced the establishment of the royal commission on the criminal justice system. I did so because there was real concern and disquiet about the system, on two counts.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The court decided to release the Birmingham Six.
  Mr. Baker: The court made the recommendation that they should be released; they were released, and it was correct for them to be released. My point, however, was that on the same day I announced the establishment of the royal commission.
  As I was saying, there was disquiet on two counts. There was disquiet about the fact that in some cases guilty people were not being convicted, and about the fact that in others innocent people were being convicted. The purpose of the criminal justice system is, of course, to convict the guilty, but also to make quite sure that the innocent are acquitted. That is basically why the commission was established, although other matters were referred to it.
  During the 1980s, there was an increase in the number of referrals by the Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal on questions relating to whether a verdict was sound. In 1981, one of my predecessors, Lord Whitelaw, referred just one case; but 20 were referred in 1990, 12 in 1991 and 11 in 1992. The number of referrals peaked during those three years.
  Mr. Corbyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the difficulty of placing a case before the Home Secretary, ready for referral? Many people's cases are not particularly high-profile in political terms; such people have no influential friends or access to the media, and their cases are often ignored because no one is speaking up for them. Cases involving people who are better able to bring them to the Home Secretary's attention, however, are referred. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will provide more equality of access to the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. Baker: In short, yes. Before I give a full answer, however, may I describe the procedures that currently operate, which I experienced as Home Secretary?
  Most of the cases with which my predecessors—Lord Waddington and the present Foreign Secretary—and I had to deal dated from before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Many concerned the conduct of the police in questioning suspects at an early stage of inquiries. As the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out, however, some cases now being referred are subsequent to the Act. I believe that its provisions established proper and effective procedures which, if followed through, eliminate a great deal of the concern expressed in the 1980s about possible miscarriages of justice.

  39
  During the years when I was Home Secretary, I referred 14 cases involving some 19 individuals. Some were high-profile cases: Broadwater Farm, Stefan Kiszko and Judith Ward. Then as now, the Home Office department that dealt with such cases was C3, and I considered some of the officials who answered to me then to be some of the most scrupulous and fair-minded civil servants whom I had encountered. I pay particular tribute to the assistant secretary who headed the department at that time, Mr. Baxter—who has subsequently died—but all the officials in that section of the Home Office were scrupulous, fair and determined to ensure that justice was done. I want to put that on record, because it is sometimes said that cases have been brushed under the carpet or delayed.
  I understand from a recent parliamentary question that the average time for dealing with a case is some 36 working days. That is an improvement in some Departments on the way in which letters are dealt with by some Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Mullin rose—
  Mr. Baker: I will pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, later, if I may. There are some cases that take much longer than 36 working days. Some take more than a year, because the investigation is very complicated. Indeed, the cases in which the hon. Gentleman was directly concerned took much longer than a year. That is the system that operates at the moment.
  On the recognisability of the case, from the point of view of public concern, in the cases with which I was concerned, the investigation by C3 were the fullest and most scrupulous that I have seen. The dossiers that came to me as Home Secretary were certainly the thickest and one could examine virtually every aspect of the case, so I was satisfied that the investigations were being carried out scrupulously.
  I was also satisfied that it was not the correct way of doing it. There are two considerations. First, should a member of the Executive—the Home Secretary in this case—have a role in what, essentially, was a quasi-judicial process? It appeared clear to me that that should not be the case and that that was one of the areas where the powers of the Home Secretary should be conducted by other public bodies.
  Secondly, there is, of course, an important constitutional question, which is resolved by the Bill, and which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn touched on. Under the present arrangements of C3, the officials, who are acting on behalf of the Home Secretary, are, of course, restricted from doing certain things, and rightly so. They are not allowed to direct and supervise the inquiry, and I do not think that any hon. Member would ask that they should be, because a moment's reflection would soon reveal that that would be an incredible extension of the powers of the Home Secretary, on behalf of whom they are acting.
  In clause 19, the new commission is given the power to direct and supervise an inquiry in a way in which the present officials simply cannot do. It can hold the investigators who are conducting the inquiry much more to account. It can ask them to do certain things. It can direct their inquiries in a way in which civil servants
  40
  simply would not be allowed to do under the present arrangement, so there is a good constitutional reason for the Bill.
  I welcome the various proposals that are contained in the Bill. I welcome the independence of the criminal cases review commission from the Executive of the day—in other words, the Home Secretary. I also welcome its extension to summary cases. As my right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House, the only power that the Home Secretary has where there has been a miscarriage of justice in a magistrates court is to exercise the prerogative of mercy. It fell to me to exercise the prerogative in perhaps two or three cases. Of course, that does not set aside the conviction. The Home Secretary cannot set aside a conviction of a court; only a court can set aside a conviction of a court, and so that remains on the record. That seemed to me to be very wrong and I am glad that it has been corrected by the Bill.
  I also welcome the fact that the appeal courts will have the power to ask the commission to examine cases. That is a fallback position, but an important one to have. I understand that the Lord Chief Justice has welcomed that provision.
  I also welcome the extension of the powers of the court to consider the sentence as well as the conviction. That will be one of the main reasons for the increase in work load of the commission, because I suspect that many people who feel that they have been wrongly treated in the courts, as regards the conviction and the sentence, will refer their case to the commission.
  On investigatory powers—a matter that was raised by the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—I share the view of the Runciman committee that there is no practical but to use the police forces, but I think that what the hon. Member for Blackburn said should be looked at carefully by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is a question of carrying the conviction of the public. In my experience, where police forces were asked—I asked on several occasions—to examine the conduct of another police force, the reports that I got were not cover-ups. They were thorough investigations. The investigations in the celebrated cases that derived from the Irish terrorist cases wore undertaken by other police forces and revealed the circumstances that led to the sentences being set aside. I have every confidence that, in general, the police are the right people to do it.
  Clause 18 provides that when the commission appoints an investigating officer, he can be either from the force in question or from another force. It would be more appropriate if the general rule were that the investigating officer should be from another force. That may go some way towards meeting the anxieties of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  In principle, I would not go along with the Opposition proposal for another corps of investigators. In effect, such a corps would need to be given full police powers and it would have to be a properly constituted body with all the disciplinary procedures that attach to police forces. That would probably be too elaborate. I hope that the Government will examine my suggestion of an investigating officer from an alternative police force.
  In general, I warmly welcome the Bill. As the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn have said, society should not accept a sense injustice in our criminal justice system and people who have been wrongly

  41
  convicted spending part of their life in gaol. That should be put right as quickly as possible. When I was Home Secretary, I asked the C3 division to deal with such cases even more promptly because I felt that, if someone had been wrongly convicted and deprived of his liberty, that had to be put right as soon as possible.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in welcoming the Bill's proposal for a review commission and especially the removal of responsibility from the Home Office. That will come as a relief not only to victims of alleged miscarriages of justice, but, I suspect, to the Home Office itself.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, the establishment of a review commission has been suggested by just about everyone who has ever taken a close interest in miscarriages of justice, starting with Lord Devlin in the mid-1970s and continuing through a Select Committee report in 1982, Sir John May's inquiry and the royal commission report. On two occasions, in 1988 and 1990, Sir John Farr and I moved amendments to Government legislation in an attempt to set up a commission. I had a third go last year.
  It is in everyone's interest that the commission works. There is a danger that if it becomes trapped in the narrow approach that C3 and the Court of Appeal have adopted in the past it will become discredited and we shall all be back where we started. It is important to try to avoid that.
  Hon. Members have spoken about the Police Complaints Authority which the Government seem to regard as a model of how to proceed. I and, I think, some of my hon. Friends regard it as a model of how not to proceed. That body urgently needs some early successes to show that it is different from what has gone before. Cardinal Hume has a letter in today's issue of The Times which seems to sum up our hopes for the commission. The letter states:
  "This must mark the beginning of a new era in the handling of miscarriage of justice cases. But that requires the commission to be, and be seen to be, a strong body independent of Government, the courts and the police, capable of fulfilling effectively, and with a sense of urgency, the tasks of considering and investigating allegations of miscarriages of justice when appeal rights have been exhausted."
  I am afraid that I do not share the rosy view of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) of the C3 department. I entirely accept that civil servants cannot be held responsible for many of the mistakes that have been made, but in some parts of the Bill I see the dead hand of C3. Perhaps I am being unfair to it and I should blame people higher up in the Home Office hierarchy.
  Hon. Members have referred to the insistence that all inquiries he carried out by the police. The commission will not even be obliged to supervise because the relevant clause says that it "may" supervise these inquiries. I shall return to that.
  Clause 2 deals with the test for an alleged miscarriage. At present, the Court of Appeal can quash a conviction where there is a lurking doubt—I think that that is the expression used by previous Home Secretaries—that it is safe. Clause 2 proposes to change that to "unsafe" without any qualification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, the royal commission suggested that the words "may he unsafe" should he used. Was it intended
  42
  to make this a stiffer test? If not, why has the wording been changed in clause 2? Likewise, clause 4 uses the expression "capable of belief'. I do not understand what is wrong with the existing formula.
  The attitude of the Court of Appeal to cases referred back to it will be crucial because the problem has lain not only with the police or the Home Office but with the Court of Appeal. There has been some change in management at that court in the past few years, but before that it contained some of the most closed minds in the land.
  The most legendary case was not any of the terrorist cases that have been mentioned but that of two men, Cooper and McMahon, who were wrongly convicted of the murder of a postmaster in Luton. In the 1970s their case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by four successive Home Secretaries. On each occasion the judges just sat stony-faced and said, "Take them away." In the end, the Home Secretary of the day, William Whitelaw, became so exasperated that he simply gave each of the men a railway ticket and sent them home. They were serving life sentences, so that action by Lord Whitelaw shows how exasperated he must have been. Afterwards he wrote to the men's solicitors a long convoluted letter saying that it did not mean this and it did not mean that and divide by the number you first thought of. Clearly, it meant that as early as 1980 the Home Secretary had entirely lost confidence in the ability of the Court of Appeal to face difficult decisions.
  The Carl Bridgewater case is probably the longest-running alleged miscarriage of justice still blocked inside the system. I shall refer again to that case. When it came before the Court of Appeal on a reference by the Home Secretary in 1987 or 1988, the judgment on which the appeal was turned down contained the following remarkable passage, which I shall paraphrase. It refers to a prosecution witness called Mervyn Ritter and it states, "We accept that Mr. Ritter is a pathological liar, but on this occasion we believe that he can be relied upon as a witness of truth." I ask you. That is the intellectual level with which we have been grappling in the Court of Appeal in years gone by.
  I was present for the appeals in some of the big cases in which convictions were quashed. I was in the Court of Appeal when Lord Lane, through clenched teeth, quashed the Guildford convictions. One was left with the feeling, which was widely remarked on by those of us who were present, that had the Crown Prosecution Service or the Director of Public Prosecutions left Lord Lane the slightest possibility of preserving those convictions, he would have devised some mechanism for doing so despite the fact that the confessions on which they were based had been shown to be forgeries.
  Any student of the difficulties must also look at the judgment in the Maguire case. After prolonged public outrage the Maguire convictions were quashed several years ago. But the judges devised a formula—this was the last fling of the old management in the Court of Appeal, but it was fairly recent—whereby they said, "Oh well, perhaps all seven of them had not been making these bombs and they must have been innocently contaminated." To achieve that remarkable feat they invented a magic towel, which no one had claimed existed. The judges said that it might have existed, that all the defendants might have dried their hands on it, and that that was what led to their being contaminated. When

  43
  we see people with fine intellects behaving in that manner, we realise that there is a problem in the higher reaches of the judiciary.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the distortions of the intellectual process by which those conclusions were reached were not all one way in upholding convictions. There is the famous case of Algar in 1954, where Lord Chief Justice Goddard quashed a conviction for forgery, for which the man had been sentenced to five years imprisonment, with the words:
  "Do not think that we are doing this because we think you are an innocent man. We do not. We think you are a scoundrel."
  Nevertheless, the conviction was quashed.
  Mr. Mullin: Perhaps the same might be said of Lord Goddard. I can only comment that if somebody had a conviction quashed by Lord Goddard, he was a very lucky man indeed.
  Mr. Corbyn: I was with my hon. Friend when the Guildford Four verdict was announced. Will he bear it in mind that the main problem throughout all the cases of miscarriages of justice has been getting someone to take an interest in them? He, I and, I am sure, many others get hundreds of letters from people, but we have no idea of the justice or otherwise of those cases when we receive them and we lack the ability to investigate.
  Is my hon. Friend worried that even under the Home Secretary's proposals, there will still be the problem of the single person rotting away in prison, believing in his own innocence, but having no one outside who is prepared to help him or to give him sound legal advice, and who was probably badly represented in the first place?
  Mr. Mullin: I am sure that there will still be such cases, but if the commission works properly—and it is in all our interests to ensure that it does—that will go some way towards resolving the problem. We all receive letters from desperate people who have been writing to everyone they can think of. I hope that the commission will be able to deal with some—although probably not all—of those cases.
  Incidentally, I do not complain about the fact that our legal system sometimes makes mistakes. All legal systems make mistakes. My complaint over the years has been that, until now, we have lacked an adequate mechanism for correcting them when it has become obvious to sensible people that a mistake has been made.
  There was a sea change in the attitude of the Appeal Court following the early retirement of Lord Lane and the Birmingham appeal judgment—and, of course, the Judith Ward judgment, which in a way marks the high point of that change. I have heard it suggested by distinguished banisters that the door may be closing again now that the pressure is off. I hope that that is not the case. I also hope that, when convictions are quashed, there will be no more whispering judges, occasionally even popping up on television programmes, suggesting that although there may have been some technical reason for quashing the case, the accused really did it. I hope that that will not happen again, especially among those whose job it is to uphold the rule of law.
  44
  I welcome what the Home Secretary said about appointments to the commission. I had intended to make the point, which he made first, that the jobs for the 11 commissioners should be advertised and should be subject to an open interview process in which we can all have confidence. Who is appointed will be crucial to the credibility of the commission. With respect to people who serve on other quangos—and the commission will be a quango —those who serve on the commission will need to be from a slightly different school from some of the people who serve on other quangos. I am putting that point as generously as possible. In particular, there will need to be among the 11 members—and, indeed, among the staff whom they employ—people with a track record of scepticism towards the official version of events.
  It was not the C3 department, the Court of Appeal or the police that first alerted the world to the problem; it was people with no direct responsibility. In many cases, they were journalists employed by television companies. Of course, it is always right that in a democracy there is a role for journalists in putting right alleged injustices, but it cannot be satisfactory for any of those associated with the criminal justice system to realise that it has come to depend on such people.
  I mention a few people who I think should be considered for the commission. I do so at the risk of damning their chances should they be interested in the job. First, I mention Sir Ludovic Kennedy—
  Mr. Straw: He went to a good school.
  Mr. Mullin: I do not know which school he went to, but he is a distinguished person with a long and honourable track record that goes back long before miscarriages of justice had a high public profile. I should also like someone of the calibre of Mr. Paul Foot to serve on the commission. I appreciate that his politics may not necessarily appeal to either Front Bench, but—
  Mr. Denis MacShane: He went to a good school.
  Mr. Mullin: Yes, he went to a good school. He has a track record second to very few contemporary journalists in his pursuit of unpopular causes such as miscarriages of justice. Should he be interested, I hope that his application will be seriously considered.
  I also have in mind Mr. David Jessel, who heads the "Just Television" programme. Again, he has a distinguished track record in drawing the attention of the nation to cases that are not necessarily popular, but need to be examined.
  In talking about the composition of the commission, the royal commission said that the chairman should not be a judge. I did not hear the Home Secretary say that he would not be. It would be nice to hear the Minister say so when he replies to the debate. I say with all due respect to anyone who happens to be a judge that it is important that the new body demonstrates its independence not only the Executive but the judiciary.
  I was surprised to note in clause 9 a provision to give the commission the power to deal with sentences. I do not feel very strongly about that, but I had never envisaged it being the case. I wonder whether there is a danger that the commission will become flooded with such cases, some of them spurious.

  45
  The commission's remit extends to England, Wales and, I am glad to note, Northern Ireland. I appreciate that this is not the Minister's responsibility, but I want to know what will happen in Scotland. There is a certain smugness about the Scottish legal system. When the English legal system was in great difficulty, on several occasions distinguished Scottish lawyers came creeping up to me saying, "Of course, this would never happen in Scotland." I think that it could happen; indeed, there have been a number of cases where it has happened. I know from my postbag that a few Scottish cases deserve to go before the commission. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the plans for Scotland.
  The royal commission noted that there was a problem with evidence that would not be admissible before a court. Chapter 10, paragraph 67, states:
  "It is undesirable that the Court of Appeal should in effect be precluded by the current rules of evidence from considering an alleged wrongful conviction. We therefore attach great importance to the review of the rules of evidence by the Law Commission that we have recommended."
  I would be grateful to know whether that commission will he permitted to deal with inadmissible evidence and whether there are any plans—if there are, the Bill would he the obvious place for them—for loosening the constraints on the Court of Appeal in considering evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible. Hearsay evidence is an obvious example, and the royal commission dealt with that in paragraphs 25 and 26 of chapter 8. It took the view that
  "in general, the fact that a statement is hearsay should mean that the court places rather less weight on it, but not that it should be inadmissible in the first place."
  It said that it would he satisfactory for a judge simply to draw the attention of the jury, or of judges if it is an appeal case, to the fact that less weight should be placed on hearsay evidence.
  I do not suppose that the problem with hearsay evidence will arise all that often. There was, however, a problem in the Birmingham case. A Member of Parliament had written a book that contained interviews with the persons who had carried out the bombings. He had had better luck tracking down those persons than the people whose job it was to track them down. I sat through the appeal case. Prosecution lawyers for the Crown and lawyers for the defendants all had a copy of that book in front of them. Everyone was aware of it, but none of the book could be referred to, even though it contained a more compelling point than the minutiae of the forensic or the confession evidence.
  The Bill is silent on the subject of inadmissible evidence. This is a golden opportunity to amend the law along the lines recommended by the royal commission, if the Government are disposed to consider favourably its suggestion.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if such evidence cannot be presented to a jury, it would be wrong for it to be allowed to be referred to in the Court of Appeal? In a sense, the jury's verdict could be undercut on the basis of evidence that it had not heard or considered.
  Mr. Mullin: In all cases, jurors' evidence will be undercut if material comes to light that was not before them at the original trial. That is what happens in cases that go to the Court of Appeal. That is why many
  46
  convictions are quashed. I am arguing only that common sense should be applied and that the Court of Appeal or the commission should not he prevented from doing their job by having to take too narrow a view of their remit.
  The heart of the Bill is the capacity to conduct independent investigations, or rather the fact that the commission will not be able to conduct such investigations. Clause 19 says that commissioners may supervise inquiries carried out by police officers. In the light of all we know, it is incredible that the commissioners will be dependent on police officers and that they are advised only to supervise investigations. I hope that the calibre of the commissioners will he such that they will want to take a detailed interest in the way in which investigations are undertaken.
  It is no part of my case that all police inquiries are dishonest. As other people have remarked, no doubt exists that honest police inquiries conducted by Devon and Cornwall police in the Birmingham case, and by Avon and Somerset police in the Guildford case, finally brought those cases to an end. I am sorry to say, however, that there were at least three police inquiries into the Birmingham case before it was brought to an end.
  The Devon and Cornwall police inquiry was their second go at it. When the two superintendents conducting the first inquiry came to see me in the House in 1987, their heart did not seem to be entirely in the job. I had to draw their attention to one or two things that they should have noticed. I told them that unless they tried harder than they appeared to be trying, we would be all he back in two or three years' time going over the same ground again. Sure enough, we were. Happily, the second inquiry was led by the chief constable, who took a close interest and insisted on an honest and detailed inquiry. That did not happen the first time.
  These inquiries are extremely expensive. Enormous amounts of public money have been wasted on what in some cases are bogus inquiries. The Carl Bridgewater case is the most relevant in that regard. It is now undergoing its eighth police inquiry. I have a list of them. In 1980 and 1981, Cheshire constabulary conducted two inquiries. In 1983, 1984 and 1985, Greater Manchester police conducted three inquiries—that is five altogether. In 1986, Warwickshire constabulary conducted an inquiry. That led to the case being reopened and referred to the Court of Appeal, with the remarkable quotation that I cited earlier.
  In 1991, Merseyside police were appointed to conduct an inquiry. In 1994, Merseyside police were reappointed to conduct an inquiry. It does not appear to be getting very far. Amateurs appear to be more successful at turning up new evidence in this case than any of the eight police inquiries that have taken place. There comes a moment when one must recognise that police inquiries in such cases are not going to lead anywhere. One must bite the bullet and do something about it.
  There is the case of Mr. Brian Parsons, who, in my view, has been wrongly convicted of the murder of an old woman in Axminster, Devon. The Home Secretary has appointed the force that originally investigated that case, Devon and Cornwall police, to re-examine it. As we all agree, that police force conducted honest and thorough inquiries in the Birmingham case second time around and, I think, in the Darvell brothers case first time around, but it has made it clear to anyone who has ears that it will not pursue the Brian Parsons case. It went even to the lengths

  47
  of inviting the journalist who has taken a close interest in the case to Devon for an informal chat in a pub, where the assistant chief constable, Mr. Portlock, made that plain.
  Mr. Portlock appeared to overlook the fact that the journalist might then talk to me, and that I might mention what had been said in Parliament, which I did the next day. A couple of days after that, the journalist from the Western Morning News received an anonymous telephone call telling him that I had an undeclared interest—my name appears on the notepaper of the "Just Television" programme. That is an unpaid interest from which I gain absolutely nothing. That information could have come only from someone connected with the inquiry. That is how Devon and Cornwall police are dealing with the Brian Parsons case, and it does not inspire confidence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, resources are being wasted. Millions of pounds have been wasted on phoney police inquiries that are not intended to go anywhere. It would be cheaper to give the commission the power to conduct some of its own investigations. Some of the police inquiries have proved extremely wasteful. Enormous amounts of money have been spent interviewing people who did not need to be interviewed.
  In some cases, the results of the inquiries—I think of the reinvestigation by West Midlands police into the Birmingham pub bombings—were selectively leaked to national newspapers in an attempt to rescue some of their friends, who were on trial for misbehaviour. I repeat what I said earlier to the Home Secretary and what he does not accept: to insist that only the police are capable of inquiring into misbehaviour by police officers flies in the face of just about all the advice that he has received from people who have a first-hand interest in these matters. I do not accept the royal commission's rather reluctant conclusion that there is no practical alternative.
  The deputation that Cardinal Hume leads takes a close interest in these matters and may share my views, if his letter in The Times today is anything to go by. I note that that deputation contains two former Home Secretaries and one Law Lord, so I do not feel entirely alone on the point that it is sufficient to leave such matters to the police. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary clings to that view. It cannot be on grounds of cost. That policy is more expensive. He may cling to it out of misplaced loyalty to the police, but nor is it in the interests of the police that we continue with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was generous when he discussed the role of the police in these matters and said that he was not referring to the 99.9 per cent. of police officers who were honest. I think that 99.9 per cent. is a little on the high side; I put it no more strongly than that. I am sorry to say that in some police forces, especially in elite detective squads—I know that many Conservative Members are concerned about this, because they have privately expressed this view to me—a culture of perjury grew up over the years. One senior police officer referred to it as noble cause corruption. He meant that if the goal was thought to be worthy. the means did not matter very much.
  I well remember that, at the height of the various scandals involving the Birmingham, Guildford and Judith Ward cases, I attended a reception at the Police Federation. A senior member of the federation executive said to me quietly in the corner, "There is nothing wrong
  48
  with perjury committed by an honest police officer in support of a good cause." That thinking reflects—[HON. MEMBERS: "To you?"] Yes, he said it to me of all people.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: He must have been drunk.
  Mr. Mullin: He was perfectly sober.
  I am afraid to say that such thinking has infected many police inquiries. It is not right to say that we are talking only about the odd police officer. I repeat that I accept that there are many honest police officers who are as concerned as the rest of us about what has gone on. However, the Guildford and Woolwich cases and the Birmingham case involved fraud and perjury on a massive scale. It was carefully co-ordinated. Police officers must have sat in lecture halls and worked out what they intended to do to get it right.
  The fraud and perjury involved officers ranging in rank from detective constable to assistant chief constable. In the Birmingham case, two of the officers who were involved in the investigations and the subsequent cover-up became chief constables. In those circumstances, one cannot expect a police inquiry into the activities of other police officers necessarily to lead to the right result, especially in cases of such seriousness.
  I now turn to the transition period. The commission will not he set up for a while and there are a number of cases in the in-tray of the Home Secretary which should not wait until it is set up and running. The obvious one, to which I have already referred, is the Carl Bridgewater case. I take the Carl Bridgewater case and the handling of it as a litmus test of the new seriousness that is alleged to be abroad on the issue. It is a litmus test of whether we are serious in facing up to things that have gone wrong.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said that he attempted to speed up the consideration of cases in which people had been in prison for a long time. Two of the defendants in the Bridgewater case have been in prison for more than half their lives. The case against them has comprehensively collapsed. The foreman of the jury at the trial has been on national television saying that the jury would never have convicted if they had known what is known today. Surely the time has come to draw a line under the case. I hope that the Carl Bridgewater case will not have to wait until the commission is set up. I say the same thing about the Brian Parsons case, to which I have already referred.
  If the Bill is handled properly, it represents an opportunity to put behind us the bleak period in the history of British justice of the past few years. I hope that the opportunity will not be thrown away. The Home Office must have noticed that Labour Front-Bench Members are approaching the Bill in a generous spirit. We do so in the hope that the Government —[Interruption.] I am afraid that the Minister is not even listening. I hope that I may have his attention for a moment.
  Those of us who care about the issue are treating the Bill seriously and not in a party political way, because the issues involved cut across political parties. One of the great strengths of the campaigns against alleged miscarriages of justice is that it has always been possible, even in the darkest circumstances and at the most difficult times, to attract support across the House. The alliance between me and the former Member for Harborough is the starkest illustration of that proposition.

  49
  Labour will not oppose the Second Reading, because we want the Minister to take seriously some of the criticisms that have been made. We hope that the Committee stage will not turn into an adversarial process, such as we see in the courts, in which both sides try to outwit each other. We hope that we can come to conclusions that will set up a commission which will endure for many years to come and which will not easily be discredited.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I welcome the Bill, which is important if we are to maintain public good will and confidence in the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has done a great deal to bring to the attention of the House and of the country at large miscarriages of justice—
  Mr. Corbyn: That is not what was said at the time.
  Mr. Heald: As a barrister, I am willing to give credit to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South for bringing to the attention of the criminal justice system and of the public cases such as that of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, which have been dealt with on appeal. I agree that it was a sad reflection on the system that it took so long for those people to have their convictions quashed.
  It is important to realise that the culture in the law is based on a reluctance to change the results of trials by jury except in the most exceptional circumstances. The role of the jury is seen by lawyers as very much the gold standard. They feel that it is important that 12 good men and true have listened to the evidence in the case, have heard the arguments and have been there during the adversarial contest, which is often very much criticised but which involves testing the evidence and ensuring that each argument is put to the test.
  I still believe strongly that our Crown court, with the judge and jury working together —the judge as judge of the law and the jury as judge of the facts—has a special place, and that we undermine it at our peril. Although I welcome the Bill as dealing with issues of public good will and confidence, and as bringing a measure of improvement to the system, I do not think that we should lightly criticise our jury system. It is wrong to throw out the baby with the bath water. That is why I especially welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who seemed to take that point very much on board, as does my hon. Friend the Minister.
  The three tests that the Court of Appeal has applied—whether the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory, whether there has been a mistake in the law, and whether there has been a material irregularity during the trial—are three aspects of the same test: whether the conviction is unsafe. To move under the Bill to a simple test of whether the conviction is unsafe is right. I know nobody who can tell me the difference between an unsafe conviction and an unsatisfactory one. Any decision that is wrong in law or which involves a material irregularity is, by its nature, unsafe. A simpler and more straightforward test is very much to be welcomed.
  I am concerned about the remarks by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South about inadmissible evidence. If we say, as we should, that hearsay evidence should not be sufficient to prove a case in court, it is inconsistent to say that one can present hearsay evidence to the court if it
  50
  may show that an aspect of the prosecution case is faulty. It is not evidence that can be tested. With the best will in the world, if the hon. Gentleman had given evidence to the Crown court in the case to which he referred, and if he had said, "I have spoken to others who admit the offence," how could the evidence have been tested? He would say, "I believed them." But how does a jury get to the root of that and decide what the truth is?
  It is different from the normal situation when the members of the jury can see the man or woman who is giving evidence, can see their reactions to detailed, probing questions, who can see their body language and who can even see the look of fear that sometimes strikes a witness when the question goes in, the groundwork having been laid. That is what concerns me, because the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would get rid of the law of evidence as it relates to hearsay evidence. That law has protected defendants, and I believe that it exists for a good reason. I hope that he will reconsider his suggestion.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but did he support the ability of the Attorney-General to refer cases of inadequate sentence to the Court of Appeal? If he did, he accepted that Court of Appeal judges, who were not present at a trial and unable to see the witnesses' faces and the way in which they gave evidence, should be able to do something about the sentence, contrary to that which the judge at the trial had considered to be right.
  Mr. Heald: As usual, my hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. There is a difference between deciding guilt and innocence and deciding a disposal in a case. My hon. and learned Friend should consider the test that a barrister would apply when deciding whether to advise that a case should go to appeal on the question of sentence. In those circumstances, the barrister must consider whether the sentence is completely out of the ball park, to use a slang expression, and thus obviously light when compared with the crime.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force, the Court of Appeal regularly heard appeals from defendants who said that their sentences were too heavy? Section 36 merely redressed the balance in favour of the public, so that someone could appeal on behalf of the public if the sentence was thought to be too lenient.
  Mr. Heald: I agree with my hon. Friend that it was right to redress the balance.
  A barrister would appeal a modest sentence only when he thought that it was quite outlandish that the judge had imposed such a modest sentence in a serious case. There is a difference between taking a view in principle about whether any case of that sort should warrant a sentence so low and looking at the niceties of the case, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested, and saying that one did not have all the details of the evidence. I do not think that lawyers can employ that test when deciding whether such cases should be appealed on the grounds of sentence.
  Even if it could be argued that the jury would not he compromised by being presented with what is currently inadmissible hearsay evidence and by being put in the difficult position of having to judge the strength or weakness of evidence when that jury cannot hear the

  51
  person say what that evidence is, it would still be wrong if such evidence could be presented at the Court of Appeal stage. If that happened, the role of the jury would be undercut.
  The jury may have heard admissible evidence and made a decision on the basis of evidence given by witnesses, but the would then be told, "Yes, you heard all that and made your decision, but we are prepared to overrule you on the basis of what somebody said somebody else had said." I do not think that that would add to the quality of justice in either direction. It would not mean that innocent people subjected to a miscarriage of justice would have their convictions quashed more often on appeal, or that the public would see those who are guilty more readily convicted and with full justice.
  Although I understand the call for an elite corps, an Eliot Ness brigade of fighters for justice, I am concerned that an esprit de corps might be fostered in such a force. That would not be healthy. According to the Bill, the supervision and direction of the investigators is in the hands of the commission. The officers used to conduct investigations would be fresh faces and would not serve on each investigation. That means that there would be a turnover of investigative staff, who would look at the issues with a fresh eye. I would have imagined that Opposition Members would also want that type of staff.
  Mr. Mullin: I agree that it is not necessary to have an elite corps employed by the commission, but what about the complaint made by Cardinal Hume in his letter today that the commission merely has a reserve power to instigate its investigations on an ad hoc basis?
  Mr. Heald: That argument could be considered in Committee, but I would not want the Bill to give the commission additional powers or to create an elite force. That would not be necessary to achieve a proper investigation of cases. If a particular police force is being impeached in an investigation, there is no reason why another force cannot adequately provide investigators to look into the issues thoroughly. If expert evidence is required, the Bill provides powers for experts to be called in, tests to be done and expert inquiries to be made.
  I find it difficult to see what would be achieved by giving the commission greater powers. If one held to the conspiracy theory that every police officer in the country in every force would be prepared to perjure himself to maintain a false conviction, that argument might have some force. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has not suggested that, however, and has paid credit to police forces who have had to investigate difficult cases. The commission's power to direct and supervise the investigators is at the centre of the Bill, so I find it hard to understand why an elite force of investigators would be needed. They might run the danger of becoming rather sceptical as they investigated case after case after case. Its officers might even become case-hardened to pleas about miscarriages of justice. I am not sure that that force would necessarily work in the way suggested, and it might even he counter-productive.
  We must not forget that the police have an up-to-date fund of knowledge of investigative techniques and a proper sense of direction when asking questions of witnesses and testing evidence. They also have a network of intelligence available to them. When the size and scope
  52
  of an inquiry requires it, the police have available to them a wide range of resources to get at the truth. As has already been said, the inquiries are not always small ones requiring the examination of just a few witnesses; it is often necessary to trawl through mountains of evidence. Therefore, I believe that the present balance is about right.
  The Police Complaints Authority has been criticised, but it is not quite correct to make an analogy between the authority and the new commission. The Police Complaints Authority has a different role, because it considers the way in which the police have behaved in particular cases on a disciplinary basis. That is a different kettle of fish from looking at a case which resulted in conviction and deciding whether fresh evidence has come to light or an argument was not been fully presented in court.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South may have complaints about the Police Complaints Authority with which I probably would not agree, but we are not talking about the same type of operation. Given the type of operation suggested by the Bill, the involvement of the police—provided that they are supervised and directed independently—has a lot to be said for it.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the Police Complaints Authority lacked public confidence because more cases arising from it are being brought before the courts. The reason is obvious: a lot of people who claim to have been wronged want a money judgment and substantial compensation for what they claim has happened. That is why they go to court. The number of appeals has risen in the current climate because courts are now prepared to hear those cases and to decide them in a way that they might not have been prepared to do a few years ago.
  I do not believe that journalists should act as investigators in those cases. I have the greatest respect for journalists, who have rightly brought many cases to the public's attention, but they are not qualified to prepare a case for the Court of Appeal or to go into the detailed issues of admissibility of evidence and procedural irregularities. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South will have heard all the fine details argued in the Court of Appeal by extremely capable barristers acting for the appellants, and he knows that the niceties are dealt with in the Court of Appeal. Does he really think that journalists have the necessary skills to do that?
  Mr. Mullin: No one is suggesting that they have. As the Home Secretary made clear, about a third of the members of the commission will be qualified lawyers, whom I would expect to help out in the event of a case being sent to the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman addresses a different point. I understood that his earlier point was that the investigators—those preparing cases for referral to the Court of Appeal—should include journalists. The skills necessary to prepare those cases for the Court of Appeal are not held by journalists. They are held by police officers, who are trained to take ustatements and look at the details of the law as they prepare a case. This, however, is different.
  I particularly welcome the provisions dealing with magistrates courts. For too long, minor offences such as failing to have a motor insurance certificate—such offences, though important, are minor in the overall scheme of things when compared with the serious cases that we have discussed—have inundated the Crown court

  53
  every day of the week. In case after case, the appellant turns up with his or her insurance certificate, and the appeal is allowed. The simple procedure that the Bill introduces will refer such cases back to the magistrates courts so that the document can simply be produced, whatever the plea, and the matter regularised.
  The commission will want to review some magistrates court cases. Although they do not involve large sums of money and are not the most serious cases, they often involve an individual's reputation. We all know of magistrates court cases where tremendous stress has been caused as a result of conviction and loss of character. I welcome the fact that those cases can now be considered by the commission, taken back to court and dealt with speedily.
  I am pleased to welcome the Bill and shall support it today.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Bill. Indeed, when the Gracious Speech setting out the Government's legislative programme made no mention of it, we immediately sought an assurance from the Home Secretary that he had every intention of introducing it during the current Session. That assurance was forthcoming, and we told him that we wanted the Bill to make rapid progress.
  The Bill is long overdue. A small number of miscarriages of justice have brought discredit on the system as a whole and caused a great deal of hardship. One thinks especially of the Stefan Kiszko case, which brought about a great deal of human misery. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, for all those who are wrongly convicted, others go free and are not pursued because a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
  The criticisms and reservations that I make do not represent reasons for delaying the Bill. They are simply ways in which the Bill can be improved as it is considered in more detail. The foremost issue is that of the new commission's independence from the judiciary, the Home Secretary and the Government. Although considerable attempts have been made to safeguard that independence in the format of the Bill, much will depend on who is appointed to the commission.
  It is not yet clear whether the chairman will be a member of the judiciary. The Home Secretary did not refer to that, and I should be interested to know, at the close of the debate, whether the Government think that it would be inappropriate for a current member of the judiciary to switch to that post. There is widespread feeling that the chairman should be drawn from another direction—perhaps from the legal profession but not from the judiciary.
  There must be a good choice of members of the commission, and the commission needs to be properly resourced. Today, the Government set out the procedures for advertising those posts. Those procedures are welcome and come as a new venture for Ministers. After all, only a week ago they appointed 76-year-old Lord Wyatt chairman of the Tote Board on a salary of £ 90,000 a year, without advertising for, or considering, other candidates. So the Government have turned over a new leaf this week and now propose to advertise posts. I hope that they are not surprised if we are a little cynical and suspicious about whether they will really do that, as bad habits seem to be firmly entrenched in Home Office practice.
  54
  The second crucial issue is the carrying out of investigations: who will do it and how? I broadly agree with the Government that police officers will be essential to the effective work of the commission. The pool of knowledge, ability, experience and training to do that job as well as it would be done by police officers simply does not exist outside the police service. It is therefore a question of the mechanism and structure in which police officers will be used for that purpose and whether we should go beyond the use of serving police officers and use retired police officers in some circumstances. Although alternative structures for that exist, the use of police officers will he essential.
  The arrangements proposed do not even precisely follow those of the Police Complaints Authority, which is open to less criticism than has been made. A system whereby direct supervision is by a member of the authority, who is obviously not associated with the police, has considerable advantages. There would be some merit in getting closer to that format, but other methods could also be employed. We could have an established framework of officers who work directly for the commission, perhaps occasionally seconding more junior officers to it for periods of work.
  I am a little reluctant about the setting up of a new national squad as a result of the commission, because one has a feeling that national squads come heavily under the influence of the Metropolitan police. That might not be an appropriate model and the Government must be a little cautious about the formula. I am not satisfied with the assumption that the commission will set in train an investigation, the chief constable will say, "I have a man who can do that," and only in exceptional circumstances will the commission say, "We would rather have it done by another force." That is how the Bill appears.
  The prevailing assumption should be that the investigation will be done from outside and therefore normally by another force and, where several forces have been involved in the original investigation and the commission feels that a free-standing group should investigate it in an exceptional case, by a unit to which officers can be seconded. The Government must look more carefully at alternative structures for using police officers, although I believe that police officers are essential for the conduct of those investigations.
  Cost is an important issue when we consider how investigations are carried out. I do not know how Ministers can stand by the financial memorandum to the Bill, which says:
  "it is not anticipated that the Bill will give rise to any extra demands on police resources."
  If the commission is to direct an investigation to be carried out, if those investigations are sometimes more thorough than those carried out under the direction of the Home Office previously—in some cases, they will have to be, because they will go over cases already dealt with by the Home Office—and if there is an initial rush of cases, as the Government anticipate in resourcing the commission, there will inevitably be pressure on police authorities' resources.
  Many police forces suffer from underfunding, not least because of the problems of the funding of police pensions, to which I have directed the Minister's attention before. Police authorities are, for the first time, open to capping—there are directly capped police authorities.

  55
  Clearly, there will initially be many extra inquiries. The police forces will have to follow the commission's directions on how to conduct the investigations—which may, rightly, be very demanding. I cannot accept that that will not place extra demands upon police resources. If we were to say that, we would be assuming that nothing would be done any better, more thoroughly or more extensively than was done in the past year under the present system. If that is what the Home Secretary is saying, he had better say openly that nothing will be done more thoroughly because the level of investigation will not cost one penny more than it did in the current year.
  I am making a distinction between the costs of investigation and those for the administration of the commission. The Government have provided resources for the commission in recognition that it will be more expensive than the smaller Home Office unit. They have openly recognised and assumed that there will be many additional cases in the earlier years.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that cases are not being looked at thoroughly now, and that when the system changes and there is a criminal cases review commission, the police will consider cases much more thoroughly. He implies that the police are not thorough at present. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. When the police are asked to investigate, they do so very thoroughly.
  Mr. Beith: The point has already been made in the debate that a degree of direction by the commission over the police force will apply in future which did not apply in the case of the Home Office. As the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said, it would have been thought inappropriate in the case of the Home Office. The new system is bound to give rise to extra demands.
  Ministers have conceded that there will be more cases. What will the Minister say when several chief constables say to him that he has told them not to spend one penny more on investigations under the new system than they did under the direction of the Home Office, but current investigations are costing them more? Will the Minister say that that will be taken into account in the financial arrangements of police authorities?
  It is simply not a tenable proposition to say that the new system will not cost one penny more for the police forces who are doing the spadework. If that were so, the new investigation system would be second-rate—I do not think that that is the Government's intention or what the Bill provides for. I am sure that no self-respecting commission would put up with that. There will be a degree of thoroughness that will cost money, but the Government have not taken account of that.
  Clause 2 requires the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal where a conviction is unsafe, but the royal commission suggested quashing convictions that may be unsafe. There is a certain neat logic: to the logical mind, a conviction is either safe or unsafe. If it may be unsafe, it is unsafe—there should not be a reason for a middle category. However, many experienced people believe that narrowing the test will make it significantly more restrictive.
  56
  In people's minds there is a lurking doubt that the conviction may be unsafe rather than actually being unsafe. That fear that a more restrictive test than that proposed by the royal commission will exist in practice constitutes another of the worries about the Bill. The Government rightly prayed in aid the royal commission and all the work that it did. It must be a matter of concern that the test appears to be narrower.
  There are also concerns about disclosure of evidence. The commission has extensive powers to demand information, but the Home Office department C3 is exempted from the disclosure requirements. It is even possible that the commission will unintentionally and unnecessarily repeat C3 investigations and analysis, which could be expensive. The Bill places no explicit obligation on the commission to release evidence on which appeal application has been denied. That has previously been judged as unfair under the present system because it denies the appellant the opportunity to question the evidence on which his application is refused.
  Clause 23 sets out exceptions to the duty of confidentiality, but no overt requirement for disclosure in such circumstances. That issue requires further attention.
  Although anxieties remain about ensuring the independence of the body, about the structure by which we use police officers in investigations, about the costs to police authorities and other matters, the Bill is welcome. I hope that it will soon be on the statute book and in operation.
  5.44 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The sheer size and complexity of the Bill is the complete answer to those who criticised my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for being slow to bring before the House a measure to end miscarriages of justice. With no draft scheme recommended by the Runciman royal commission and no unanimity about many of the details, a period of consultation followed by close consideration was vital, and took time. We have had enough bad legislation placed on the statute book in haste to justify the careful consideration that the Bill has been given. My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on producing a worthy Bill that will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in our criminal justice system.
  I have reservations about the detail, but I hope that nothing that I say will be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Bill, which takes a substantial step forward. It is just possible that the Bill may be improved between now and its final passing if attention is paid to the various points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We have already taken considerable steps to ensure that there are many fewer miscarriages of justice than in the past. Tape-recorded interviews have been the greatest single contribution towards the improvement of the criminal justice system. They are now in force, working well and helping to raise the standing and appreciation of police officers' work. Police officers are no longer being constantly attacked for dishonesty in every criminal case because the truth of what was actually said is recorded in the tape recorded interviews. Where those tape-recorded interviews amount to nothing, the burden is placed much more firmly on the prosecution to produce other good evidence of guilt. That in itself tends to reduce the possibility of miscarriages of justice.

  57
  The independent Crown Prosecution Service standardises the prosecution of offenders and removes the bias previously thought to exist when the police prosecuted. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 lays down strict criteria governing the production of police evidence and acts as a deterrent to police wrongdoing. That is a saving factor against miscarriages of justice.
  Another development has been electrostatic document analysis, which detects inconsistencies and has helped to bring to a more satisfactory conclusion terrorist cases involving miscarriages of justice. There have been improvements in forensic science investigation. There is judicial recognition of the possibility of identification error, which has led to judges having to give guidance to juries about being careful with any identification evidence. We have also seen improvements in the training of barristers and the sharpening of the facility to cross-examine—one of the strongest defences against miscarriage of justice. There have also been improvements in the training of judges to alert them to the possibility of miscarriages of justice.
  All those factors have made miscarriages of justice much less likely to occur today than was the case in the 1970s. However, we must continue to improve the processes of investigation and trial to avoid unjust convictions. The provisions in the Bill to improve the work of the Court of Appeal have made a substantial contribution towards improving the system. The court has not always been able to detect miscarriages of justice, so improvements in the appeal stages were recommended by the royal commission chaired by Lord Runciman and form an important part of the Bill.
  If the Court of Appeal suspects a miscarriage of justice, it has limited powers. It can quash a conviction or order a retrial. It is perhaps sensible to simplify the overlapping grounds on which at present a Court of Appeal can allow an appeal—because the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, or there has been a wrong decision in law, or there was a material irregularity in the trial—to one test, of whether the verdict is unsafe. However, that depends on what "unsafe" means.
  Let me take some examples of the problems that are likely to arise. A verdict may be unsafe because there comes to light evidence that would be inadmissible in law because it is hearsay, as in the case of Algar, about which I intervened with the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Goddard in the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), or because it is inadmissible under section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  What is the position as far as the Court of Appeal is concerned? Is the criminal cases review commission able to refer to it that type of evidence which might throw doubt on the safety of a conviction? I shall return to that later.
  There is the other side of the coin. Let us suppose that the Court of Appeal says, "We have no doubt that the man is guilty on all the evidence, but the police lied about the circumstances in which they took the confession and, had the jury known that the police were lying about that, we cannot say that the jury would not have decided that the police were lying about other parts of their evidence; so we quash the conviction." The Court of Appeal would in effect be saying that the conviction was safe, but that it was thoroughly unsatisfactory, and therefore would
  58
  quash the conviction because it was unsatisfactory. However, we have deleted the requirement that the conviction be unsatisfactory as a basis for quashing a conviction.
  Would such a defendant remain convicted in circumstances in which, at present, his conviction is quashed? It may well be a matter of pure justice that he should be convicted although the trial was unsatisfactory, but nevertheless obviously a problem is likely to arise unless we define better and more clearly what we mean by the word "unsafe".
  There are also cases now in which the Court of Appeal says that a verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory, yet the proviso is applied saying that nevertheless the conviction should stand. Common sense says that, if a conviction is unsafe, it should not stand, and it should not be allowed to stand simply because the reason for saying that it is unsafe is trivial. A conviction is either safe or unsafe. If it is unsafe, it should not stand. There should be no question of any proviso. Is not the logic of that that the proviso should be abolished? Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary consider doing that in the Bill?
  It is constructive that clause 4 lowers the threshold for the admission of fresh evidence from the standard of whether it is likely to be credible to whether it is capable of belief. However, in my opinion, it would be a great pity if the opportunity were not taken to allow the court to include any relevant or material evidence capable of belief that is not produced at the trial, even when the reason was negligence or error of judgment by the defendant's legal advisors, provided that it had not been deliberately left until the appeal before being produced. It always appears to me to be terribly unjust that the faults of legal advisers or counsel at the trial should lead to the quashing of a conviction.
  Perhaps it is not necessary to include it in the legislation, but it might help to reduce the miscarriages of justice if the Court of Appeal used its power to order a retrial more frequently then it does, in circumstances where fresh evidence would require a jury's verdict and no harm would be done because of passage of time or the sensitivity of victims or even perhaps the sensitivity of the defendant.
  I have perhaps said enough in a Second Reading speech to show that there may be problems with the wording of clause 2. I have had the privilege of reading a draft article by Professor Sir John Smith QC, who raises other doubts in addition to those, and I would advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider its contents before going firm on that clause.
  The Society of Conservative Lawyers sub-committee on criminal justice and miscarriages of justice, which I was privileged to chair, said in its evidence to Lord Runciman that it was undesirable that miscarriages of justice, which were essentially a legal matter, should involve the Home Secretary so closely. Although all fair-minded and unbiased people would accept that there has been no reason for supposing that successive Home Secretaries have been other than impartial, the belief is sometimes fostered by Opposition Members and others that decisions were political. Media pressure and the representations of archbishops and others often appear to influence such references hack to the Court of Appeal.

  59
  Further, the Home Secretary's guidelines appear to say that positive proof of innocence would almost need to be required before the Home Secretary refers cases back. As such references are based on the papers in the case, and the papers seldom show police dishonesty or wrong conclusions drawn by forensic scientists or eye-witness error, it is obviously sensible that that whole murky business of the Home Secretary's part in referring matters back should be cleared up once and for all. It follows that I very much welcome clause 3, which abolishes the need for the Home Secretary to refer cases to the Court of Appeal.
  Potentially, the most important contribution of the Bill to the reduction of the number of cases in which an innocent person is wrongfully convicted is the establishment of the criminal cases review commission. That was recommended by all the people who have been mentioned, and by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in its evidence to Lord Runciman, as an additional filter to avoid injustice, because we did not think that the Court of Appeal was suited to perform the functions that we had in mind.
  We recommended just such a board or commission as is contained in the Bill, but we made an addition that does not appear in the legislation. We said:
  "A properly funded organisation would be needed under a Director adequately staffed by solicitors, investigators (who could be former police officers), accountants, computer experts and forensic scientists. They should be able to seek assistance from outside bodies. There must be access to relevant police and prosecution files and the body must have full investigative powers. Advice and directions could be given by a panel of senior lawyers."
  It appears that that type of organisation is not what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has in mind, which is a pity.
  There are very good reasons why the investigative body should be made up of police officers, and specifically there is a need for such investigators to have police powers. However, the sheer number of investigations per year, which might increase to the present number of referrals—800—and the strain that that would place on police forces, must raise the possibility of including people other than existing members of police forces. When Operation Countryman was going on, I heard that it was impossible for some police forces to operate properly because so many police officers were seconded to take part in that inquiry.
  We must be cognisant of the public scepticism about police investigating police. We did something to address that concern by establishing the independent Police Complaints Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, it was aggravated by Operation Countryman's complete failure to bring anyone to justice, notwithstanding what was generally considered to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It was widely believed —I think with good reason—that nothing came of Operation Countryman because it was a case of police officers investigating police officers.
  I made the point by way of intervention during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech that many excellent, young though retired and experienced police officers— some of them of senior rank and all of them very responsible—might well have their expertise employed usefully in investigations and inquiries. I hope that my
  60
  right hon. and learned Friend will examine whether it is possible to improve the investigation procedures of the proposed commission.
  I do not suggest for a moment that journalists are the best statement takers. Judging from the quotations that I have allegedly given to journalists in recent years, I consider them to be the worst statement takers. Comedians could take statements as well as journalists do, but I do not think that anyone is suggesting that investigations should be in the hands of comedians.
  I have already alluded to a problem with the procedures of the new appellate body which is not like the Court of Appeal. New evidence may be discovered which is not admissible in law and therefore, under the existing rules, would surely have to be rejected by the Court of Appeal. Everyone may realise that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, but nothing can be done about it because the commission has discovered evidence which is inadmissible in the Court of Appeal to which the matter is referred.
  We will be no further advanced in curing miscarriages of justice if that is the end of the road. How will we remedy that problem? I am afraid that there may be no alternative but to admit hearsay or any other kind of inadmissible evidence. In its evidence, the Society of Conservative Lawyers said:
  "we do think that certain miscarriages of justice where the wrong person is convicted might be avoided if the defence could in some circumstances rely on 'hearsay' evidence."
  We suggested:
  "So-called 'self-serving' or 'exculpatory' statements should be admissible to show consistency";
  obviously that was at the point of trial. We also suggested:
  "The defence should be able to adduce 'hearsay' if it can satisfy the judge that direct evidence is not available in practice, that the evidence is relevant, that it comes from an apparently reliable source, and that justice requires its admission".
  I think—the draft article by Professor Sir John Smith suggests this also—that we should grasp the nettle.
  The object of this exercise is to abolish miscarriages of justice as far as we can—I add that qualification because we can never exclude the possibility that people will deliberately lie in circumstances when those lies cannot be detected, or that eye witnesses may make honest mistakes but no evidence exists to the contrary. If we are to deal effectively with miscarriages of justice, we must consider the need for some far-reaching changes in the rules of evidence.
  It is not enough to state in the Bill that the test is whether or not the verdict is "unsafe" and expect the courts to interpret it anew. We would spend all of our time in the Court of Appeal arguing what "unsafe" meant. It is not enough simply to set up a commission without considering what kind of evidence it might discover which would then come up against the buffers of existing rules of law and practice in our courts.
  Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am nearing the end of my speech.. however, I will give way.
  Mr. Stephen: My hon. and learned Friend suggests that hearsay evidence might be admissible in certain circumstances to avoid miscarriages of justice, to the

  61
  detriment of the defendant. Does he accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) suggested, the admission of hearsay evidence might result in miscarriages of justice, to the detriment of the public?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That has always been an argument against admitting hearsay evidence. However, we are talking about a conviction as a result of evidence which may be suspect, although the reason for thinking that it is suspect may not he admissible. We are not talking about those miscarriages that acquit the guilty; the Government have toughened the laws of criminal trial to ensure that miscarriages of justice involving the acquittal of guilty persons do not take place. Today, we are discussing miscarriages of justice where we convict the innocent. It is in that context that the question of hearsay evidence which helps the appellant may need to be raised and considered.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Those were actually my very last words.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Like previous speakers in the debate, I welcome the establishment of the criminal cases review commission, and I shall refer to those parts of the Bill which deal with it.
  The Home Secretary did not convince me with his defence of why the commission was such a long time coming. I might have been more receptive to his explanations before the enactment of last year's criminal justice legislation—which included provisions such as removal of the right of silence—which will probably lead to more miscarriages of justice.
  However, we all welcome the establishment of the commission, and we must ensure that it works as well as it possibly can. The concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House go to the detail of how the commission will work. It is absolutely critical that the legal profession and the public are confident about the commission's workings from the beginning. Such confidence is vital if the commission is to work well and to be respected.
  I shall refer to two areas relating to confidence. The first is the composition of the commission. Clearly, we will not debate whom the commission should comprise today or in Committee. However, it is important to examine how its members will be appointed, and I welcome the Home Secretary's advice that the positions shall he advertised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, the commission's membership is important, because that will determine the way in which the commission is perceived initially.
  Some members of the commission should have a legal background, but I hope that there will be a wide interpretation of the description of commission members in clause 8. Paragraph (6) states that they shall be
  "persons who appear to … have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system …"
  I was pleased that the Home Office discussion paper stated:
  "The most important qualifications for the work which the Authority will undertake are likely to be an ability to assess and interpret facts and behaviour; patience and sensitivity; an
  62
  open-minded determination to get to the root of what are often complex and enigmatic problems. As several commentators have noted, a fresh perspective is likely to be especially valuable in reviewing cases which the ordinary processes of law have failed to resolve satisfactorily."
  It was thought that that might be provided by appointing non-legal members with experience of the criminal justice system and others who could bring a range of appropriate skills and experience from other backgrounds. The Home Office clearly had in view a wide range of people, and I trust that that will be reflected in the appointments.
  The commission should reflect to some degree its potential client group, and should hear in mind strong evidence of the disproportionate effects of the criminal justice system on people from ethnic minority backgrounds. We know from some evidence given to the royal commission that the workings of the system contribute to the experiences of black and other ethnic minority defendants in respect of admissions, pleas of guilt, court of trial, whether or not bail is granted, and sentencing. The commission will also be able to consider sentencing.
  The 1992 study by Dr. Roger Hood of the sentencing of black defendants was commissioned by the Commission for Racial Equality, and its chair introduced that report with the observation that, if sentencing by the courts had been within the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976, the discrimination uncovered by Dr. Hood's rigorous statistical analysis would nave been unlawful. That seems to indicate some problems, and implies that, if the commission is to deal with sentencing also, it will have some work to do.
  When Home Office Ministers make appointments to the commission, I trust that they will remember those Home Office reports, and that it is made clear from the start that people from a wide variety of backgrounds are encouraged to apply.
  The independence of the commission's investigations was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and the hon. And learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) expressed reservations about the processes for which the Bill provides. Part of the commission's work will be uncovering police malpractice. That is not to suggest, as other speakers have made clear, that all policemen are corrupt. However, we know from earlier cases of miscarriages of justice that police malpractice was involved. It is wrong in principle to use in the work of uncovering such malpractices currently serving police officers.
  There is a real and dangerous lack of public confidence in police internal investigations. It is clear that the Police Complaints Authority is not regarded with any great confidence outside the House. In 1993, of nearly 18,000 complaints to the PCA, only 227 led to disciplinary charges. In more than 90 per cent. of cases, no disciplinary action was taken. One can only conclude that there is something wrong with the system, or that there are an awful lot of congenital liars about the place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn pointed out that the consequence is less use being made of the PCA and more use of civil actions against the police. I do not want that lack of confidence replicated with the commission.
  I am not convinced that the skills and expertise needed to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice are necessarily the same as those required in day-to-day

  63
  police work. I am not convinced either that the proposed powers of supervision and direction are the same as direct control over an investigation.
  Linked to public confidence is accessibility—the barriers to a case being considered. The Government are concerned about the commission being swamped with thousands of spurious cases, which would prevent the new body from doing its work. We obviously do not want the commission's time wasted, but we must consider not just highly publicised, high-profile cases—significant though they may be. Many of the people who approach hon. Members alleging that they are victims of miscarriages of justice are not well known, and do not have easy access to support and advocacy. They may have difficulty with reading or writing, and in presenting their cases effectively. They may be people of limited means.
  The provision to self-refer to the commission will be important, but so will he the way in which an initial approach is assessed. Applicants should not easily be rejected because of the sometimes inadequate nature of their initial approach. Accessibility applies also to referral to the Court of Appeal, to which I will refer later.
  As Members of Parliament, we are approached by members of the public who protest their innocence. In some cases, they do not present much in the way of new evidence. In others, one may feel that the contrary evidence is more credible. In any event, we do not have the ability to undertake in-depth investigation. In my experience, the greatest difficulties arise where a jury's decision is involved, and it is not easy to identify a new avenue of inquiry, even though one may have serious doubts about the safety of a conviction.
  I have spent most time on a case involving a young African woman convicted of drug smuggling, sentenced to seven years in prison and then deported. I was convinced of her innocence but, given the circumstances, it was extremely difficult to pursue that case through the present system. There should he no difficult hurdles in the way of access to the commission when it is investigating such cases.
  The same applies to referrals back to the Court of Appeal. Under the Bill, referrals after a conviction must be based on an argument or evidence not already raised which gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld. The question then is: how far is the commission being asked to make judgments about whether a conviction would be upheld? Would not a more realistic test be whether the evidence was not incredible and was relevant?
  Surely the court is the place to decide whether a conviction should be upheld. I know that these judgments have to be made, but we often hear complaints about the Crown Prosecution Service to the effect that it has made a wrong judgment about the possibility of obtaining a conviction. The hurdles placed before the commission when it comes to scrutinise miscarriages of justice should be made as low as possible.
  I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of three clauses. First. I am worried about the impact of clauses 16 and 17, the second of which refers to old cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked the Minister about the range of cases that the commission might he able to look at.
  64
  Clause 17 relates to access to documents, while clause 16 states that the commission may have access to documents from public bodies, if a
  "person serving in a public body has possession or control of a document or other material which may assist the Commission".
  But clause 17 makes it clear that that does not apply to material in a Government Department if the document or material
  "is relevant to a case which the Secretary of State has at any time considered with a view to deciding whether to make a reference under section 17 of the 1968 Act".
  That would seem to have serious implications for cases such as that of the Bridgewater Three, which involved the Secretary of State considering whether to make a reference under section 17.
  To be sure, the Secretary of State will give the commission documents containing representations made to him—but one assumes that they would be easy to get hold of anyway; so may we have clarification of what sort of documents will be withheld? It would seem that internal C3 documents will not be accessible to the commission. That fact alone needs justifying, because some old cases will be affected if such documents are withheld.
  Clause 5 also needs clarifying. It allows the Court of Appeal to direct the commission to investigate, a power that I would expect to be used only in limited circumstances. The Home Office discussion paper raised a number of questions about how the power might be used, and about the relationship between the court and the commission when the power is used.
  Will the court ask the commission to provide assistance and leave the commission with discretion as to the depth of the ensuing inquiry? Will the commission be able to pursue inquiries that may seem relevant to the case, apart from the inquiry that is asked for by the court?
  Furthermore, what will he the position of an appellant in the Court of Appeal? If he is asked to comment or to give evidence to the commission while he is still in the middle of his case at the Court of Appeal, one would not expect him to have to incriminate himself. What, therefore, will be the relationship between the court and the commission?
  What will happen if, after the appeal is over, the person who has been convicted wants to make further representations to the commission? Will the original reference by the Court of Appeal to the commission have an impact on that?
  We all welcome the setting up of the commission: it is long overdue. Certain matters of detail, however, need to be put right, as we all want the commission to work well. We want it to reduce the number of miscarriages of justice, and to allow old cases to be effectively looked at again. Just because a case is already being investigated should not constitute a barrier to presenting it to the commission in the future.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I welcome this Bill and support its Second Reading. I know that my constituents, a number of whom have written to me in recent years about miscarriages of justice, will he pleased that legislation has been quickly introduced—a fact on which I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  65
  As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, whose views I have naturally sought. They are a matter of legitimate interest in consideration of this important piece of legislation.
  The federation, together with the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers, submitted an agreed memorandum of evidence on this subject to the Royal Commission on criminal justice. This is an example of the three police staff associations acting together to comment on a subject of enormous importance to the country and the police service.
  The view of the Police Federation is that many of the recent well-known appeals have been successful after long, prominent campaigns on behalf of those convicted. The federation believes that it is difficult for a senior Cabinet Minister such as the Home Secretary to maintain a detached judgment which is focused only on evidential issues; and it is perhaps unfair to him—or one day, her—that he should be involved in the appeal process when, at all other stages, the judiciary is wholly independent of the Executive.
  It is therefore a welcome step that the Bill provides that the referral of cases to the Court of Appeal in circumstances when the Home Secretary at present makes the decision should in future be undertaken by a quasi-judicial forum comprising lawyers and lay persons.
  In its evidence to the royal commission, the federation said that it was difficult to see what body other than the police could carry out the necessary inquiries into possible miscarriages of justice. The management and co-ordination of a major inquiry is obviously a complex and specialist function. Detailed understanding of the initial investigation would always be required.
  It seems to the federation that such expertise lies only in the police service, and that it would be unrealistic and unfair on the appellant and the prosecution to ask any other body to re-investigate a case without that expertise. It should be recognised also that, in all the cases that have given rise to the present concern, the discrepancies have been discovered and exposed in the end by meticulous police inquiries.
  As far as I am aware, there has never been a suggestion that the further inquiries normally undertaken by an outside police force have been less than rigorous, or that any evidence which benefits the defendant has been suppressed. It is for those reasons that the federation supports the main objectives set out in the Bill.
  The police are aware that the proposals in the Bill have aroused some criticism because of the decision to leave the investigation of cases in their hands. This criticism, where it exists, can be answered by drawing attention to the long experience of the system by which police investigations into serious complaints against the service are carried out under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.
  The federation is not aware of any case in which it has been suggested, still less established, that such investigations have not been fair and thorough. There is therefore no reason to suspect that that will not be the position with investigations by the criminal cases review commission.
  66
  I agree with the views that have been expressed to me by the police. They say that, taking into account the fact that the criminal justice system has undergone major reforms in recent years, almost all the cases that have caused public concern pre-date current legislation. That point has been made by several hon. Members.
  The federation believes that the creation of the proposed commission will inevitably lead to a substantial rise in the number of cases in which miscarriages of justice are alleged. It considers, however, that it is not unreasonable to expect that the number of cases that will be found to merit reference to the courts will not be significantly greater than it is now.
  Consequently, the federation believes that it is sensible to rely on police investigations. It does not, however, rule out the possibility that the new commission might itself decide, in the light of experience, that it should have its own investigative arm, consisting perhaps of former police officers and others with appropriate experience and qualifications. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there is some concern in police circles that the cost and manpower implications for the service might have been understated. It is estimated that, at least initially, the number of cases in which a miscarriage of justice is alleged might double to about 1,500 annually. There will therefore be more references to the courts than the current average of 10 or 12 cases a year. Given increases in the case load of those proportions, there is concern that, when the Bill is enacted, it should not place extra demands on precious police resources.
  The federation has told me that it believes that consideration should be given to reimbursing police forces for the cost of investigations that are carried out at the behest of the commission. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is listening carefully to the debate, will take that request fully into account.
  It is a welcome development in considering the Bill that the House knows that its provisions have the support of the Police Complaints Authority. There has been some discussion about the PCA this afternoon, so it is important to place on record the fact that it supports the Bill. The PCA called for the setting up of an independent body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice in its evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice. It therefore looks forward to the proposed commission, and to co-operating with it in future.
  The House knows that the PCA has considerable experience of supervising investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice. These arise in three ways. The first and largest group results from complaints against police officers by convicted persons. Secondly, when the Home Office requests a police review or reinvestigation of a case involving possible police misconduct, the investigating force may well seek the added safeguard of supervision by the PCA. Thirdly, evidence which raises doubt about the safety of a conviction may be turned up in the course of an unrelated complaint investigation. I understand that it is always acted upon, even if the person concerned has not claimed to be the victim of a miscarriage.

  67
  A survey in July 1992 showed that the PCA was supervising 26 cases involving possible miscarriages of justice, involving 30 individuals and 15 police forces. A similar assessment in January of this year revealed 17 such cases, involving officers in 11 different police forces.
  The PCA was not involved in cases such as those of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, or that of Carl Bridgewater, which predated its establishment in 1985. However, the authority supervised investigations which formed the basis of successful appeals by Sam Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham, who were convicted of murdering Tamils in east London; of Edward Browning, who was convicted of murdering Mrs. Marie Wilkes on the M50; and of the Darvell brothers, whom we have already heard about. Other important cases include the West Midlands serious crime squad, where 97 cases were referred to the Home Office and where, following a supervised inquiry, 22 officers had their sentences quashed by the Court of Appeal.
  Another case that is worth recalling is that of ex-Police Constable Corley, who was accused of involvement in armed robberies and sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment. A supervised investigation, resulted in a successful appeal. The investigation subsequently revealed, however, that he had been the victim of a conspiracy.
  There is a case for openness in dealing with these difficult matters. For that reason, the PCA welcomes the fact that the proposed commission will enjoy more freedom to explain its decisions than is currently permitted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  The PCA also takes the view that the police are best equipped to investigate cases. That is an important conclusion. The chairman of the New Zealand complaints authority recently said:
  "Experience has shown throughout the world that civilians cannot investigate police as well as police can. It is much easier to deceive the public than it is other police."
  I must agree with that view.
  Home Office statistics show that the overwhelming majority of cases to be considered by the new commission do not involve accusations against police officers. I understand that it is likely that there will be only a limited number—perhaps 15 or 20—a year.
  I wish the Bill well, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through Parliament. It is a major step forward, which will be welcomed by the public in general. It will help to restore confidence, which has been dented by some wrongful convictions in the recent past.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Like many of my colleagues, I welcome the proposal to set up the criminal cases review commission. Many would say that it has taken about 25 years to take this step, and that it should have been done sooner. I should explain at this stage that I have a sore throat. I ask the House to bear with me.
  The proposal to set up the commission is vital to the area that I represent in part, because the west midlands has had problems with a minority of the West Midlands police over some years. I shall not rehearse individual cases this evening, because some of my colleagues have
  68
  already touched on them. The House knows that we have experienced the problem of the Birmingham Six and other serious cases. An independent review commission could also investigate faulty forensic tests. I am sure that some hon. Members know exactly what I mean by that.
  There is also the question of police evidence. If it is established properly, the commission will be able to go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the police. In some instances, the majority of policemen have been branded by cases that obscure the fact that only a minority have engaged in certain practices. I entirely accept what some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out: most policemen are offended when a colleague is found guild of impropriety.
  As all hon. Members who represent inner cities know, such areas rely heavily on the police, and it is therefore vital to restore confidence in them. I am slightly disappointed in only one aspect of the Bill. While I am aware that this is not part of the remit that we are discussing, I feel that much more could have been done to help the police, and to ensure that they do not make mistakes, through the provision of witness protection schemes. I am referring to genuine mistakes: if witnesses are frightened, they do not always provide accurate information.
  I should like to know about the composition of the new commission. I hope that the Home Secretary will find places for representatives of ethnic minorities. Most of us know that, rightly or wrongly, many members of those minorities feel that they are discriminated against in the courts and that injustices are often perpetrated. If the Home Secretary examined that problem, the commission would be given some credibility.
  In 1982, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that the police should be investigated by a body other than themselves. A number of organisations have been suggested. I am not too concerned which organisation should perform the task, but I should like to know why the police should do it. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that the police are probably better at investigating themselves than anyone else is at investigating them, but I should like that argument to be tested: it is often used in the House without much justification.
  I should also like to know more about the composition of the proposed commission. I understand that solicitors will form a third of it, but what about the other two thirds? The Home Secretary referred to "adequate resources"; what does he mean by that? Is it pounds, shillings and pence, or is it bodies? If he is referring to staff who will be playing an investigatory role, we need to know how much money will be spent. If the commission is not adequately resourced, it will riot fulfil the functions we wish it to fulfil: it will not be able to right wrongs perpetrated in the administration of justice.
  The Home Secretary pointed out that police training had improved over the years, and said that he was in the forefront in the fight against crime. I do not know about that. As other hon. Members have pointed out, many police budgets may be cut in future, while some have already been cut. If the police are to do their job adequately and not make mistakes, they must be given adequate resources; but too much lip service has been paid to that principle.

  69
  As I have said many times in the House, the whole question of standard spending assessments must be examined. It is easy to obscure the resources granted to the police by citing a general local authority budget, and it is possible to advance 57 arguments for each case, without spelling out the resources that are actually available.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the Government's proposal for a staff of about 60 in the new commission? Is he suggesting a staff twice that size? Will he bear in mind what that would cost?
  Mr. Mr. Cunningham: I do not think that it is for me to say how much it would cost. I want to know how much the Government will put into the new scheme, and what they mean by "adequate resources". I think that that means a hit more than money. The hon. Lady should direct her question to Ministers.
  The Government say that they are at the forefront of the fight against crime, but they have cut resources for police authorities; they have also cut legal aid. If we are genuinely to debate justice, we must deal with those facts. Funds for victim support schemes and the safer cities programme have also been cut. Many people living in deprived areas feel aggrieved when they find themselves in a court of law without adequate resources to put their case, and that is another reason for establishing the new commission.
  Mr. Shersby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the country is currently spending £432 million on legal aid? That huge sum, which is dispensed by justices' clerks and through the medium of solicitors, must be seen in the context of the criminal justice system as a whole. As for the cuts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I am sure that he is referring to ability to claim on the basis of income rather than the total cost of the scheme.
  Mr. Mr. Cunningham: My point is that the poorer members of society experience difficulties in obtaining legal aid. I am not talking about multi-millionaires. As with any other resources, we must ask what basis should be used for the provision of resources for legal aid. The judgment should surely be made on the basis of need. Hon. Members tend to judge less on the basis of need than on the basis of how much can be returned to the taxpayer, but I do not think that justice should be based on that principle.
  Although I broadly welcome the Bill, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider some of what I have said.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I begin by making some apologies. I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a representative of Madam Speaker; I must also apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. to other Ministers and to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for having been unavoidably absent until fairly late in the debate. I was undertaking other parliamentary duties. I gather from those to whom I have spoken that the opening speeches were of a high quality, and it is my loss rather than that of other hon. Members that I was not present to hear them.
  I also apologise to Back Benchers on both sides of the House whose speeches I was not able to hear. I am glad, however, that I have been able to hear some interesting
  70
  contributions in the past hour and a half or so. I am happy that, with one or two exceptions on different matters, the Bill is receiving all-party support. It seems to fit into the scheme of things in criminal justice, and it will allow a more humane and, if I may say so, effective system of dealing with complaints about the criminal justice system.
  As I understand it, there are three main objectives to the reforms proposed by the Bill: first, to ensure that convictions that cannot be considered safe are quashed, leaving those that are safe to stand; secondly, to provide arrangements to ensure that doubts about the safety of a conviction can be considered and resolved at the earliest opportunity; and thirdly. to ensure a consistency of approach in criminal proceedings, so that the final decision on whether a conviction should stand is in all cases taken by the courts, whether on an ordinary appeal or following a re-examination of the case by another body. Those are perfectly unobjectionable aims, and I trust that, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will be realised.
  It might be of some assistance to the House to place the Bill in an historical context. I do so with some diffidence, because I am not much of a criminal historian, and certainly not much of a criminal lawyer. I must declare an interest, in that I am a IT ember of the Bar and earn my living at the Bar when I ant not here.
  I have not done a criminal case since about 1978, and all sorts of magical things have happened since then about which I am wholly ignorant, but I do know that, before 1907, there was no general right of appeal against conviction or sentence; there was simply no Court of Appeal. Miscarriages of justice could be corrected only by using the royal prerogative of mercy, on the advice of a Secretary of State. There has always been—I am not sure that it has been a happy thing—a political intervention in the criminal justice system in the recommendation for the use of the royal prerogative of mercy. As I understand it, the Bill makes proposals with regard to the royal prerogative, and has some effect on it.
  The Criminal Appeal Act 1907 set up the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was given by the House and Parliament as a whole the power to correct wrongful convictions on appeal, and the Secretary of State had the power to refer cases to it. The right to request a referral lay solely with the defendant. That remained the position until shortly after the second world war, when the House passed the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which allowed a referral to be made as a result of representations from any other person. Following that Act, we have a "multi-accessed approach"—if I may use a disgusting expression—to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  The Administration of Justice Act 1960 gave the Secretary of State discretion to refer a case. The Criminal Appeal Act 1966 set up the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, replacing the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 gave the Secretary of State power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal.
  In July 1993, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was established, which, as the House will know, is widely known as the Runciman commission. It has recently reported, and many of its recommendations have been considered in the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which until January I was honoured to be a member.
  I see that my former colleague, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who sits on the Opposition Benches, is in his place. He was removed from that Committee to sit on the Treasury Select Committee.

  71
  Whether he finds it as enjoyable as we used to find the Home Affairs Select Committee, I have no idea, but I can see that he is itching to tell us. No doubt in due course he will intervene to tell us about his work on that Committee.
  As a result of the Runciman commission, a recommendation was made that the Secretary of State's power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal should be removed and given to a new, independent review body. The Government accepted that recommendation. Also recommended were changes to the powers and functions of the Court of Appeal.
  In March and June of 1994, further discussion papers were published, dealing with miscarriages of justice and changes in Northern Ireland, and the Bill was published in February 1995. So we have had nearly 90 years of legislative development, and the Bill is but the latest development—I can say with some confidence that it will be the last for some time—in the law as it relates to criminal justice.
  The House will be aware from recent newspaper reports that Lord Justice Rose, sitting, I think, in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, deprecated the number of Bills that have emerged from Parliament in the past 10 years or so dealing with criminal justice and which have become Acts. I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill 1993, a Bill that was designed to correct the mistakes that had been made in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, led for the Opposition in that Committee.
  Although I was not a Member of the House at the time, I recall hearing the thoughts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill 1991. He anticipated the Criminal Justice Bill 1993, and warned other hon. Members about the unitary fine system and about doing away with previous convictions points, which later had to be corrected in the 1993 Act.
  I hope that will get this Bill right, and get it right at first blush, because there has been much pre-legislative discussion about it. I trust that the Government have taken on hoard the points that were drawn to their attention after reading the commission's report, and through listening to the deliberations of experts such as my hon. and learned Friend and other interested parties outside Parliament—academics, legal practitioners and so forth —who have taken an interest in the matter.
  If I may say so, the conduct of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) cannot be brushed aside as an inconvenient intervention of a Labour Member of Parliament. Although I do not agree with him on all sorts of issues, his work on a number of alleged cases of criminal injustice is commendable and has got us all thinking.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot, of course, claim all the credit for some of the corrections to injustices that have taken place. Indeed, my predecessor, Sir John Farr, who represented the constituency of Harborough from 1959 until the previous general election, was instrumental in adding Conservative teeth to the point that was raised by the hon. Gentleman. I, as Sir John did before, had the
  72
  honour of representing a number of what I might call "involuntary constituents"—those who are incarcerated in Gartree prison.
  It was while visiting Gartree that Sir John met a number of the Birmingham Six, and he was of great assistance to them in helping them to get their convictions overturned. For present purposes, it does not matter whether those convictions were wrong or right. What matters, for present purposes, is that it took all the work of a Member of Parliament, who lent them his photocopying machine at home to photocopy papers and so forth; the work of the press and of other Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, to get those convictions overturned.
  I have represented—I am not sure whether it still applies—some of the Bridgwater Three. I did a little work on their behalf to see that their case was drawn to the attention of the Home Office.
  I am currently engaged in another case involving an involuntary constituent who has been convicted of murder. I have read the judge's summing up at the trial and the Court of Appeal judgments, and, in my view, there is a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction in that case. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is currently looking at the case, and I shall not embarrass him or interfere in his departmental discussions by mentioning the name of the case.
  The lesson to be drawn from all those activities is that it seems to take a long time for anything to be done. I hope that the Bill will provide a system for much quicker resolution of complaints.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Despite all that my hon. Friend has said, with which I agree, does he share my concern that the one problem arising from the Bill, which I welcome, is the danger of great pressure from single-issue lobby groups to try to get media pressure for a cause celebre just for the sake of it? Does he agree that there is a danger that such pressure might weigh too heavily on a body such as that which is proposed?
  Mr. Garnier: As the body has yet to be set up, I have no idea whether it will be susceptible to that sort of pressure. I intervened during the debate on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday to complain about legislation by postcard, and I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be resolute in not allowing any new body to be open to such pressure.
  The converse argument is that this is a democracy, and if a matter worries people, then who the hell do they write to if not their Member of Parliament or the body that deals with the matter? While I acknowledge the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), I do not think that they should be paramount in our discussions.
  I shall now deal with the speed at which complaints are dealt with. Figures produced by the Home Office on the number of representations about wrongful convictions and actions taken show that there were 536 in 1988, and that they resulted in two referrals to the Court of Appeal, one of which was dropped before it reached there. In 1989, there were 568 cases, and six were referred. In 1990, 731 were considered, and 20 were referred. It is interesting that, in 1989 and 1990, all the appeals were allowed.

  73
  Therefore, it appears that the Minister who considered those cases got it right, by referring only those that should not have resulted in conviction in the first place.
  In 1991, 714 cases were considered, 12 were referred to the Court of Appeal and all were allowed. In 1992, 763 were considered, and 11 were referred to the Court of Appeal. I understand that one is outstanding at the moment. Eight appeals were allowed. In 1993, 670 cases were considered and nine were referred. One of those has been abandoned and four are outstanding. So far, three appeals have been allowed, and one has been dismissed. In 1994, 480 cases were considered, and 12 were referred. We do not yet know how many of those appeals will be allowed or dismissed.
  We are debating large numbers of cases, but they are not huge in relation to the number that magistrates courts and Crown courts have to deal with. None the less, the number of cases is not small, and I trust that they will be dealt with expeditiously by the new body.
  The proposed changes to the criminal appeals system have been set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall not bore the House by repeating them. However, I ask him to consider the financial consequences of the Bill. I refer especially to the explanatory and financial memorandum in the Bill, and the heading "Financial effects of the Bill" in part IV. I shall not bore the House by reading out what is stated there, because hon. Members can read it for themselves.
  One of the financial effects about which the Bill is silent is the issue of legal aid. I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned that. What are the Bill's implications for legal aid? When an aggrieved prisoner contacts his solicitor and asks him to refer his case or to get something done about it, the solicitor may act more willingly if he is remunerated. Obviously, some solicitors act, as they say, pro bono publico, and single-issue campaign lawyers have been mentioned. Plenty of good solicitors require to be paid, and why not? Will they he given legal aid for dealing with referrals to the independent criminal cases review commission?
  If the review commission takes on a case and reaches a whimsical or other conclusion which may be susceptible to judicial review, will the complainant, the aggrieved prisoner, or any other interested person, be allowed legal aid for representation in the divisional court which will review the decision of the commission?
  I can ask those questions in a spirit of disinterest, since I do not carry out any legal aid work and have nothing whatever to gain from the answers. Perhaps legal aid solicitors will not have anything to gain from them either, because the Minister may say that legal aid is not available. None the less, as the Bill is silent on that matter, I should be grateful if the Minister of State could deal with it, either in writing in due course or, if he has a chance to consult his officials, in his winding-up speech.
  A number of other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall content myself by welcoming the Bill's broad overall aims. I trust that, as appear; likely from the debate so far, it will have a reasonably uncontroversial passage, and that its Committee stage will he short. The sooner the commission is set up and in action, the better.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. Naturally, as I represent a Northern Ireland constituency, the first welcome aspect of the Bill is that it covers Northern Ireland and is, therefore, what occurs only too rarely —legislation that covers Northern Ireland properly. The fact that provisions relating to Northern Ireland can be included in the Bill with so little difficulty gives the lie to those who say that there is a particular difficulty in legislating for Northern Ireland in the normal way.
  One of the other excuses with which we are presented for not legislating for Northern Ireland through a proper Bill is the so-called need to maintain what is laughingly referred to as the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book. I am glad that the Minister has the grace to smile at that reference.
  I note that the Bill will amend five Northern Ireland Orders in Council. We have been told in the past that that cannot be done because it would somehow affect the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book. I am delighted that we are legislating for Northern Ireland properly.
  I also welcome the Bill because of its central provision—the establishment of a criminal cases review commission. I am glad that that single commission will be established to cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The Northern Ireland Office published a consultation paper suggesting that separate provision be made for Northern Ireland. That proposal did not commend itself to me and my colleagues for a number of reasons. Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction with only a limited number of people involved in the legal profession. There are only 10 High Court judges. Only a limited number of people are involved in criminal work, whether at the Bar or as solicitors.
  In any small profession, everybody knows everybody else. That makes it difficult for people to be genuinely objective when they are asked to consider the possibility that their friends or colleagues have made a mistake. They also tend to have convinced themselves that they are running a good ship and that they are all fine chaps—unlike those terrible people across the border in England where, because there are so many of them, rogues might get into the profession and all sorts of mistakes be made. A little esprit is built up among the members of a small profession, which is not especially healthy.
  Some of that attitude exists also in the one jurisdiction in the United Kingdom that is not affected by the Bill, which is Scotland. My connection with the Scottish legal profession is limited. The Minister has extensive connections with it and I think that he will confirm that it suffers from the same failing of being fond of congratulating itself, but not so good at looking objectively at itself.
  I am glad that there is the possibility of outsiders looking into the profession objectively. That raises the possibility of people involved in the legal profession in Northern Ireland contributing to the work of the commission in England and Wales. They will he able to contribute an element of objectivity.
  Another reason why we were not enthusiastic about separate provision for Northern Ireland is that anything to do with the Northern Ireland Office is becoming

  75
  increasingly tainted by sectarianism. Indeed, when the Northern Ireland Office sets up any body, the first thing that comes into its mind is the political and religious affiliation of the person involved. If there were to be a separate, single commissioner for Northern Ireland, as the Northern Ireland Office suggested, we know that the very first consideration in the minds of Ministers making the appointment would be political and religious affiliation. The same would be the case were there to be a separate Northern Ireland commission.
  In that undue sectarianism that the Northern Ireland Office is injecting into every part of political and social life in Northern Ireland, there is the evil influence of the Anglo-Irish secretariat. I hope that, when appointments to the commission are made, the Home Office, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office will be careful to ensure that the advice that they receive from the Northern Ireland Office is not tainted—as almost inevitably it will be—by the machinations of the secretariat, whose influence extends into almost all aspects of the work of the Northern Ireland Office.
  I note that the Bill contains a provision to appoint to the commission persons with experience of the legal system in Northern Ireland. The relevant clause includes Northern Ireland legal qualifications among the criteria for those to he appointed to the commission. However, I have not seen any reference, or heard any statement by Ministers, on whether they intend to appoint one, two or any people with knowledge of the legal system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he replies. We need some indication of the extent to which people with experience of the legal system in Northern Ireland will be involved in the work of the commission.
  I want to deal now with some of the substantive provisions in the Bill. Clause 2 provides for the new test that the Court of Appeal will use in determining whether to quash convictions. A number of hon. Members have already referred to that. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he referred to the word "unsafe". I hope that that word will be given a wide interpretation and that the court will take the view that a conviction is unsafe if it "may be" unsafe. I hope that the exclusion of the words "may he" from the clause will not narrow the interpretation. That is an important point. The Minister will have noted the concern expressed by Justice that it will have the effect of narrowing the provision.
  I was impressed by the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) when he gave his exegesis of clause 2. I want to hear more of his thoughts. He made an interesting contribution. Indeed, he whetted my appetite when he referred to the article by Sir John Smith. I hope that we will be able closely to consider such matters in Committee. Having said that, I support the broad thrust of clause 2, which replaces the various different overlapping terms in earlier legislation with a single test—provided that that single test is expressed broadly enough to, if anything, widen the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
  Clause 13 sets out various criteria on which the commission can refer cases to the Court of Appeal. I understand and agree with the thinking behind the phrase "a real possibility", in the commission's view, that the
  76
  court will reopen a conviction. However, I am not as happy with the qualification that the evidence or argument on which that real possibility must be based must be one that has not already been raised. It is unnecessary to limit it in that way.
  I understand the thinking behind it; it is a thinking that pervades so much of the criminal justice system. Rather than looking at the merits of a particular case, we look at the procedures and the way in which things have been done. A former colleague of mine characterised it as the criminal trial as a game. We look to see whether the lawyers and other persons acting for a defendant did the right thing at an earlier stage: for example, if they had the opportunity to raise a point, but failed to do so, the point could not be raised subsequently.
  Clause 13 provides that, if the point, the evidence or the argument has been raised in the court or on appeal, the commission cannot use it as a basis on which to refer the case. That is unnecessarily restrictive. The point may have been raised, but not adequately; or it may have been raised in connection with some other points and the cumulative effect of the commission looking at it again may result in its deciding that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
  I thought that the thinking behind the changes in clause 2 and in other parts of the Bill was to widen the basis on which the commission could operate and to remove unnecessary technicality from its approach.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if it is exactly the same evidence as was raised before, and which the Court of Appeal had had the opportunity to consider, and there was nothing new, different or revised about the evidence, the commission should again refer back to the Court of Appeal, perhaps hoping that there might be different judges? What would be the point of that?
  Mr. Trimble: My point is that the commission should not be trammelled or restricted. It should be open to the commission to exercise its judgment without any technical limitation. The Minister rightly says that in the sort of cases that he mentioned we would not want to refer the matter back to the court. However, there may be circumstances in which a point has been raised before, but when the commission looks at it again it thinks, "Ah, this point should be considered again." Those cases may be exceptional, but the commission should be free to do that if such cases occur. The argument is to give the commission the flexibility and the power to act if it considers it desirable to do so.
  One of the main points in the debate involves investigations and how they should be conducted. There has been quite a bit of disagreement on the Bill's provisions, which, in effect, require the commission to use existing police forces for investigations. I understand the concern that has been expressed and that there will be problem in relation to public credibility, but there is much merit in the Bill's provisions.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who acts as adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, said that only the police have the necessary expertise. That is valid, but there is more to the Bill's merits than that. It would not be desirable to create a special body of detectives who were employed by the commission so that it had its own police force to undertake investigations. That body would be an

  77
  anti-police police force, it would be viewed by police forces elsewhere as a special anti-police unit, and it would create a series of new institutional loyalties and jealousies and a defensiveness on the part of police forces elsewhere which would be inappropriate.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that, after initial resistance, there had been a sea change in approach in the Court of Appeal in England. He is right on that. That change was welcome. A sea change has taken place in the approach of the House and of the Government to these issues—we should acknowledge that. We want a sea change in the culture and attitude of a number of detective forces. We want to open them up to new thinking. They will find it easier to do that if police forces are involved in investigations.
  The point has been made that the police may not be especially effective in investigating the police, but we must consider what the commission will do in its approach to the matter. It can direct the inquiry. It needs to have available to it persons who are in a position to assess the quality of the investigation that a police force is undertaking. The commission may direct a particular police force to undertake an investigation; it can give some directions and so, in a sense, control that investigation. It needs, however, to have on its own staff persons who are in a position to assess the quality of that investigation so that, if it has not been conducted properly, they can take it away from certain police officers or a police force and place it elsewhere.
  I notice that the Home Office consultation paper mentions in paragraph 83 the possibility of the commission employing among its staff persons with experience of police work and police investigations. This is perhaps the line that people should consider. On its staff, the commission should employ police officers with experience in these matters. They would not conduct investigations, but they would be able to advise the commission on the conduct of investigations that the commission has placed with police officers.
  Mr. Maclean: I confirm that it is the Government's view that that is a sensible way to proceed. We want three or four serving police officers to work on the commission as directing staff, fulfilling the very role that the hon. Gentleman has described.
  Mr. Mr. Trimble: I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that that is the way in which the commission will operate. It is the best way to go. It provides flexibility. To proceed in that way will be a more efficient use of resources; it will be better than the commission employing its own police force. It reinforces my earlier point about the need for a broad and flexible approach on the matter. I am delighted by what the Minister said.
  In our response to the consultation papers, we expressed concern about the Bill's provision that enables the commission to consider any case immediately after the 28-day period for appeal has passed. We suggested that the commission should, in deciding whether to investigate a case, have regard to the failure to appeal or to apply for an extension for time to appeal. Legal representatives of an accused person should not regard going to the commission as the easy way out; they should not do that instead of going to appeal. Hon. Members should he concerned about that and I hope that the
  78
  commission will be concerned about it, too. I was pleased to note that Justice voiced the same concern in its suggestions on the matter.
  Hon. Members have referred to the Police Complaints Authority and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland. Neither the Bill's provisions nor Ministers' statements show what the relationship will be between the complaints bodies and the commission. It is obvious that an alleged miscarriage of justice could give rise to a complaint to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland or to the Police Complaints Authority in England and Wales; it could also, however, lead to an application to the commission. What will then happen?
  In the Home Office consultation paper, it was suggested that there might be informal arrangements between the two bodies to co-ordinate inquiries and to prevent overlap. I am not sure that that is sufficient. It may be necessary to consider further what the relationship will be between the complaint bodies and the commission. In considering the two, one should regard the commission as the superior body. If necessary, it should be able to have referred to it a case that is proceeding simultaneously through the two complaint bodies.
  If I may stray a little into purely Northern Ireland considerations, I am not sure that it is desirable even to have a police complaints body if we have the commission and an independent police authority, which I hope will continue, part of whose function should be to examine whether the police are dealing adequately with cases. Far too many overlapping jurisdictions are being created. A little bit of rationalisation may be called for.
  I referred earlier to Northern Ireland concerns and to the comment by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that, a number of years ago, a sea change occurred in the attitude of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. I regret that a similar sea change has not taken place in the attitude in Northern Ireland courts. In recent years, only one major case has been referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal—what is known as the UDR Four case. I regret that, a couple of years ago, the judgment of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in that case showed the attitude of mind that had been present in the Court of Appeal in England before its sea change in attitude.
  That attitude tends to represent any miscarriage of justice simply as a technicality. It says, "These men are really guilty, but we are having to let them out because there has been some error by the police officers." The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland contrived the result by quashing the convictions of three of the people involved, but not a fourth— that of Neil Latimer. He is just as innocent as the other three, but he remains in prison simply because the Court of Appeal has not been able to face up to the fact that, as in the cases in England and Wales, the police had decided to "improve" the evidence.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to the way in which the police sometimes appear to conduct sessions where they rewrite all their notes. Sometimes, senior police officers are involved in that. Lawyers acting for the UDR Four are convinced that exactly the same phenomenon occurred and that, at some point, the interviewing officer sat down and decided to rewrite the notes. Some of the rewriting was revealed by electrostatic document analysis—ESDA—testing and led to the convictions of three of the four being quashed. Unfortunately, justice has not been fully served.

  79
  I understand that with regard to the latest application to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have the case of Neil Latimer referred again to the Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State has said that he is minded that the doors have not yet closed and that he is prepared to consider any fresh information that may be relevant. I am glad that he has said that. However, I fear that this case would fall within the category mentioned by the Home Secretary in his speech. He said that there might be cases in which new evidence would, for some reason, be inadmissible and that that would be an appropriate situation for the use of the royal prerogative. I hope that that possibility will be looked at in this context, because it may be the only way in which we can solve a serious miscarriage of justice in Northern Ireland.
  Interestingly, the UDR Four case is the only case in Northern Ireland so far in which there has been serious disquiet about conviction. That is somewhat ironic. The cases of miscarriage of justice in England and Wales have involved jury decisions. The Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, with a single judge, have been, with this solitary exception, free from mistake. I have often commented to people who criticise the Diplock single-judge courts that I find it strange that people concentrate so much on them, when, by and large, a reasonably good quality of justice is delivered, yet ignore the 98 per cent. of criminal cases in Northern Ireland which come before single-judge magistrates courts.
  We have had single-judge courts in Northern Ireland since 1935. All magistrates courts are presided over by resident magistrates. In resident magistrates courts, we do not get the same quality of justice as we have had in the Diplock courts. My experience of magistrates courts is limited. I had a short, although distinguished, criminal record. Apart from that, my only other acquaintance with magistrates courts was appearing once as a witness in the context of the protests against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  I remember that, when the police disclosed to us the police witness statements about the evidence that would be given in court, I and everyone else who read them fell about laughing because the police evidence was so laughable. However, I had reckoned without the magistrate concerned—no names, no pack drill. I am told by those who practise regularly in the magistrates courts that he has never been known to disbelieve the police. That is the quality of justice that occasionally occurs. For that reason, I am delighted that the Bill extends to summary cases—magistrates court cases—the power to have miscarriages of justice remedied through a referral back of the case. A clear gap in our legislative provision has now been remedied.
  As I have said, we welcome the Bill and we shall support its principle. The opportunity may arise to look more closely at some of the points of detail that have been mentioned.
  7.32 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: May I give a warm welcome to this extremely important Bill and say what a pleasure it is for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is accompanied here in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)? Not only
  80
  do I have great respect for them both, but I welcome the fact that the Bill encompasses Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that we are not going down the same old route of having to provide for separate legislation. The Bill is a good example of Ulster being seen as part of the United Kingdom—a position with which I feel totally happy and comfortable.
  I do not accept the criticism that there has been undue delay with the Bill, which required careful thought and planning. It was not a matter of the Government at any time objecting to its principle; that was not so. There has always been deep and grave concern about miscarriages of justice. We have never been afraid of taking a good look at sacred cows. I would not like there to have been a knee-jerk reaction just to satisfy critics. That would have forced us to make decisions in haste which, on closer analysis, we might later have regretted because we had not paid sufficient detail to some aspects.
  Our system of criminal justice results in relatively few convictions of the innocent, but one conviction of an innocent man or woman is one too many. By the same token, it means that somewhere out there, there are guilty men and women at large. We are keenly aware that, somewhere, the bombers of Guildford and Birmingham are still free. They have not been brought to justice, and we do not know whether they ever will be. I only hope and pray that they have something of a conscience which will burden them to end of their days, but I wonder.
  I accept that there has been a debate over quite a time and I accept that, 14 years ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs agreed that we should eventually take a course of action similar to that proposed in the Bill. I refer to a quotation from the Select Committee's 1982 report on miscarriages of justice. In recommending that a new review body should be established, the Committee said:
  "Our main concern is that those cases which, following the initial sifting process, are thought by the Home Office to contain some substance, and in particular those involving a custodial sentence, should receive as thorough and expert a scrutiny as possible. We are convinced that there is a strong argument in favour of the introduction of an independent element at this stage, and that it is unreasonable that the Home Secretary should be expected to decide whether to grant a free pardon or to remit a sentence on the advice of his officials alone."
  It was not only the Select Committee that raised those important points. The law reform group Justice made its own considerations. In a response to a Government reply to the Home Affairs Select Committee, it said:
  "We accept that such a review body will not be infallible and will not satisfy everybody; we doubt whether this will ever be possible whatever system is devised. However, we believe that the present procedures are not capable of providing the requisite qualities of thoroughness, impartiality and independence that an inquiry into a serious complaint of miscarriage of justice requires. In his report into the investigation of the Preece case, the ombudsman stated:—
  'A miscarriage of justice by which a man or woman loses his or her liberty is one of the gravest matters which can occupy the attention of a civilised society. And it seems to me that when an unprecedented pollution of justice at its source is discovered, quite an exceptional effort to identify and remedy its consequences is called for.'"
  That is exactly what the Government are doing.
  The detailed provisions for the establishment of a criminal cases review commission had to be carefully prepared and subject to wide consultation, hence the requirement for Lord Runciman to examine the proposition and to make considered representations in his report for the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  81
  Submissions were sought and many bodies and people were interviewed. Further consultations have meant that the Bill goes further and goes into more detail than envisaged by Lord Runciman. The commission will, for example, be able to reverse summary cases dealt with by the magistrates court. A shoplifter will be able to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal or Crown court rather than seek a royal pardon, which is not satisfactory.
  We must be wary of the pitfalls. On 26 October 1993, speaking in a debate in the other place on the royal commission report, Lord Windlesham warned that miscarriages of justice are
  "easy to exploit for various purposes, including the pursuit of political capital."
  Lord Ferrers, then Minister at the Home Office, reminded the House of the need to
  "strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the public interest in the detection and punishment of crime, and, on the other hand, the individual interests both the of defendants and of the victims of crime."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1993; Vol. 549, c.779-81.]
  We all agree that we must ensure that our criminal justice system operates fairly if we are to maintain public confidence in it.
  The system has worked to increase the chances of the guilty being convicted through the reform of the right to silence, the establishment of a DNA database and changes to identity parade procedures to stop them being abused. It is equally important, however, that only the guilty are convicted. The care with which Bill has been prepared will ensure a fair and efficient system to correct miscarriages of justice.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was responsible, as he said earlier in the debate, for setting up the process to establish the commission for criminal appeals. He did so at a time when the public mood was at fever pitch, only hours after the release of the Birmingham Six.
  I remember that day very well, because I took part in "Question Time" and the atmosphere in the studio was electric. The mood was rather confused, however, because, although everyone was quite rightly outraged about miscarriages of justice and about the fact that things had gone seriously wrong, another passion, which was promoting Irish republicanism, was blurring the edges, and those who felt it gave the Birmingham Six a heroes' welcome not just on their release but because they were pushing another cause. In a sense, that was unfortunate, because if there has been a miscarriage of justice, an individual, no matter who he is, is entitled to have the best justice that the country can provide.
  It had been found that, among other things, the convictions of the Birmingham Six had rested on uncorroborated confessions. Concern was expressed about faulty, fabricated or withheld evidence, biased comments from judges and the reluctance of the Court of Appeal to overturn jury verdicts.
  Today, we must put everything in its correct perspective. Time has not stood still. In recent years, the standards required of the police have been tightened. The codes of practice in the Police and Criminal Act 1984, commonly known as PACE, have virtually eliminated the risk of fabricated confessions. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out in his excellent speech, nowadays police interviews
  82
  are tape-recorded. Those codes of practice have served their purpose because allegations against the police have dropped greatly.
  None the less, if there is any error of doubt about how evidence or confessions were obtained, the conviction must be set aside. The strength of our system is that we will still admit that an error could have been made, even after the last appeal. I cannot vouch for any other country in the world that sustains our same enormously high standards of justice or goes to the same length of trouble as we do to get things right.
  Mr. David Ashby: What does my hon. Friend have to say about identification evidence?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I will not comment on that, because it should be considered in another context.
  It was quite right for the Home Office to refer back to the Court of Appeal the case of Paul Hill, who was convicted of the IRA murder of 21-year-old Private Shaw in west Belfast. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Brian Hutton, concluded that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. In his 42-page judgment, however, he said that Mr. Hill's credibility was seriously undermined because, on the balance of probabilities, a number of interviews that he claimed took place at Guildford police station never happened.
  Sir Brian added that he felt that the Surrey police officers' evidence at the Belfast trial was probably true. However, the only evidence against Mr. Hill was a confession that he signed while under arrest at Guildford police station in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich IRA bombings, in which five people were killed. Sir Brian said he quashed Paul Hill's conviction because it rested on a fundamental principle of law that
  "a civilised society cannot permit a confession—even if true—to be obtained by improper methods."
  He added that it was "very probable" that Police Constable Gerry Queen fired an unloaded revolver through the hatch of a cell door at Guildford police station and that that "clearly constituted inhuman treatment."
  It should be made clear that rendering a conviction unsafe does not necessarily exonerate the appellant; rather, it is the means of setting aside a conviction where there is the slightest doubt about the evidence. I pay tribute yet again to the fact that this country has the courage and the culture to bend over backwards to right a wrong. Whenever there is a sliver of doubt, a case is thrown out.
  Mr. Ashby: Can my hon. Friend explain why the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six had to apply three or four times to the Court of Appeal before it finally got its finger out and looked at their cases again? How is that our country bending over backwards to right a wrong?
  Lady Olga Maitland: In the end, the cases were reviewed and the verdicts were overturned, so how can my hon. Friend possibly question the outcome?
  I welcome the establishment of the independent criminal cases review commission, because the current system is not entirely satisfactory. At present, we have a gamekeeper-poacher relationship, where the C3 department of the Home Office serves as the last resort for alleged miscarriages of justice. It can never be entirely

  83
  satisfactory for a body to be responsible in a quasi-judicial role for such cases, while at the same time being responsible for law and order and the police.
  The Home Office, acutely conscious of the sensitivities involved, has tended to err on the side of sluggishness. As Lord Runciman observed in his report:
  "The scrupulous observance of constitutional principles has meant a reluctance on the part of the Home Office to inquire deeply enough into the cases put to it… We do not think that is likely to change significantly in the future."
  The Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office sift through about 750 cases a year, of which, on average, four or five are finally referred to the Court of Appeal. Only a few attract public attention or become causes celebres, such as the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguires. The rest range from a conviction for possessing a television without a licence or driving without insurance to the most serious offences such as rape, armed robbery or murder.
  The most recent references to the Court of Appeal, leaving aside the Guinness trial convictions of Jack Lyons, Ernest Saunders, Anthony Parnes and Gerald Ronson, arc a fairly typical list of cases concerning people convicted of serious offences and serving long sentences. Those include Paul Malone, currently serving 15 years for robbery; Sammy Davies, convicted of rape; and Colin Wallace, convicted of manslaughter.
  A clear example of miscarriage of justice was the case of Stefan Kiszko, who was convicted of raping and murdering a girl in Derbyshire. He spent many years in prison but always protested his innocence. The Home Office took up his case and found that forensic evidence was unreliable. Since he was first tried nearly 20 years ago, forensic science has developed a great deal, with many safeguards.
  Mr. John Gunnell: In the Stefan Kiszko case, it was found that forensic evidence had been withheld by the police. That is why that case was overturned.
  Lady Olga Maitland: That could be one element of the reason, but I understand that subsequent forensic science has given us another interpretation of the evidence.
  Judith Ward was convicted in 1974 of a number of terrorist offences, including murder. In 1991, her case was referred by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, after the scientific evidence was put in doubt by the discrediting, in another case, of evidence given by the forensic scientist concerned and after an eminent psychiatrist found that Judith Ward suffered from a mental condition that led her to fantasise and then confess to crimes that she had not committed. In June 1992, the Court of Appeal quashed all her convictions and she was freed having served 17 years in prison for crimes that she had nothing to do with.
  I congratulate the Government on being supportive in the proposed establishment of the criminal cases review commission, setting aside a budget of more than £4 million for a staff of up to 60 people and a proposed body of 11. That is certainly no half-hearted measure. Compare that with the Home Office C3 department, which has a staff of 19 and a budget of some £750,000 a year.
  84
  Labour Members suggest that that figure and the scope and scale of the commission are insufficient.
  Ms Jean Corston: The hon. Lady has given a litany of cases where miscarriages of justice have been put right and referred to cases on which people are currently campaigning. Does she support the attempt by the family of James Hanratty to prove that he was wrongly convicted?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I cannot answer that question because I have not studied the case. If there has been a miscarriage of justice and suitable evidence comes to light, I feel absolutely confident that the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal.
  If Labour Members are not satisfied with the fact that the commission will have a staff of 60 and a budget of £4 million, it would help the House if they said what they envisage. What do they mean by "inadequate resources"? Would they double the number of staff and the budget? They must be realistic. It is all very well to demand that more resources be given, which is the common cry of the Labour party, but it would be helpful if Labour Members said what budget they would propose.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Lady does not seem to be aware that the Police Federation of England and Wales has made it extremely clear that the commission's budget is inadequate if it does not include funding to pay for the officers who must carry out the investigations, for whom substantial extra funding will be needed. The nature of the investigations and the employment of officers mean that the overall funding required will be much higher than the sum suggested by the Government.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman's point sidesteps the whole issue. What I am trying to get out of the Opposition, but which is clearly not forthcoming, is whether they will spend more money on the commission and, if so, how much. They seem to have made yet another open-ended spending pledge. I do not resent spending money on justice for everybody, but we should know exactly where the money will come from and what it will be spent on.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I queried how the commission will be funded. If the hon. Lady remembers, I spoke of cuts in legal aid. Is she saying that the money saved from cuts in the legal aid budget will be used for the new review body?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I do not think for one minute that a sensible approach to handling the legal aid budget can be equated with funding an expansion over and above what the Government propose for the new commission. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to try to suggest that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. No appellant will be deprived of the appropriate means to secure justice for himself. We are concerned that genuinely wealthy people are claiming support from the legal aid budget to which they are not entitled. There is no question of anyone without resources being unable to get funding for his or her legal defence.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way twice. She said that no one without resources will lack legal aid. Has she had conversations with Ministers in which it has been suggested that legal aid

  85
  will be made available for those who are deserving because they have no other resources, or does she not know what she is talking about?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I have had constant discussions with my colleagues. My hon. Friends and I are all well aware that those who need it will get the legal support and aid that they need. We are concerned about extremely wealthy people who claim legal aid while living in luxury homes with huge back-up when it is obvious that they have the means to pay for their own defence.
  I have no doubt that the commission will initially carry a heavy case load, investigating in a broader way and perhaps in greater depth some cases that are handled by the Home Office. I recognise that inquiries will be speeded up. Apart from big and complicated cases, the average time taken to complete consideration of a case is 36 working days. The commission's make-up is crucial to guarantee public confidence. Its independence and the selection of those who will serve on it are sacrosanct. I agree that it is appropriate that there should be a strong lay input with, as was pointed out in the royal commission report, knowledge and experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system. That will provide for plain common sense backed by an expert knowledge in a particular subject.
  I suggest, however, that great care be taken to ensure that there is no danger of any pressure group, such as Liberty, making its presence felt in an area that must be completely apolitical. To err on one side or the other would seriously affect public confidence in the commission. We want people of integrity, probity, judgment and clear-sightedness; we want no whisper of politics, which would turn what should be a scrupulously independent, fair-minded body into a lobby organisation for one group or party or the other. I view that matter with the greatest concern. I trust that, when the body is set up, those independent standards will be maintained both now and in the future.
  Some hon. Members have called for an in-house investigatory unit. I regard that as neither practical nor realistic. First, the work load will vary each year. No investigative unit could have all the necessary expertise for every sort of case. It is far better to bring in the appropriate investigators and supervise them from the centre, which has already been done by the serious fraud squad, who bring in accountants. The organisation could bring in forensic scientists or accountants, although it may not need such expert help all the time. In general, different branches of the police force will be used. They have an excellent track record on investigating alleged miscarriages of justice.
  I am concerned about remarks made by Labour Members throwing doubt on the integrity of the police force. We heard unworthy gibing and querulousness from Labour Members, suggesting that our police force did not possess the standards of integrity that we demand of it. I accept that occasionally things fall down but, by and large, the police force has an excellent track record. I did not like the complaint of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that cases referred to the Police Complaints Authority are generally not taken up. Such an insidious statement is not worth listening to—but we have heard it.
  86
  It has been suggested that journalists should be among the investigators on the commission. I am proud of my profession as a journalist, but I would never for a moment suggest that it is the right profession to serve on the commission. Labour Members said that they wanted campaigning journalists on the commission, and mentioned Paul Foot. I respect Paul Foot's powers as a writer, but I cannot say that I would feel particularly happy or confident that someone with a clearly defined left-wing bias in his approach to life could deliver a service with which I would feel totally comfortable. We must be scrupulously careful about the make-up of the commission and how it executes its powers.
  I am proud that the Bill has come to the House and proud that we in this country will leave no stone unturned in our determination to bring justice for all. It should reassure the public that their last resort appeal will be most carefully considered, and any miscarriage of justice rightly rectified.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I welcome the Bill. This is the only such occasion that I can recall when every contributor has started by welcoming the Bill, which is important and has clearly been needed for some time. It meets the public need for a commission. The Opposition want it to be set up and operating as soon as possible, as there is much work to be done.
  It is important to set up the commission because the most recent criminal justice Act, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ended the right to silence and increased the possibility of miscarriages of justice rather than decreased it. Some of the safeguards suggested during the Committee stage of that Bill would, had they been accepted, have reduced the possibility of error. Regrettably, they were not accepted. I hope that cases going through the courts will be monitored to see whether ending the right of silence has achieved what the Government claimed it would—in terms of convictions where convictions were proper—or whether, as we suggested, it has increased the danger of miscarriages of justice.
  In welcoming the Bill, I want to focus on those aspects of it which are not quite right. I do not believe, as has been suggested, that the Committee considering the Bill will be entirely without controversy, as some changes are needed. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to those issues.
  I have four serious concerns. My first worry involves the grounds of appeal. Will the grounds of appeal still be too narrow to cover some of the cases which should be considered by the commission?
  My second concern involves the extent of the commission's powers. Will it be able to obtain all the evidence that it needs to be able to investigate a case properly?
  Thirdly, I am concerned about the independence of any investigation when those conducting it are the same people as those responsible for the original decision. I would like to know the circumstances in which the same police force would be used and the circumstances in which another police force would be used to investigate a particular conviction. I would also like to know the

  87
  circumstances in which it would be right for the commission to have recourse to different procedures and to use different people to do the job.
  Fourthly, we must always be concerned about the timing of procedures. There is currently an enormous backlog of many people who have been in prison for a long time.
  Those four points have all affected a case in which I have been involved. I shall follow the pattern set down in the debate and not refer by name to the people who believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. I shall refer to the case in a less overt manner. The son of two of my constituents was convicted in December 1987 of having murdered his fiancée in September 1986. He was given a life sentence and has been in prison ever since. He never accepted the result. From the moment of his arrest, he has always protested his innocence.
  Before the trial, it was suggested to the man that, given that he was convicted of murdering his fiancée, if he suggested that it had happened in a moment of passion, it could be regarded as manslaughter and he would not be sentenced to so many years. Certainly, if he had at any time accepted his guilt, it is unlikely that he would have served the time that he has already served, the events having taken place more than eight years ago. He has already been in prison a long time, but he has always protested his innocence.
  There are genuine grounds for believing that the conviction may be unsafe. I should need to hear the results of a full investigation before making a judgment. The grounds for having an investigation and having recourse to a commission of the sort described are straightforward. The case has been continuing for so long that I took it over from my predecessor, Lord Merlyn Rees, who was himself a distinguished Home Secretary. For the first five years of the case, Merlyn Rees did his best to represent the man and sought, through the relevant procedures, to obtain an appeal. The appeal was turned down because, although the parents had engaged a private detective who had produced a massive and detailed report of the case and had conducted many interviews, lawyers felt that the private detective's report did not amount to new evidence. Therefore, the case never went to the Court of Appeal.
  Soon after I won the seat at the last general election, there was an approach from the C3 department of the Home Office after the son of my constituents had been listed by Liberty as a person whose conviction was unsafe. Since then, I and my office have spent many hours examining the evidence and considering possible ways of getting the case reopened. For a long time, we did not produce anything that could be described as new evidence. The reason for that is intrinsic to the case, and therefore it is an important aspect of considering the grounds on which an appeal can be heard.
  If the police rapidly reach a conclusion in a murder case and never investigate any alternative interpretations of why the death occurred, it is extremely difficult later to follow up other possible interpretations and other possible leads that are consistent with the opinions of the person who has already been convicted. There is thus an inherent difficulty in dealing with a case which appears to hinge on the fact that the officer in charge of the case reached
  88
  a certain conclusion about the identity of the person who committed the crime extremely early in the investigation, and never wavered in his conviction.
  It is of interest that the same officer, on being transferred to a different force, was in charge of a rape case in which he formed an equally rapid conviction; the person about whom he had formed that conclusion was arrested and imprisoned, and someone else then came into the police station and confessed to the crime. That may simply be coincidental. It may simply be that, in one of the two cases in which the officer reached a rapid conclusion, the person who was in prison had a lucky break, as people do not often confess to a rape when someone else is likely to be in the dock for it. It would have taken a similar sort of break for my constituent's son to have any evidence with which to overturn the strong conviction of the officer in charge of the case. That makes it especially difficult to assemble new evidence in those circumstances. In recent months, however, with the help of a barrister, possible grounds of appeal have been investigated, and a fresh set of advice on appeal has been obtained.
  That brings me what I regard as a second important aspect—ensuring that the commission has the right powers to obtain transcripts. There has been one great handicap in the case. We have gone over the evidence, much of which centres around the time of death. The time of death in that case was uncertain because, when the body was discovered, the death was not immediately thought to he a death in suspicious circumstances. The body was therefore refrigerated for 24 hours before there was any investigation of the body to discover the cause of death.
  The forensic evidence of Dr. Alan Usher, a noted pathologist in his time, is that some of the alleged conclusions about time of death simply could not properly be drawn because there had been that great gap between death occurring and the corpse being examined, and the refrigeration process had made it impossible to determine the evidence in quite the way in which it was subsequently used.
  We do not know, because we have not obtained a transcript of the trial, whether conviction hinged on the time of death. I believe, therefore, that it is important to obtain a transcript. As the case never went to appeal in the first place, however, there is no written transcript; it exists only in shorthand notes. One of the things that I am very worried about is that, since the time when we first asked for those shorthand notes to he preserved, some of them have been destroyed, which I believe should not have happened when a Member of Parliament had expressed a specific interest in the case.
  The control of the taking of transcripts in court falls within the Lord Chancellor's domain. I am anxious that the new commission should be in a position to obtain the transcript in a case of that kind, where no transcript of the trial has been obtained. I ask the Minister to tell me in his reply whether the commission will have the powers to obtain a transcript.
  I was told that I might obtain a transcript if I were prepared to pay for it myself. It was estimated that the transcript would cost more than £3,200. I was told that it could not count as office costs, which would have meant that it would in effect cost less due to the effect on Inland Revenue payments. It was therefore a case of obtaining legal aid, but legal aid could not he obtained unless there

  89
  Was to be an appeal; so there was a complete "Catch 22" situation. When the Registrar of the Court of Appeal was told that we needed the evidence, he wrote back saying that if, as a result of obtaining the transcript, it was found that an appeal could he made, the costs of obtaining the transcript would be paid for by the Court of Appeal; if not, we would be left holding the baby, as it were. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable way to proceed.
  As a result of telephone conversations, it would appear, between the solicitors who were handling the matter and Master Mackenzie, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal has now decided that at least the judge's summing up will be paid for, and once we obtain the text of the judge's summing up, if that helps in determining whether time of death was a critical factor in the conviction, we may well get the case re-opened.
  I am therefore very anxious that the power to obtain transcripts should be available to the commission.
  The third matter is independence. I shall not emphasise it at any length because other hon. Members have already spoken about it, but it is very hard if the same force who were responsible for conducting the prosecution and providing evidence for the prosecution have to investigate a miscarriage of justice because, in a sense, miscarriages of justice reflect on those who were involved.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was quite wrong about the Stefan Kiszko case; that was a deliberate withholding of evidence, and that deliberate withholding of evidence was very much to the discredit of the West Yorkshire police. I do not suggest that many people would be involved—probably very few, perhaps just one or two. Nevertheless, it counts against the force as a whole when that type of thing happens. It is very important that at least a different, independent, police force is involved, as a necessary safeguard.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), therefore, that we need independence. It would not increase costs because with other investigators, and therefore fewer police costs, the cost might be transferred. Perhaps I should also take into account the pace of the process. That man has been in prison for eight and a half years. If the commission is up and running in the next 18 months or sooner, and if it begins by considering cases which have been held up for a long time, it is possible that that case will be examined in three or four years' time. By then, that man will have spent a very long time in prison. We must do something to ensure that the commission is able to progress cases with greater speed than has occurred in the past.
  Despite my concerns, I welcome the establishment of the commission and I am anxious to see it up and running and working effectively. I believe that it will be much more effective if some of the changes which I am confident will he proposed in Committee are accepted by the Government, and I hope that the Government will view them objectively because I do not believe that this is a party political issue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 40 minutes before the wind-up speeches and four hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. I make a plea that they speak for only 10 minutes each.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: It is always dangerous to ask me to speak in a debate on the criminal appeal system. It is always assumed that Conservative Members will support the Establishment, but I believe that, in many respects, the Establishment has let down the country, in criminal appeals and elsewhere, and that it continues to do so. The appeal system should not be considered as infallible—in fact, it has been extremely fallible in many respects for a very long time.
  Why do we need the Criminal Appeal Bill? We have had a Court of Appeal since just after the turn of the century, which is supposed to have done its job, reviewing cases and allowing appeals on cases. What has the Court of Appeal done for all those years? By and large, it has not been keen to overthrow convictions. It has been ultra-conservative and felt that it should support the Establishment view rather than adopt a strictly judicial one.
  I have no great hopes or aspirations in my career. I do not expect to get on in the Government or to advance my career as a barrister much further. I do not care too much about that; I feel that I must express my views. I do not believe that the Court of Appeal has always behaved in the way that it should. We have only to examine some of the cases. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have cited murder case after murder case, as if to suggest that they are the only cases tried in the courts.
  I do not believe that miscarriages of justice are few and far between; I believe that there have been many, and that they will continue into the future. We are talking about a very fallible process: human beings judging other human beings. There have been several recent examples of the fallibility of the jury system. One jury used a ouija board to decide whether a person was guilty. Another jury could not reach a conclusion and the foreman said that the decision was six to four, with two abstentions—as if a juror could abstain!
  One often wonders what juries are up to. Thankfully, we are not allowed to ask too many questions; if we did, we might be a little worried about the jury system. The ouija hoard case involved someone very powerful and the court gave in. The usual argument is: "The jury decided it and we cannot override its decision. All the evidence was put before the jury. The defendant gave evidence, and the jurors decided not to believe him. Blah, blah, blah". In the end, appeals are often rejected out of hand, flying in the face of common sense.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to consider the number of times that the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six came to the court before they finally came to appeal. Why did the Court of Appeal turn down those cases time and again? It failed us, and it failed the system of justice.
  I have fought year in and year out over identification evidence. There is no more dangerous evidence than that. I am fallible in that regard: I have recognised my daughter in a hundred places when she was not there. When I was rather naughty in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) was named instead of me, so I slipped out before I could be named correctly. The badge messengers always mistake me for

  91
  my hon. Friend. That is a personal case of mistaken identification which occurs day in and day out. I am sure that the same sort of thing happens to everyone.
  We went to the Court of Appeal with about half a dozen identification cases. The most dreadful miscarriages of justice occurred in the 1970s, and they prompted Lord Devlin to produce a report. He said that people should not be convicted on identification alone; there should also be corroboration. He was absolutely correct, and those of us who practise in the courts know that it is utterly wrong to convict on the basis of identification without corroboration. Yet hundreds of people are convicted every day in magistrates and Crown courts on identification evidence alone, without any corroboration.
  I hope that you will tip me the wink when my 10 minutes is up, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I do not remember when I started to speak. When I get on my high horse, I tend to get rather excited.
  In the R v. Turnbull direction on identification evidence, the Court of Appeal failed totally to meet any of the Devlin recommendations. It was a complete cop-out, and it has been copping out ever since on the question of identification evidence. That situation will continue, because I do not see the Court of Appeal changing its approach.
  Only the other day, I had a case involving identification. The initial description offered by a witness, who had been with the defendant for only half an hour, was totally different from the appearance of the man he identified nine months later. That case resulted in a conviction because juries are like that. I am sure that the Court of Appeal would say that the jury heard all the evidence, and we should leave it at that.
  We must look beyond the criminal cases review commission and examine the fundamentals of our criminal justice system. We must consider whether it is as good and as impartial as it should be, or whether it is a case of the great and the good lining their own pockets. I am terribly afraid when I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam say that the right people must serve on the criminal cases review commission. In saying that we must not have people from Liberty or Justice, she means that the great and the good and the right wingers should serve on the commission. They will look at cases like those of the Guildford Four and of the Birmingham Six and they will say, "We must not consider that case. It is a perfectly good conviction and we are perfectly happy with it. It should not be referred to the Court of Appeal." There will be refusals at the commission and the Court of Appeal levels, and the injustices will continue.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is the right person to chair the commission—although I suppose that he is happier fighting for his causes in this place. When the hon. Gentleman first came to the Chamber we thought that he was a loony lefty, pursuing ridiculous cases of failures of justice. We all thought that he was a very silly man; but he was right all the time. The more one talks to him, the more one realises that he makes good sense about the need for an impartial judicial system.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who is not in her place, that we must be jolly careful about the commission's membership. We do not
  92
  necessarily want right wingers or the great and the good; we want people of independent minds, and we want the opportunity to use independent investigators. I am horrified at the thought that such investigators will never be used. The police might do 90 per cent. of the time, but somebody else may be needed the other 10 per cent. I look forward in Committee to giving the commission more scope and chance. I obviously support the Bill, but trust that I have fired sufficient warning shots across everybody's bows. I hope that I have not disappointed anybody.
  8.30 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: I want to maintain the record by joining other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. Given the long history attached to it, I am surprised that it has taken the Home Secretary so long to present it. Public confidence in the criminal justice system has been completely undermined by cases such as the Birmingham Six, Judith Ward, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Cardiff Three and Stefan Kiszko. Between 1989 and 1992, more than 50 people were released from prison as a result of miscarriages of justice, which reflects points made by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby).
  Some people—including senior figures in the judiciary—adhere to the utilitarian theory of justice. They argue that, in the event of a terrorist bombing of a pub, if some suspects are apprehended quickly, tried and convicted, it does not much matter whether they are guilty or innocent, because the bulk of the population will have a sense of security and enjoy peace of mind. Although that theory is shocking when presented baldly, it is credible for some jurists and members of the judiciary, and it has often overlain attitudes to so-called and real miscarriages of justice.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) established the royal commission on 14 March 1991. From earlier speeches, it is clear that that was the least that the right hon. Gentleman could have done. The royal commission reported 18 months ago and recommended a body such as that proposed in the Bill, but with considerable differences.
  The history of support for such a body goes back a long way. In 1968, Justice recommended that such a body should be established, and the Home Affairs Select Committee reported in 1983. Sir John May's second report on the Maguire case was published on 3 December 1992. There were amendments at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1987, and former Home Secretaries who supported an independent element included the current Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. Few cases have been referred—only 10 in 1994, and at 1 January 1995, 38 cases had been outstanding in the C3 department longer than one year.
  I introduced a ten-minute Bill on miscarriages of justice on 16 February 1993. I commend that Bill to members of the Government Front Bench, if for no reason other than it is drafted in gender-neutral language. I record my thanks to members of the Public Bill Office, who helped me to achieve that. The Criminal Appeal Bill is full of "he" and "him". No doubt we will be told that, for legal purposes, "he" embraces "she"—but "she" sometimes gets a bit fed up being embraced by "he" in legislation. I

  93
  ask those responsible to examine my ten-minute Bill, to see that it is perfectly possible to draft legislation that applies to both sexes.
  The Criminal Appeal Bill has major flaws. My Bill provided that
  "any person convicted of a criminal offence on indictment or that person's legal representative"
  could apply, but under the Government's Bill, the Court of Appeal offers the only route. A logjam seems inevitable. Also, the culture of the Court of Appeal is somewhat hostile to the overturning of jury verdicts or of the findings of judges of first instance.
  I was pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that vacancies for commission membership will be advertised, but it is important that the criteria for appointment should be known and published. It would be better if the Lord Chancellor were responsible for overseeing appointments, as recommended by the royal commission, rather than the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. Those appointments should be handled by someone who does not hold direct political office but who is responsible for the judiciary.
  Clause 13(1)(a) sets a high threshold from the referral of cases from the commission to the Court of Appeal. It refers to
  "any argument or evidence… which gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction, verdict or finding would not be upheld".
  The test of "real possibility" is too hard. It would be better to substitute the words, "relevant", or, "capable of belief", which are used in clause 4. Lord Devlin said once that a conviction is not safe if the jury has not heard all credible and relevant evidence. That would be a more acceptable hurdle than "real possibility".
  There must also be rules to provide a duty to preserve or retain all evidence after conviction on indictment. That is possible, with the use of microfiche, without taking much space. Such evidence should be preserved for the duration of a sentence. All too often, when someone wants to argue a miscarriage of justice, it is found that the police have had a spring clean. There is not necessarily a malign motive, but evidence goes missing—often, evidence that was not put before the jury. The retention of evidence is important to someone who wants to claim a miscarriage of justice. Also, in a case such as that of the West Midlands serious crime squad, which was found to be riddled with corruption, police officers cannot be brought to book if evidence has disappeared. A rule that evidence must be retained and preserved would serve the interests of justice.
  Many Members questioned whether investigating officers should be independent of the police. I will not rehearse those arguments, but I believe that they should be. We have only to look to Hong Kong to know that such independence is possible. That territory is one over which we have jurisdiction and where the staff of a comparable body to the commission is independent of the police. I am told by lawyers who have appeared in courts in Hong Kong that the system works well, and that there is no reason why it should not work here.
  I echo the warning that it would he unwise to use the Police Complaints Authority as a model. On the day that the PCA came into being, the Police Federation said:
  "It will not enhance public confidence in the system and will probably not improve police morale either. We remain firmly of the view that only a wholly independent system of investigation will satisfy all parties."
  94
  There has been reference to proper funding of this body. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who introduced the only party political aspect to this debate—to put it tactfully—questioned how much the body would cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, in his absence, has been recommended for the post of first chairman of the commission—
  Mr. Mullin: They are just trying to get rid of me from the Select Committee.
  Ms Corston: I think that it was meant as a compliment. In any case, my hon. Friend correctly pointed out the huge cost of investigating miscarriages of justice. He cited cases where there had been eight separate investigations, incurring untold expenditure. Justice does not come cheap; proper funding of this body is therefore essential.
  The Bill should include some rules to provide for legal aid for appeals to the commission. Although access to legal aid has been cut drastically by the Government, such provision as remains should be extended to people applying to this body. If there is no access to justice, there is no justice. It is important that people who want to raise important matters of law in respect of their personal liberty should not be debarred through lack of funds.
  This is not just a matter of public confidence; it is a matter of supreme importance for our criminal justice system and for people's faith in it, which has been considerably undermined. The people put behind bars should be the people who committed the crimes for which they were convicted.
  The fact that people routinely do not believe in the safety of convictions does none of us any good and is a stain on our criminal justice system. It astonishes me that people are so ready to believe that there have been so many miscarriages of justice. None of us can be proud of the fact that there are so many. I hope that, in Committee, it will be possible constructively to raise some of these matters. I hope, furthermore, that we will not behave as the courts have often behaved: no one seems to have a duty to find out the truth, but we are asked to believe one of two stories.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I begin with a moment of cross-party amity with the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), whose remarks about the irritation caused by the continual use of "he" and "him" I endorse. Surely the language can come up with alternative ways of handling the problem. It is a long-running irritant that needs dealing with. I also find the phrase "he embraces she" irritating.
  I say that as one looking forward to attempting the new right-on green embrace widely advertised in today's papers. I have not yet had a go at it—[Interruption.]—and I hasten to add that I shall not be trying it out with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), whose speech was enormously entertaining and powerful. I would willingly have sacrificed some of my time to hear more of his bravura performance.
  Incidentally, my hon. Friend seemed to have reservations about juries, and I understand his concern. It is worth thinking about the issue, because it relates to the wider one of rights and responsibilities. We all want the

  95
  right to be tried by a jury, but many of us try to avoid the responsibility of serving on juries. I often meet people who say that they would do anything to get out of it—they get their employers to send letters claiming that they are not free and cannot attend. If we want to be tried by juries—most people do—we should also accept the responsibility of being ready to serve on one.
  Many hon. Members who have spoken today have declared an interest. I am a layman. I have an interest to declare among my antecedents: I am the son and grandson of lawyers. My declaration of interest covers both sides of the legal divide, in that a forebear of mine, Jeremiah Brandreth, was the last person to be hanged and then beheaded for treason in England—in 1812. Unfortunately, the commission was not around then; otherwise that miscarriage of justice would have gone straight to it.
  Jeremiah was a Luddite, known in his time as the hopeless radical. I see myself more as a hopeful radical, which is why I am so pleased to welcome this Bill. At its heart is the need to maintain full public confidence in the criminal justice system. Ensuring that it operates fairly is essential if we are to maintain that public confidence.
  The Government have already taken a number of steps to increase the chances of the guilty being properly convicted. I take issue here with the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and his objections concerning the right to silence. I think that the Government have moved in the right direction—likewise with the establishment of the DNA database and the changing of the identity parade procedures to prevent their abuse. All these are important.
  It is equally important that only the guilty be convicted. The Bill is designed to ensure that that happens, and that, when miscarriages of justice occur, there is a fair and efficient system to put them right. It is also vital that any appeals system—this too underlies the Bill's principles—ensure that convictions that cannot be considered safe are quashed, leaving those that are safe to stand.
  When the innocent are found guilty, it is every bit as much a miscarriage of justice as when the guilty are acquitted. Doubts about the safety of a conviction must he resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably at the normal appeals stage. A last resort procedure should be just that: it should not be regarded as an extra stage in the standard criminal justice process.
  There must also he consistency of approach in criminal proceedings, so that all the final decisions are taken by the courts.
  I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the hope that he may answer them when he winds up. Hon. Members have discussed the membership of the commission, whose members are to he appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister, as I understand it. Can the Minister confirm that the posts of chairman and of all the board members will be advertised? If so, in what sort of publications? I understand that at least one third of the membership have to be legally qualified, and two thirds of them must have some direct experience of the criminal justice system. I should like the advertising of public posts generally to be greatly extended.
  Having become a Member of Parliament, one increasingly meets people who belong to that group known as the great and the good. Occasionally they
  96
  appear to be something of a stage army; one moves from one group to another only to find that the same names and faces, and the same types of name and face, recur. It would be good to take advantage of some of the country's untapped talent who would be willing to serve. The advertising and its placing are thus crucial.
  The only anxiety about the Bill expressed in my constituency was put to me in the following simple terms: "Won't this Bill allow the police to investigate themselves? Are you comfortable with that? Wouldn't it be better to have some separate investigative unit?" I am comfortable with the idea, chiefly because of what I read in clauses 18,19 and 20. It appears that clause 18 will empower the commission to require the appointment of investigating officers to assist it in the exercise of its functions, and it can stipulate that those investigating officers come from a public body other than a body which originally investigated the offence.
  The commission's direct supervision and investigation are important also. Clause 20 does not preclude the commission from obtaining opinions, commissioning reports and taking other steps to assist it its the exercise of its functions. I feel comfortable with that, because of the use of officers from other forces, where appropriate, and because of the commission's ability to ask for reports from outside bodies.
  I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said about the role and standing of the police in our society. We are so often negative about everything. Instead of saluting our great institutions, as people would in other parts of the world, we take the opposite approach. We do not seek to build them up.
  The only place where Great Britain does not have a great reputation is Great Britain. Our police are the envy of the world. We should be erecting statues to our police force in honour of what it contributes to our society, instead of constantly trying to chip away and undermine it. I salute the police of the United Kingdom, and I am comfortable with what the Government are proposing.
  I should like to know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State shares the concern that was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) in a typically compelling intervention. The Bill states that representations are received on about 730 cases each year, and there is the expectation that such representations may double when the proposed commission is in place. My hon. Friend talked also about growing evidence of what might be called single-issue lobby groups.
  There are days when I think to myself that the world is being run on "Today". I can almost foresee a time when, heaven forfend, an issue will arise and will be discussed on "Today". One side will put its point of view in about two minutes, to be followed by the other side, which similarly puts its point of view. The listener will then be invited to press a button on the radio to deliver a verdict. That would not be satisfactory, but unfortunately, there is a tendency for that approach to be adopted.
  It will be far better to have a commission that investigates matters properly than to rely on campaigns that are driven, and sometimes fuelled, by those in the media, who may be interested in trouble-making as an exercise in entertainment and chasing audiences rather than reaching the facts.

  97
  I have no doubt that the cause of justice will be well served by the Bill. That is why I warmly welcome it.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I begin by joining the general welcome for the Bill and our discussion of miscarriages of justice. It has been a constructive and largely bipartisan debate. My constituents often complain that Members are always arguing with one another. The problem is that journalists often do not report Members who make constructive contributions to debates where there is an element of bipartisanship.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Where are they?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend suggests from a sedentary position that there might not be as much press interest as there should be in this sort of debate. I hope that tomorrow we shall read in the newspapers of the importance that has been accorded to the debate, which goes to issues that are central to confidence in our criminal justice system.
  The debate has been conducted in a high-minded and generally bipartisan manner. The problem is that the press seems always to go for conflict rather than consensus. That is partly the result of editorial judgments, which can be questioned. I hope that the press will respond to my plea for some publicity for the Bill, but I suspect that it probably will not.
  I was pleased with the speech of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I congratulate him on a bravura performance. I should declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. Today, however, I shall express my own views. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has already set out the views of the federation. As I shall talk about legal aid, I should mention that I am a non-practising solicitor. I used to practise criminal law.
  The Bill is a step forward, but it needs amendment. There should be independence in the way in which investigations are carried out, and there is not at present. I hope that the Bill will emerge from consideration in Committee in a better form.
  The fact that the Bill is before us on Second Reading is due to the involvement of a number of hon. Members, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is not presently in his place. I well remember the day on which he was described by The Sun as the most odious man in Britain. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are now praising his integrity and judgment, given the way that he fought to ensure that we had a criminal justice system of which we could be prouder than we had a right to be in the past. Praise of my hon. Friend is well justified, as it is of other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have already been mentioned.
  Miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four, Judith Ward and Stefan Kiszco have all undermined confidence in the criminal justice system. As a lawyer who practised criminal law, I believe that juries are the best way of dealing with serious criminal cases. However, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West said, they are all too often fallible instruments, especially when dealing with
  98
  evidence that is inadequate or contaminated, or where there is widespread public anger and demand for a conviction.
  I well remember the case of the Birmingham Six because I come from the west midlands. I know that the jury relied on evidence that was put before it at the trial at Lancaster that was not good. It was forensic evidence, and the jury thought that it had the right to rely on evidence presented by someone of the supposed professional integrity of Frank Skuse, the forensic scientist. He provided it with what appeared to be incontrovertible evidence of guilt, which subsequently had to be dismissed for what has been termed "limited efficiency". That means, basically, that he was incompetent.
  The jury relied on that evidence, and in some ways it had a right to do so. It relied on the integrity of that evidence, but it proved not to be accurate evidence. As a result, the Birmingham Six—this happened in other cases—went to prison. People went to prison who perhaps should never have gone to prison.
  There is great pressure on juries. Again, I well remember the Birmingham Six case. There was enormous public outrage after the bombings, especially in the west midlands. Anger was expressed by many people. Fear was expressed by Irish people who lived in the area. A number of incidents occurred, and there was a great desire for convictions. The trial had to he transferred from Birmingham to Lancaster.
  The jury considered the case in circumstances of enormous media interest and great public anger. It was righteous anger, in the sense that an appalling atrocity had been committed. In the circumstances, it would have been difficult for jurors to be unaware of the enormous pressure that was being put on them. It would have taken a brave jury to acquit.
  Respect for the criminal justice system depends on us having confidence that it is a system that delivers justice. We must be satisfied that it is impartial between individuals and enforcement of the law.
  According to an ancient axiom, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In most cases, the central concern about police involvement in the investigation of cases—especially when questions are raised about the actions of other police officers—relates more to perception than to reality; similarly, confidence in a legal system often involves perceptions of that system.
  I accept the Home Secretary's contention that many miscarriages of justice have been corrected by the efforts of serving police officers who have investigated the quality of evidence—and, on occasion, their own colleagues. For many years, however, concern has been expressed about the police investigating themselves: although officers from other forces may carry out such investigations, the practice has been criticised on the ground that it does not appear to be sufficiently independent.
  In practice, few problems have arisen, but the procedure leaves the police open to accusations by aggrieved parties. That is surely unnecessary: we need not have a system that allows such accusations, or perceptions, to exist. I believe that an independent investigation that is also of high quality can be introduced. The enhancement of independence will ensure that the commission is perceived as impartial and that its

  99
  judgments can be relied on—and we can achieve that, if we can also ensure that the quality of the investigation is high.
  Hon. Members have suggested a number of ways of avoiding the need for serving police officers in other forces to be seconded to the commission for brief periods to investigate specific cases. We could provide a core staff including investigators; those investigators could he officers who had retired from the force because of injury, and who, although unable to carry out their duties on the streets, would be able to conduct investigations of this kind. Officers who had recently ceased to carry out investigation duties would be able to bring up-to-date knowledge of investigation technique to their new responsibilities, along with experience of the way in which the police put cases together.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, we could also use the many officers who have recently retired from the force. As such officers would not owe allegiance to the force in the future, they would be perceived as entirely independent: it would be assumed that, in their work for the commission, they would not need to be careful about how they dealt with serving police officers. Serving officers could also be seconded to the commission for a period—a substantial period, I hope. Some senior officers could conduct high-quality investigations.
  It is important to bear in mind that the independence to which I refer will protect the police as well: it will protect their impartiality. Once their actions have been verified by a more independent group of investigators, no one will be able to allege impropriety in the investigation.
  The Home Office says that such an arrangement might well cost much more, because it would require a larger core of investigators; the Police Federation fears that the Home Office has not recognised the substantial extra cost that would result from the use of serving police officers to investigate cases for the commission. In any event, I do not think that the cost would be much greater.
  We must ensure that the correct cases come before the commission. Legal aid is important to the achievement of that end: the commission must be able to distinguish between real miscarriages of justice and frivolous cases. I am sure that many criminals will "try it on". The best way of dealing with that is to enable the defence to provide the commission with properly prepared briefs. Complainants and their solicitors must also be regularly informed of the progress of investigations, and allowed to make representations to the commission about the direction of those investigations.
  I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance about the availability of legal aid. As has been pointed out by his own side, the Bill does not make the position clear. When I asked the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) about the matter, she appeared to reassure me that legal aid would be available; she said that she had regular discussions with Home Office Ministers. It is now incumbent on the Minister to tell us whether we can rely on that assurance.
  The cost of providing the larger core and of providing the legal aid will be significant but, in terms of the overall cost, the Bill is important, as it goes to the heart of restoring confidence in our legal system. The cost of that
  100
  confidence may be greater than the Home Office is willing to spend at the moment, but the price of a lack of confidence will, in my view, be much greater.
  I welcome the Bill. I look forward to it being strengthened in Committee, and to a reduction in the number of miscarriages that we see in our criminal justice system in Britain.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: It is recorded somewhere in the annals of Welsh mythology that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) opened an Adjournment debate at 3 am, he sent his mother a tape of his speech. The following week, he heard her telling her neighbour that when her son, Gareth, spoke in the House, "You could hear a pin drop—in contrast to the noise, commotion and fury when Neil Kinnock or that Mrs. Thatcher tried to make themselves heard." The fact that there is no noise in the background to this debate may reflect a lack of controversy, but the fact that it has been a quiet and serious debate should not be allowed to diminish interest in this important Bill.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) that sound, fury and disagreement on principle is not enough to arouse interest in the press and the media. I voted for the television cameras to come into the House, in the hope that they would help to inform the public of the serious issues that we debate. Their failure to record a single sitting of the Committee that considered either the Criminal Justice Bill or the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill in the previous Session was a disgrace. It is neither controversy nor quiet debate that seems to draw proper attention to some of the most important issues that we discuss in the House. It was appropriate that my hon. Friend's serious contribution, in which he raised a number of issues that must be debated in Committee, should close what has been such a good debate.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I welcome the Bill. I welcome it with relief, because its gestation period has been equivalent to that of an elephant. It has taken a long time for the Bill to reach the Floor of the House. It will require hard work in Committee to ensure that the right Bill emerges. Concern was expressed by a variety of hon. Members on a number of points of detail, and a number of those points remain unclear.
  I assure Ministers that we will bring a constructive approach to the discussions in Committee, with a view to returning to the Floor of the House a Bill to which we can give whole-hearted support and which will command the whole-hearted support of both sides of the House. It sounds rather boring, but that is our objective. If Ministers will share in the search for consensus, we will certainly play our part.
  I am concerned about the availability of resources. I hope that the Minister will come prepared for a serious discussion on that issue in Committee, or, perhaps, reassure us this evening if he can. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) dismissed that concern with her customary cavalier attitude. The trouble is that there appears to be an intention to depend on the resources of the police. If demands on the police are considerable, it could bleed the local police—in different parts of the country at different times—of the staff that are necessary to undertake their normal duties.

  101
  There is some concern that those resources have been underestimated. If that is balanced by drawing off local police, which would result in a decline in the availability of senior officers at local level, that will be sad. Local communities should not pay the price for us getting our sums wrong at this stage. I believe that that will be an important discussion for us to have in Committee.
  I must contrast the confused contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam with the constructive approach adopted by Conservative and Opposition Members and by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. By claiming the profession of journalist, she made the case against employing journalists in a way that was as devastating as it was unconscious and unintended.
  It is in the best interests of the police that any case which may involve bad practice or the misuse of police powers should be objectively investigated, and it is also in the best interests of the police that that investigation should be as searching as it is fair. I think that that is the general belief of the police themselves. It is in the interests of the police, the public and those who may be the subject of miscarriages that there should be confidence on all sides in the body that we have set out to establish through the Bill.
  It would have done the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam good to listen to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who spelled out the precise reasons for rejecting complacency. Given the fragility of the whole system and the fact that our criminal justice system depends on fallible human beings, we would be foolish to put misplaced confidence in the idea that everyone in our prisons deserves to be there. That is not a reason to give up hope or to swing too far in ignoring evidence: it is a real life challenge. The true friends of our criminal justice system are those who love justice first and the system second.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been identified by hon. Members in all parts of the House as a friend of justice rather than an old softie. That is absolutely right. I know from my knowledge of my hon. Friend that he is as concerned to see the guilty convicted as to see the innocent cleared. If in the course of pursuing one, we are accused of neglecting the other, we certainly need to consider our balance. My hon. Friend need have no concern in that regard, because he has been tough-minded on both. It is important to get that balance right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) was right to he positive about the body that we are establishing, and right to highlight the delay in setting up such a mechanism. That makes it all the more important to get it right. There are questions to be answered. How will cases come to the attention of the body? Access has been mentioned and is in the Bill via a referral by the Appeal Court, but what about other mechanisms? Will a convicted person who claims that there has been a miscarriage of justice be able to ask directly that the body should investigate the alleged miscarriage? Will referral from hon. Members be acceptable? We are often approached, sometimes inappropriately, but people often feel that as their elected representatives we can put them in touch with the authorities which will look after their interests.
  102
  It is correct that the right of the Home Secretary to refer to the Court of Appeal should be replaced in the course of establishing that body, but what of the Home Secretary's right to appeal to it? Those matters are not set out, but they are important. People's expectations of the body are important and those matters need to be spelled out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers in his response to the debate. If he does not, these issues will need to be pursued in Committee.
  I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to get us to this point. The Bill has not happened by accident, nor has it come from the Home Secretary's goodness of heart. I say that even though I am being nice to him today. It is the result of a great deal of hard work, representations and pressure, and because of the willingness of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South to take a great deal of stick and criticism in pursuing a cause that they believe to be right. My hon. Friend has been praised by hon. Members in all parts of the House for his objectivity. That probably worries him more than a savage attack by a Minister.
  Such praise is right. In a democracy, there is a need for people to stand up for what they believe is right and on behalf of people whom they think need defending, even when that is unpopular. That stance has been thoroughly vindicated. I am sure that my hon. Friend must feel some satisfaction from seeing the Bill in the House, even though, characteristically and rightly, he expresses reservations about the Bill as it stands. He shares with others the concern that the Bill needs to be improved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) introduced a detailed Bill, which was borrowed for amendments during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill—so her Bill was debated in this place in detail, as well as in general. With other colleagues—in particular, a former Member of the House, Lord Archer of Sandwell—we have tabled amendments on a series of Criminal Justice Bills, with the aim of expediting the establishment of the body that we are discussing today.
  We are left with a big job for the Committee stage. One aspect that we need to consider is the role of the Appeal Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred to concerns about its operation. We want to ensure that difficulties do not remain after the passage of the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred to the need to improve the criminal justice system to avoid miscarriages. I agree. Confidence is all the more fragile as a result of some of the more ill-judged elements of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, when the advice of the royal commission was ignored by the Home Secretary when he brought forward his recommendations. It makes it all the more important that protection should be put in place.
  As a number of hon. Members have said, there is a need for a balance between convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. No one can be content that our criminal justice system does either to perfection. The tendency to fragmentation is worrying and we need to get the different parts working in complementary fashion. It must be objectively seen to be clear who does what, but the different bits also need to complement each other.

  103
  I accept the general dependence, for example, on serving police officers as investigators. That proposal is not in dispute. However, what is in dispute is whether that dependence should be absolute and also the nature of the supervision of those who undertake the investigation.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) rightly said that immense sums of money are spent on legal aid and on the criminal justice system. In fact, there are three aspects on which we spend too little—victims, prevention of crime and reoffending, and tackling injustice, which is the subject of our debate today. We need to redress that balance within the system.
  The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), depending heavily on the excellent Library brief—paying something of a tribute to the work of the House of Commons Library—
  Mr. Garnier: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to allow me to interrupt him. I did not actually refer to the Library brief at all.
  Mr. Michael: It is interesting that there seemed to be a certain similarity between the brief and what the hon. Gentleman said. I took it as a compliment to the Library system. He made a curious reference to legislation by postcard. It is important that we do not allow that reference simply to pass, because the right to petition predates Parliament and the use of that particular form is one that should not be criticised as much as it has been in some quarters during recent times.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to his hope that the latest development will be the last for some time. I hope that he is right, but it depends on our work in Committee—where, I hope, we will avoid the party political knockabout and instead seek ways to improve the Bill so that we can avoid the dangers highlighted during the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said that investigating officers should be from a different force from that which originally investigated the case. Underlying that point is the important fact that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Therefore, the separation of responsibilities is important.
  That is nowhere more important than in relation to the delicate issue of miscarriage of justice. We need to hear from Ministers how the investigation will be overseen, who will have the duty to set out the scope of police inquiries, including the number and rank of officers to be involved, the time scale and the likely cost. Who will direct and supervise all inquiries and certify that they have been satisfactorily completed? Is that a responsibility of the commission? It is not clear in the Bill, where responsibility appears to be split between the commission and the chief constable whose staff are seconded to undertake any investigation.
  There are six aspects to the issue of objectivity and to ensuring that the commission is seen to be able to carry out its functions in a way that will inspire confidence on all sides. One is the matter of access to the commission.
  Mr. Michael O'Brien—not the hon. Member, I hasten to add, but a constituent of mine—should be as familiar to hon. Members as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. He has written to every one of them at least once, and to all Members of the House of Lords
  104
  at least as frequently. He has put across to hon. Members his belief that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Will the commission be able to scrutinise that sort of case, where a difficulty exists in finding new evidence? It is important that such questions and the question of time limits that could place an artificial limit on investigations should be discussed in detail in Committee.
  The second aspect of the independence of the commission is the mode of appointment. Obviously, it is a positive step to advertise to raise interest in being appointed to the commission, but it is also important that the commission should be seen to be appointed through an objective process and, therefore, to be balanced and to inspire confidence. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that the Government will give it some thought. The Minister may be able to be positive about that point in Committee.
  The third aspect is the commission's scope to investigate miscarriages of justice. The definition of the commission's responsibilities should be wide enough to allow for difficult cases. The threshold for investigation and for referral is an important point for debate. It was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
  Difficulties exist in other parts of the criminal justice system. The Crown Prosecution Service appears to be constrained from prosecuting in cases where it is generally felt that prosecution should follow. Such a constraint occurs in what is described as the public interest, but it may have more to do with a general financial constraint than with the specific case.
  The Police Complaints Authority has been undermined by dissatisfaction about the way in which complaints are investigated. Part of that dissatisfaction involves worry about the investigation at the early stage—the investigation in the police force, where informal resolution too often appears. If there is genuine informal resolution, that is fine, but I and my hon. Friends are aware of cases where everyone believes that a case has been resolved informally except the person who has made the complaint, to whom it comes as a complete shock.
  The pressure from the inspectorate for an increased percentage of informal resolutions is being exerted in the wrong direction. Such dissatisfaction has been caused in relation to the South Wales police, although I believe that that has been accepted, and that the matter is in the process of being set right. It is even more important that there should be confidence that the body that we are seeking to establish has the capacity to set matters right.
  The threshold referred to by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is an important issue, which needs to be debated fully in Committee. We should discuss whether there should be a limitation on issues not already raised. I thoroughly agreed with the hon. Gentleman's point. We should not play a game. We should not think that anything is okay as long as it is being done by the rules. We need to ensure that the commission is able to deal with real miscarriages rather than be too hidebound.
  The fourth point, therefore, is the test. Is "unsafe" too high a test to set? Should we accept the royal commission's recommendation that the test should be
  "is or may be unsafe"?

  105
  I was not convinced by the Home Secretary's suggestion, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, that the choice of the higher threshold was a result of consultations.
  The point is that, where there is a lurking doubt about a prosecution—a lurking doubt about a decision of the courts—there should be a capacity to investigate and to ensure that certainty is achieved, as far as is humanly possible. If we set the threshold too high, far too many cases in which there is no confidence in the outcome reached by the courts will not be capable of investigation by the commission. That will undermine confidence in the commission and will fatally undermine the commission in doing the job that the Bill sets it up to do.
  Tied with that point is the oversight of investigators and the capacity of the commission to have its own staff who can oversee the investigations. That leads me to the fifth point, which is the accountability of the investigating officer. It is clear that the investigating officer is to be appointed by his or her own chief constable. It is explicit in the Bill that the report will be made both to the commission and to the chief constable. Is that sensible? Is it properly balanced? Is there not a split of responsibilities and a split of supervision as a result of the mechanism contained in the Bill?
  The accountability of the police, following the centralising influence of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994, should not be totally disregarded in emphasising the importance of the investigations being objective and accountable to the independent and responsible authority. The responsibility of seconded officers to the commission is therefore important, and it underlines the importance of the commission having the capacity for oversight.
  That brings me to the sixth point, which is the right of the commission to have an independent capacity to investigate. For the commission to be totally dependent on the police and for it to be ruled out from any approach other than police investigation would surely be too limiting. It may only be in a minority of cases that anything else is required, but that minority of cases should be catered for in the Bill.
  We should have a body that is capable, on occasions, of having an innovative approach to getting at the truth. Reference has been made to the Bridgewater case and a number of cases in which repeated investigations have not cleared up the remaining doubt about the safety of prosecution.
  We should not look just at what the courts have examined already; this is not just about process. Although the involvement of the police is important, we should not disregard the pressures on the police, a point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) earlier. The police have limited cash, which is being limited even more. They have been slimmed down, especially in respect of supervisory ranks. In some places there are one or two superintendents where previously there were five officers at superintendent or chief superintendent level. That reduces considerably the availability of people to be seconded to undertake a major investigation for an extended period.
  I have concerns in my own area, where, for example, the Llanishen and Rhymney divisions have been merged, which is a mistake because it makes the division too big. One can imagine the position if the officer who had the task of supervising the whole area was taken off for a
  106
  time to conduct an investigation. Those are the very officers who will be needed for the oversight of investigations.
  Questions remain to be discussed in Committee. There are, for example, the concerns of the hon. Member for Upper Bann about the special needs of Northern Ireland and about balancing the knowledge of law in the communities there with the requirements of objectivity and independent scrutiny. There are questions over the retention of evidence by the defence as well as the prosecution, and debate about who does what between the Police Complaints Authority and the commission. It is clear that some miscarriages have arisen from investigation by the Police Complaints Authority of allegations of misconduct by the police. There is a need for some overlap between the authority and the commission, but I would not want it to be drawn so tightly that the lines of demarcation were so clear that people or cases could fall between them. What is expected of those two bodies should be clarified.
  The Home Secretary referred to identifying possible miscarriages as being a responsibility of the commission. Identifying is an interesting word to use, when "investigating" is the one that springs more readily to the lips. Perhaps that usage will be explained to us as the debate on the Bill continues.
  The need for the commission to be visibly independent of the Government and the courts is undoubted and agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The need for that commission to be independent also of the police or other authorities is equally important in those cases where that is an issue. I hope that that need, together with the question of the level of the threshold, will be subject to serious debate in Committee.
  I agree with the Home Secretary that we need a simple and understandable test. That test, however, should be the right one. A higher threshold than necessary may unintentionally obstruct the search for justice and undermine confidence. That would be a grave mistake.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that the Bill should foster the confidence of the public in the courts, the police and the system that regulates both. We need a Bill that covers all eventualities and allows confidence to be expressed in all aspects of the criminal justice system. We cannot be confident that nothing will ever go wrong again, but confident that a proper body exists to deal with matters when they go wrong.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), the hopeful radical, talked about the responsibility of being a member of a jury. He is quite right about that. I recall sitting in court for the first time as a magistrate, having sat in the back of the court on numerous occasions to observe the proceedings. That weight of responsibility is extremely heavy.
  What came into my mind during my early days on the bench was the enormity of the responsibility when deciding between two cases; deciding between right and wrong and on guilt and innocence. That responsibility should not be underestimated, even when, after a long period in the courts, it is possible for people to become numbed, and therefore perhaps sometimes unable to distinguish properly the acute necessity of getting it right. That is why I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the process of appointment of the chairman and members of the commission.

  107
  I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to many of the serious concerns that have been expressed, especially as they have been put forward constructively by both Conservative and Opposition Members. There is a welcome consensus on the principle of the Bill. It is welcome that we have reached that point at least in political debate on miscarriages of justice. I hope that by the end of the Report stage, if not the Committee stage, we will have equal consensus on the detail of the Bill.
  If we can achieve that, the Government and Opposition will have cause for pride, but if we fail, it will not be for the lack of trying on the part of Opposition Members. I hope that the Government will not spoil this ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. We have waited a long time for the Bill; let us not miss the opportunity to get it right.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I thought that it would have been obvious to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) why so many colleagues, myself in particular, were so quiet in the debate. It is because I am still rather hoarse from cheering Gavin Hastings on Saturday. That is the only partisan note that I wish to make to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am very much aware of possible Welsh supporters behind me and in a superior position.
  We have had a serious discussion on the Bill tonight, and hon Members have raised a number of intriguing points. The debate has been cross-party, and I want to respond to a number of the points that have been raised.
  As has been evident from the contributions to this evening's debate, the Criminal Appeal Bill goes to the heart of the criminal justice process, its effectiveness and integrity, and the checks and balances that any criminal justice system must provide in seeking to bring the guilty to justice while safeguarding the innocent from wrongful conviction. The Bill is firmly based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, and on the detailed consultation that the Government undertook immediately after the royal commission reported. The welcome that the Bill received today from both sides of the House confirms that we can have confidence in it as a sound foundation for our criminal appeals system into the next century.
  The independence of the criminal cases review commission which the Bill will create was properly emphasised today. The Bill addresses the matter of independence very carefully, while giving equal care to defining the proper relationship between the commission and other parts of the criminal justice system, as well as defining how the commission is to be accountable to Parliament and the public.
  The commission will be independent of Government. My right hon. and learned Friends will relinquish their responsibilities for deciding whether to refer cases to the courts, and those decisions will in future he entirely for the commission. My right hon. and learned Friends will, however, retain their role in relation to recommendations about the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. Those powers will still be needed in very exceptional cases which, for whatever reason, the commission and the courts cannot deal with in the normal way of things. The
  108
  prerogative will still have a necessary function in relation to matters which have nothing to do with whether a conviction or sentence was right or wrong: for example, where mercy is justified for exceptional compassionate reasons. Such uses of the prerogative are, however, rare.
  The commission's independence will be further guaranteed by the quality of its members and the range of skills and experience that they bring to the task. Once again, the Government's thinking follows closely that of the royal commission. Like the royal commission, we consider that the new body will benefit from having both legally qualified and non-legal members. We also consider that it should have people with a broad knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system, in addition to members from outside that system who will bring entirely fresh perspectives to the work. Thus the new commission will have strength in its diversity.
  As is often said, any organisation is only as good as the people in it. Accordingly, we want the best and most suitable people to be members of the commission and comprise its staff. The posts of chairman and members of the commission will be advertised in the press. The job descriptions for those posts will be clearly set out to potential applicants. I do not yet know which newspapers the advertisements will be placed in, but the posts will be widely advertised. I say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that the advertisements will not be exclusively in The Sun; nor will they be exclusively in The Guardian, which may reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
  Mr. Ashby: If my hon. Friend believes, as he seems to imply, that such independent people are better able to do the job that his Department was doing formerly, might not the same view prevail about mandatory life sentences?
  Mr. Maclean: No, the same view would not prevail, and my hon. Friend will not take me down that route tonight.
  Candidates applying for the posts will be subject to an appropriate selection procedure to draw up a list of candidates from which the Prime Minister will make his recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that at least one member of the commission will have knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland so that the commission is suitably qualified to consider cases arising in that jurisdiction. Of course, the commission will also need some staff with experience of the Northern Ireland legal system. I expect everyone to be appointed on merit and not for any other reason.
  The commission will also be independent of the courts. It will not be a court, nor will it be part of the courts structure. There will be no right of appeal as such from the commission's decisions, but those decisions will be subject to the possibility of judicial review, as is proper in cases where liberty and livelihood may be at stake. But the important point is that the commission will be separate from the courts system, with a different composition and

  109
  different procedures. Having established its independence, it is important to get the relationship between the commission and the courts absolutely right.
  Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister recall that the royal commission recommended that the chairman should not be a judge, past or present? Can the Minister clarify whether his Department accepted that recommendation?
  Mr. Maclean: I was going to come to that point later, but the answer is that we have not yet come to a firm conclusion. We are mindful of the views of the royal commission and will take them carefully into account, but we have not yet made a final decision on the background skills and experience of the commission's chairman.
  The final decision in any case on whether or not a conviction or sentence should stand will remain with the courts. The commission's function will be to decide whether a case should go to the courts for that decision to be taken. It is clearly of the greatest importance that the commission should not be misinterpreted as being somehow itself a court of appeal acting above, or in parallel with, the courts themselves.
  The criteria for references in clause 13 of the Bill have an important part to play in defining that relationship, in a very broad sense, in the legislation. We agree with the royal commission's conclusion that detailed operating criteria are best left to the commission itself. Our own experience tells us that it is impossible to predict all the individual circumstances of the range of cases in which the question of a possible miscarriage of justice may arise.
  We agree with the royal commission that the statutory criteria should be broad, although here we have departed in one important respect from its recommendation. The royal commission thought that the only ground for referring a case should be a belief on the part of the new body that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. In our view, it is necessary to go a little further than that.
  There are in essence three elements to the criteria for the reference of convictions in clause 13. First, there must be some new argument or evidence not previously raised at the trial or on appeal. Secondly, there must be a real possibility that the reference will lead to the conviction being quashed. To the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) I say that the phrase "real possibility" is a wide one—the alternative would be to have no real possibility, which would be extraordinary. That is a wide ground for referral. Thirdly, references may be made only outside the normal appeals process. Similar criteria are to be applied in sentence cases.
  The requirement that there be some new element for the court to consider is broadly expressed, but it is of great importance. It defines the relationship between the commission and the courts: the one body referring, the other deciding. Unless there is some new element for it to consider, the Court of Appeal or the Crown court would simply be being asked to consider reversing its own previous decision—the point that I was raising with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In the absence of anything new, the implication would be that the commission which had referred the case disagreed with the previous finding on appeal. That would place both the commission and the appellate court in a most invidious position.
  There would also be no real purpose in such a reference, since the appellate courts cannot be expected to alter their previous judgments unless there is some
  110
  substantial new point on which they can focus. For both those reasons, it would be unhelpful if the Bill appeared to leave open the possibility that such referrals could be made, thereby confusing potential applicants as to the nature and scope of the commission's responsibilities. The criteria in clause 13 avoid that pitfall, while enabling the commission to refer every possible sort of case in which the courts might come to a fresh view on a further appeal.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked me about the test for fresh evidence and grounds of appeal. The discussion paper gave a broad welcome to the royal commission's formula of "is or may be" unsafe, because the Government recognise the need to bring clarity and simplification into such matters. However, the royal commission's formula goes wider than the current practice of the Court of Appeal and was, on examination, found to be uncertain in its effect.
  The formula in the Bill provides a simple test, which effectively restates the existing practice of the court, as was wisely noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), and I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir Ivan Lawrence) concurred. I can assure the House that it does not narrow the grounds for allowing an appeal.
  On the test for receiving fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal will receive fresh evidence if it considers that it is capable of belief, rather than, as at present, that it is likely to be credible. That was recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. It provides a lower threshold for the admission of fresh evidence in appeals.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton made some comments in his speech about the word "unsafe"—or the word "unsatisfactory" in the definition of unsafe. The primary test is whether a conviction is unsafe. It is possible that a material irregularity, such as the fact that the police lied to the jury, will cast such a doubt on the safety of the conviction that it is now unsafe. That will depend on the circumstances of the case. The courts have ruled that there is no real difference between "unsafe" and "unsatisfactory". The Royal Commission agreed with that.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton also asked about the proviso. The Bill abolishes the existing proviso that the Court of Appeal need not quash a conviction if it believes that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. All would turn on whether a conviction is unsafe. The Lord Chief Justice and members of the senior judiciary have given the test a great deal of thought, and they believe that the new test restates the existing practice of the Court of Appeal.
  Clause 4 lowers the threshold for admission of new evidence to some extent, but I do not believe that it would be right to lower it significantly. Other elements of the existing test are important; for example, there must be a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce evidence at the original trial. Since the Royal Commission reported, the courts have taken a more flexible view of appeals based on flagrant incompetent advocacy, as the case of Clinton showed, but we need to be careful about permitting cases to return to the Court of Appeal simply because the defence have tried one defence and failed and now wish to try a tactical change of defence manoeuvres.
  I am not aware of the article by Sir John Smith QC to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton referred, but I look forward to reading it before the Committee meets, if it is possible by that date.

  111
  I shall now discuss the crucial matter of investigations in miscarriage of justice cases, to which the Government have given a great deal of thought, and which was the subject of most comments by most speakers.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's train of thought, but I wish to ask him a question before he does that.
  Perhaps the most significant and important question that has been asked about the investigation process is what happens if the criminal cases review commission digs up some evidence that is not strictly admissible in court, such as hearsay. Will the Court of Appeal say, "We are sorry, but hearsay and is inadmissible and we shall not take it into account in considering whether there has been a miscarriage of justice"? If my hon. Friend cannot deal with that question straight away, perhaps I might receive a reply in due course.
  Mr. Maclean: I am happy to give my hon. and learned Friend a more detailed reply in due course, but that could be one of those cases in which the exercise of the royal prerogative might be appropriate.
  Other people have commented extensively on the laws of evidence. The laws of evidence are being considered by the Law Commission at present—[Interruption.] Yes, by the Law Commission. It is therefore appropriate to consider what it has to say about hearsay and all other aspects of the laws of evidence.
  Different opinions have been expressed by hon. Members tonight about whether, how, how far and in what way police officers should be involved in those investigations. The Government recognise that that is a crucial aspect, and we have considered it carefully. However, it was not merely our own experience which told us that a great deal would be lost, and that the new procedures would be considerably weakened, if it were not possible for the commission to have access to the experience and expertise of the police.
  The royal commission, after all the evidence that it had seen and heard, and after all the consideration given to those matters, concluded that there was no practical alternative to using police forces in those investigations. Moreover, the need for access to police skills and expertise was endorsed by the majority of those who commented on the point in response to the Government's discussion paper. The paper took care to set out a number of different options for the way in which investigations might be carried out by the new independent body.
  Hon. Members emphasised the need for independence in those investigations, and they are right to do so. The proposals in the Bill do not say that the commission will simply hand over its inquiries to a police force and then sit back and hope for the best until the relevant force has reported back. Far from it—the commission will have powers to direct and to supervise any investigation. And "supervise" means just that: a member of the commission will be able to take as active a role in overseeing the inquiries as he or she judges necessary or appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
  If it is necessary to accompany an investigating officer when he interviews a witness, a member of the commission will be able to do that. If the commission wants to ask specific questions of a witness, it will be able
  112
  to require those questions to be asked. If, for some reason, the commission prefers to speak to a witness directly, or the witness prefers to speak directly to the commission, that may occur at the commission's discretion.
  All of that seems to provide the measure of independence that the Government are as anxious as hon. Members to see provided. The expertise provided by police officers and the independent contribution made by the directing and supervising members of the commission will be a powerful combination in getting to the root of often complex cases.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pressed the point about having a corps of investigators in the commission to be used only occasionally. I think that the demand for larger, more complex investigations is likely to fluctuate, and it would be difficult to establish a unit of optimum size. Sometimes the investigators would be under-occupied and on other occasions they would be terribly busy. It would be difficult to get the size of the unit right.
  Such a unit would have to be accountable to the exercise of police powers and subject to disciplinary arrangements in respect of its operational duties. Special arrangements would have to be put in place to give the investigators access to training opportunities to keep them in touch and up to date with all elements of police practice, investigative techniques, and so on.
  Experience shows that in a significant number of cases the investigation required is very straightforward. It would be far quicker and more cost effective to ask the force concerned to undertake the work. That force often knows the background to the case and where to find the people concerned. We think that it would be less effective to ask a group of officers who are unfamiliar with the case to make the same inquiries.
  Another point which I stress to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which has probably not been picked up, is that the commission's staff will include three or four investigators who will be serving police officers. They will be responsible for directing, planning and supervising the investigations which will be conducted by the external police officers.
  Mr. Michael: I am slightly confused by what the Minister has said. Before he gave way, he seemed to be conceding our point that there should be a corps of employees in the commission capable of overseeing the investigations. The general point is surely not that the commission should employ a large number of people, but that there should be a minimum corps to ensure the commission's capacity for independence. Judging from what he has just said, the Minister will surely accept that point.
  Mr. Maclean: I am not conceding the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that he recognises what I said a few hours ago to the hon. Member for Upper Bann: we expect the commission's staff to include some serving senior police officers who are able to direct, supervise and control the operations and assess the quality of evidence that the investigating police force has. The prime distinction is that those people will not carry out the investigations themselves. They will not be investigating

  113
  officers conducting investigations around the country; they will be employed by the commission to control and direct other police officers.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's point can wait until consideration of the Bill in Committee, as I wish to reply to many other points. If there is time at the end of my speech, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—I will pay a glowing tribute to him later in my speech—agreed that there should not be a separate independent police investigating body. However, he thought that perhaps the investigating officer should always be from another force. That would remove valuable flexibility and would not allow the best use of resources.
  In a case in which no question had arisen about the propriety or effectiveness of the original investigation but one or two potential witnesses needed to be found and interviewed, inquiries by the original force are likely to be quicker and less cumbersome than bringing in an officer from an outside force on every occasion. The commission has the power to require an outside force to investigate wherever it judges such action to be necessary. We would like to keep the flexibility in cases—perhaps the vast bulk of them—where it will be sensible to use the original force.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has more experience than most people have of the difficult and complex issues raised by miscarriage of justice cases, and he has great experience of the hard decisions that have to be taken. I welcomed his eloquent remarks, and was glad to hear him praise the patient, able and conscientious work done over the years. I am delighted that he paid glowing tribute to the C3 division of the Home Office, whose members have been unsung heroes for years, for all their hard background work in dealing with difficult miscarriage of justice cases.
  The Bill is of the utmost importance in strengthening the procedures by which potential miscarriages of justice may be swiftly identified and corrected. Like any other system or organisation, the criminal justice system depends on the people who work in it. The processes of investigation, trial and appeal are made up of a complex interaction of human decisions. Like any system that is operated by human beings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said—things will sometimes go humanly wrong.
  The House recognises that the consequences of such mistakes for an innocent person are terrible and profound. Moreover, the conviction of an innocent person means that someone else has escaped punishment—and possibly that a dangerous person may still be at large. Our duty to individual citizens and to the public in general is to ensure that all appropriate safeguards are placed along the way, so that neither mischief nor lack of vigilance prevents the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley for establishing the royal commission, and for being the progenitor of the excellent Bill that is before the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and other hon. Members asked about legal aid. Legal aid will continue to be made available through the
  114
  green form scheme, to assist applicants to make representations to the commission. The commission's procedures will be investigative, so no additional form of legal aid will be necessary. Once a case has been referred to the courts, the appellant may apply for legal aid for the appeal. As to judicial review of commission decisions, those challenging a judicial review might get civil legal aid, depending on their individual circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about the relationship between the Police Complaints Authority and the commission. I recognise the potential for overlap, which will require co-operation between both bodies. Under present arrangements, where such an overlap occurs it results in a single investigation under the PCA's supervision. Similar administrative arrangements will be needed when the commission takes over the Secretary of State's powers. The scope of the commission's inquiries may go wider than the PCA.
  I was asked about the situation in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has appointed a committee to examine possible miscarriages of justice there and what should be the response of the Scottish Office, and I understand that that committee is due to report in 1996.
  As to the laws of evidence, I intimated that the Law Commission is examining that aspect. I was also asked whether the commission would be able to obtain transcripts of certain cases. The answer is yes, the commission can get transcripts; it can get anything it likes, within its generous £4.4 million budget.
  Our criminal justice system has rightly been the envy of the world. If it is to remain so, we must be continually developing and refining it, acknowledging and learning the lessons of what has worked well and what has gone wrong. The Bill is the result of much thinking and much experience, not only in Government but outside, especially on the part of the royal commission. I believe that its contribution to the quality of our system of justice will be both lasting and substantial. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Appeal Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State incurred in connection with the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

  (2) any payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  To be decided forthwith, pursuant to Order [19th December].—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2)(Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [22nd February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.
  Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 4 to 8.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. I01(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
    That the draft Wildlife (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Leeds Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1995, dated 6th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Enforcement of External Orders) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7988/94, relating to a Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with the Russian Federation, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27th January 1995, relating to an Interim Agreement with the Russian Federation; and recognises that these Agreements will offer substantial encouragement to the process of reform in the Russian Federation through enhanced political and economic co-operation with the European Union.
    Question agreed to.

    PROTECTION OF WORKERS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees),
    That this House takes note of European Document No. 7484/93, relating to the posting of workers; and endorses the Government's view that the present text of the draft Directive is bureaucratic, anti-competitive and protectionist in nature, and that it would erect barriers to a free market and damage the effective operation of the Single Market.—[Mr. Conway.]
    The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 56.

    Division No. 95]

    10:00pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Amess, David

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ancram, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Ashby, David

    Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Atkins, Robert

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole v)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Bates, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Legg, Barry

    Booth, Hartley

    Lidington, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Lightbown, David

    Bowis, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Bright, Sir Graham

    MacKay, Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Maclean, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Burt, Alistair

    Mans, Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'Clif)

    Merchant, Piers

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Congdon, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Paice, James

    Day, Stephen

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Pawsey, James

    Devlin, Tim

    Pickles, Eric

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Dover, Den

    Richards, Rod

    Duncan, Alan

    Riddick, Graham

    Elletson, Harold

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Faber, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Shersby, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    French, Douglas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gale, Roger

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Gallie, Phil

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Sproat, Iain

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Garnier, Edward

    Stephen, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Stem, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Streeter, Gary

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Sykes, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hague, William

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Thomason, Roy

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Harris, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Hawksley, Warren

    Trend, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Hendry, Charles

    Waller, Gary

    Horam, John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jack, Michael

    Watts, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Wells, Bowen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Whitney, Ray

    117

    Whittingdale, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Mr. Liam Fox and

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. David Willetts.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Harvey, Nick

    Austin-Walker, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Barnes, Harry

    Hutton, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Betts, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S

    Burden, Richard

    McCartney, Ian

    Caborn, Richard

    McFall, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Meale, Alan

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Michael, Alun

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Clapham, Michael

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Connarty, Michael

    Mullin, Chris

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Cox, Tom

    Olner, Bill

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Pike, Peter L

    Dafis, Cynog

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dewar, Donald

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Straw, Jack

    Enright, Derek

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Etherington, Bill

    Tyler, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Wallace, James

    Fyfe, Maria

    Gerrard, Neil

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Ms Jean Corston and

    Gunnell, John

    Mr. Andrew MacKinlay.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Document No. 7484/93, relating to the posting of workers; and endorses the Government's view that the present text of the draft Directive is bureaucratic, anti-competitive and protectionist in nature, and that it would erect barriers to a free market and damage the effective operation of the Single Market.

  DEFENCE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Key be added to the Defence Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Madam Speaker: I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) move the motion. I hear that there are only a couple of hours to go before it is the end of his birthday. It is very nice to hear the hon. Gentleman, and I wish him a happy birthday.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am not in my usual place, because I think it useful for my hon. Friend the Minister and me to be able to see each other in an uncrowded Chamber.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being present to answer the debate. I realise full well that he has an instinctive sympathy with many of the things that I say, whatever his departmental brief causes him to say in practice, so nothing that I say is in any way a personal criticism of himself.
  In this short debate, I shall raise two closely related matters: first, the recent report of the ombudsman on the Department of Transport's handling of the blight that has been caused by the channel tunnel rail link; and secondly, the context in which that report arose.
  Three Kent Members of Parliament submitted specimen cases to the ombudsman of constituents who had suffered grievous hardship as a result of the proposal to build the link. As a result, the ombudsman found that the Department of Transport had been guilty of maladministration, in that it had failed to consider the possible need to provide redress for persons suffering extreme or exceptional hardship, who were not covered by the various compensation schemes.
  In rejecting the report—for only the second time in the ombudsman's history—the Department argues that the project is not exceptional, that it never fell into limbo, and that it is impossible to devise a scheme that would be able to define "exceptional" in a way in which would limit the cost to acceptable levels.
  Throughout Sir Patrick Brown's evidence to the Committee, he rightly emphasised that his job was to carry out ministerial policy, and whenever it helped him to do so, he quoted Ministers. Yet, when faced with a statement from his Secretary of State that declared:
  "The rail link is … not just another investment project and we shall be ridiculed if we appear to treat it in that way. It has become a symbol, both at home and abroad, of our whole approach to Europe and our ability to look beyond the short-term",
  he lightly dismisses the remark as merely "appropriate rhetoric".
  What is more, he argues that, since all the cases referred to the ombudsman were examples of what he calls "generalised blight", it would have been impossible to work out a scheme to compensate any of them without putting the Department into an untenable position. Well, he is wrong on several counts.
  First, both British Rail and Union Railways have had schemes to compensate in exceptional cases. Since the former was ultimately answerable to the Government as a nationalised industry, and the latter was set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of British Rail, that seems quite a good pair of precedents.
  Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who is graciously in his place tonight, pointed out to the Select Committee—in a letter that he was kind enough to copy to me—there are a number of cases which clearly are

  119
  examples of specific blight, and despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend, the Department has made no attempt to help them.
  Thirdly, the Department claims that the project never went into limbo, because efforts continued to find a way to advance it even when every criterion against which it was supposedly being measured had failed to be met.
  What Government Departments must learn is that the public are neither stupid nor ill-informed. They had been told time and again that the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 prohibited any public subsidy to the line. They were told by the noble Lord Parkinson that the attempt to find a private sector partner had not succeeded, and they were entitled to assume that the project would not proceed.
  I do not believe that any of them could have foreseen that, by setting up a nominally private company, albeit as a wholly owned subsidiary as British Rail, the Government would be able to claim that they were no longer breaching the Channel Tunnel Act if they poured subsidy into the project. Not even my sophisticated constituents could have predicted that particular sleight of hand. It was reasonable, therefore, to assume that the project would not proceed.
  I believe that the ombudsman is right to describe the frantic but secret attempts of the Department to find ways of getting around the law as "limbo". I therefore believe that the Department should accept the report and offer our constituents, one of whom, in my case, has been unable to move his wife, who suffers from a progressive disease, to a more suitable house, at least a chance that they may be considered for compensation.
  I turn now to the wider context. In recent months, a number of women have received considerable sums of money in compensation from the Government for having been sacked from the armed services for becoming pregnant. The sackings may subsequently have been deemed to infringe their rights, but nobody can pretend that at the time they joined up they had no idea of the possible consequences of their chosen course of action, because at the time the rules of the various services were quite clear.
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which was set up in 1964, had by the end of March 1993 already paid out £909,446,123 for injuries sustained by citizens at the hands of criminals even if, according to its annual report,
  "sometimes they only sustain cuts, bruises or sprains."
  Those are two examples from a growing number in which the taxpayer is required to meet part of the cost of failures by public services to match the expectations of the citizen.
  However, even as the Government accept more responsibility for helping their citizens to meet the unpredictable mischances that they encounter in their dealings with Government agencies or, in the case of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, their fellow citizens, there is a gross and indefensible gap in the Government's response.
  At any time, the Department of Transport can decide to design a major infrastructure project and, once it has allowed its intention to become known, it plunges into ruin a large number of people who could not have known
  120
  that the plan was going to be made, may even have good reasons for supposing that it would not come to pass, and can take no steps to minimise their loss.
  As the permanent secretary to the Department of Transport made plain in his response to the ombudsman's report and in his evidence to the Select Committee, there is no need for the Government even to be certain that they have the funds to build a scheme on which they are working until after the necessary legislation has been passed. Last week, Sir Patrick told the Select Committee:
  "It is inevitable that there will be a planning phase, followed by a public inquiry or a Bill in Parliament and then a further period of detailed design and contracts before funding is committed. That is the way our system works."
  We know from recent experience that, even at that stage, the Government can decide either not to proceed at all or radically to alter a scheme. Oxleas wood, the project for which was recently completely changed, has been debated since 1979. The result of all that is that, for anything up to 25 years on any one project, hundreds of households can be robbed by the state with no hope of any redress.
  I take as an example the village of Boxley in my constituency. There lives Mr. Gardiner in a house which was once worth more than £400,000. In a recent valuation, it was reckoned that the fall in property prices had sliced some £100,000 off that. That is fair enough: the property market has always risen and fallen. But what illustrates my point is that Mr. Gardiner had borrowed against his property to assist his business, which once had a turnover of more than £2 million and employed 12 people.
  Then came the channel tunnel rail link, and the bank revalued his property. Its valuer decided that, because of the proximity of the link, the house could not be sold, valued it at nil, and the business collapsed. That is by no means an isolated example.
  I shall take another village—Harrietsham, in which a young couple wanted to sell their starter home because their family was being born. They could not find a buyer except at such a grossly exploitative price that they would have been ruined and their debt to the mortgage company could never have been repaid.
  Those are but two of hundreds of such tales. It is absurd to ask the owners to stay on in their homes, however unsuitable, until the project is completed.
  The average householder stays some five or six years in his home before moving on. As Sir Patrick pointed out as part of his argument that there is nothing exceptional about the link, many roads projects take much longer than the projected 16 years of the link. As a result, thousands of families are expected to stay in their homes for four or five times the average length, regardless of their circumstances, or lose almost all the value of their most important, often their only, asset.
  I think that the picture is an appalling one. A monopoly entrepreneur—the Government—arbitrarily decides to embark on a project that they may never even bring to fruition and thereby rob hundreds of their citizens with no intention of helping them to overcome their loss. Let them be mugged in the street and the taxpayer compensates them; let them be mugged in their own homes by the Government and they can whistle for help, for it will not come. The position is gross and unsustainable, and must be changed.
  Sir Patrick told the Select Committee of his advice to Ministers on any possible change in the policy towards what he called generalised blight—which simply means

  121
  specific blight for the individual, but blight that is outside the scope of the present statutory scheme. It does not mean that the misery is generalised: it is all too specific, family by family, home by home. He said that it would not represent value for money. That phrase, in the context of human misery, strikes a chill to the heart.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned about the matter; we have discussed it. I want him to turn that concern into a public consultation on how best we can mitigate this great and widespread scandal.
  Perhaps we should have a system where the valuer puts a price on a property and, if it has to be sold at a loss because of public works, part of the difference is made up. That would at least relieve the Department from being a massive property owner, which it is very reluctantly. Perhaps there should be established some sort of buyer of last resort, as I have previously suggested to the Government. Perhaps each project, as it is set up, should set up some form of mutual insurance to which any household in danger of blight might subscribe at the start of the scheme.
  I do not know how to resolve this difficult problem, but what I am quite clear about is that it will not do for the Department merely to say, "Because it is too difficult, we shall do nothing." I urge my hon. Friend to make the effort. That would be value for money.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House again.
  The special report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on the channel tunnel rail link, which was published on 9 February, finds that there was maladministration by my Department. Exceptionally, the Department has not felt able to accept the commissioner's findings, and has therefore not offered redress. The case is a very unusual one, and the commissioner himself has recognised that by publishing the Department's response to the findings as an appendix to his report.
  I should emphasise at this point that the response is a considered response by the Government, which was prepared after extensive discussion of the issues over a period of months, both with the commissioner and between Ministers. Since the report's publication, as my hon. Friend has explained, the permanent secretary to the Department of Transport, Sir Patrick Brown, has given evidence—on 1 March—to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee, in his place.
  The Select Committee will make its own report to the House, and in advance of that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of the commissioner's findings or on any of the five specimen cases he considered. I can speak more generally, however, about past and present property purchase and compensation arrangements for the channel tunnel rail link project, and about the wider policy context in which they have been applied.
  The commissioner's report finds maladministration from June 1990 to April 1994, when the route for the final section of the rail link was determined. The blight caused by the rail link in that period is what is described as generalised blight. To be absolutely clear about our terms, that is the blight that may arise in the early stages of a project while options are
  122
  being examined and worked up, and while consultation is taking place. It can arise even earlier, when a feasibility study is being undertaken to decide whether a project should be pursued.
  Generalised blight ceases at the point at which a project becomes sufficiently well defined for the likely land requirements to be identified on a plan and safeguarded from development. At that stage, statutory or equivalent blight provisions are triggered.
  The period of generalised blight is undoubtedly one of uncertainty and great anxiety for property owners. Unfortunately, with controversial major proposals such as a possible new motorway or power station, that period of uncertainty can be prolonged. It is incumbent on us to try to ensure that it is not prolonged any more than is necessary, but it can be prolonged.
  Nonetheless, it has been the policy of successive Governments that there should be no remedy for generalised blight. Indeed, until 1991, statutory remedies for blight were available only to people whose property was likely to be required for the scheme.
  Mr. Rowe: What description would my hon. Friend give to the blight that, in his terms, is neither generalised nor statutory, but is very real? Such blight affects whole villages and communities, where it is clear that people will not buy a house because the line is close enough for them to think that it would be difficult for them to buy and sell the house on; at the same time, however, it is not susceptible to any form of compensation. How would my hon. Friend describe that kind of blight?
  Mr. Watts: I am not sure that a suitable term comes readily to mind—
  Mr. Rowe: Misery.
  Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has made his own suggestion. It is important that we recognise characteristics of generalised blight, and why successive Governments have not chosen to provide a remedy in respect of such blight.
  Public authorities had certain additional discretionary powers to acquire land, but those were limited in scope. Before 1991, there were no general powers to buy homes that were simply blighted by proximity to proposed works.
  Following a policy review, a consultation paper in 1989 proposed the introduction of new discretionary powers to allow the promoters of major public projects to deal with "blight by proximity". In the consultation paper, the proposal was made
  "in recognition of the length of the planning phase of many major development projects during which it may be as difficult as during later phases to sell a property which is likely to be substantially affected and devalued by the construction of the project or the prospect of its use."
  That proposal was taken forward, and subsequently endorsed by Parliament in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
  Naturally, there were people who argued in response to the consultation paper and during the passage of the Bill that the provisions did not go far enough.
  Sir John Stanley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, under the powers in section 62 of the Act to which he has referred, the Department of Transport

  123
  is operating with a hardship scheme? That being the case, why is the Department so resistant to having a hardship scheme in the context of the channel tunnel rail link?
  Mr. Watts: Union Railways is operating a hardship scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has raised this matter in debate. I know that, in his view, the scheme that operates is far too limited. He also argues that it is not equivalent to the schemes that are operated on the highways side of the Department. There is a voluntary scheme being operated by Union Railways, because until the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill has completed its passage through the House and the other place, there is no statutory basis for compensation in relation to that scheme.
  The proposal was taken forward and endorsed by Parliament in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and a number of my hon. Friends argued that its provisions did not go far enough. Understandably, the very real problems being experienced by people whose property was blighted by the channel tunnel rail link were among the cases cited in support of this argument, although many other examples were also quoted. None the less, Parliament accepted that the improvements proposed by the Government struck the right balance, and proposals for further measures were rejected.
  There are sound reasons why the Government did not consider it appropriate to go further. This is not simply a question of cost, although the Government must, of course, have regard to the fact that property and compensation costs are a charge on the project, and to the fact that a substantial increase in costs could mean that highly desirable projects would have to be deferred or could be made uneconomic.
  Property purchase schemes are a mixed blessing for people in the area affected. Large-scale property purchase schemes severely distort the local property market, especially when the general property market is weak and, as experience of British Rail's early schemes showed, blight snowballs as the nature of the community changes, so more people move away. It takes many years for an area to recover from these effects.
  If, for example, I accepted that the house of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent was blighted, that would almost automatically blight his neighbour's house. That is one of the fundamental objections to allowing the effect of such schemes to be too widespread.
  The problems are difficult enough once a project has been defined sufficiently for safeguarding to take place. In the absence of a defined scheme, it is people's perception and fears of the effects of a possible project which give rise to generalised blight, often over a very wide area. It is only when there is a defined scheme that proper objective measurements, such as noise levels, can be applied and mitigating measures can be applied. This is the basis of our policy, and this is why there is no remedy for generalised blight.
  Some hon. Members have argued, as indeed the commissioner has done in his report, that the Government could and should have introduced not a widespread remedy
  124
  for generalised blight, but a more narrowly based scheme to deal with exceptional cases. However, it was the judgment of the Government at the time, and it remains the judgment of the Government now, that such a scheme would not have been appropriate.
  The Government believe that, as a matter of policy, we should adopt an even-handed and consistent approach, both between individual cases and between projects.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I put a straightforward question to him. If he was one of the people blighted, as Conservative Members have described, what would be his reaction, and what would he say to the Secretary of State for Transport?
  Mr. Watts: I suspect that, as a property owner, I would react in much the same way as all property owners react if they find that the value of their property is being affected adversely. It is, however, not my personal judgment that I have to bring to bear in addressing this issue, but rather broader issues of public policy.
  The Government believe that we should adopt an even-handed and consistent approach between individual cases and between projects. Pepper-potting of purchases is extremely dangerous, because every purchase blights all the neighbouring or equivalent properties. It is extremely difficult to define cases narrowly. I know this all too well from my own ministerial postbag, and from the variety of compassionate cases which hon. Members bring to my attention from time to time on major infrastructure projects throughout the country.
  It is for those reasons that the Government concluded that the right solution was to press on as quickly as possible with the development of a robust project that could be taken forward so that blight could be ended.
  Since the route was defined in 1994, Union Railways has been operating a voluntary purchase scheme, whereby qualifying owners of property to be compulsorily purchased can request Union Railways to purchase now on terms equivalent to compulsory purchase terms. Union Railways also operates a discretionary purchase scheme for properties outside the safeguarded zone, on terms broadly comparable—although I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling does not accept that the comparison is as close as it should be—to the scheme operated by the Highways Agency under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
  I know that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, feel that those arrangements do not go wide enough. They are currently being reviewed in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in the Owen case, and I shall announce the outcome of that review as soon as possible.
  I look forward to seeing the report of the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on the rail link case. I hope the House will find my explanation of current policy and arrangements helpful when it considers the Committee's report and will understand why it is not appropriate for me to comment further and in detail at this stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mr. A. K. Talwar
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he would make a statement on the circumstances of the dismissal of Mr. A. K. Talwar from his post as a junior doctor at Craigavon area hospital in July 1992.

  Mr. Moss
  It is inappropriate for Ministers to become involved or comment on a matter which rests between the employer and the individual concerned. The question has been copied to the chairman of Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust, who has undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 1 January 1994, 1,300 staff in the Northern Ireland civil service—4.3 per cent. of the service—self-reported a disability. Of these 476,—1.6 per cent. of the service—were, or had been, registered as disabled. In addition, 81 registered disabled people are working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the employment support programme.

  Of the home civil service staff in the Northern Ireland Office, one person is known to be registered disabled—0.45 per cent. of the work force.

  Social Security Policy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the main differences in the application of social security policy in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moss
  Northern Ireland maintains parity with Great Britain on social security policy and legislation. The social security schemes and the conditions for receiving them are therefore the same as those which apply in Great Britain, except in respect of council tax benefit legislation.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches, Lancashire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches there are in Lancashire which are earmarked for sale.
  2
  Mr. Alison
  Three redundant churches and one redundant church site in Lancashire are earmarked for sale.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Custody Statistics
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the number and percentage of defendants remanded in custody and committed for trial at the Crown court who were dealt with within 16 weeks in each year since the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 came into force.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information about the statutory time limits is not collected in the form requested. However, of the 23,749 defendants remanded in custody awaiting trial who were dealt with during 1994, 74.2 per cent.—about 17,630 defendants—waited less than 16 weeks. It is not possible to provide an accurate comparable figure for earlier periods.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for improving control over the granting of criminal legal aid in magistrates courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A number of measures are in hand. In particular, the Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament regulations requiring justices clerks to keep records of all applications for criminal legal aid, showing the reasons for deciding whether individual applications should be granted or refused. These regulations will come into force on 1 May 1995.

  Lay Representation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary; Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend the provisions for lay advocacy in the county courts; and when a timetable for this project will be set.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The situation is under review. If proposals to extend the current arrangements for lay representation in the county courts are pursued, they would be put out to public consultation.

  Civil Proceedings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that civil proceedings in respect of which the causes of action arise in the counties of Clwyd, Gwynedd, Powys and Cheshire can be tried at all stages within the Mold/Chester group of courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Rules of court govern the venue for commencement of civil proceedings. Once a case is under way it may be automatically transferred to the court where the defendant lives, or, by order of a judge, to any other court. In the light of these rules, it is not possible to say that all cases where the cause of action arises in the counties listed will be tried in the Mold/Chester group of courts.
  3
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future venues for civil proceedings in respect of which the causes of action arise in the counties of Clwyd, Gwynedd, Powys and Cheshire.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no current proposals to change the venue rules. Any proposed changes in the future will be subject to the usual consultation process.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Border Controls
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, columns 394–95, if Her Majesty's Government are seeking to be orally represented in their own right before the European Court of Justice at the oral hearing requested by the Commission in the matter regarding the abolition of border controls.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have submitted our written observations to the court, and intend to attend the oral hearing.

  EU Human Rights Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the size of the European Union approved budget for human rights work in countries in transition; and if groups in Hong Kong may apply for the use of this money.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The European Parliament added a new "remark" to the 1995 budget line B7-5240 to the effect that the budget line could be used to
  "promote the protection of human rights in countries where there is soon to be a change of sovereignty."
  We understand that the budget line, which is available for subsidies to certain activities of organisations pursuing human rights objectives, will be worth about 5 million ecu. It is for the European Commission to consider how much, if any, of this money will be spent on territories referred to by the European Parliament's remark. We understand that groups in Hong Kong may be eligible to apply for the use of this money.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar as to holding a constitutional conference to consider reforms to the 1969 constitution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs confirmed to the Chief Minister in a letter on 13 February that he would be willing to listen to the views of Gibraltarians and the Gibraltar Government on how the constitution might be developed. But we have always made clear that any changes would have to be realistic in the circumstances of Gibraltar.

  Turkey
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent evaluation Her Majesty's Government have conducted in respect of the human rights situation in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  Turkey's human rights performance has long given cause for concern. We monitor the situation closely and take every opportunity to express our concerns to the Turkish authorities and to point out the need for reform.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received in the last three years from Kurdish groups situated in the United Kingdom regarding the position of Kurds living in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have received numerous representations in the last three years from Kurdish groups situated in the United Kingdom regarding the position of Kurds living in Turkey. We take every opportunity to make clear to the Turkish authorities our concern at the human rights abuses arising from the conflict in south-east Turkey.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received about the position of Kurds living in Turkey in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have received numerous representations in the last three years about the position of Kurds living in Turkey. We take every opportunity to make known to the Turkish authorities our concern at the human rights abuses arising from the conflict in south-east Turkey.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he proposes to make to the Turkish authorities regarding the recent failure of six Kurdish Members of Parliament to have their appeal upheld; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Kurdish Members of Parliament exercised their right to appeal against the sentences imposed on them in Ankara last December. We understand no date has yet been set for a further hearing.

  Global Sex Trade
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise the issue of global sex trade in women and children at(a) the United Nations conference on women in Beijing and (b) the UN social summit in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The draft declaration and programme of action to be negotiated at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen already address the issue of sexual exploitation. We support this and hope that such language will he strengthened at the fourth world conference on women in Beijing later this year.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Amre Moussa, Foreign Minister of Egypt, to discuss the Lockerbie situation; and what contact he has had since.
  5
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have regular discussions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, most recently on 21 November 1994.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following his undertaking given in Glasgow on 3 February to look into the claims made by the Bradford police surgeon, Dr. David Fieldhouse, what action he has taken to verify Dr. Fieldhouse's claims about the body count at Lockerbie on 21, 22 and 23 December 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs undertook to look into the apparent difference between a reply he gave to a question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow during the Adjournment debate on 1 February and Dr. Fieldhouse's subsequent statement. He wrote to Dr. Fieldhouse on 13 February explaining the basis for his reply. He has also written to the hon. Member about this issue.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has sought from Juge Bruguière in France, in relation to the UTA case, with particular reference to support for a Libyan connection for Lockerbie.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had regular contact with Juge Bruguière about the UTA case ever since he began his inquiry, in the course of which he has issued warrants in respect of several Libyan nationals.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will enter into discussions with Dr. Esmat Abdul Meguid with a view to resolving the Lockerbie case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I discussed the Lockerbie issue with Dr. Meguid, the Secretary General of the Arab League, in November 1994. Her Majesty's ambassador at Cairo has regular discussions with Dr Meguid.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the court case, Air Malta v. Granada Television, and pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 31 January, Official Report, column 558, what evidence has been found to substantiate a Malta connection with the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Two Libyan nationals are accused of having placed, or having caused to be placed, the bomb which destroyed flight PA 103 on board an Air Malta flight from Luqa airport on 21 December 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the evidence against the two accused while criminal proceedings are pending. The recent out-of-court settlement between Air Malta and Granada Television has no bearing on the prosecution case against the two accused. I understand that the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action was based on allegations different in detail from those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to evidence involving officials of countries other than Libya in relation to Lockerbie; and what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to obtain such evidence concerning nationals of countries, other than Libya, undertaken on 20 January 1992,Official Report, column 159.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Lockerbie investigators have given exhaustive consideration to all information relevant 6
  to the Lockerbie bombing. The possible involvement by nationals of a number of countries has been very closely investigated. Despite the unprecedented scale of the investigation, the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya. But the investigation remains open and any relevant new information will be considered.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Her Majesty's Government supported the United States decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie; and what the preferred action was through the UN Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question of the applicability of the Montreal convention is pending before the International Court of Justice. We and the US Government referred to the UN Security Council Libya's failure to surrender the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing in view of the frequently expressed concerns of the United Nations about the effect of terrorism on international peace and security.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from Esmat Abdul Meguid on the issue of Libya's position in relation to the Lockerbie case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 18 January,Official Report, column 497.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the German Government the refusal of the Federal Republic of Germany to join the United States and United Kingdom indictment in respect of Lockerbie; and what grounds Volke Rath, the German public prosecutor, gave for the decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Lockerbie bombing was a crime committed against a United States aircraft over Scotland. It is logical and right that the trial of those accused should take place in one of those two countries. I understand that Mr Rath has stated that he does not have sufficient evidence against the two accused to bring proceedings in Germany. In so stating, he was merely referring to the evidence available to him as part of the investigation by him as the state prosecutor at Frankfurt.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice was sought from Her Majesty's Government by the German Government on the reply that they should give to the letter to Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl, in German, from a German national, Elizabeth Mosey, mother of a Lockerbie victim, of 23 January; and what advice was given by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has given to the Council of Europe Assembly following the enquiries of 25 January from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), about the accuracy of British information in relation to Lockerbie and Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I replied to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 6 February.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 February,Official Report, column 1058, on Lockerbie, whether he will place in the Library the

  7
  records of the exchanges between the Scottish Police and the Bundeskriminalamt and the Verfassungschutz on this issue of whether Scottish detectives could directly question Mr. Ghadanfar and Mr. Dalkomoni in relation to the destruction of Pan Am 103.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There was no question of Scottish detectives directly questioning these persons. In common with many countries, Germany does not permit foreign investigators to conduct interviews on individuals in Germany, but permits interviews to be carried out at the request of foreign authorities by German police, prosecutors or judges as appropriate.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he took on reports emanating from the East German News Agency, broadcast by English News from Moscow, that the type of fuse used in the Lockerbie bombing was one of a small number made by a Swiss firm, which went to the East Germans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It would in any event be inappropriate to comment on details of investigative steps taken while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 9 December 1993 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will discuss with the German Government the visit to Germany of the Iranian Intelligence Minister, Mr. Fallahian, and subsequent visits by Iranian Ministers at which the destruction of Pan Am 103 was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have regular discussions with the German Government on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. I am not aware that the destruction of Pan Am 103 has been the subject of discussion between the German authorities and Mr. Fallahian.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the basis for his assertion on 3 February at the Scottish Oils Club's annual dinner that a trial relating to Lockerbie would be prejudiced by a public inquiry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has already been a public inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths—the fatal accident inquiry held from October 1990 to February 1991. A further public inquiry could hardly fail to encroach upon areas of evidence which can only properly be made public in the context of a criminal trial, where the accused are legally represented and are able to test the strength of the evidence. The public examination of such areas of evidence in any other public forum prior to the criminal trial would prejudice any future prosecution.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the statements by the Government of Iran in the possession of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the skies would rain blood on America, as a result of the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department does not have in its possession any such formal statements by the Government of Iran. However, we are aware of an unattributed comment on similar lines broadcast on Tehran Radio in July 1988.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was last in contact with the Government of Finland about the identity of a8
  caller to the US embassy in Helsinki on 5 December 1988, warning that within two weeks a bomb would be carried on to an American airliner from Frankfurt, destination New York.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The credibility of this warning was examined by police officers involved in the Lockerbie investigation, who travelled to Helsinki for this purpose. It was discounted at an early stage of the investigation. We have not therefore pursued this further with the Finnish Government.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he is giving to the death of a British subject, Mr. Prazak, on 22 December 1992, on a Libyan airliner on an internal flight in the light of approaches from Mrs. Felicity Prazak, a British citizen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I was very sad to hear of Mr. Prazak's death. In March 1994 permission was granted for settlement of insurance claims due to families of victims of the crash.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's communications with the solicitors of Pan Am, Windels, Marx, Davies and Ives, regarding aspects of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would not be proper to comment on such communications.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, to the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel),Official Report, column 1062, what further assessment he has made, following the letter of 3 February from Professor R. Black of the Law Faculty of Edinburgh university on whether legislation would be necessary to allow those suspected of the Lockerbie crime to be tried elsewhere than Scotland or the United States of America.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I replied to Professor Black on 28 February. The question of whether legislation might be necessary to facilitate a trial of the two accused outside Scotland or the United States is in any event immaterial. They should appear before the appropriate United Kingdom or United States court, as confirmed by the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has drawn from the case of Air Malta v. Granada Television in relation to Lockerbie.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Two Libyan nationals are accused of having placed, or having caused to be placed, the bomb which destroyed flight PA 103 on board an Air Malta flight from Luqa Airport on 21 December 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the evidence against the two accused while criminal proceedings are pending. The recent out-of-court settlement between Air Malta and Granada Television has no bearing on the prosecution case against the two accused. I understand that the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action was based on allegations different in detail from those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.

  Abdul Ghadanfar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Her Majesty's Government were informed by the German Government of the decision to free Abdul Ghadanfar in November 1994.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not normal practice for one Government to inform another about the release from its prison of the nationals of third countries, unless there are outstanding judicial requests concerning particular individuals. Since no such requests existed in the case of Mr. Ghadanfar, there was no reason for the German Government to inform us of his release.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he was informed of and consulted about the release of and the decision to free Abdul Ghadanfar by the German authorities in November 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not normal practice for one Government to inform another about the release from its prison of the nationals of third countries, unless there are outstanding judicial requests concerning particular individuals. Since no such requests existed in the case of Mr. Ghadanfar, there was no reason for the German Government to inform us of his release.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the request by the Scottish police to interview Abdul Ghadartfar was transmitted to the German Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Disclosure of the fact that Messrs Ghadanfar and Dalkamouni were interviewed was an exceptional step taken only because of the unwarranted criticisms which had been, and were continuing to be, made of the German authorities and the Scottish police. It would not be appropriate to go beyond this by discussing details of confidential communications between the Scottish police and prosecuting authorities and their counterparts in Germany, or indeed in any other country.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 1 January 1995, the percentage of registered disabled people employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration and its agency, was 0.71 per cent. Figures for non-registered disabled people in the FCO-ODA are not available.

  Sanctions (Libya)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states on the continent of Africa support UN sanctions against Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When Security Council resolution 883, which strengthened sanctions against Libya, was adopted in November 1993, Cape Verde then President of the Security Council voted in favour of the resolution; Dijbouti and Morocco abstained. Egypt and Sudan were also in attendance, without the right to vote, and both spoke against the resolution. There has been no relevant vote at the UN since then.

  Treaty on European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library those sections of the report of Her Majesty's Government under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 concerning the social economic and environmental goals specified in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" form the report to Parliament for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities Amendment Act. In order to comply with the requirements of articles 103(3) and 104c of the treaty on European Union, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor wrote to Mr. de Silguy at the European Commission on 2 March 1995, enclosing copies of the Budget statement, the 1995–96 FSBR, the March 1995 excessive deficits return and the information required under section 4 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. A copy of this letter with attachments has been placed in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available figures show that 14 staff employed by my Department, excluding our two agencies, identified themselves as disabled. This represents 3.8 per cent. of all staff.

DEFENCE

  Outside Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the mechanism whereby staff in his Department report approaches from outside employers offering employment; and how these reports of approaches or job offers are differentiated from applications under the business appointment rules.

  Mr. Freeman
  Staff considering any approach from an outside employer offering employment for which approval would be required under the business appointment rules are required to report the approach to an officer two grades higher in their line management chain. Staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work are required to report any such approach whether or not they are considering taking it up. Applications to accept outside appointments require the completion of a detailed application form and are considered centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff working in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, and at what grades, have left his Department since February 1993(a) to retire and (b) to take other employment.
  11
  Mr. Freeman
  Our records do not categorise retirements and resignations by the type of work in which the individuals were last engaged. In any event, staff, other than very senior staff, are not required to advise the Department of their future employment plans except where this involves certain types of employment such as defence-related industries or companies with which they have had official contact during their service with the Department.

  Procurement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many persons and at what grades, work in sections concerned with procurement or contract work.

  Mr. Freeman
  No central record is kept of the number of staff in my Department who are wholly or partly employed in the many areas concerned with procurement, and the information could not therefore be provided. The numbers and grades at executive officer level and above in sections, other than those in the separate defence agencies, directly involved with contracts work are as follows:

  Grade

  Number employed

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 4

  3

  Grade 5

  18

  Grade 6

  46

  Grade 7

  56

  SEO

  172

  HEO

  368

  EO

  540

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his response to the communication sent by Colonel James Sullivan of the office of the Secretary of the United States Air Force on 17 November 1994 concerning the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

  Mr. Soames
  None. My right hon. and learned Friend received no such communication.

  Maurice Callejas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence between what dates Maurice Callejas served in the Royal Artillery.

  Mr. Soames
  Although it is not normally our practice to disclose such information, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence would be happy to look into any matters concerning this individual if the hon. Member were to write to him with the background.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department monitors its civilian staff to gather data on those who have a disability, for which they may or may not be registered. The results from the monitoring show that, on 1 October last year, 5.1 per 12
  cent. of the civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies has some form of disability. Of these, 1.3 per cent. were registered disabled.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold open meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises without commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether, in each of the above categories, this is (i) under statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary.

  Mr. Soames
  Of the advisory non departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department, the advisory committee on conscientious objectors holds open meetings on a voluntary basis, for which it publishes agendas.

  Falklands War
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the differentials between levels of compensatory payments made to officers and other ranks for deaths and serious injuries suffered in the Falklands War; and what steps have been taken since to reduce these differentials.

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces pension scheme administered by my Department provides occupational pension benefits for the eligible dependants of those killed in war, and to personnel who are invalided from service as a result of injuries sustained in war.

  The invaliding and dependants' pension benefits for personnel injured or killed due to service are paid at enhanced levels to provide a guaranteed minimum level of income. The rates of pension are based on representative rates of pay for each rank, since AFPS benefits, like many other occupational pension schemes, are salary-related. The level of award for those attributably invalided also takes into account the degree of disability. There will therefore be differences in the level of awards for all ranks, whether they are officers or other ranks.

  Invalidity and death benefits for service personnel are being considered in a general review of the AFPS being undertaken at present as part of the independent review of armed forces' manpower, career and remuneration structures by Mr. Michael Bett.

  War disability pensions, which are administered by the Department of Social Security, are not rank related; they are based solely on the degree of disablement.

  UNPROFOR
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held on the continuing presence of UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina with General Sir Michael Rose since he relinquished his command there, with particular reference to the implications for the safety of this mission of President Tudjman's call for the withdrawal of UNPROFOR from Croatia on 31 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend took the opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues on the
  13
  former Yugoslavia with General Rose when he returned to the United Kingdom.

  Appeals
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of appeals for redress of complaint concerning the scale of redundancy entitlement for ex-service personnel which are currently outstanding; what is the average time taken to process such appeals; and when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for East Lothian dated 23rd May 1994 about Mr. Eric Wright.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: There are at present 101 applications outstanding. These were received in my Department between May and December last year.

  The length of time being taken to process these appeals reflects the need to ensure consistent treatment for each individual in the light of all the circumstances. I am afraid that consideration of these cases is not yet complete. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will send a substantive reply to the hon. Member as soon as the Army board has reached its conclusions.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review research allocations to reduce the development gap which he identified to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Over the next few months I shall be reviewing with colleagues the implications of "Technology Foresight" on departmental science and technology programmes.

  Government Structure
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress his Department has made in the past 12 months on changing the structure of Government.

  Mr. Horam
  In the past 12 months, 12 next steps agencies have been created and one civil service body has been privatised. In the 12 months to September 1994, over 400 activities worth a total of £1 billion were reviewed under the "Competing for Quality" programme resulting in savings worth about £275 million a year. All this is indicative of the Government's continued determination to strive for ever greater efficiency and effectiveness within the civil service.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement setting out the areas of which the citizens charter will be extended.

  Mr. Horam
  The charter already applies to all public services, but we continually seek to extend charter principles to raise all those services to the quality of the best. For example, this year we are seeking user nominations for the charter mark awards. This should 14
  make users more conscious of the standards of services they receive, and increase customer pressure for improvements in poorer quality organisations.

  Women
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual budget for the development unit set up by his Department to promote women into science, engineering and technology.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unit is an integral part of the Office of Science and Technology. We need to attract the best people into science, engineering and technology—men and women. The unit has an important role to play in this and will have the funding it needs.

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to improve morale within the civil service.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government take very seriously indeed the need to maintain high morale in the civil service. In the Command Paper on the civil service, published in January, the Government set out policies which they believe will maintain and improve morale by providing a framework within which civil servants can give of their best.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 February Official Report, column 712.

  Human Genes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has in respect of research which has been carried out to date in the United Kingdom in respect of isolating human genes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its funding from my Department, supports an extensive programme of work on the isolation and characterisation of human genes under the human genome mapping project initiative. Research is being carried out at the HGMP research centre in Cambridge, at MRC funded units—for example, the human genetics unit in Edinburgh—and through grant support to researchers in universities. In 1993–94, the council's expenditure on this research was £5.6 million, and work to exploit the fruits of this activity is being carried out under the council's "Genetic Approach to Human Health Initiative".

  Considerable progress has been, and continues to be made in this area. A number of genes have already been isolated by council-supported scientist, including, for example, the gene for polycystic kidney disease.

  Officials from the MRC are always willing to discuss and consider scientifically based, sound proposals. The prospects for funding of research into the isolation of

  15
  human genes will therefore depend on the nature and quality of any applications received.

  Personal Records
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to the information provided in paragraph 4.23 of his Department's 1995 report and expenditure plans, when he expects to publish the draft legislation on access to personal records and health and safety information.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Proposals for legislation on access to personal records and health and safety information will be introduced when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to arrange further ministerial accountability for agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers are accountable for all the work of their Departments, including agencies. The Government's position was set out fully in Command Paper 2748, including the response to the TCSC conclusions.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those instances in 1994 where permissions to burn Cemfuel was refused.

  Mr. Atkins
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 February 1995, c. 350]: I regret that one of the locations given was incorrect. The two plants which use Cemfuel are Castle Cement at Clitheroe and Ketton. Limited trials have taken place at these sites. There has been no other formal application to burn Cemfuel.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the amount of Cemfuel burnt(a) in England and (b) in Lancashire in 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 February 1995, c. 350]: I regret that the figures given were incorrect. The total estimated quantity of Cemfuel used in England in 1994 was 37,000 tonnes, of which 34,000 was used in Lancashire.

  Carbon Emissions Report
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the DRI/McGraw-Hill report on carbon emissions across Europe, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has no record of having received the report. I am, however, aware of its conclusions, which the Government do not share.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest there are now, and how many there were five years ago.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  At 31 March 1990, there was 3404 SSSIs in England. AT 31 March 1994, the latest date for which figures have been published there were 3794.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location all sites of special scientific interest in England and Wales.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Nature produces a list of sites of special scientific interest by county. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library. Matters relating to Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales produces similar information on request.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of people who have applied for career breaks is not available, but the number of such breaks, by gender, in the period January 1990 to December 1994 were four men and one hundred and thirty one women, none of whom have had their employment terminated.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the plans for opencast coal mining in Oxfordshire were submitted.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Bridleways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to extend and develop the network of bridleways in England.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have endorsed the target to ensure that the whole network of footpaths, bridleways and byways open to all traffic is properly maintained and recorded on definitive maps by the year 2000. The Secretary of State was also pleased recently to approve the Countryside Commission's proposals for the Pennine bridleway national trial.

  Local authorities have powers to create bridleways by agreement or order. While the provision of facilities for specific recreational activities is a matter for local authorities to consider, planning policy guidance note 17 encourages them to include in local plans policies and proposals on the availability of rights of way.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department and if he will make a statement.
  17
  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994, the combined percentage of registered and non-registered disabled people employed in my Department was equivalent to 2 per cent. of total non-industrial staff, excluding PSAS.

  Environmental Assessment
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to amend the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 in respect of development requiring environmental assessment.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today laid before Parliament the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. These two instruments consolidate the General Development Order 1988 and its numerous amending orders. Following public consultation in 1993, the Permitted Development Order also introduces provisions whereby permitted development rights granted by article 3 of the order are withdrawn for development that should be subject to environmental assessment. It is proposed that the measures will come into force on 3 June 1995. From that date, permitted development rights will no longer apply to the types of projects listed in schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, the EA regulations, or to developments within any of the categories in schedule 2 to the EA Regulations if they would be likely to have significant environmental effects unless, for example, other procedures associated with those developments provide for environmental assessment. We anticipate that only a small number of developments will be affected by these changes, since most projects carried out under permitted development rights are minor and would not be expected to have significant environmental effects.

  My right hon. Friends have also today laid before Parliament the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment and Permitted Development) Regulations 1995. These, too, are proposed to come into force on 3 June 1995. Under the regulations a developer may apply to the local planning authority for an opinion on whether a particular development, which would otherwise benefit from permitted development rights, will require environmental assessment, and consequently a planning application.

  A developer receiving an opinion from the planning authority that environmental assessment is required may appeal to the Secretary of State for a direction. Where the local authority is both the developer and planning authority, or where someone proposes a joint development with a local authority, an opinion on the need for EA may be sought from the Secretary of State.

  Guidance to local planning authorities and developers on the effect and operation of the new measures is to be issued in the next few days.

  Copies of the 67 non-confidential responses to the consultation paper have been placed in the Department of the Environment and Welsh Office libraries, and a summary and list of the responses have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses together with a compliance cost assessment.

  Landfill
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to produce guidance on the design, construction and operation of landfills.

  Mr. Atkins
  Landfill is the predominant method of waste disposal in this country, and will remain of major importance as far into the future as we can see. Landfills, unless they are properly designed, built and operated, can have a major impact on the atmosphere, the soil and the water supply. Unless we ensure that landfill uses the best possible techniques, we shall have failed the test of sustainability.

  We are therefore publishing today a consultation draft of waste management paper 26B, "Landfill design, construction and operational practice". The draft paper has been prepared by consultants. They have drawn extensively on the waste management industry's experience of landfill techniques, on the waste regulators' particular skills, and on their own specialised knowledge of landfill engineering as a technical discipline.

  The consultation period will be until 10 May 1995. Subject to the results of the consultation, waste management paper 26B should be published in late summer 1995.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving local services by streamlining the regulation of local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are determined to remove all unnecessary bureaucratic regulation of local government. As part of this commitment my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today published a paper for consultation, "Deregulating Local Government".

  The paper makes proposals for further specific measures in the following areas of local authority activity: enforcement action, finance and administration, housing, personal social services, and traffic and highways. It also reviews progress to date on freeing up local government from unnecessary bureaucratic requirements, Finally, it invites consultees to put forward their own proposals for further streamlining and reducing the regulation of local government.

  Regulatory regimes for local government should be kept to the minimum necessary to safeguard our national policies for services and the management of the economy. This will help local authorities to be responsive to the needs and wishes of their local businesses and citizens, and to provide them with quality services which they want and can afford.

  I have arranged for copies of the paper to be placed in the Library. Copies are also being sent to the local authority associations, individual local authorities, and to other interested bodies, all of whom are being invited to respond by 1 May 1995.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the financial benefits to the Exchequer of the privatisation of the water industry; and if he will make a statement.
  19
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 March]: Privatisation allowed the water industry access to private sector funds, removing its dependence on the Exchequer. This has enabled a much increased investment programme of around £3 billion each year since 1989 to improve drinking water quality and the water environment as well as allowing the necessary maintenance of infrastructure. For example, in England and Wales in 1993, 99 per cent. of 3.5 million tests met the drinking water quality and between 1990 and 1993 there was a net upgrading in quality of nearly 16 per cent. of river length—the proportion of rivers in the highest quality class increased and the proportion in the lower classes reduced.

  Phosphate Removal
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of removing phosphates from water in England and Wales(a) in total and (b) by water authority to stop the formation of algal blooms in reservoirs in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department does not collect information of this kind.

  Waste
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the management plan setting out his policies on imports and exports of waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has today issued for public consultation a draft of the management plan or imports and exports of waste, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This sets out in detail the Government's policies on waste imports and exports, which were outlined in a statement on 15 June last year.

  The waste management plan will be an important component in the system of controls over transfrontier movements of waste. It gives guidance to regulators and to industry as to the types of shipment which will in future be allowed into and out of the United Kingdom, and those which will not. In particular, it helps towards achieving the Government's aim of self-sufficiency in waste disposal, both at national and European Community levels. The plan is separate from, but consistent with, the waste strategy for England and Wales, a draft of which was yesterday issued for consultation.

  The key proposals of the management plan for imports and exports are:
  to ban exports from the UK for disposal to all countries;to allow exports for recovery to OECD countries, but, in line with decision II/12 taken by the parties to the Basel convention in March 1994, to ban exports of hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries, other than in exceptional cases allowed under that decision;to ban most imports for disposal, other than exceptionally in the case of hazardous wastes from developing countries which cannot reasonably deal with the wastes themselves, or for small quantities from developed countries where the provision of specialised facilities would be uneconomic. For wastes destined for high temperature incineration, the draft plan incorporates a three-year transitional
  20
  period during which progressively reducing volumes of imports would be allowed;to allow imports for recovery, while taking steps to ban imports for disposal under the guise of recovery—so called "sham recovery".
  Subject to responses to consultation, it is our aim to publish the plan later in the spring.

EDUCATION

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by her Department, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The DFE's Department annual disabled person's return for 1994 shows that the number of registered disabled people employed by the Department is 60, representing 2.9 per cent. of the total.

  This figure refers only to staff who are registered disabled. There are disabled people employed by the Department who chose not to register, and therefore do not appear in the figures.

  Collective Worship
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what considerations underlie the policy of requiring a compulsory act of worship for those school students who are older than the statutory age for school attendance.

  Mr. Forth
  Collective worship helps to establish a positive ethos in a school community, and makes a vital contribution to pupils' moral and spiritual development.

  Mr. Michael Johnson
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to answer the letters from the hon. Member for Bradford, South of 17 October 1994 and 27 January 1995 concerning Mr. Michael Johnson.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The letters received holding replies dated 2 November 1994 and 15 February 1995 respectively. A substantive reply to Mr. Johnson's request for the Secretary of State to intervene in his case was sent on 2 March 1995 and, as promised, a copy was sent to the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, (1) if she will publish a table showing(a) the number and (b) the proportion of overseas students studying for a first degree in every university in the United Kingdom (i) in 1994–95 and (ii) in 1984–85;

  (2) if she will publish a table showing (a) the number and (b) the proportion of overseas students studying for a first degree in every university in the United Kingdom (i) in 1994–95 and (ii) in 1984–85.
  21
  Mr. Boswell
  The available information, covering both questions on universities in England is shown in the table. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales

  Numbers of full-time overseas domiciled students1 studying at English Universities

  1984–85

  1993–94

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Overseas students

  As Percentage of all U/Gs

  Overseas students1

  As Percentage of all P/Gs

  Overseas students

  As Percentage of all U/Gs

  Overseas students

  As Percentage of all P/Gs

  Former UFC Institutions

  Aston

  150

  5

  156

  27

  257

  6

  103

  26

  Bath

  139

  5

  171

  26

  559

  12

  173

  23

  Birmingham

  357

  5

  451

  32

  882

  8

  1,085

  36

  Bradford

  191

  5

  249

  39

  594

  11

  428

  53

  Bristol

  243

  4

  135

  17

  997

  12

  438

  27

  Brunel

  41

  2

  224

  49

  397

  9

  280

  33

  Cambridge

  606

  6

  652

  30

  864

  8

  1,723

  43

  City

  314

  14

  310

  40

  585

  18

  487

  34

  Durham

  112

  3

  123

  19

  242

  4

  229

  22

  East Anglia

  286

  8

  191

  31

  533

  10

  281

  26

  Essex

  403

  17

  316

  54

  815

  21

  530

  54

  Exeter

  144

  3

  175

  27

  380

  6

  462

  35

  Hull

  101

  2

  220

  38

  651

  10

  482

  40

  Keele

  258

  11

  47

  14

  497

  11

  168

  19

  Kent

  582

  16

  197

  43

  1,299

  24

  482

  44

  Lancaster

  121

  3

  218

  38

  802

  12

  439

  38

  Leeds

  563

  6

  607

  35

  1,275

  9

  1,059

  40

  Leicester

  89

  2

  111

  13

  635

  10

  388

  22

  Liverpool

  227

  3

  219

  23

  597

  6

  367

  24

  London Business School

  0

  0

  51

  22

  0

  0

  214

  48

  London University

  3,569

  12

  3,604

  37

  7,590

  17

  6,256

  41

  Loughborough

  227

  5

  352

  45

  572

  8

  330

  31

  Manchester Business School

  0

  0

  46

  21

  0

  0

  174

  77

  Manchester University

  536

  6

  457

  26

  1,272

  10

  995

  38

  Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  432

  15

  522

  49

  965

  22

  753

  54

  Newcastle

  474

  7

  370

  34

  789

  8

  678

  39

  Nottingham

  270

  4

  158

  16

  912

  10

  529

  31

  Oxford

  553

  6

  793

  32

  923

  9

  1,783

  45

  Reading

  271

  6

  504

  43

  860

  12

  1,014

  49

  Salford

  479

  15

  275

  63

  555

  10

  355

  50

  Sheffield

  239

  4

  269

  26

  1,268

  12

  815

  36

  Southampton

  227

  4

  297

  29

  522

  7

  459

  30

  Surrey

  209

  8

  214

  35

  580

  14

  411

  42

  Sussex

  362

  11

  300

  35

  1,100

  18

  477

  34

  Warwick

  275

  6

  166

  25

  1,069

  14

  810

  44

  York

  85

  3

  111

  19

  264

  6

  276

  28

  Former PCFC Institutions

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  83

  3

  1

  3

  605

  8

  21

  12

  Bournemouth University

  30

  2

  0

  0

  140

  2

  111

  35

  Coventry University

  263

  9

  15

  25

  1,734

  16

  270

  50

  Cranfield University

  89

  2

  4

  4

  79

  59

  384

  38

  De Montfort University

  12

  11

  401

  32

  480

  3

  200

  32

  Hertfordshire University

  142

  2

  31

  10

  757

  8

  130

  23

  Kingston University

  152

  4

  15

  12

  713

  8

  43

  8

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  135

  3

  35

  13

  509

  5

  150

  20

  Liverpool John Moores University

  292

  6

  33

  9

  550

  5

  66

  15

  London Guildhall

  269

  4

  19

  6

  263

  4

  22

  11

  Luton University

  63

  11

  0

  0

  89

  1

  11

  6

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  202

  2

  20

  4

  951

  5

  109

  8

  Middlesex University

  927

  14

  26

  14

  1,959

  16

  121

  16

  Nottingham Trent University

  141

  2

  3

  3

  709

  5

  49

  9

  Oxford Brookes University

  136

  3

  36

  10

  939

  14

  136

  20

  Sheffield Hallam University

  65

  1

  29

  9

  331

  2

  84

  12

  South Bank University

  273

  6

  29

  14

  639

  6

  118

  14

  Staffordshire University

  133

  3

  9

  7

  422

  5

  130

  34

  Thames Valley University

  346

  12

  31

  18

  409

  6

  39

  28

  University of Brighton

  231

  5

  22

  10

  668

  8

  41

  13

  22
  and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have responsibility for data on students studying in those countries.
  23

  Numbers of full-time overseas domiciled students' studying at English Universities

  1984–85

  1993–94

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  Overseas students

  As percentage of all U/Gs

  Overseas students1

  As percentage of all P/Gs

  Overseas students

  As percentage of all U/Gs

  Overseas students

  As percentage of all P/Gs

  University of Central England, Birmingham

  120

  3

  8

  3

  466

  5

  75

  11

  University of Central Lancashire

  74

  2

  1

  3

  134

  1

  14

  4

  University of Derby

  111

  7

  0

  0

  159

  2

  30

  14

  University of East London

  1,318

  26

  46

  33

  1,179

  14

  76

  23

  University of Greenwich

  333

  9

  7

  16

  601

  6

  26

  4

  University of Huddersfield

  178

  4

  1

  11

  374

  5

  60

  10

  University of Humberside

  275

  10

  12

  18

  457

  5

  76

  32

  University of North London

  376

  8

  28

  17

  374

  5

  30

  11

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  108

  2

  5

  2

  708

  7

  84

  17

  University of Plymouth

  137

  3

  41

  27

  402

  3

  142

  26

  University of Portsmouth

  224

  3

  18

  17

  855

  8

  81

  21

  University of Sunderland

  447

  11

  6

  20

  735

  8

  100

  25

  University of Teesside

  193

  6

  18

  15

  298

  5

  44

  19

  University of West England, Bristol

  110

  2

  9

  4

  193

  2

  35

  5

  University of Westminster

  446

  11

  40

  50

  334

  5

  94

  22

  University of Wolverhampton

  112

  3

  0

  0

  810

  7

  48

  8

  Source:

  USR Volume 1—Students and Staff 1984–85 and 1993–94 and the Department's FESR.

  Note:

  1 For 1984–85 former UFC institutions, actual postgraduate overseas domiciled student numbers are not available in the required format. Data on students paying Overseas student fees have been used as an approximation.

  Youth Service Unit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the budget for the youth service unit for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: In 1993–94, the running costs of the youth service unit amounted to £382,000. It is anticipated that the costs in 1994–95 will be roughly £435,000. The unit's budget for 1995–96 has not yet been fixed. These figures reflect changes in the functions of the unit from year to year.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums will be available to the aid budget in 1996–97 as a consequence of the decision to fund the Pergau dam and other aid and trade provision projects from reserves.

  Mr. Baldry
  The planning figure for the 1996–97 aid programme remains as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29 November 1994. As my right hon. Friend and Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on 13 December 1994, final figures for the aid programme in 1996–97 and later years will as usual be determined during the annual public expenditure survey in the light of all relevant factors.

  Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current 24
  position of the Overseas Development Administration on the supply of four-wheel drive vehicles to overseas non-governmental organisations; and if priority is given to British products.

  Mr. Baldry
  We undertake procurement in accordance with aid tying rules agreed with the DTI under which we look to United Kingdom supply sources wherever possible. These rules apply no differently to four-wheel drive vehicles than to any other equipment provided as part of the aid programme. However, our prime concern is to ensure that our programmes, whether operated by ourselves or by NGOs on our behalf, have satisfactory equipment with which to undertake their work where and when they need it.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Attorney General what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the Departments for which I am responsible as at 31 December 1994 is set out in the table. Each of the Law Officers' Departments is an equal opportunities employer.
  25

  Departments

  Percentage

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1.30

  Serious Fraud Office

  2.98

  Treasury Solicitor's Department1

  1.96

  1 The Treasury Solicitor's Department also employs people with disabilities who are not registered but the numbers are not readily available.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer on 28 February,Official Report, columns 502–3, on what date his Department was notified of (a) the proposal and (b) actual payment of the grant by the Cardiff Bay development corporation to Grosvenor Waterside plc for the development of Crickowell house.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department was approached by the corporation in July 1991 about a contribution towards infrastructure costs associated with the construction of Crickowell house.

  An agreed contribution was paid by the corporation in March 1994.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dundee East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 February 1995,Official Report, column 747.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Telephones
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will now make available the BT star services facilities for the telephones of right hon. and hon. Members and their staff throughout the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  There are no plans to do so. I understand that BT star service facilities are designed to be used on public telephone exchange lines and it is not possible to make them available on extensions of the Palace of Westminster's private exchange.

  Disabled Parking
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what measures are in place to ensure that facilities for disabled parking within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster are not abused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  There are 12 parking spaces in Star Chamber Court and three parking spaces in the inner courtyard of Norman Shaw North reserved for the use of vehicles driven, or used by photo-identity pass 26
  holders who have registered with the Serjeant at Arms and are recognised as disabled. At present, six hon. Members, eight Members' secretaries and 10 staff of the House have been registered. The use of these spaces is on a first come, first served basis.

  Those who use the other parking spaces in Star Chamber Court are reminded not to use the spaces reserved for disabled people. The whole area is policed on a random basis but these arrangements are dependent in the first instance on the co-operation of all right hon. and hon. Members. The Serjeant at Arms has been requested to draw examples of continuing misuse to the attention of the Committee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will put before the Intelligence and Security Select Committee the evidence which enabled Mrs. Stella Rimington in her Dimbleby lecture to claim that MI5 had assisted in the tracking down and issue of warrants for the culprits of the Lockerbie crime, and to reveal M15's knowledge of threats to airlines at Frankfurt in the period September to December 1988.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received no such request from the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it was with the authority of his Department that Scotland Yard gave the Daily Express a story carried on page 1, 28 February 1989 identifying Khaled Juafor as the man who carried the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department had no involvement in the appearance of this story nor, as I understand it, was it based on any authorised briefing by a member of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he authorised Mrs. Stella Rimington to make public statements about Libya and Lockerbie.

  Mr. Howard
  On the assumption that the hon. Member is referring to remarks made by Mrs. Rimington during her Dimbleby lecture in June 1994. I can confirm that I was aware of the content of the lecture before it was delivered.

  Abdul Fatah Ghadanfar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date it was known to the Home Office that Mr. Ghadanfar was travelling on a false British passport under the name of Mr. Burtle of Redruth.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out in full his information about any false British passport of Abdul Fatah Ghadanfar, born on 12 December 1941 in Irbid, Jordan, alias Ronald John Burtle, born 24 October 1948, Redruth, Cornwall, UK Passport No. CO69456 E.

  Mr. Howard
  When the West German police arrested Ghadanfar in October 1988, they discovered a passport issued to Mr. Burtle in his possession, and notified the authorities in the United Kingdom. The passport had been
  27
  issued a few months before it was reported stolen, which was shortly before Ghadanfar's arrest. It is not known, and thought unlikely, that he ever travelled using this passport.

  Extradition
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions over any convenient period in the last 10 years the United Kingdom has extradited British nationals to a country with which the United Kingdom does not have an extradition treaty.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During the last 10 years, the United Kingdom have not extradited any British nationals to countries with which it has no extradition treaty.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Libyan Government has asked Her Majesty's Government to extradite British citizens to stand trial in Libya.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Libyan Government have not asked Her Majesty's Government to extradite any British citizen to stand trial in Libya.

  Spain
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek from the Spanish authorities information about Spanish pass, K 00023326, and driving licence 77.060.402; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that this information has already been obtained from the Spanish authorities.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Some 0.8 per cent. of staff in the Home Office and its agencies are known to be disabled. There are likely to be others who have not responded to the Department's voluntary surveys.

  The nature of many of the posts within the Prison Service limits the scope for employing people with disabilities; excluding Prison Service staff, the percentage of staff in the Home Office and its agencies who are known to be disabled is 2.2 per cent.

  Plymouth City Council
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of investigations by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service into allegations against members of Plymouth, Sutton conservative association by Conservative councillors on Plymouth city council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Devon and Cornwall constabulary does not normally record the cost of individual investigations, and information on the police costs is not available. I understand that Crown Prosecution Service costs were approximately £180.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken against members of the Plymouth, Sutton Conservative Association by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service following allegations made against them by 28
  Conservative city councillors in Plymouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter and entirely the responsibility of the chief officer of the police force concerned.

  I am told though, that the matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, whose view was that there was no evidence to justify criminal proceedings against any person.

  Nottinghamshire Probation Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the specific grant cash limit for the Nottinghamshire probation service in 1994–95 and the proposed specific cash limit in 1995–96 in(a) cash (b) comparable terms.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for the Nottinghamshire probation service is £6.9 million in cash terms. The specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 is(a) £6.7 million in cash terms and (b) £6.5 million in real terms compared with the previous year. A further £0.3 million is added to 1995–96 specific grant to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed, and at what grade, by the Nottinghamshire probation service on(a) 30 June 1992, (b) 30 June 1993 and (c) 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the Nottinghamshire probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent 1, by grade and type. Number of staff, whole time equivalent

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief

  6

  5

  5

  Senior

  29

  31

  30

  Main grade

  146

  148

  149

  Total probation officers

  183

  186

  186

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services Officers2

  25

  32

  29

  Clerical/secretarial

  105

  108

  109

  Administrative

  18

  16

  16

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

  39

  42

  45

  Hostel staff

  20

  20

  21

  Total non-probation grade staff

  207

  218

  220

  Total probation staff

  390

  404

  406

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Formerly ancillaries.

  3 Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Houses of Parliament (Security Staff)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason and on which basis the Commissioner of Police of Metropolis has varied the implied condition in the contracts of employment of the security custodians employed in the Houses of Parliament that granted them the option of continuing their employment until they reached the age of 65 years; if he will arrange to reconsider the decision to vary these employment contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the commissioner that the age of retirement for Metropolitan police civil staff, including security staff at the Palace of Westminster, is and always has been 60 years. Extensions of service beyond that age are at the commissioner's discretion and are based on management needs.

  Stolen Computer Equipment
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the main metropolitan areas the value of reported stolen computer equipment during the last year for which completed figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  EU Border Controls
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement explaining the operation of the border control arrangements within the EU known as the light touch controls; and what plans there are to extend the scope of these operations.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no EU-wide arrangements described in this way.

  European Union and other European Economic Area passengers arriving in the United Kingdom are required to present their passport or other national identity documents, in order to establish their nationality and to distinguish them from third country nationals, who are subject to immigration control.

  Mentally Disordered Defendants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the system whereby potential patients of special hospitals are assessed prior to sentence by a court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Any court, before sentencing may seek psychiatric reports on a defendant. The overall effectiveness of these arrangements has been substantially enhanced by the creation, with the Government's active support, of over 100 local schemes in England and Wales aiming to provide assessment and access to treatment and care for mentally disordered defendants at the earliest opportunity.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the priorities of the Metropolitan police for 1995–96, and if he will make a statement.
  30
  Mr. Howard
  The priorities of the Metropolitan police for 1995–96 are:

  (i) to deliver the standards defined in the MPS charter;

  (ii) to achieve a detection rate for notifiable offences of 20 per cent.;

  (iii) to achieve a detection rate for burglary of 15 per cent.;

  (iv) to improve performance against robbery, in particular:

  (a) increase the detection rate for street crime to 15 per cent.;

  (b) increase the detection rate for robberies at business properties to 20 per cent.;

  (v) to improve performance against drug-related violence;

  (vi) to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public.

  Details of each of the priorities and the way in which they address the key objectives for policing were given in the statutory instrument I laid before the House on 19 October 1994 and are set out in the Metropolitan police policing plan 1995–96 which the Commissioner is issuing with my approval. I am sending copies to all right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies fall wholly or partly within the Metropolitan police district and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Curfew Orders
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the trials of electronic monitoring of curfew orders are due to begin, when he expects to be able to announce details of the contractors who will be carrying out trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I am pleased to announce that Securicor Custodial Services Ltd. will be providing the service in the city of Manchester and the borough of Reading and that Geografix Ltd. will be providing the service for the county of Norfolk. The next stage is acceptance testing of the contractors' equipment and systems. The nine-month trials are scheduled to begin in June.

  Gloucestershire Police
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department; pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 407, if he will publish the advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary relating to the special grant application by the chief constable of Gloucestershire for the exceptional costs of the Cromwell street inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary was that the expenditure incurred was not such as to threaten the efficiency of the force. It is not the practice to publish the details of advice given to Ministers.

  North East London Probation Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the effect of the November 1993 Budget statement on the budget of the North East London probation service; and what will be the impact on the service of the November 1994 Budget.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1993 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for the North East London probation service of £7.2 million, 6.8 per cent. higher than for 1993–94. The 1994 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 of £7.1 million plus a further £0.2 million to support
  31
  probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office.

  It is for the North East London probation service to decide how these resources are best used and to determine what specific changes within the service should be undertaken on the basis of the total expenditure limit implied by this level of grant support.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed, and at what grades, by the North East London probation service on 30 June in each of the years 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the Nottinghamshire probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent, by grade and type. Number of staff, whole time equivalent

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Chief

  3

  4

  4

  Senior

  21

  21

  22

  Main grade

  102

  114

  109

  Total probation officers

  127

  140

  137

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers 2

  36

  40

  36

  Clerical/secretarial

  92

  99

  101

  Administrative

  11

  13

  12

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff 3

  10

  17

  17

  Hostel staff

  12

  17

  13

  Total non-probation grade staff

  161

  186

  179

  Total probation staff

  287

  326

  316

  1Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2Formerly ancillaries.

  3Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Police Guidance Manual
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's definition of severe cases in the new up-dated police guidance manual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The manual of guidance for the preparation, processing and submission of prosecution files includes no such definition. The manual makes reference to the "serious" nature of a case. This relates to the seriousness of the offence committed and to other factors including the vulnerability of the victim, the use of excessive force and the abuse of a position of responsibility.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women
  32
  applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. Howard
  No central record is maintained of applications for career breaks, but since 1992 the Department and its agencies have granted career breaks to 23 men and 220 women. During this period, two members of staff have had their appointment terminated during or following a career break.

  Car Break-in Kits
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of car break-in kits; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has, in the past, received a number of representations from hon. Members about the general availability of skeleton car key sets, which are used to gain entry to locked vehicles.

  Since many of those working in the motor trade have a legitimate use for such devices, there would be substantial practical and legal difficulties in restricting or prohibiting their sale. There is, in any case, no evidence to show that skeleton keys are being misused to any significant degree.

  Children's Certificates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  the Home Department how many children's certificates have been issued to public houses in each local government area of England and Wales to the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The changes to the Licensing Act 1964 which enable licensees to apply to the licensing justices for children's certificates came into effect on 3 January 1995. No information about the number of certificates granted is yet held centrally.

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the final claims for compensation from the six men wrongly convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; when it was passed to Sir David Calcutt; and what action has been taken.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  All six men are eligible for compensation but only five have submitted the information which enables the assessor to determine what amount should he paid. This information was received in the Home Office between October 1992 and December 1993, and after clarification and elaboration of a number of points was passed to the assessor in May and August 1994. Further information was submitted on behalf of the applicants in February 1995. Substantial interim payments have been made in all six cases and the final assessments will be completed as soon as possible.

  Leon Patterson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester police concerning the death in their custody of Leon Patterson on 27 November 1992; and if he will make a statement.
  33
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 10 May 1993, this is a matter for the chief constable of the Greater Manchester police.

  Drug Trafficking (Seized Assets)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the value of assets seized under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 by Merseyside police; if he will consider making such amounts available for drugs education and training by Merseyside police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Returns from magistrates courts for the Merseyside area show that between April 1989 and March 1994, the following sums were remitted to the Secretary of State under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  4,561.20

  1990–91

  71,473.39

  1991–92

  175,101.43

  1992–93

  192,410.21

  1993–94

  106,646.99

  Total

  550,193.22

  I have no plans to change existing arrangements under which confiscated money is treated in the same way as fine revenue and paid directly into the consolidated fund from which Government expenditure generally—including substantial support for drug-related work—is financed. Approximately £500 million is spent each year on supporting our drugs strategy, including local drug education programmes. Investigations into drug trafficking and the prosecution and conviction of offenders and the confiscation of drugs proceeds involve the police, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and HM Customs and Excise, all of whom devote considerable resources to this area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Agreements
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many environmentally sensitive area agreements have been concluded in England involving payments in the(a) £0–£5,000, (b) £5,000– £10,000, (c) £10,001–£15,000, (d) £15,001420,000, (e) £25,000–£50,000, (f) £50,001–£75,000, (g) £75,001– £100,000, (h) £100,000–£150,000, (i) £150,000–£200,000 and (j) over £200,000 bands.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of English ESA agreements in each band is as follows:

  £

  Number

  0–5,000

  5,071

  5,001–10,000

  722

  10,001–15,000

  201

  15,001–20,000

  69

  20,001–25,000

  46

  25,001–50,000

  80

  34

  £

  Number

  50,001–75,000

  10

  75,001–1000,000

  5

  100,001–150,000

  0

  150,001–200,000

  0

  Over 200,000

  0

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of staff who have applied for a career break is 39-two men and 37 women. No one has had their employment terminated in the last five years. The career break scheme was introduced in MAFF and some of its agencies on 8 September 1994.

  Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the fishing boat decommissioning scheme to compensate fishing crews, fish merchants and ancillary workers as well as boat owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no such plans. The decommissioning scheme is a means of enabling us to meet the targets for the reduction in fleet capacity which we have accepted as part of the common fisheries policy. It is a voluntary measure which operates through a tendering system in order to secure the best value for money. It is up to vessel owners to make suitable provision to meet any contractual obligations to their crews or third parties. By contributing to a better balance between fishing capacity and available fish stocks decommissioning will help to provide a more viable long-term future for the remaining United Kingdom fleet and related industries.

  Food from Britain
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of funding received by Food From Britain in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is as follows:

  Level of Funding of Food from Britain (£ Million)

  Year

  Government

  Industry

  Total

  1985–86

  5.9

  1.0

  6.9

  1986–87

  5.0

  0.7

  5.6

  1987–88

  4.1

  2.1

  6.2

  1988–89

  4.2

  2.8

  6.9

  1989–90

  4.5

  3.1

  7.6

  1990–91

  4.5

  3.0

  7.5

  1991–92

  4.5

  3.3

  7.8

  1992–93

  4.8

  3.8

  8.6

  1993–94

  5.0

  4.0

  9.0

  1994–95

  15.3

  14.4

  19.6

  1 estimated

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage of disabled
  35
  People directly employed by his; if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  On 1 July 1994, nearly 1.5 per cent. of the staff directly employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including its agencies were registered as disabled. In 1993, a voluntary survey of all staff, which achieved a 60 per cent. response, showed that between three and four times that number considered that they had a disability.

  Discarded Fish
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend fisheries regulations to reduce the quantity of discarded fish in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Fish discards can be a particular problem in waters such as the North sea where different species shoal together. Changes to the regulations affecting discards would have to be made under the common fisheries policy. The Council of Fisheries Ministers is concerned 36
  to reduce discards and has asked the Commission to make proposals. One of the approaches under consideration is to improve the selectivity of fishing gear and research is being undertaken to this end. In the light of this, and other developments, it will be for the Commission to bring forward proposals for amendment to EU regulations.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will support changing the status of animals from goods and products to sentient creatures at the inter-governmental conference in 1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: The Government secured a declaration, attached to the Maastricht treaty, concerning the need to take full account of animal welfare in agricultural and other policies.

  The Government are considering a number of issues and options in preparation for the 1996 inter-governmental conference.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer on 17 February,Official Report, column 872–74, (1) if he will state the net gain for a person aged 18 to 25 years, who is on income support, and has worked at £3.20 per hour for (a) eight hours and (b) 16 hours, showing calculations in each case, including the pence per hour net gain from working the extra eight hours;

  (2) if he will state the net gain for a married couple on income support, if the man has worked at £3.20 per hour for (a) eight hours and (b) 16 hours, showing calculations in each case, including the pence per hour net gain from working the extra eight hours.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables. Information for a single person is for those in the age group 18 to 24 years. Information for those aged 25

  Gain from work at £ 3.20 per hour

  Hours Worked

  Pay

  Income Support

  Rent

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax

  Council Tax Benefit

  Total NetIncome

  Net Income after payment of rent and council tax when in work

  Net Income after payment of rent and council tax when not in work

  Net gain from work

  Pence per hout gain from working 8 hours 1

  single person aged 18-24

  8

  25.60

  15.55

  30.91

  30.91

  6.60

  6.60

  78.66

  41.15

  36.15

  5.00

  63

  16

  51.20

  —

  30.91

  24.38

  6.60

  4.59

  80.17

  42.66

  36.15

  6.51

  19

  Married Couple (£5 earnings disregard in income support)

  8

  25.60

  51.10

  30.91

  30.91

  8.60

  8.60

  116.21

  76.70

  71.70

  5.00

  63

  16

  51.20

  —

  30.91

  30.91

  8.60

  8.60

  90.71

  51.20

  71.70

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole penny.

  2. Both members of the couple are assumed to be aged under 60. One or both members are assumed to be aged 18 or over.

  3. Both the couple and the single person are assumed to live in local authority accommodation and be liable for average council tax and local authority rent.

  4. All the examples shown assume take-up full entitlement to Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  5. Tax and National Insurance contributions are not payable at the earnings levels shown.

  Child Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the methods used to calculate the costs of(a) a £10 and (b) £15 disregard of maintenance for parents in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Burt
  In estimating the costs of a maintenance disregard, estimates and assumptions are made in the following areas:
  the number of lone parents and step families on income support in any particular year;the proportion of parents with care whose absent parent has a maintenance assessment greater than zero;the proportion of this scheduled maintenance actually being paid or received;the average amount of maintenance disregarded, taking account of the fact that for parents with care receiving less than £10 to £15 maintenance per week,38
  and over was given in the reply to the hon. Member on Friday 17 February, Official Report, columns 872–74.

  Many single people in the age group shown will not be liable for rent and council tax. In these cases the net gain from working 16 hours will be £15.05, being the difference between net pay of £51.20 and income support of £36.15. This represents a gain of £1.26 per hour for the additional eight hours work.

  To address poor incentives to increase hours of work we are introducing two new measures:
  from October 1996 the back-to-work bonus will provide an additional gain of half the value of earnings above the appropriate disregard, £5 for singles, £10 for couples, payable on moving into work of 16 hours or more. For a single person unemployed for a year, the gain from taking work of 16 hours would therefore also be a lump sum of around £400.From October 1996, a new in-work benefit aimed at couples and single people without children will be tested to examine its effects on increasing the gain from work for these groups in the same way as family credit does for families with children.the disregard will equal the amount of maintenance received.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet(a) the National Association of Laryngectomee Clubs and (b) the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund to discuss medical assessment in respect of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The development of the medical assessment for incapacity benefit included an open consultation process, to which the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund contributed. If either of these organisations has further comments on the medical assessment, I would be happy to received them.

  World Summit for Social Development
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to publish representations made
  39
  on behalf of the British Government at the world summit for social development about measures concerned with social development in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans to do so. The speeches of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be published and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 31 January 1995,Official Report, columns 623–24.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost to the Exchequer of 18 weeks maternity leave per person.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested. Information available relates to statutory maternity pay. The average cost to the Exchequer of 18 weeks' SMP per beneficiary is estimated at £1,710 for 1995–96.

  Notes:

  1. The estimated average cost has been rounded to the nearest £10 but is not accurate to that degree.

  2. The figure represents SMP reimbursement to employers and is not the average amount of SMP paid to women.

  3. Not all women receive 18 weeks of SMP and not all beneficiaries are on maternity leave as such–some resign from their employment on commencement of the maternity pay period.

  Source:Government Actuary's Department independent caseload and expenditure forecasts.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women took paid maternity leave in each of the last three years; and what was the overall cost.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information relates to women receiving statutory maternity pay and is in the table.

  Statutory Maternity Pay 1991–92 to 1993–94

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Total estimated expenditure

  345

  398

  420

  Estimated number of beneficiaries

  245,000

  245,000

  260,000

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure figures appear in the 1994 Social Security Departmental Report and are at cash prices.

  2. Figures for number of beneficiaries have been estimated using figures provided by the Government Actuary's Department and assume that all women receive SMP for a full 18 weeks.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how benefit savings are calculated in instances of fraud uncovered(a) generally by his officers and (b) by the Child Support Agency;

  (2) by what multiple of the value of the order is used to calculate the benefit savings when order books are
  40
  withdrawn on the grounds that the claimant has committed fraud.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A weekly benefit saving is recorded by the Benefits Agency when as a result of action by a fraud investigator benefit is reduced or withdrawn. The value of the saving is increased in value by the use of a multiplier which is an estimate of the average time for which a fraud would have continued, had the fraud not been discovered. It is therefore a measure of the average time for which benefit payments are saved by investigation work which leads to the termination or correcting of fraudulent claims. The multiplier used for benefit frauds is 32.

  Frauds uncovered by the Child Support Agency are referred to the Benefits Agency for investigation. Savings in these cases are calculated in the same way as above.

  If the fraud is one which concerns the manipulation or fraudulent encashment of a stolen or lost order book, the saving will be the total value of the orders remaining in the order book when the book is recovered.

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many DSS resettlement units have closed each year since 1990.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since 1990 the Department has either closed and replaced or disengaged from the direct administration of 16 resettlement units as follows:

  Year and unit

  Status

  1991

  Fazakerley—Liverpool

  Closed

  Brighton

  Closed

  Bridge House

  Closed

  1992

  Alvaston—Derby

  Closed

  Walkden—Manchester

  Closed

  Winterbourne—Bristol

  Closed

  Plawsworth—Newcastle

  Closed

  1993

  Stormy Down—South Wales

  Closed

  Camden—London

  Disengaged

  Southampton

  Disengaged

  Newbury

  Disengaged

  1994

  Spur House—Lewisham

  Disengaged

  Pound Lodge—Brent

  Disengaged

  Leicester

  Disengaged

  Lye—West Midlands

  Disengaged

  West End House—London

  Disengaged

HEALTH

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of medical negligence were settled, and what was the total cost of damages awarded together with legal costs, in each year since 1990–91, by region.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. member to the figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough
  41
  (Dr. Mawhinney) gave him on 14 March, columns 535–36 and on 10 May 1994, columns 84–85, which are reproduced in the first table. As was made clear at the time, these figures were based on information which was not comprehensive and in particular do not include data from National Health Service trusts, which will form an increasingly large proportion of the total. We have therefore developed an alternative method of estimating the total costs of clinical negligence to the NHS, based on

  Table 1: Number and Costs to the NHS of Clinical Negligence Settlements by Region

  1990–91

  Old estimates 1991–92

  1992–93

  Region

  Cases

  Cost £000

  Cases

  Cost £000

  Cases

  Cost £000

  Northern

  109

  1,613

  207

  3,310

  344

  3,395

  Yorkshire

  152

  4,604

  111

  3,302

  49

  1,720

  Trent

  73

  2,611

  119

  2,069

  105

  2,953

  East Anglian

  38

  1,359

  88

  1,737

  37

  3,295

  North West Thames

  89

  8,551

  221

  6,954

  183

  6,209

  North East Thames

  136

  8,464

  108

  5,888

  76

  1,624

  South East Thames

  n/k

  6,118

  106

  7,113

  117

  5,714

  South West Thames

  104

  3,233

  90

  4,663

  64

  2,543

  Wessex

  52

  1,525

  51

  919

  72

  681

  Oxford

  231

  2,257

  131

  3,339

  113

  917

  South Western

  56

  2,104

  83

  2,872

  56

  3,517

  West Midlands

  154

  3,157

  145

  2,573

  165

  3,661

  Mersey

  218

  1,421

  108

  1,002

  192

  3,622

  North Western

  183

  2,580

  145

  4,730

  160

  4,457

  SHAs

  23

  3,639

  38

  877

  5

  752

  Estimates based on annual health authority returns.

  Table 2: Costs to the NHS of clinical negligence settlements by region (New estimates)

  £ million

  Authority RHA

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95(provisional)

  Northern

  5.4

  7.6

  —

  Yorkshire

  5.9

  5.7

  —

  Trent

  5.4

  6.0

  —

  East Anglia

  4.0

  4.3

  —

  North West Thames

  10.8

  7.8

  —

  North East Thames

  10.5

  10.9

  —

  South East Thames

  4.1

  19.7

  —

  South West Thames

  3.2

  6.1

  —

  Wessex

  0.1

  0.3

  —

  Oxford

  4.2

  4.2

  —

  South Western

  6.3

  6.5

  —

  West Midlands

  4.5

  7.1

  —

  Mersey

  6.4

  3.7

  —

  North Western

  9.4

  10.0

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  —

  12.9

  21.0

  Trent

  —

  6.0

  6.7

  Anglia and Oxford

  —

  9.0

  19.2

  North Thames

  —

  18.1

  26.3

  South Thames

  —

  25.9

  16.0

  South and West

  —

  6.8

  10.0

  West Midlands

  —

  7.1

  10.2

  North West

  —

  14.1

  15.7

  Note:

  Estimates based on quarterly financial returns. Figures for special health authorities are included in the relevant Thames Region.

  Casualty Admissions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in casualty admissions in
  42
  quarterly financial monitoring. In the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 30 January 1995, column 523, costs on this new basis were estimated at £80 million in 1991–92, £100 million in 1992–93 and £125 million in 1993–94. Regional breakdowns—comparable to these new estimates—are now available for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, provisional, and are shown in the second table. Estimates of number of settlements are not available.

  (a) England and (b) London; and what increase in beds or other resources have been made available to accident and emergency departments in (i) England and (ii) London within the last year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested. There was an overall increase of 0.3 per cent. in the number of patients admitted to hospital under an accident and emergency consultant in England in 1993–94, while in the Thames regional health authorities admissions in the accident and emergency specialty fell by 3.2 per cent.

  Information on accident and emergency beds is not available centrally. The number of hospital consultants in the specialty of accident and emergency medicine increased by 7.6 per cent. in England and by 9 per cent. in the Thames regions between 1992 and 1993, the latest figures available. In the same period, other hospital medical staff in the accident and emergency specialty increased by 5 per cent. in England by 4.4 per cent. in the Thames regions.

  NHS Complaints
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to act upon the final report of the NHS Complaints Review Committee, submitted in May 1994 entitled, "Being Heard".

  Mr. Malone
  We welcomed the publication of "Being Heard", the report of the National Health Service Complaints Review Committee, and support its central recommendation for a simpler, speedier NHS complaints system. Over 600 responses were received to the consultation on the report, raising some complex issues. We are carefully considering our response to the report in
  43
  the light of this and will make an announcement as soon as our present considerations are complete.

  Family Health Centres
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health centres per 1,000 population there are in(a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) Greater London, (d) Birmingham, (e) Manchester, (f) Liverpool, (g) Leeds, (h) Newcastle, (i) Bristol and (j) England.

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

  Location

  Health centres per 1,000 population

  Inner London

  0.022

  Greater London (inclusive of Inner London figures)

  0.017

  Newcastle

  0.028

  Leeds

  0.030

  Birmingham

  0.023

  Liverpool

  0.035

  Manchester

  0.026

  Bristol

  0.040

  England

  0.021

  Notes:

  1. Inner London is taken to be the areas covered by the following family health services authorities: Camden and Islington; City and East London; Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster and Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham.

  2. Greater London figures include inner and outer London.

  3. For the purposes of this answer, "family health centres" has been defined as those properties owned by the Secretary of State or an NHS trust and occupied by family practitioners and other health care providers. Some trusts may own other properties from which a variety of community health clinics are provided but not also occupied by GPs. Numbers of this type of health centre are not, however, held centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by her Department on community care for the mentally ill, broken down by local authority for the three most recent years for which figures are available; and what is the proportion of the resources allocated to community care spent on mental health patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures of expenditure by local authorities in England in 1990–91 to 1992–93 on services for people with mental health problems, and the corresponding percentages of expenditure on all services for adults, are shown in the table.

  Figures for individual authorities, excluding apportioned overheads, for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library. Comparable 1990–91 data for individual local authorities are not available centrally.

  These figures show direct services for people with mental illness, and do not take account of other expenditure which it would not be possible to calculate separately.
  44

  Gross expenditure by local authorities on services for people with mental health problems, England1

  Financial year

  Gross expenditure on mental health 2(£ million)

  As a percentage of expenditure on services for adults

  1990–91

  116

  3.6

  1991–92

  180

  5.0

  1992–93

  220

  5.8

  Notes:

  1 These figures include apportioned overheads (to cover, for example, administration and training costs).

  2 Includes fieldwork for mentally ill. Prior to 1991–92, expenditure on fieldwork was estimated by the Department of Health whereas after then it reflects actual expenditure as reported by local authorities.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has undertaken research into the user's view of the transition from psychiatric long-stay hospitals to community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  A series of studies was carried out by the team for the assessment of psychiatric services which was set up in 1985 to monitor the closure of Friern and Claybury hospitals in the then North East Thames region, which established that the great majority of users preferred the new
  community-based services.

  Death Certificates
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is paid each year to doctors in the health service in respect of the fees paid for signing the necessary papers to verify that someone died of natural causes, before the funeral director can release a body for cremation.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in her Department or its agencies; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not hold records of past applications for career breaks. There are currently 130 people, 12 male and 118 female, on career breaks in the Department and its agencies, Ill of whom have been on a career break of between one and five years. No staff have had their employment terminated during the five year breaks allowed by the Department; four staff have had their appointments terminated after the five years have elapsed as they failed to resign or return to work.

  Prescriptions, Sheffield
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in the Sheffield health authority area for each of the last five years; and how many were exempt from payment.

  Mr. Malone
  The information available is shown in the table. Comparable information for years before 1991 is not available.
  45

  Prescription items dispensed in Sheffield Family Health Services Authority: 1991–93

  Prescription items dispensed (thousands)1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total2

  5,146

  5,393

  5,644

  With no charge3

  4,161

  4,412

  4,656

  1 The figures relate to prescription items dispensed in Sheffield FHSA, regardless of where they were written, and may include prescriptions written by hospital doctors, dentists and armed services doctors and dentists.

  2 The total includes all prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  3The analysis of exempt prescription items is based on a one in 20 sample of all prescriptions. submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. In this table "With no charge" prescriptions include those dispensed under the NHS low income scheme and no charge contraceptives.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths from breast cancer in respect of women aged 65 years or over in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is published in "Mortality Statistics", cause, series DH2, Nos. 11–19, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Electrical Nerve Stimulators
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances and subject to what conditions transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation machines are available on the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service consultants may prescribe pain relief equipment such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators—TENS machines—as part of NHS treatment, and when they do no charge is made. Health authorities may provide such equipment either on a permanent basis or on loan. However, supply depends on decisions being made on the basis of clinical priorities and local needs.

  In some cases, where pain relief equipment is not considered clinically essential, a consultant may nevertheless advise a patient that he could use it if he wished. In such cases, health authorities would not be responsible for either providing or maintaining the equipment.

  Accident and Emergency Service, South London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion she has had in the last year with officials of the south Thames health authorities in respect of existing accident and emergency services in hospitals covering this area of London.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had regular meetings with the chairman and chief executive of South Thames regional health authority at which service developments, including accident and emergency services, have been discussed.

  Elderly Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what percentage of the NHS expenditure is spent on elderly care; and if she will make a statement about the procedure for applying to receive this care.

  Mr. Bowis
  We estimate that around 40 per cent. of total hospital and community health service expenditure is on people aged 65 and over, who comprise about 16 per cent. of the population. Every citizen has the right to receive health care free at the point of delivery on the basis of clinical need and judgment.

  Hospital Beds, North-east Wiltshire
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate she has made of the demand for, and supply of, hospital beds in the north-east of Wiltshire in the next five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Alastair Service, chairman of the Wiltshire and Bath health authority, which is responsible for purchasing health services to meet the needs of the local population.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 31 January, column 628, and the reply I gave the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 5 December 1994, columns 85–87.

  Hospital Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedure exists to make judgment on a complaint of alleged premature discharge of a patient from a NHS hospital or trust due to financial considerations and contrary to medical considerations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Hospital complaints procedures are described in "Health Circular HC(88)37", copies of which are available in the Library. This was supplemented by guidance on "NHS responsibilities for continuing health care needs", which was issued on 23 February 1995 and which is also in the Library.

  Primary Care Projects, London
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the new primary care projects in London since 1993.

  Mr. Malone
  Since 1993, 965 primary care projects are in planning or underway in the London initiative zone. A list of the individual LIZ projects will he placed in the Library. Details of London primary care projects outside the LIZ may be obtained from the local health authorities and community trusts.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute psychiatric beds per 1,000 of the
  47
  population there are in (a) the West Midlands region, (b) the North West region, (c) the North Thames region, (d) the South Thames region and (e) in England and Wales.

  Mr. Bowls
  Information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of beds per thousands of population, in wards for patients suffering from mental illness, are shown in the table:

  1993–94

  Average daily available beds1

  Population 2

  Beds per thousand population

  West Midlands

  3,854

  5,289,772

  0.73

  North West

  6,466

  6,616,509

  0.98

  North Thames

  7,300

  6,793,292

  1.07

  South Thames

  5,742

  6,716,917

  0.85

  England

  43,162

  48,532,705

  0.89

  Source:

  KHO3 returns.

  Notes:

  1 Beds include both short and long stay, for children, elderly and adults. Beds are not for the exclusive use of the population of the region in which they are to be found.

  2 Population as at mid-1993.

  Figures for wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Wales.

  Rural Medical Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special funding arrangements are provided for casualty work undertaken in rural general practices.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies are implemented to address the difficulties of providing medical care in rural areas.

  Mr. Malone
  A central aim of Government health care policy has been to base the purchasing of services on a proper assessment of local need. This helps to target provision to reflect particular circumstances, such as those in rural areas. In addition, there are a number of local initiatives around the country which aim to improve medical care in rural areas. There are also some specific allowances to help rural general practitioners.

  Health care issues in rural affairs will also be addressed in the Rural White Paper announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12 October 1994. Preparatory work for this has involved widespread consultation, including with health care and professional organisations.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on initiatives to promote the use of communication and information technology in rural medical services.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is an information management and technology strategy which covers the whole of the national health service, including the use of communication and information technology in rural medical services.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on primary care emergency centres.

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioners decide which model of out-of-hours service delivery best suits local needs. In some places, this will include the use of primary care centres to offer high quality services to patients.

  NHS Building Projects
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the building projects in the NHS from 1990–91 which have not become operational; and what were their total costs.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of any major national health service building projects in England that have failed to become operational following commissioning of new facilities.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is an information management and technology strategy which covers the whole of the national health service, including the use of communication and information technology in rural medical services.

  Local Pay
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have a local pay bargaining mechanism in operation.

  Mr. Malone
  In June 1994, the chief executive of the national health service executive asked all NHS trusts in England to establish local pay machinery by February 1995, which would allow a significant proportion of pay in 1995–96 to be based on local needs and achievements. Information is not available centrally about the local arrangements.

  Adoptions
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many adoptions took place last year of children aged(a) under three years, (b) between three and five years, (c) between five and 10 years and (d) over 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available precisely in the form requested. The last year for which completed figures are available is 1993, in which there were 6,859 adoptions in England and Wales. Of these, 465 children were aged under one, 1,894 between one and four, 2,543 between five and nine, 1,570 between 10 and 14 and 387 between 15 and 17 years of age. Previous years' data were published in "Marriage and Divorce Statistics: England and Wales 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Newborn Handicapped Babies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the recent claims by Dr. Nicholson that he had killed newborn handicapped babies;

  (2) on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available newborn handicapped babies have been killed by doctors or other medical personnel;

  (3) if she will make it her policy to write to all medical practitioners reminding them that the killing of newborn handicapped babies is illegal; and if she will make a statement.
  49
  Mr. Sackville
  The deliberate killing of any human being is an illegal act. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether any action should be taken over Dr. Nicholson's claims. Current Home Office criminal statistics do not identify any cases involving the killing of newborn handicapped babies by doctors or others. The Department does not keep separate information.

  All doctors are well aware that the deliberate killing of patients is illegal. It is also contrary to their ethical obligations.

  International Peto Institute
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been(a) paid and (b) pledged by her Department towards the construction of the International Peto Institute in Budapest.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have paid an initial sum of £1.75 million towards the cost of building a new International Peto Institute in Budapest. The Government undertook to contribute £5 million to this project. Our agreement with the Hungarian Government provides that subsequent payments will be dependent upon progress with construction.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would he the annual cost of abolishing NHS charges presently made for eye and dental checks.

  Mr. Malone
  There is no charge for the provision of national health service sight tests. People who are entitled to NHS tests do not pay anything towards their cost. The fees payable to optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners for carrying out these tests are paid by family health services authorities. People not entitled to an NHS sight test pay for a private sight test.

  For dental examinations, assuming that the removal of the charge led to no increase in the number of dental examinations, the annual cost, at 1993–94 prices, would be approximately £70 million.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the operational definition of serious mental illness used by her Department.

  Mr. Bowls
  We have not set a rigid central definition of severe mental illness.

  We issued for consultation in October 1994 a "Draft Guide to Arrangements for Inter-agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally III People". The draft guide contains a framework definition of severe mental illness on which local services can base their own more detailed operational definitions. Copies of the guide are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to introduce national standards for the purposes of the assessment and placement of potential patients following sentence by a court; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  None. The Mental Health Act 1983 defines the circumstances in which a person suffering from a mental disorder can be detained in hospital. Health Circular EL(90)168 and Home Office circular 66/90, both 50
  available in the Library, draw to the attention of health service and criminal justice agencies the importance of appropriate disposals of offenders who have a mental disorder.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to develop the public's awareness of mental illness; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  We launched a public information strategy on mental illness in March 1993. The strategy, which will cost in excess of £1 million over three years, aims to raise public awareness of mental illness, its causes and its treatment. In addition, the Health Education Authority is starting a programme of work in this sector.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the annual cost to the Exchequer resulting from a 1 per cent. real terms reduction in the price of NHS prescriptions.

  Mr. Malone
  About £2.2 million, based on the number of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England in 1993–94 for which a charge was paid.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses are placed at(a) police stations and (b) courts, by region; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Court Diversions Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on court diversions schemes for the mentally disordered.

  Mr. Bowis
  We encourage the development of court assessment schemes to ensure that defendants who have a mental disorder receive care and treatment from health and social care services where necessary. The specific arrangements to be made locally are a matter for the agencies concerned. There are now over 100 schemes nationally compared with only a handful in 1991. About 50 schemes receive financial support from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a breakdown by specialty of the numbers of patients and the period for which they were waiting for surgery in each district health authority in England and Wales at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information on waiting lists and times by specialty at each national health service trust and district health authority in England is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department(a) hold open meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 January 1995,c. 128]: I regret that my previous answer did not give all the required information. This is as follows:
  (a) Hold open meetings:None(b) conduct public consultation exercises:(i)under a statutory requirement:None(ii) voluntarily:British Pharmacopoeia Commission;Nutrition Task Force;(c)conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests:(i) under a statutory requirement:None(ii) voluntarily:British Pharmacopoeia Commission;Nutrition Task Force;(d) publish a register of members' interests:(i) under a statutory requirement:None(ii) voluntarily:Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products;Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food;Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials;Committee on Safety of Medicines;Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy;Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment;Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food;Consumer Products and the Environment;Medicines Commission;(e) publish agendas for meetings:None(f) publish the minutes of meetings:(i) under a statutory, requirement:None(ii) voluntarily:Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Communications
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve rail communications.

  Mr. Watts
  The preparations for the franchising of passenger train services, the flotation of Railtrack and the sales of domestic rail freight and BR's other businesses will contribute to improved rail communications.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the crossrail project.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have asked the crossrail promoters to study various aspects of the project further with my Department, in parallel with preparing their application for powers to build crossrail under the Transport and Works Act.

  Passenger Behaviour
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for regulations to improve the standard of behaviour of passengers on public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations or bye-laws are already in place governing passenger behaviour on public transport and there are no plans to amend them.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of road accidents amongst newly qualified drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  We are implementing a package of measures on the education, training and testing of new drivers to improve their safety.

  Stations
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ask the chairman of British Rail to review the arrangements for the maintenance of stations and their immediate surroundings.

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Kent Coastal Lines
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the provision of new rolling stock for the Kent coastal lines.

  Mr. Watts
  BR has invited and received expressions of interest from ABB and GEC-Alsthom in being invited to tender for a possible new order for Kent coastal lines, in a form consistent with the terms of the private finance initiative.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Tanner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making concerning the contracts of employment of senior executives after rail privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Franchising Director to discuss the rail services being put out to franchise.

  Mr. Watts
  I next expect to meet the Franchising Director on 9 March.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those parts of the railway system which will have been privatised or put out to contract by April 1996.
  53
  Mr. Watts
  Sales since 1981 are:
  BR Hovercraft Ltd: 24 October 1981 BT Hotels (29 hotels sold in groups to various purchasers): 1982–83–84 Superbreak Mini Holidays: 14 February 1983 Slateford Laundry, Edinburgh: 19 September 1983 Sealink (UK) Ltd: 27 July 1984 BT Advertising Ltd: 28 August 1987 Doncaster Wagon Works: 16 October 1987 Horwich Foundry: 15 August 1988 Travellers Fare: 19 December 1988 BR Engineering Ltd: 18 April 1989 Golden Rail: 9 May 1989 Transmark: 7 April 1993 Meldon Quarry: 4 March 1994 Intended Sales to April 1996:Special Trains Unit BR Maintenance Ltd (7 Depots)Domestic Freight Businesses Three Trainload Freight Companies Freightliner Red Star Rail Express Systems Three Rolling Stock Leasing Companies BR Infrastructure Services 7 Design Offices 6 Track Renewal Units 7 Infrastructure Maintenance Units BR Telecommunications Various Businesses in BR Central Services.Others Franchising of 51 per cent. of Railway Passenger Services.Certain Legal and Architectural Services have been Contracted Out.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask Secretary of State for Transport what further meetings he has had with British Rail to discuss its concerns about privatisation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have regular meetings with the British Railways board to discuss a variety of issues including railway privatisation.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received about the progress of rail privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  I receive representations about all aspects of rail privatisation regularly.

  Waterways
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase the use of the waterways for freight transportation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Users and providers of freight services are encouraged to consider the environmental and other benefits of waterborne transport. Grants are available under section 140 of the Railways Act 1993 for inland waterway developments which demonstrate an environmental benefit in the form of lorry miles saved.

  Buses
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to discuss with bus operators the European Union proposal that the percentage of passengers standing on buses should be increased.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My Department is in regular contact with both the manufacturing and operating sides of the 54
  bus industry and is very much aware of their concerns about the proposed EC Bus and Coach Directive.

  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety will shortly be meeting representatives from both sides of the industry specifically to discuss the full implications of the proposal.

  Associated British Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be chairing the inquiry into Associated British Ports' application for navigation powers over the western Solent.

  Mr. Norris
  The inquiry on this application for a harbour order is expected to take place in the autumn. An inspector will be appointed by the Planning Inspectorate Agency once the inquiry date has been established.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to travel on the railway line from Carlisle to London.

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans which involve travel on the Carlisle to London railway line.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning(a) motorway tolls and (b) urban road pricing in the last six months.

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on both subjects.

  MV Derbyshire (Wreckage)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete his consideration of the chief inspector of marine accident's assessment of the material provided by the International Transport Workers' Federation following their location of the wreckage of the Derbyshire and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The formal investigation in 1987 into the loss of the Derbyshire decided that
  "… the DERBYSHIRE was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in typhoon Orchid."
  and added that
  "the evidence available does not support any firmer conclusion".
  Subsequently, in June 1994, the wreckage of the Derbyshire was found during an ITF-sponsored search. The chief inspector of marine accidents has examined the evidence submitted to him by ITF and has advised me that the evidence still does not allow the cause of the Derbyshire's loss to be determined.

  I have decided, therefore, that an assessment should be made of what further work might be undertaken to seek to determine the actual cause of the loss of the Derbyshire, together with assessments of the costs involved, the likelihood of establishing the cause, and the likely benefits to ship safety. I have asked the right hon. Lord Donaldson of Lymington to undertake these assessments with the following terms of reference:
  55
  To assess—
  what further work would be needed in order to learn more of and, if possible, make a judgment about the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire in respect of each option for further work the assessed probability that the cause could be determined with reasonable confidence for each option the costs likely to be incurred what benefit to ship safety would be secured if the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire were established, or if better understanding of the cause of the loss was obtained, and whether in either case this would justify the likely costs involved.
  A technical assessor will be appointed to assist Lord Donaldson. Lord Donaldson's report to me will be published.

  British Rail Chairman
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a new chairman of British Rail has been appointed to succeed Sir Bob Reid when he leaves the post at the end of March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am very pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. John Welsby, CBE, to take over the chairmanship of British Rail at 1 April 1995. John Welsby has been British Rail's chief executive since 1990, and will also continue in this post.

  His appointment will be for a fixed period to 25 May 1998, at a salary of £180,000 a year. He will be eligible for a performance-related bonus of up to 40 per cent. of salary, in common with other executive board members and in accordance with Treasury guidelines.

  I am delighted that John Welsby has agreed to become the next chairman. His experience and long-standing commitment to improving our railways will be a great asset in taking forward the privatisation process. I know he is keen to see through these changes that are already underway, in order to develop and improve the railways to give rail user the services that we all want see.

  I should also like to pay tribute to Sir Bob Reid's achievement as chairman over the past five years. He has led BR through a period of substantial changes, which have improved both quality and efficiency in British Rail. I am grateful for all he has done.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what actions have been taken concerning departmental action on bomb warnings since the meeting of 14 June 1989 between assistant secretary C. T. Harris and Mr. and Mrs. Martin Cadman, Lockerbie relatives, and Mr. Derek Dempster, a member of the Air Transport Users' Committee.

  Mr. Norris
  A working group was established in 1990 with the specific aim of reviewing and developing the procedures issued by the Department to the industry for the handling of bomb warnings. As a result revised procedures were introduced into the national aviation security programme in July 1991. In addition, a supporting training package was developed for bomb warning assessors.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions over any convenient 56
  period in the last 10 years, a jumbo jet 747 has been parked at the centre stand serviced by the Euro-lounge, at the Euro terminal, terminal 2, Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not maintain such records. However, we have been told by a representative of Heathrow Airport Ltd. that this particular stand area did not, until recently, have the capacity to accommodate a Boeing 747 aircraft.

  Maid of the Seas Aircraft
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the records relating to all the movements for the Pan Am Clipper, Maid of the Seas, from the time it landed at London Heathrow on 21 December 1988 until departure for New York later that evening.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The official records relating to the movements of this aircraft were collated by the Metropolitan police as part of their investigation of the handling of the flight at Heathrow. We understand that such records may be required at a criminal trial.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry to ascertain for what reasons on 21 December 1988 the Pan Am Clipper, Maid of the Seas was parked at the centre stand in an insolated position at Euro terminal, terminal 2, Heathrow before setting off on flight 103, destination New York.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not hold full details of the information sought. However, available information shows that the Pan Am Boeing 747 Maid of the Seas did not park at terminal 2. It arrived at Heathrow airport from San Francisco at 12.07 hours on 21 December 1988, and disembarked its passengers at stand K14, terminal 3. The aircraft remained at that stand until 18.04 hours when it departed bound for New York.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the letter of 14 February from Mr. J. D. Rimmington CB, director general of the Health and Safety Executive, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what information he has been given by Railtrack about(a) the timetable for painting the lattice tie members on the Forth rail bridge, (b) the timetable for painting the compression members on the Forth rail bridge and (c) the qualifications of operating in a marine environment of those who made the judgments for Railtrack that there are no significant structural implications relating to rust or the movement to a longer term repainting cycle.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is in the second year of an eight-year programme for painting the lattice tie members of the Forth bridge. The strategy for painting the inclined tubular compression members is under review but should he resolved shortly. Railtrack has many structures subject to a marine environment. Judgments about structural integrity and steel work protection are taken on the advice of chartered structural civil and mechanical engineers employed by the railway. An assessment of the condition of the bridge, including advice on the principles to be adopted for future painting, has been carried out for Railtrack by consultants W. A. Fairhurst and Partners.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Responses to voluntary questionnaires show that at least 2.4 per cent.—315—of Department of Transport staff have a disability.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to whom and by what method a British traveller can obtain a response to a complaint about security on the Paris departure side of the channel tunnel rail route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  All complaints from British-based travellers should be addressed to the customer relations department of European Passenger Services, the United Kingdom operator of the Eurostar service.

  Rail Contracts
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many separate contracts will need to be completed in 1995–96 to enable the managed rail services to operate.

  Mr. Watts
  Railway industry organisations are currently translating into contractual form their existing operational and commercial relationships. No estimate is held centrally of the total number of contracts which will be entered into in 1995–96.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of how much more local funding is necessary before the Government release the funding they have promised for the midland metro line; how many jobs will be created by the new line; what other such rail lines are planned for the west midlands; and what percentage of funding for the midland metro line will come from the local area, and how much will come from the Government.

  Mr. Norris
  Where the benefits of a light rail scheme are primarily local in character, it is reasonable that the local community should make a significant contribution to the cost. There is no fixed percentage of the cost of such a scheme that the Government are prepared to contribute; in this case, the Government have offered to contribute between £95 million and £105 million, and invited the local community to consider ways in which it could provide the balance of funding required. We are discussing with the local authorities concerned proposals they have put to us on how this might be done.

  Centro—West Midlands PTE—estimates that the scheme will lead to the creation of around 1,300 jobs, including those involved in its construction. It has submitted grant applications for two further lines, one from Snow Hill station to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham international airport, and one from Wolverhampton, through Walsall, to Dudley and Brierley Hill.

  London Buses
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost of fitting London buses with particulate control technology.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for London Transport.

  Ticketing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement a 13-week bus and rail card in and around London, similar to the one being introduced in Birmingham.

  Mr. Norris
  Ticketing arrangements are a matter for the relevant operators.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of the use of fiscal means for encouraging the refurbishment of heavy duty diesel vehicles with particulate control technology to reduce exhaust emissions and the introduction of low sulphur fuel.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Old Sarum Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons Old Sarum airfield, Salisbury, has not been considered in his review of policy on public safety zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The current stage of our review has principally been concerned with broad policy rather than with its application to individual airports.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 482, if he has now received representations from the Channel Islands on nuclear waste shipments.

  Mr. Norris
  [pursuant to his reply 27 February 1995 column 464]: I have now received a fax dated 7 February sent to the Secretary of State by Mr. Peter Shanks of Guernsey Friends of the Earth expressing concern about the recent shipment of nuclear waste from France to Japan in a UK-registered vessel.

  I regret that this has only just come to light.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers are responsible in each Department for co-ordinating the Government's approach to the information super-highway;

  (2) which Minister is the overall co-ordinator for developing the Government's policy and approach to the information super-highway.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As the Minister with responsibility for telecommunications and technology, I represented the United Kingdom at the recent G7 conference on the information society, and am playing a leading role in
  59
  co-ordinating the development of Government's policy on information super-highways. I have set up a multimedia industry advisory committee which brings together industry experts, and specialists in health and education technologies, with the aim of assessing the policy implications of the development of multimedia and the opportunities for multimedia applications and communications. Ministers throughout Government are working together to help the UK make the best possible use of information super-highways and multimedia applications, and I am in close consultation with them. For example, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage are both Members of the MMIAC.

  I mentioned these matters in evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 25 January 1995.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Details on the percentage of staff with disabilities employed by the Department were given in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 7 February 1995,Official Report, columns 139–42.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is committed to achieving equality of opportunity for all its staff, including staff with disabilities.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were in(a) Lancashire and (b) Great Britain in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of Crown post offices in(a) Lancashire and (b) Great Britain in each year since 1990 are as follows:

  Lancashire

  Great Britain

  1 April 1990

  21

  1,315

  1 April 1991

  19

  1,143

  1 April 1992

  17

  997

  1 April 1993

  16

  896

  1 April 1994

  13

  782

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the current members of the Coal Authority; what qualifications they possess; and what will be their annual salary.

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 31 October 1994,Official Report, columns 992–93, and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 30 November 1994, Official Report, columns 706–07.

  Airbags
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cars built or assembled in the United Kingdom last year were fitted with(a) airbags and (b) airbags manufactured in the United Kingdom.
  60
  Mr. Page
  The information is not available without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the representations he has received recently in respect of the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: In the last three months my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received two representations. These were from hon. Members.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pay
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average increase in real take-home pay for all workers between(a) 1973–74 and 1978–79 and (b) 1978–79 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Real take-home pay for a single worker on average earnings fell by 2 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 and increased by 48 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1993–94. Real take-home pay for a married couple with two children, on average earnings, also fell by 2 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 and increased by 41 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1993–94.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of state for Employment what cost-benefit analysis he has made of the proposals in the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement to make the Fire Precautions Act 1971 a relevant statutory provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Responses to consultation on the report "Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement" are still being analysed. Decisions by Ministers will, in due course, be informed by examination of the costs and benefits of each option considered.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to lay before the House his draft safety signs regulations.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Commission have recently submitted the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. They are considering the draft regulations in the normal way and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to adopt collaborative bids to help regions to improve economic development.

  Mr. Paice
  Local bodies are already encouraged to adopt a collaborative approach to bidding for funds from the single regeneration budget to support economic development and regeneration.

  South Thames TEC
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department is seeking to be a preferential creditor following the collapse of South Thames training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department is a secured creditor of South Thames training and enterprise council by virtue of the debenture it has with the TEC.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what meetings he and his ministers have had with training agencies who had contracted with South Thames TEC, since the TEC's collapse.

  Mr. Paice
  None of the Ministers of this Department has had any meetings with training agencies who had contracted with South Thames training and enterprise council since the appointment of the receiver by South Thames TEC. However, officials from the Government office for London have been in contact with most providers.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what correspondence he has had with Coventry and Warwickshire Ltd. about its recent report on economic regeneration in that area; what plans he has to use these data in the future when deciding on funding in this area; and what regional characteristics he considers when developing employment initiatives for the west midlands.

  Mr. Paice
  My officials will be responding to the consultative document. The strategic report due to be produced as a result of the consultation process will be used to access any bids the partnership may make for Government support in the future.

  I am responsible for the design of national employment initiatives to meet the Government's commitment to improving business competitiveness. These initiatives are delivered by local training and enterprise councils who are responsible for ensuring that they are tailored to meet the needs of their area.

  South London TEC
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what claims were made by his Department on South London training and enterprise council for repayment of unsubstantiated claims made on his Department in earlier periods by the council.

  Mr. Paice
  During the last financial year, the Department claimed and recovered £10,000 as part of the routine visits under the financial appraisal and monitoring system. However, further substantive work undertaken by the Department and the National Audit Office identified a significant amount of unsubstantiated claims. At present, work is continuing with providers and the receiver to establish the final number of unsubstantiated claims for the last financial year. A similar exercise is also under way to establish the validity of the current year's unsubstantiated claims before 7 November 1994.

  Airbag Detonators
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which sites in the United Kingdom currently 62
  hold the licences necessary for the manufacture of airbag detonators.

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

  Airbag detonators, normally referred to as airbag igniters, are explosive devices and, if manufactured in the UK, are subject to licensing under the Explosive Act 1875. However, such licenses are normally written in general terms and therefore it is not possible to identify specifically those premises manufacturing airbag igniters.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 3.9 per cent. of staff in the Employment Department Group were registered as disabled at 1 July 1994, the latest date for which figures are available. The Department also employs other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

TREASURY

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  At 1 July 1994, 0.9 per cent. of Treasury staff were registered as disabled. The Treasury also employs a number of people with disabilities who have chosen not to register, for whom figures are not available.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the number of taxpayers in 1995–296 and the numbers of those who paid tax in each year from 1978–79 until 1994–295.

  Sir George Young
  Most people will pay some tax, either on their income or through expenditure on goods subject to indirect tax.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which the Government is required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish its response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Nelson
  : There are none.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) have a statutory base, (b) have a statutory requirement to publish an annual report, (c) are required to lay an annual report before Parliament and (d) are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  Of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Treasury the School Teachers'
  63
  Review Body has a statutory base and there is a statutory requirement to publish its reports.

  Postal Services (VAT)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the revenue from the imposition of the standard rate of VAT on public postal services in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what plans he has to safeguard the VAT exemption on public postal services;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the EU Commission's plans to review the VAT-exempt status given to public postal services.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The exemption from VAT on the public postal services in 1994–95 was estimated to be £200 million.

  VAT exemption on public postal services is safeguarded by the EC sixth VAT directive.

  The Government are unable to make any comment until such time as the Commission makes known its plans or proposals with regard to the current VAT-exempt status of the public postal services.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, given the provision in Finance Act 1994, extending relief from a deemed benefit in kind to include sole traders as well as partnerships, the Inland Revenue will not be seeking tax on any open assessments under this section where, had the new rules applied, there would be no liability.

  Sir George Young
  The changes in the 1994 Finance Act to the taxation of beneficial loan arrangements take effect from the tax year 1994–95. It is not proper for the Inland Revenue to anticipate those changes in any assessments for earlier years which happen still to be open. Such discretion would result in some taxpayers being more favourably treated than others, simply because they had more open assessment.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors were taken into account when

  Direct effects of illustrative changes in income tax1

  £million

  Full year cost/yield

  Receipts cost/yield

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Rates

  Change lower rate by Ip2

  520

  800

  650

  Change basic rate by Ip

  1,900

  1,700

  2,000

  Change higher rate by Ip

  460

  290

  470

  Allowances

  Change personal allowance by £100

  600

  490

  620

  Change age-related personal allowance by £1003

  60

  45

  60

  Change married couple's allowance by £1004

  150

  120

  150

  Change age-related married couple's allowance by £1003

  14

  11

  14

  Change aged income limit by £500

  14

  7

  13

  Change all personal allowances by 1 per cent.5

  240

  190

  250

  Change all personal allowances by 10 per cent.5

  2,350

  1,900

  2,450

  Change married couple's and related allowances by I per cent.5

  30

  25

  30

  Change married couple's and related allowances by 10 per cent.5

  290

  230

  300

  Lower rate band

  Increase lower rate band by 10 per cent.

  330

  260

  330

  64
  deciding to extend relief from a deemed benefit in kind to include sole traders as well as partnerships as provided for in the Finance Act 1994.

  Sir George Young
  Where an employee obtains a cheap or interest-free loan from his employer, he is taxed on the value of the benefit. The amount of the taxable benefit is the interest, or extra interest, he would have paid if the loan had been on ordinary commercial terms. But if the loan is used for a purpose which would have enabled commercial interest on it to qualify for tax relief, the extra tax payable on the benefit may be reduced or cancelled out. The purpose of giving relief in this way is so that an employee with a cheap loan used for a qualifying purpose pays the same amount of tax as one who is paid extra salary to meet the interest he is charged on a commercial loan used for the same purpose. Before the Finance Act 1994, this was not always achieved. Where an employee used a cheap or interest-free loan provided by his employer in a separate business in which he was a partner, tax relief was normally available, but there was no tax relief where the loan was used in a business in which the employee was the sole proprietor.

  The 1994 Finance Act amended the rules for taxing cheap or interest-free loans. From 6 April 1994, tax relief is available for cheap or interest-free loans used by an employee in a separate business, whether he is a partner or the sole proprietor. This brought into line the treatment of all cheap or interest-free loans, so that tax relief is available in the same way as for interest on loans used for other purposes such as home loans.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the figures in tables 6, 7 and 10 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner" and "Tax Reliefs", published in July 1994 to take account of the Budget and subsequent financial statement; and if he will include the equivalent full-year costs or yields.

  Sir George Young
  Updated versions of the ready-reckoners are in the tables. The changes are from a base incorporating the levels of tax allowances and so on for 1995–96 announced in the November 1994 Budget. Updated estimates of the costs of tax expenditure and structural reliefs are not available. They will be included in the next edition of the "Tax Ready-Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" booklet to he published in the summer.
  65

  Direct effects of illustrative changes in income tax1

  £million

  Full year cost/yield

  Receipts cost/yield

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Basic rate limit

  Change basic rate limit by 1 per cent.5

  90

  65

  90

  Change basic rate limit by 10 per cent.5increase (cost)

  810

  570

  820

  decrease (yield)

  1,000

  730

  1,050

  Allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit

  Change all main allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit 1 per cent.5

  390

  310

  400

  Change all main allowances, lower rate band and basic rate limit by 10 per cent.5

  increase (cost)

  3,800

  2,950

  3,900

  decrease (yield)

  4,200

  3,250

  4,300

  Note:

  1 The estimates are rounded. The extent of rounding reflects the desire to avoid undue compounding of its effects when numbers are pro-rated, rather than the accuracy of the estimates. The figures include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax. Changes are assumed to take effect from April 1995.

  2 Including the effects of the change on receipts of ACT and on consequential liability to mainstream corporation tax.

  3 Allowances for those aged 65–74 and aged 75 and over.

  4 Figures include revenue effects of changing the additional personal allowance and widow's bereavement allowance by £100.

  5 Percentage changes are calculated with reference to 1994–95 levels, except for the married couple's allowance and related allowances, where they are calculated with reference to the 1995–96 levels announced in the November 1993 Budget.

  Direct effects of illustrative changes in other direct taxes and national insurance contributions1

  £ million

  Full year cost/yield

  Receipts cost/yield

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Corporation tax2

  Change full rate by 1 percentage point

  800

  570

  890

  Change small companies' rate by 1 percentage point3

  120

  80

  130

  Capital gains tax

  Increase annual exempt amount by £500 for individuals and £250 for trustees

  5

  0

  3

  Inheritance tax

  Change rate by 1 percentage point

  38

  16

  33

  Increase threshold by £5000

  38

  16

  32

  National Insurance Contributions

  Change employee rate by 1 percentage point

  2,020

  1,810

  2,070

  Change main employer rate by 1 percentage point

  2,530

  2,270

  2,620

  Change all lower employer rates by 1 percentage point

  440

  390

  430

  Change Class 2 rate4 by £1

  110

  70

  100

  Change Class 4 rate5 by 1 percentage point

  120

  50

  110

  1 The estimated revenue effects of the changes are rounded. The extent of rounding reflects the desire to avoid undue compounding of its effects when numbers are pro-rated, rather than the accuracy of the estimates. Changes are assumed to take effect from April 1995, except where otherwise specified.

  2 Assessment to corporation tax normally relates to the preceding year. These estimates are the changes to revenue that would occur if the changed rates were applied to profits from 1 April 1994.

  3 These figures ignore effects arising from the imputation system.

  4 Flat rate contributions payable by the self-employed with earnings above the small earnings exemption rate (£3,200).

  5 Profit related contributions payable by the self employed.

  Uncollected Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected corporation tax(a) in cash terms, (b) of current values and (c) as a percentage for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The board of the Inland Revenue allows individual remissions of tax as an aspect of their responsibilities for the "care and management" of the direct taxes under section 1(1), Taxes Management Act 1970.
  66
  Sound management requires that tax which is not collected and which cannot practicably be collected—for example, because the taxpayer is insolvent or his whereabouts are unknown—should be written off. Similarly, it is on occasion necessary to remit tax which it would be unconscionable to collect—for example, because the payment would cause gross hardship to the taxpayer. The level of remissions fell for account 93 and is expected to fall again in 1994.
  67
  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue has very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

  The amounts of corporation tax written off for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  As a percentage of total CT collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices £

  1979

  15,182

  0.50

  47,079

  1980

  16,214

  0.49

  44,116

  1981

  20,688

  0.70

  51,295

  1982

  34,396

  0.89

  77,888

  1983

  40,912

  1.00

  85,409

  1984

  58,051

  1.23

  113,034

  1985

  75,342

  1.27

  133,725

  1986

  91,365

  1.11

  150,489

  1987

  92,830

  0.93

  137,960

  1988

  225,597

  1.92

  301,357

  1989

  151,368

  1.05

  186,209

  1990

  184,725

  1.17

  210,984

  1991

  320,929

  2.09

  351,891

  1992

  542,233

  4.64

  571,717

  1993

  417,814

  4.21

  417,814

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with 1993 prices.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected capital gains tax(a) in cash terms, (b) at current values and (c) as a percentage for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The board of the inland Revenue allows individual remissions of tax as an aspect of their responsibilities for the "care and management" of the direct taxes under section 1(1), Taxes Management Act 1970.

  Sound management requires that tax which is not collected and which cannot practicably be collected—that is because the taxpayer is insolvent or his whereabouts are unknown—should be written off. Similarly, it is on occasion necessary to remit tax which it would be unconscionable to collect–that is because the payment would cause gross hardship to the taxpayer. The amount remitted fell for account 93 and is expected to fall again in 1994.

  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue has very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

  The amounts of capital gains tax written off for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  As a percentage of total CGT collected

  Amount Expressed in 1993 prices £

  1979

  3,048

  0.73

  9,452

  1980

  3,591

  0.71

  9,771

  1981

  2,734

  0.61

  6,779

  1982

  4,868

  0.78

  11,023

  1983

  6,496

  1.01

  13.561

  1984

  5,998

  0.4

  11,679

  1985

  7,562

  0.93

  13,422

  1986

  10,064

  0.99

  16,576

  1987

  8,822

  0.79

  13,111

  68

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  As a percentage of total CGT collected

  Amount Expressed in 1993 prices £

  1988

  12,680

  0.80

  16,938

  1989

  10,864

  0.47

  13,365

  1990

  12,002

  0.64

  13,708

  1991

  29,721

  1.58

  32,588

  1992

  57,836

  4.69

  60,981

  1993

  50,397

  4.56

  50,397

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with 1993 prices.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected schedule D tax(a) in cash terms, (b) as current values and (c) as a percentage for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The board of the Inland Revenue allows individual remissions of tax as an aspect of their responsibilities for the "care and management" of the direct taxes under section 1(1), Taxes Management Act 1970.

  Sound management requires that tax which is not collected and which cannot be practicably collected—for example, because the taxpayer is insolvent or his whereabouts are unknown—should be written off. Similarly, it is on occasion necessary to remit tax which it would be unconscionable to collect—for example, because the payment would cause gross hardship to the taxpayer. The amount remitted fell for account 93 and is expected to fall again in 1994.

  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue has very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

  The amounts of schedule D tax written off for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount in thousands

  As a percentage of total schedule D collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices £

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  33,081

  0.79

  90,010

  1981

  41,552

  0.75

  103,028

  1982

  52,763

  0.84

  119,479

  1983

  68,536

  1.04

  143,078

  1984

  91,229

  1.32

  177,636

  1985

  90,196

  1.18

  160,090

  1986

  124,297

  1.29

  204,732

  1987

  133,878

  1.88

  198,964

  1988

  252,424

  3.06

  337,193

  1989

  242,024

  2.53

  297,731

  1990

  254,989

  2.35

  291,237

  1991

  383,566

  3.17

  420,571

  1992

  703,422

  5.16

  741,670

  1993

  701,787

  5.58

  701,787

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with 1993 prices.

  Separate figures are not available for 1979.
  69
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions deducted but not paid over to the Revenue(a) in cash terms, (b) at current values and (c) as a percentage for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The board of the Inland Revenue allows individual remissions of tax as an aspect of their responsibilities for the "care and management" of the direct taxes under Section 1(1), Taxes Management Act 1970.

  Year

  PAYE amounts in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total PAYE collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  Classes 1 and 1A NIC amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total NIC classes 1 and 1A collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 prices

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  9,914

  0.05

  26,975

  1,056

  0.01

  2,873

  1981

  11,432

  0.08

  28,345

  1,158

  0.01

  2,871

  1982

  15,281

  0.06

  34,603

  1,261

  0.01

  2,855

  1983

  22,622

  0.08

  47,227

  1,555

  0.01

  3,246

  1984

  33,312

  0.11

  64,863

  1,971

  0.01

  3,838

  1985

  46,695

  0.14

  82,879

  2,213

  0.01

  3,928

  1986

  60,915

  0.17

  100,334

  4,377

  0.02

  7,209

  1987

  92,560

  0.25

  137,559

  8,514

  0.03

  12,653

  1988

  130,724

  0.33

  174,624

  15,894

  0.06

  21,231

  1989

  122,890

  0.28

  151,176

  15,127

  0.05

  18,609

  1990

  107,091

  0.22

  122,314

  17,239

  0.05

  19,689

  1991

  135,285

  0.26

  148,307

  21,644

  0.06

  23,732

  1992

  381,172

  0.71

  401,898

  32,570

  0.09

  34,341

  1993

  388,190

  0.72

  388,190

  41,257

  0.1

  41,257

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with 1993 prices.

  Separate figures are not available for 1979.

  Tax Collection Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many collection staff were working for the Inland Revenue; and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax; (b) schedule D tax, (c)

  Year

  Total

  Capital gains tax

  Schedule D tax

  Corporation tax

  PAYE

  1978–79

  11,041

  135

  5,873

  560

  4,473

  1979–80

  10,648

  148

  5,701

  584

  4,215

  1980–81

  10,222

  143

  5,529

  597

  3,953

  1981–82

  10,124

  126

  5,747

  409

  3,842

  1982–83

  10,221

  116

  5,673

  390

  4,042

  1983–84

  10,171

  113

  5,570

  394

  4,094

  1984–85

  9,339

  92

  4,674

  557

  4,016

  1985–86

  8,443

  92

  4,596

  559

  3,196

  1986–87

  7,989

  85

  4,472

  530

  2,902

  1987–88

  7,795

  105

  4,250

  538

  2,902

  1988–89

  7,866

  121

  4,243

  571

  2,931

  1989–90

  7,879

  92

  4,243

  570

  2,974

  1990–91

  7,846

  79

  4,410

  549

  2,808

  1991–92

  8,187

  70

  4,376

  532

  3,209

  1992–93

  8,410

  69

  4,730

  492

  3,119

  1993–94

  8,173

  68

  4,695

  465

  2,945

  70
  Sound management requires that tax which is not collected and which cannot practicably be collected—for example, because the taxpayer is insolvent or his whereabouts are unknown—should he written off.

  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue has very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

  The amounts of PAYE and national insurance contributions uncollected and consequently remitted for written off for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  corporation tax, (d) PAYE and (e) national insurance contributions in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  Excluding staff employed on central administration, the table sets out the total numbers of Inland Revenue staff engaged on the collection of tax within the Department's accounts offices, local network, and enforcement offices for each year since 1978–79 and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax and (d) PAYE. Under (d) the figures include staff used in collecting PAYE from employers and a relatively small number of schedule E tax assessments. As resource usage of national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax collection it is not separately recorded.

  Capital
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current interest rate differential between publicly provided capital for the national health service education and British Rail and capital raised through his private finance initiative.

  Sir George Young
  For appraisal purposes, the pre-tax cost of capital for central Government activities is normally taken as 6 per cent. in real terms, or its nominal equivalent. For nationalised industries, financial objectives are specified in terms of a required rate of return of 8 per cent. in real terms. The cost of capital raised for projects under the private finance initiative will depend on the creditworthiness of the body concerned and the types of financing which best fit the project.

  Cross-border Shopping
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual loss of tax revenue from cross-border shopping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest annual estimates were included in HM Customs and Excise's submission to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and published in the Committee's report on 23 November 1994, 1994–95 Session, 1st report, HC35.

  Fraud
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 401, in what form the data on fraud are collected.

  Sir George Young
  The current reporting arrangements are set out in chapter 37 of "Government Accounting". The chapter includes the form to be used by Departments in reporting fraud.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the change in the standard of living of manual workers in manufacturing relative to white-collar workers in the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  Figures based on data from the new earnings survey show that between 1979 and 1994 average gross real earnings of manual workers in manufacturing rose by 20 per cent., compared to 57 per cent. for non-manual workers in the private sector as a whole.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage change in Britain's gross domestic product since the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The growth in real GDP—gross domestic product at constant factor cost—between the first quarter of 1990 and the fourth quarter of 1994 was 4.2 per cent.

  Price Stability
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the relative priority attached by Her Majesty's Government to price stability and to maximising living standards.
  72
  Mr. Aitken
  The objective of the Government's economic policy is to promote sustainable growth and increasing prosperity. Permanently low inflation, combined with sound public finances and structural policies to improve the long-term performance of the economy, is the best way to achieve this objective.

  National Power and PowerGen
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's sale of substantially all of its shareholdings in National Power Plc and PowerGen plc.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to report that the Government's United Kingdom public offer and international offers of National Power and PowerGen shares were successfully completed this morning, when dealings in interim rights started on the London Stock Exchange.

  As a result of bids received in the international offers, the prices of the third instalments for all investors in the UK public offer and the international offers were set at 136p per National Power interim right and 142p per PowerGen interim right.

  Accordingly, the price for National Power interim rights purchased in the UK public offer was 476p per share, comprising 170p paid on successful application, 170p to be paid by 6 February 1996 and 136p to be paid by 17 September 1996.

  The price for PowerGen interim rights purchased in the United Kingdom public offer was 512p per share, comprising 185p paid on successful application, 185p to be paid by 6 February 1996 and 142p to be paid by 17 September 1996.

  The price for interim rights purchased in the international offer of National Power shares was 486p per share, comprising 180p paid on successful application, 170p to be paid by 6 February 1996 and 136p to be paid by 17 September 1996.

  The price for interim rights purchased in the international offer of PowerGen shares was 522p per share, comprising 195p paid on successful application, 185p to be paid by 6 February 1996 and 142p to be paid by 17 September 1996.

  The Government offered for sale up to 371.8 million National Power shares and 238.3 million PowerGen shares in the UK public offer and the international offers.

  Some 1.1 million applications were received in the UK public offer for a total of some 367 million National Power and some 245 million PowerGen shares. This represented two times the share initially expected to be sold in the UK public offer. In response to this demand, the Government increased the total number of shares allotted to the UK public offer to 229 million National Power and 153 million PowerGen shares. At this level, the number of shares applied for in the UK public offer represented some 1.6 times the share available.

  Over 98 per cent. of applicants in the UK public offer received an allocation of shares. Half of all applicants had their applications met in full.

  Almost 248,000 qualifying National Power and PowerGen shareholders and more than 2,600 eligible National Power and PowerGen employees made applications in the UK public offer. All such applicants

  73
  received an allocation of National Power or PowerGen shares, as appropriate.

  Excluding the retail tender, 108.5 million National Power shares and 56.1 million PowerGen shares were allocated to bidders in the international offers. This number does not include any shares that Kleinwort Benson Ltd. and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd. may have over-allotted in connection with the international offers. The extent of any such over-allotment will not be disclosed until later. As already announced, Kleinwort Benson Lid. and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd. may also effect stabilisation transactions.

  Individual investors bidding in the UK retail tender bid for some 24 million shares in National Power and 28 million shares in PowerGen. Of these numbers, some 10 million shares and some 12 million shares, respectively, were in respect of PEP applications.

  In addition to the shares sold in the UK public offer and the International Offers, Kleinwort Benson Ltd. and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd. as global co-ordinators for the s ale, hold an option to acquire from Her Majesty's Treasury up to a further 37.2 million National Power and 23.8 million PowerGen shares for the purpose of meeting any over-allotment made by them in connection with the relevant International Offer. This option must be exercised by 5 April 1995.

  Pursuant to an agreement with HM Treasury, National Power plc purchased 98 million shares in conjunction with the offers, at a price consistent with the international offer price. Total gross proceeds from this purchase amount to some £453 million and will be received in this financial year.

  Similarly, pursuant to an agreement to HM Treasury, PowerGen plc has purchased 60 million shares in conjunction with the offers, at a price consistent with the international offer price. Total gross proceeds amount to some £292 million and will be received in this financial year.

  Total gross proceeds from the UK public offer, the international offers and share repurchases amount to some £3,642 million, of which some £1,782 million is expected to be received in this financial year.

  Total gross proceeds may be further increased by a maximum of £305 million to the extent that, if at all, the global co-ordinator, Kleinwort Benson Ltd and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd. exercises its option to acquire further shares.

  The costs to the Government of the National Power and PowerGen shares offers, and of the share repurchase arrangements, are estimated to be as follows:

  UK Offers

  £ million

  Marketing

  15.2

  Share Shop Commissions

  18.7

  Prospectus production and distribution

  0.6

  Receiving Banks

  3.1

  Advisers' fees and expenses

  7.9

  Total (UK Offers)

  45.6

  International Offers commissions and other costs

  15.1

  Total (UK and Overseas Offers)

  60.7

  74
  Those costs represent about 1.7 per cent. of the estimated total proceeds due from the sale of shares—excluding any shares that the global co-ordinator have an option to purchase. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government, which are not net costs to the Exchequer. There will be some further expenditure in 1995–96 onwards in respect of instalment collection and the issue of bonus shares.

  Following the offers, the purchase of shares by National Power and PowerGen and assuming the exercise in full of the option over National Power and PowerGen shares granted by Her Majesty's Treasury to Kleinwort Benson Ltd. and Barlcays de Zoete Wedd Securities Ltd., Her Majesty's Treasury expects to hold not more than 1 per cent. of the issued share capital of either company. These amounts comprise principally shares that may he needed to meet share bonus entitlements under the UK public offer.

  Muriel Nissel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for a copy to he placed in the Library of Muriel Nissel's article written for the latest issue of Social Trends but not published.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The article Mrs. Nissel submitted to the CSO was not included in the latest edition of Social Trends. However, I understand that it will be published in a forthcoming edition of the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Copies of the journal are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Barings Bank
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to public funds for the Bank of England of the Bank's offer to provide liquidity for the rescue of Barings; and if he will instruct the Bank to make no further offers of this nature.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on Monday 27 February, the Bank of England stands ready to provide liquidity to the banking system to ensure that it continues to function normally. There was no rescue of Barings and the Governor did not recommend that public funds should he used for this purpose.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made as to by what method and to what extent the asset management arm of Barings is ring fenced to protect it from any disadvantageous situations arising in its other divisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: Barings is now in the hands of the administrators. The regulatory requirements applying to fund management should protect the fund management arm from losses elsewhere in the group, but any investors' cash balances held on deposit at Barings Bank will he frozen. Current discussions between the administrators and the ING Group raise the prospect that a favourable settlement may be obtained.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the position of local authorities who had money on short-term deposit with Barings bank; and if he will make a statement.
  75
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding reply 2 March 1995]: The administrators are currently engaged in identifying the options for realising maximum benefits for creditors of Barings. Current discussions between the administrators and the ING Group raise the prospect that a favourable settlement may be obtained, but until the administration order is lifted, deposits remain frozen.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that no public money will be used directly or indirectly in any attempt to rescue Barings and that the Bank of England should not put any of its own money at risk in such a rescue attempt.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: As my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor told the House on Monday 27 February, the Governor did not recommend, and in any event he would not have agreed, that public funds should be used to rescue Barings.

  Derivatives Markets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for regulation of derivative markets to ensure that the bank exposure is geared to a fixed ratio to the capital of the bank concerned.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: We have no current proposals for further regulation of derivatives. The Bank of England already sets a variety of capital requirements for credit institutions depending on the nature of business in which they are engaged. The capital adequacy directive, which comes into force at the end of this year, provides for EU-wide rules on the capital which must be held against market risks, including those involved in derivatives markets.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on Monday 27 February, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. Any lessons to be drawn must await a thorough analysis.

  Banks (Regulation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the Bank of England power to inspect the operations and control structures, and audit the accounts of, all overseas operations of subsidiaries of British banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: The Banking Act 1987 already gives the Bank of England extensive powers to supervise the worldwide operations of UK authorised institutions. These powers do not, however, apply directly to non-banking subsidiaries. Their supervision requires co-operation with other relevant regulators. As my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor told the House on Monday 27 February, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. Any lessons to he drawn must await a thorough analysis.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proposals he has for setting up an independent regulator with its own inspectors and audit teams to regulate banking.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: The Bank of England already discharges these responsibilities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's achievements in the northern region since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have had many achievements in the northern region since 1979 as our policies have created a favourable economic climate for growth. During this period the region has undergone the biggest transformation since the 19th century with the emergence of a new and diverse industrial base. Pharmaceutical, food processing, clothing, light engineering, electronics and car manufacture have replaced traditional industries. In the area covered by the Government office for the north-east this change has come about through a range of measures:
  the attraction of £3 billion overseas investment since 1985, the most notable successes of which were Nissan and Samsung and a further £1.3 billion private sector investment into the areas covered by the Tyne and Wear and Teesside Development Corporations since 1987, creating and safeguarding over 30,000 jobs;over 5,500 hectares of derelict land reclaimed, including over 700 by the Urban Development Corporations in Tyne and Wear and on Teesside;in partnership with other organisations, the region's Training and Enterprise Councils have successfully developed innovative solutions to the training and enterprise needs of their areas including the establishment of a business innovation Centre in Sunderland and a management training and higher education facility in Northumberland. TEC's in the region have also piloted a number of new initiatives: Open Learning Credits, Youth Credits, Adult Credits, the Out of School Childcare Grant, Workstart and Skillchoice.;assisting over 26,000 unemployed people to start their own businesses since 1987 through the Businesses Start Up Scheme run by Training and Enterprise Councils;820,000 people placed in jobs by the Employment Service since 1986:unemployment has fallen by 16,100 or nearly 10 per cent. since the national peak in December 1992;a substantial number of homes built and improved;over 4,000 jobs created, 5,000 jobs preserved and 550 new businesses assisted by the South Tyneside and Stockton and Thornaby Task Force; and,an increase in the numbers of young people staying in full-time education after reaching school leaving age. 12.4 per cent of those leaving schools in the region in 1992–93 intended to pursue a Degree course.
  The region also piloted the development of job clubs, now a successful national programme and expects to become the first to have contracted out careers services and to have facilitated a comprehensive network of Business Links.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Internet E-mail numbers of all Government Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  It is a matter for individual Ministers to decide whether to make public their Internet electronic mail addresses. The two Ministers with responsibility for use of the Internet are the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whose E-mail addresses are publicly available.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what role the Cabinet plays in the formulation of(a) economic policy, (b) monetary policy and (c) policy on a single European currency.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet is the ultimate arbitrator of all aspects of Government policy.

  Social Development Summit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 412, if the Minister for Overseas Development, in representing him at the Heads of State world summit for social development in Copenhagen, is responsible for negotiating those aspects of the draft declaration and action programme covering national action within the United Kingdom to reduce inequality and poverty and promote full employment and social integration.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will represent me at the high level segment of the summit on 11-12 March. My right hon. and noble Friend will make a statement setting out the United Kingdom perspective on the issues covered by the summit.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 412, if he will publish briefs which have been prepared by his Government for discussion at the world summit for social development about social development and anti-poverty measures taken and proposed to be taken in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to do so. It is not usual to publish briefing provided by officials to Ministers. The speeches of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development will be published, and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Lockerbie
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has which would allow Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America to resolve the Lockerbie affair other than by way of instituting criminal proceeding in Scotland or the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Lockerbie bombing was a crime committed against a United States aircraft over Scotland. It has been investigated from Scotland with the co-operation of the United States authorities. The trial of those accused of this terrible crime must take place in Scotland or the United States. This has been confirmed by the UN Security Council.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the role in Beirut in 1988 of Ron Carviene, Bill Leyene and Dan O'Connor, tinder the command of Matthew Gannon and Charles McKee.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had when he last met President Clinton on the subject of the setting up of an international court to try those persons alleged to have perpetrated the murders of the passengers and crew members of Pan Am flight 103 and residents of Lockerbie in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  78
  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum for No. 10 Downing street in 1989 adducing the reasons why Her Majesty's Government would not allow the public inquiry into the Lockerbie crime; and at what level the decision on the public inquiry was taken.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not usual practice to place internal Government correspondence in the Library. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 10 January,Official Report, column 20.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow what examination has taken place of the Toshiba and Helsinki warnings in relation to Lockerbie since the fatal accident inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  The fatal accident inquiry, which took place 22 months after the disaster, examined both warnings in some detail. In his determination, the Sheriff Principal concluded that the so-called Toshiba warning was not relevant to the circumstances of the deaths and that the so-called Helsinki warning lacked credibility. It has therefore not been considered necessary to conduct further examinations into these.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have had from the German Government about their interrogation of Edwin Bolliers's Statsi control and the sale of timing devices to the Statsi.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss the implications with President Clinton of the FBI briefing paper regarding Iranian links and baggage being unloaded on Air Malta 180 destination Frankfurt airport.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if British authorities have interviewed Marwin Khreesat, a bomb maker, briefly detained and then released in Neuss, Germany;

  (2) if he will put the transcript of the interview with Mr. Ghandanfar and Mr. Dalkamouni in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it would he wrong to reveal details of the evidence in a criminal case while proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask Chancellor Kohl the reasons why in October 1988 the Verfassungschütz released certain Palestinians and their bomb-making equipment.

  The Prime Minister
  The release of detainees from German prisons is a matter entirely for the German authorities.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the prima facie evidence that a German-based terrorist organisation used its knowledge of a covert United States drugs operation to switch an unaccompanied bag containing drugs with an identical bag containing a bomb which destroyed Pan Am Flight 103.

  The Prime Minister
  The allegation has been examined. No evidence has been found to support it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Lockerbie victims' families regarding information conveyed to them by
  79
  members of the United States commission about the extent of the information available to United States and United Kingdom Governments and the probability of its publication; what elements of the United States commission's findings support the families' version; and if he will place in the Library the United Kingdom responses to these findings.

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently received a letter from the family of a Lockerbie victim which referred to the United States President's commission on aviation security and terrorism. A copy of the commission's report, dated May 1990 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government has made of the role of Khaled Jaafar, a Lebanese victim of the Lockerbie bombing.

  The Prime Minister
  The fatal accident inquiry in 1990–91 considered allegations of involvement of Khaled Jaafar in the bombing. In his determination, the sheriff principal concluded that there was no connection between Mr. Jaafar and the suitcase which contained the bomb.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister on what evidence British officials publicly dismissed a document of the United States Air Force, air intelligence unit, asserting that Ali Akbar Mostashemi, former Iranian Interior Minister, paid $10 million to terrorist gangs to carry out the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, as based on dud intelligence.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January,Official Report, columns 299–300.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of American reports about the destruction of Pan Am 103, based on reports from defecting Iranian pilots.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January,Official Report, columns 299–300

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 January, what strategy, other than demanding a trial of Libyan suspects, Her Majesty's Government have for obtaining justice for all the victims of the crime of Lockerbie.
  The Prime Minister: The Lockerbie investigation has been the most exhaustive ever undertaken in this country. It remains open but has to date uncovered evidence to support charges against the two Libyans accused. Our demands, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council have been for the surrender of the accused for trial in the United States or Scotland, the satisfaction of French justice over the bombing of UTA 772, the payment of appropriate compensation and concrete proof from Libya that it has renounced terrorism. I can see no other means of meeting the legitimate demands for justice than by trial of the persons alleged to be responsible before a criminal court properly exercising jurisdiction in respect of these matters.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government were informed on or about 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee by the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I understand Major McKee was not an employee of the DEA.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his answer on 14 February,Official Report, column 571,
  80
  he will identify the partners to whom he referred in relation to discussions about Lockerbie and UTH 772.

  The Prime Minister
  The United States, France, other EU states and other friendly countries. We work most closely with the United States and France, the other states most seriously affected by the Lockerbie and UTA bombings. The Lockerbie issue is raised in bilateral contacts with a wide range of countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information came to Her Majesty's Government about approaches by members of the Juafar family offering precise testimony about Hezbollah and Achmed Tibril and their role in using a member of the Juafar family to get a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103.

  The Prime Minister
  No such approaches have been received.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what reports the United Kingdom and the United States authorities in Cyprus received from Mr. David Lovejoy, an employee of the United States Government directly or through other sources on the movements of the United States hostage rescue team, including Matthew Gannon and Major Charles McKee subsequently killed at Lockerbie, before the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will discuss with President Clinton the reasons why these reports were sought.

  The Prime Minister
  The British authorities in Cyprus neither sought nor received any such reports.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his Private Secretary, Mr. Edward Oakden's letter of 18 January to the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, if he will bring forward proposals whereby fatal accident inquiry presiding judges can have access to intelligence information.

  The Prime Minister
  Section 4(3) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths (Scotland) Act 1976 requires that, subject to an exception relating to the reporting of matters affecting persons under the age of 17, any fatal accident inquiry shall be open to the public. There are no proposals to amend that provision.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 February on Lockerbie, if he will list the witnesses interviewed by the German authorities at the request of, or in consultation with, the Scottish authorities and on what dates; and on what occasions Scottish officers were present, assisting at interviews.

  The Prime Minister
  Disclosure of the fact the Messrs Ghadanfar and Dalkamouni were interviewed was an exceptional step taken only because of the unwarranted criticisms which had been, and were continuing to be, made of the German authorities and the Scottish police. It would not be appropriate to go beyond this by discussing details of confidential communications between the Scottish police and prosecuting authorities and their counterparts in Germany, or indeed in any other country.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 26 January,Official Report, column 300, in what month of what year allegations were first made to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostashemi had paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out; who were the competent authorities to whom the Prime Minister refers; and how much of the

  81
  alleged contradicting material came from Abdul Meged Jiacha.

  The Prime Minister
  This allegation first appeared in the British press in September 1989. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January,Official Report, column 299–300.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the statement of Mr. Vincent Cannistraro, head of the CIA counter-terrorism operations until 1990, that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command was implicated in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and had been planning other operations against United States and Israeli targets when some of its members' squad were arrested in Frankfurt and that the operation had been bankrolled by Iranians.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the posting of warnings about Pan Am flight 103 on United States embassy bulletin boards, and the subsequent United States directive requiring imprisonment of officials, should they discuss warnings with family, friends, and colleagues in the absence of a public warning.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  European Courts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the leaders of the other member states of the European Union, on the modification of structure, membership and functions of(a) the European Court of Auditors, (b) the European court of first instance, and (c) the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We did not discuss these issues at the last European Council meeting in Essen, but, as I said in my December statement to the House, we did emphasise that, in the interests of combating fraud and waste, the Council must ensure that the Court of Auditors' reports are rigorously scrutinised and followed up.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to assist the speedy conclusion of the Scott inquiry and to ensure that the report is published before 1 May.

  The Prime Minister
  As I said when I announced the terms of reference for the inquiry on 16 November 1992,Official Report, columns 74–75, Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report. The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Government continue to give Sir Richard Scott's inquiry the fullest possible co-operation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary Office of Public Service and 82
  Science gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 February, Official Report, column 712.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, in what circumstances a public inquiry may take evidence on intelligence matters in camera.

  The Prime Minister
  Whether and to what extent a public inquiry may take evidence in camera depends on the powers given to the inquiry when it is established.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty with Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Command Papers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: Her Majesty's Stationery Office aims to recover all production and distribution costs from the sales revenue of all White Papers and Green Papers which it publishes. The cost to my Office of the 1994 pay review body reports was approximately £8,000. Figures for 1980 are not available.

SCOTLAND

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust most recently sought a meeting with him; what date the meeting took place; what matters were discussed; when the next meeting is planned; what matters will be discussed; if he intends to raise the matter of care in the community provision in Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not received a request from the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust for a meeting and there are no current plans for a meeting to be held at a future date.

  My right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving a copy of Argyll and Clyde health board's draft joint community care plan. Only then can an assessment he made of the planned provision and its impact upon the services currently provided by the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust.

  Case Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many cases under summary procedure, have been brought to trial within 14 days by(a) the Paisley procurator fiscal, and (b) other procurator fiscal offices in the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
  83
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available. Procurators fiscal are required to keep a record only of the average number of weeks between pleading and trial diet. The period will vary according to the particulars of the case. For example, in custody cases under summary procedure, the trial must commence within 40 days of the bringing of the complaint in court. If the accused is not in custody, there is likely to be a delay of several weeks between the diets, unless the circumstances justify the fixing of an early trial diet. Early diets are often fixed in cases involving children or where the anticipated availability of particular witnesses makes an early diet desirable.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidelines he has issued to NHS trusts in Scotland regarding the use of staff facilities including canteens and cafeterias, for hiring out for commercial catering functions; what guidelines he has issued to prohibit or discourage such practice and use; what assessment he has made of the practice of the Royal Alexandra hospital, Paisley; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what facilities are available in the Royal Alexandra hospital, Paisley for supplying hot meals to staff; for what reasons such facilities are not always available for staff use; what alternative arrangements are made on such occasions; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when the dance floor in the staff facilities at the Royal Alexander hospital in Paisley was installed; how much it cost; who approved the expenditure; what cost-benefit analysis was carried out; what were the results of that study; what are the precise projections of financial commercial gain to the trust; to what use any profit will be applied; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 gives health bodies the power to generate additional funds to be used for the purposes of enhancing and improving patient care. Income generation is now an integral part of all NHS activity, but no specific guidance has been issued to NHS trusts regarding the use of staff facilities. It is for each NHS trust to determine opportunities for generating income from non-clinical activities.

  There have only been two occasions when the main dining room at the Royal Alexander hospital has been closed for the night meal service. On these occasions staff were informed in advance that an alternative facility would be available in the maternity unit dining room, an area which is not normally open at night. Hot food was available to staff on both these occasions.

  An area suitable for dancing was created within the dining room in December 1994 at a cost of £3,000. This was met from hospital endowment funds following approval by the trust's investments committee. The income generated will he re-invested in the endowment funds. No Exchequer funds were involved.

  The dining room has been hired out for functions for a number of years, and the income received is invested in enhancing patient care services. The main impetus for improved social facilities came from hospital staff.

  Procurator Fiscal's Office, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of whether the procurator fiscal's office in the sheriffdom of Paisley has operated efficiently, effectively, objectively and impartially in all cases placed before it since 1984; if he will make particular reference to those cases involving people who were elected as a councillor at the time the charge was made against them; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will instruct an independent inquiry into the efficiency, effectiveness and operational and objective impartiality of the procurator fiscal's office in the Paisley sheriffdom;

  (3) if he will make a statement on his assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness and operational and objective impartiality of the procurator fiscal's office in the Paisley sheriffdom since 1984;

  (4) what is the normal involvement of the Crown Office in matters of summary procedure; how many such cases have been referred by the procurator fiscal at Paisley to the Crown Office in each of the past 10 years; what were the reasons and circumstances for these referrals; how many of these involved elected councillors; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what assessment he has made of whether, in relation to the policy and operation of Paisley procurator fiscal's office, any person accused or suspected of any criminal offence was more or less likely to be charged because they held elected office as a councillor; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what assessment he has made of whether all prosecutions conducted by the Paisley procurator fiscal's office since 1984, where the suspect or accused held elected office as a member of a local authority at the time of alleged offence, have been conducted properly and in the same manner as those not holding such office and that the involvement of Strathclyde police in all such cases has been conducted properly, and in the same manner as cases which did not involve the holder of such office; and if he will make a statement.

  (7) what assessment he has made of the operation and policy of the procurator fiscal's office in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the procurator fiscal and his deputes reach decisions, including those relating to cases involving elected councillors, on an impartial basis. Such cases are dealt with on exactly the same basis as reports relating to any other accused persons. The decision whether to take proceedings and the nature of any proceedings will be determined on the basis of the procurator fiscal's assessment of all the relevant circumstances including the public interest. There is no requirement to report summary cases to the Crown Office, although procurators fiscal are free to do so if they wish to seek Crown counsel's advice on any aspect of the case. Procurators fiscal do not keep a record of cases involving councillors or of cases reported to the Crown Office. Accordingly, no information is available as to the number of cases referred to the Crown Office by the procurator fiscal at Paisley.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is aware, however, of three cases, involving elected councillors, reported to the procurator fiscal at Paisley.

  85
  In two of these cases criminal proceedings were taken and in one no criminal proceedings were taken. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that in each case the decision represented an appropriate exercise of the procurator fiscal's discretion, and that the decisions were arrived at impartially. The effectiveness and efficiency of all procurator fiscal offices is kepi under review by the Crown Office through a programme of office reviews. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate does not intend to instruct an independent inquiry into the operation of the Paisley office.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, in how many cases under summary procedure in the last 10 years the procurator fiscal at Paisley has paid for witnesses to be flown to from countries outside the British Isles; how many involved police escorts; what was the cost to the public purse in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for an independent inquiry into the operational efficiency, effectiveness and objective impartiality of the Paisley procurator fiscal's office he has received since 1992 from right hon. and hon. Members; how many similar requests were made of the Lord Advocate by right hon. and hon. Members; if he will list those made by right hon. Members representing constituencies in Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland nor my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has received any general request from any Member of Parliament for an independent inquiry into the operational efficiency, effectiveness and objective impartiality of the procurator fiscal's office at Paisley. On the other hand, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is aware of three requests for independent inquiries into the handling of particular cases. Two of these requests were made by the hon. Member himself and one was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate does not accept that there is any need for an independent inquiry into the handling of cases by the procurator fiscal's office at Paisley.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss bringing the 56 flats in Waverley court, Foxbar, hack into habitable use; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend meets the board of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range but he would not normally discuss detailed matters of operation such as this. I shall therefore ask the chairman of Scottish Homes to write to the hon. Member.

  Structural Funding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the contribution of capital costs associated with the redevelopment of 86
  Houstoun square, Johnstone, by (a) European Community sources, (b) central Government sources, (c) Renfrewshire Enterprise, (d) Strathclyde regional council and (e) Renfrew district council.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The western Scotland objective 2 programme management committee recently approved ERDF funding of £246,000 towards £491,000 of eligible expenditure on the project. The application indicated that Renfrewshire Enterprise is to contribute £95,000 and that Renfrew district council is to contribute £150,000 towards the ERDF-eligible costs. We understand that Renfrew district council is to contribute a further £50,000 in respect of costs which are not eligible for ERDF support. We are not aware of any proposed contribution by Strathclyde regional council or of any application for central Government support. Decisions on the level of support for this project by Renfrewshire Enterprise and Renfrew district council are entirely for these bodies to make.

  Flood Prevention Schemes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to impose a statutory duty, rather than a permissive right, on local authorities to submit flood prevention schemes to him for approval and funding assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 already provides that where a regional or islands council wishes to carry out flood prevention operations, other than maintenance or management, these operations must be carried out in accordance with a scheme made by the council and confirmed by the Secretary of State. These arrangements will apply also to the new unitary local authorities. Fifty per cent. Government grant is payable to the authorities concerned on the eligible capital costs of confirmed schemes.

  Hospitals, Renfrewshire
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of(a) Dykebar hospital, Paisley and (b) Elderslie hospital; when he last discussed their future with representatives of Renfrewshire Healthcare trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not received a request from Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust for a meeting and there are no current plans for a meeting to be held at a future date.

  The Argyll and Clyde health board is committed to developing quality care in the community which in time will lead to increased provision and care support outwith hospital settings.

  I understand that the board's draft joint community care plan which covers the period up to 1998 has no specific proposals to close Dykebar hospital.

  The future of Elderslie hospital and the reprovision of services was the subject of a detailed public consultation exercise in 1992. It is the health board's intention to close Elderslie hospital once quality replacement community services have been created. Closure will require the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what stage he has reached in his consideration
  87
  of the application for the prerogative of mercy submitted to him by solicitor Gordon Ritchie on behalf of Raymond Gilmour; what assessment he has made of whether it would be appropriate for him to meet the hon. Member for Paisley South, Mr. Ritchie and others prior to his final decision on the case; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Fresh representations were submitted on behalf of Mr. Raymond Gilmour on 12 December 1994 and 1 February this year. These are currently under consideration and the hon. Member will be informed once our inquiries are complete. Any request for a meeting could be considered at that stage.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes the Lord Advocate proposes to make in respect of the matters dealt with in his letter dated 6th July to the hon. Member for Paisley, South.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has no plans to make changes in respect of any of the matters referred to in his letter.

  Red Star Parcel Service
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Department of Transport and the Treasury over the sale of Red Star parcel service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I concur with the sale of Red Star and have made no representations.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify the quantity and nature of the drugs found in the debris near Lockerbie after the destruction of Pan Am 103.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No significant quantities of drugs were recovered in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Small "users" quantities of cannabis were found.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study the Crown Office has made of the "File on Four" investigation of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on the evidence against two accused Libyans.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Crown Office officials have considered this programme, as they have other media productions which have come to their attention. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate considers that the appropriate place to test the results of the Lockerbie investigation is in the criminal courts and not on a radio programme.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of the documents dealing with the only direct alleged eye-witness evidence identifying the alleged Libyan agents in Malta, supposedly involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot disclose details of the evidence in the Lockerbie case while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Crown Office will place in the Library the 88
  report given to representative James Tafficant of Ohio of investigators hired by Pan Am insurance underwriters alleging that the CIA had allowed a man with terrorist connections to transport drugs to the United States in exchange for information about United States hostages in Lebanon.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not in accordance with the policy of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to arrange for foreign litigation material to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the letter from the senior legal assistant to the Lord Advocate, Mr. A. Dunn, to Mr. Martin Cadman of the Lockerbie Relatives Association concerning the examination by the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway police of the evidence in "Maltese Double Cross".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the policy of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to arrange for such correspondence to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the results of the Crown Office examination of the evidence in "Maltese Double Cross"

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It would be inappropriate to disclose the results of the examination of a film purporting to investigate the Lockerbie bombing while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what communication the Crown Office has had with Der Spiegel in relation to Lockerbie, and the information published in Der Spiegel, of March 1995, in the article "Lockerbie: War Es Abu Nudal'?"

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no communications between Crown Office and Der Spiegel in relation to the article "Lockerbie: War Es Abu Nidal?" published in January 1995.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusion the Crown Office adduced from the court award to Air Malta of compensation against Granada Television in relation to its allegations about the role of Malta G.C. in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office has drawn no conclusions from settlement of a civil litigation which proceeded upon the basis of allegations which are different in detail from those contained within the charges in the petition warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused of this crime.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish police have interviewed Maurice Callejas, Commander of the Maltese armed forces in 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what positive identification took place by anyone interviewed by the Scottish police in Malta of Libyan suspects.
  89
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot disclose details of the evidence in the Lockerbie case while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates Scottish police interviewed Dr. David Fieldhouse, Bradford police surgeon, in connection with his work in the Lockerbie area in December 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dr. Fieldhouse travelled to Lockerbie on a number of occasions in early 1989. He held discussions there with officers of Dumfries and Galloway police concerning his involvement in the identification and examination of Lockerbie victims. These discussions culminated in his submission of a detailed statement to them on 22 April 1989.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Crown Office endorsed the apology given in his written report by Sheriff John Mowat to Dr. David Fieldhouse for overlooking his information about Lockerbie body DCF 12 Male, Hillside NE of Shawhill farm and of the undeserved criticism of his activities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sheriff Principal Mowat QC did not apologise for overlooking information about a body but apologised for criticism which had been made of Dr. Fieldhouse during the fatal accident inquiry relating to the Lockerbie disaster. The Sheriff Principal found in terms that Dr. Fieldhouse had pronounced life extinct in 58 bodies. That accorded with the evidence of the police at the fatal accident inquiry.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to the letter JAD/91 of 9 January from Mr. J. A. Dunn, senior legal assistant at the Crown Office, to Mr. Martin Cadman, father of a victim of Pan Am 103, what new material arising from examination of the film "Maltese Double Cross" has been investigated and subjected to detailed scrutiny.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It would be inappropriate to disclose the results of the examination of a film purporting to investigate the Lockerbie bombing while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Crown Office has sought to interview Mr. James Shaughnessy, lawyer for Pan Am, with regard to United States-United Kingdom surveillance of the Iranian embassy in Beirut in the second half of 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if(a) the Crown Office and (b) the Scottish police have sought to interview Mr. Ali Nuri Zadeh about his reports in the Al Dustur newspaper involving Matthew Gannon and Charles McKee, both of whom perished at Lockerbie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Crown Office has given to the 90
  advancing age of those witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to lead in court in relation to the Lockerbie case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office has noted the passing of time.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grounds the Crown Office has for supposing that a criminal trial in relation to Lockerbie can still be anticipated as indicated in the Lord Advocate's letter, CAD/E/MP/286/93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A trial will take place as and when the Libyans make the two accused available for trial in Scotland or the United States as required by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the journalist, Alasdair Palmer, is employed in any capacity by Her Majesty's Government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Alasdair Palmer is not employed in any capacity by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what knowledge he has of body DCF 12 Male, Hillside, NE of Shawhill farm found at Lockerbie by Dr. David Fieldhouse.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the fatal accident inquiry relating to the Lockerbie disaster, Dr. Fieldhouse gave evidence that there was no record of the body which he had labelled as DCF 12 being found by the police. Dr. Fieldhouse went on to state that the assumption was that there had been human error in recording the location of that body although he considered it to be unlikely that the error could have arisen from his involvement at that particular location. Dr. Fieldhouse went on to state that the suggested locations given by him for bodies did riot match up in all cases with the police information. Having considered all the evidence, the Sheriff Principal, in his determination, concluded that Dr. Fieldhouse pronounced life extinct in 58 bodies. That accorded with the evidence of the police at the fatal accident inquiry.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the 18 separate statements that Tony Gavci, clothing shopkeeper of Malta, gave to Scottish police.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot disclose details of evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish police have a sworn statement from Her Majesty's Customs Officer Philip Connolly.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a British Customs officer stationed in Cyprus in 1988 has been questioned by the Scottish police about controlled drug deliveries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.
  91
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the evidence presented to the Crown Office following the presentation of the petition charging named Libyan individuals to the sheriff of Dumfries was regarded by them at the time as being sufficient for them to conclude their investigations; and on what date they deemed their investigations to be concluded.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The evidence presented to the prosecuting authorities by the police was sufficient to enable the procurator fiscal to request petition warrants for the arrest of the two named accused from the sheriff at Dumfries. As has always been made clear, the investigation remains open.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what directions or instructions to investigate recent allegations of Iranian and Syrian involvement in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, the Crown Office has given the Dumfries and Galloway police in relation to the directions and instructions of the procurator fiscal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear, in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Dumfries and Galloway police have interviewed(a) officials of the United States embassy who were in Nicosia in 1988 to determine what they knew of events leading up to the Lockerbie disaster and (b) the 1988 CIA station chief in Nicosia and the Drugs Enforcement Agency country attache.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear, in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Crown Office has given to its legal duty in law to consider and investigate any evidence which tends to exculpate the two libyans accused of the Lockerbie crime; and if the Crown Office is complying with this legal obligation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office considers all relevant evidence and carries out such investigations as are appropriate and will continue to do so in the exercise of its duties.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what inquiries the Crown Office have made of Mr. Larry Robinson, of the United States embassy in London, on the issue of persons, in addition to two Libyans, being involved in the Lockerbie crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear, in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in(a) US dollars (b) pounds sterling and (c) other currencies was collected from the scene of the Lockerbie disaster in December 1988, other than the normal personal money of passengers and crew members of the aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
  92
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No amounts of money, other than what might ordinarily be regarded as personal money, were found at the Lockerbie crash site. A cashed cheque and substantial quantities of encashed travellers cheques were recovered.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions the Crown Office has drawn from evidence presented in the court at Karlsruhe in relation to the Lockerbie bombing on 26 April 1989 as to the source of the radios; and what state of preparation they were in when bought.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot disclose details of evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Durnfries and Galloway police were present throughout the interview with Mr. Ghadanfar in Frankfurt on 26 October 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dumfries and Galloway constabulary had no interest in Mr. Ghadanfar in October 1988. It will be recalled that the Lockerbie bombing did not take place until 21 December 1988.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions or directions to investigate allegations of involvement of countries other than Libya, in the destruction of Pan Am 103, the Crown Office has given the Dumfries and Galloway police in relation to the instructions and directions of the procurator fiscal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear, in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details investigative steps which have been taken.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths of hospital patients have led to fatal accident inquiries being held in(a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in each of the past 10 years; of these, how many were concerned with an inquiry into the death of a patient during or following surgical care; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance, assistance or training is given to procurators fiscal to enable them to examine the question both death certificates and medical notes concerning hospital patients who have died either during surgical care or following such treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A significant proportion of procurators fiscal will have studied forensic medicine at university. On joining the procurator fiscal service, they will receive training in relation to the procurator fiscal's role in the investigation of sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths. In 1992–93 the Crown Office reached agreement with the departments of forensic medicine of the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen for the departments to
  93
  take an active part in the initial and in-service training of procurators fiscal through courses organised both locally and nationally. In addition, the four departments of forensic medicine are under contract to provide procurators fiscal with an advisory consultative service on medical matters. The Departments will also assist procurators fiscal in the interpretation of medical records including the records of persons who have died in hospital or following treatment in hospital.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a procurator fiscal can issue a requirement to examine medical notes concerning a patient who has died(a) during surgery care or (b) following surgical care; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A procurator fiscal may apply to the sheriff court for a warrant to recover hospital records. In practice such records are made available on request.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if death certificates are sent by medical practitioners, to procurators fiscal, as(a) a matter of course or (b) as a legal requirement, following the deaths of hospital patients (i) during surgical care or (ii) following surgical care; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the duty of the procurator fiscal to inquire into all sudden, suspicious, accidental, unexpected and unexplained deaths, including certain deaths associated with the provision of medical care. Instructions have been given to hospitals, nursing homes and general practitioners, that where a patient has died in certain circumstances, the procurator fiscal must be informed without delay. The responsibility for notification lies with the doctor concerned with the care of the patient or the doctor called in at the time of death. There is no requirement on medical practitioners to send a death certificate to the procurator fiscal. However, arrangements have been made between the Registrar General for Scotland and the Crown Office whereby district registrars will report to the procurator fiscal deaths falling into the categories of deaths into which procurators fiscal must inquire. The registrar will bring such deaths to the attention of the procurator fiscal by sending him an intimation of the particulars relating to the deceased. The intimation will include details of the cause of death as disclosed by the medical certificate.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, (Mr. Robertson) of 15 February,Official Report, column 697, on provision for children's evidence, if the closed circuit television equipment currently being installed in the Sheriff court, Greenock, is to be a permanent fixture in relation to the taking of evidence from vulnerable witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 30 September 1991, equipment has been available in the sheriffdoms of Glasgow and Strathkelvin and Lothian and borders to enable child witnesses only, in appropriate cases, to give evidence in criminal trials by way of live television link. The equipment being installed at Greenock sheriff court will be available for cases transferred from other courts in the sheriffdom of north Strathclyde. Provision in that sheriffdom to enable child witnesses to give evidence in criminal trials by closed circuit television will be reviewed no later than 1997, at which time it is expected 94
  that major building works at Paisley sheriff court will have been completed.

  Secular Buildings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money Historic Scotland is providing for the renovation and conservation of listed secular buildings in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in the current financial year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its director and chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Dr. Godman, dated 6 March 1995:
  You have tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland for Written Answer on 6 March.The question relates to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland and I have been asked to provide the information you are seeking. The terms of this letter will be reproduced in the Official Report and a copy of it will also he deposited in the Library of the House.You have asked how much money Historic Scotland is providing for the renovation and conservation of listed secular buildings in (a) Inverclyde (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in the current financial year.The total commitment in the current financial year (that is, payments already made and payments in the pipeline which will he effected prior to 31 March 1995) on historic buildings repair grants for secular buildings in the current financial year is as follows:

  (a) Inverclyde: £103,490

  (b) Strathclyde: £5,028,850

  (c) Scotland: £9,576,000

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Taxis (Wheelchair Access)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure that newly licensed taxis and private hire vehicles are wheelchair accessible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government's response on 22 February to the recommendations contained in the report of the Transport Select Committee—Cm 2715—expressed support for the phasing in of the requirement that taxis should be accessible to wheelchair users. Legislation in Scotland relating to taxis and private hire cars is contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. We are now considering in the context of Scottish legislation and circumstances how best to proceed in this matter.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to the rail regulator on the need for formal consultation, prior to the withdrawal of any Anglo-Scottish rail services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: None. The duties of the rail regulator, including the duty to protect rail users' interests, are defined in statute.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in the Scottish Grand Committee, concerning
  95
  consultation on proposed withdrawal of rail services, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Yes.

  Mr. John Robertson
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public positions to which he has appointed Mr. John Robertson of the S. and J. D. Robertson Group, stating in each case the salary and expenses, the required weekly commitment of working days and Mr. Robertson's particular qualifications for the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: I have appointed Mr. Robertson to the following positions:

  Organisation

  Position

  Salary

  Weekly time commitment

  Highland Health Board

  Chairman

  £14,835 pa

  2-3 days

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Member

  £ 7,410 pa

  0.5 days

  In addition to salary, Mr. Robertson is re-imbursed any expenses incurred in connection with these appointments at the rate appropriate to the body concerned. Mr. Robertson's appointment as chairman of Highland health board extends until 31 March 1999 and his appointment as a member of Highlands and Islands Enterprise until 30 September 1995. Mr. Robertson has said that he does not wish to be considered for re-appointment to Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Since 27 August 1990 Mr. Robertson has been a lay member of the national health service tribunal. This position carries no remuneration but allowances are payable to cover loss of remunerative time and travelling
  96
  expenses incurred in connection with the work of the tribunal. However, the tribunal has not met since Mr. Robertson's appointment.

  On 6 February I announced Mr. Robertson's appointment as a chairman of the North of Scotland Water Authority. He will take up these duties later this year and they will entail an average time commitment of two and a half days per week for which he will received £40,000 per annum plus expenses. The appointment will be for four years. When he agreed to accept this appointment, Mr. Robertson told my officials that, on taking up the post, he wished to forgo the payments for his public service with the health board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. This is in line with the action he took for several years with Orkney health board.

  Mr. Robertson has a range of skills and experience built up through many years of public service and through running a property and oil distribution business. His links in the highlands and islands have made him particularly suitable for the appointments he has held and should also prove invaluable in connection with his forthcoming role as chairman of the North of Scotland Water Authority.

  North of Scotland Electricity Users Consultative Committee
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the appointment of a chairman for the north of Scotland electricity users consultative committee; and what criteria he will apply in making his decision.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Responsibility for the appointment of chairmen of the electricity consumers' committees lies with the Director General of Electricity Supply after consultation with the Secretary of State. It is understood that the director general intends to appoint a new chairman of the north of Scotland consumers' committee in late March.

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

Equal Pay: Progress
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, 25 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the average earnings of women remain below male average earnings, and what steps they propose to take to ensure that the provisions of the Act are effective.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, women's average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, are now 79.5 per cent. of men's—the highest that they have ever been. The main cause of the remaining pay differential is job segregation which falls outside the reach of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, a range of measures which should help women's pay and employment prospects.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Whatever statistics one uses, it is pretty clear that there is a large gap between men and women's pay. Indeed Britain has one of the largest such gaps in Europe. Does the Minister agree that, if one accepts the figures of the 1994 new earnings survey, it will take 30 years or more before the pay of women in Britain is equal to that of men? Will the Minister indicate whether the Government are to implement any of the 27 amendments which have been suggested to the equal value law by the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important that we are clear exactly what the Equal Pay Act does. The
2
important and valuable principle that the Equal Pay Act enshrines in legislation is that there should be equal pay for equal work. Of course that does not mean that one will find immediately that average women's earnings will be the same as average men's earnings because the determinant of what someone earns depends on the type of job he or she does. We are working towards a society where opportunities are equal and where opportunities will have been taken up equally by men and women. When that occurs we shall see average earnings more or less equalised between the sexes. The current problem is job segregation. It will inevitably take time to break glass ceilings so that we reach the state of affairs that I have already described.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for recognising that the problem is one of opportunity. However, the Sex Discrimination Act requiring equal opportunity has been on the statute book for 20 years. Surely by this time we would expect women to be penetrating the jobs which carry higher pay. I am sure the Minister would agree that it is their failure to penetrate those jobs which primarily accounts for the unequal pay. Further, as regards establishing equal pay for work of equal value, under the amendments which were made to the Equal Pay Act—they were made in 1984, I believe—does the Minister agree that these are difficult to operate? Will the Government look at ways in which that procedure could be simplified and speeded up?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government are always in favour of fair ways of speeding up dispute procedures. As regards the first part of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we are seeing women increasingly moving into the higher paid and professional sectors of society. For example, in 1984 there were 8,000 women lawyers but in 1993 there were 28,000, which represents 32 per cent. of the whole. In

3
1984 18,000 accountants were women and in 1993 there were 45,000, which represents 24 per cent. of the whole. Progress is being made in that direction.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what proportion of women are moving into the useful professions, such as science and engineering, as opposed to the law and chartered accountancy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as a lawyer I dissent from the proposition that we lawyers are not useful members of society. As regards the number of women working in scientific areas, I am afraid I do not have the figures to hand but I shall write to the noble Lord and advise him to the extent I can.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was a great initiative—women into science and engineering—which produced certain results? Will he confirm that in all the professions pay is equal for men and women? Are more women entering all the professions?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend puts us right about the steps that have been taken—they are useful and successful steps, too—to get more women into science and technology. I can confirm that in the professions the principles of the Equal Pay Act apply. Therefore where men and women are doing the same work they should be receiving the same pay. That will help to improve the average earnings of women.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that there is equal pay at all levels of the Civil Service?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister also agree that there is equal pay for work of equal value? Further, does he agree that it is very difficult to determine what constitutes equal value? He referred twice to the same work, but the provision has been extended to work of equal value. Is the Minister aware that in 1993, when the Government responded to the Equal Opportunities Commission's recommendations for amending the Equal Pay Act, they said that they had to balance improvements in the law with placing undue burdens on employers? Is it still the Government's view that to provide equal pay is an undue burden on employers?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. When I referred to the same work I meant the form of words which she more accurately quoted from the statute. The requirement to give equal pay for work of equal value is a statutory obligation. It therefore takes precedence over any discretionary approach.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's policy, involving as it does the abolition of wages councils and the encouragement to employers to be more flexible, has worsened the position of many women? For example, the Low Pay Unit has instances of shop workers now
4
being offered £1.66 an hour and hairdressers £1.43 an hour. Does the Minister not realise that the policies of his own Government have contributed massively to the continuing disparity between male and female earnings?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the evidence that we have shows that workers who were formerly covered by wages councils have average hourly earnings significantly above the minimum rates last set by the wages councils. The growth in earnings for such workers has generally been greater than for workers as a whole. I should like to reiterate the point that I made earlier: in this Question we are talking about the relationship between equivalent work of men and women. The pay they receive must be the same.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister consider the fiscal benefits which might follow from achieving equal pay? Can he give us an estimate of the benefits that might follow in terms of increased revenue in national insurance and income tax and in diminished spending on benefits? Will he extend his reply, unlike his first Answer, to include part-time work as well as full-time work?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is extremely wide and I shall have to reply to him in writing.

EU External Borders: Controls
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making in the Council of Ministers that all member states of the European Union should apply similar standards of controls at the Union's external borders as apply in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch):My Lords, the Government have participated fully in discussion of the draft external frontiers convention, which has the aim of establishing a common standard of control over the admission of persons at the external frontiers of member states of the European Union. We have also joined in discussion of a draft resolution on the improvement of security at external frontiers.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. If you have free movement of goods, services and capital, then inevitably there has to be free movement of labour. That gives rise to problems. In particular, because of their associations with Africa, the Mediterranean countries have considerable difficulty achieving the necessary tight control over their external boundaries. Therefore, can the Government say whether, in spite of that difficulty, we can rely on their persisting in imposing adequate control of the external boundaries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the Government are pursuing adequate control and proper

5
protection of the frontiers, balanced by the free movement of European Union nationals within European member states.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what is being done in this country and in Europe to identify genuine asylum seekers quickly? There are enormous numbers of economic refugees, and I understand their motives. But among them are genuine asylum seekers fleeing from oppression who have to go through the same, long drawn out investigation. Does the noble Baroness agree that something has to be done in order that genuine asylum seekers can be identified quickly, perhaps by having people near trouble spots who can assess the position and pass information back?
Baroness Match: My Lords, asylum is wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which asks whether we are participating fully in discussions about external frontier controls. We are doing that. As regards asylum seekers, proper procedures are laid down. Parliament is well aware of them. Recently, one or two changes have been made; again, Parliament was informed.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is an open border between Norway and Sweden and that one of those countries is within, and the other outside, the EC, can the Minister say what controls the EC employs in that case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if one is talking about the European convention, as opposed to Article 7a, the convention covers not only member states but also the European Economic Area, which includes Iceland and Norway. Sweden is a member of the European Union. The convention covers the countries within the Union with the addition of Iceland and Norway.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the main problem is this? The remainder of the member states to whom the provisions are applicable should bring their standards of control up to those that we have.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with astuteness, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, puts his finger on the problem. As the noble Lords knows, there is debate. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged to the House of Commons, and it is also on record in this House, that he will do whatever is necessary to maintain our frontier controls.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the effectiveness of the external frontiers of the European Union dependent not so much on physical bars at the point of entry but on intelligence gathering? It is only through intelligence gathering that we shall find, for example, criminals and drug dealers. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government are pursuing those matters with equal vigour?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance of that; it is only part of the situation. External
6
frontiers are important; internal controls are important; and the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering is also important.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, should not a recent television programme showing how utterly transparent are the frontiers of Europe be compulsory viewing for the Council of Ministers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that we shall all take that advice.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that he will not undo the internal border controls at ports and airports in this country? Does that assurance include ignoring any decision and any order by the European Court which is considering the position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a hypothetical question. I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said. I invite the House to take him on trust. He will do whatever is necessary to maintain our frontier controls in the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that the Prime Minister will ignore any order by the European Court to open up our borders?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that he will take whatever measures are necessary to protect external frontiers of the United Kingdom.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that ignoring orders of the European Court is incompatible with membership of the single market?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, breaking the law may not be the option. At the end of the day, an alteration to the treaty may be an option. My right honourable friend has pledged to Parliament that he will do whatever is necessary to protect the external frontiers of the United Kingdom.

Military Training Areas: Demand
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is a need to extend military training areas and artillery ranges within the United Kingdom to replace the facilities which have hitherto been available abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the drawdown of forces from Germany and the introduction of new weapons systems are placing significant demands on existing training areas. Some must be used more intensively and others developed to provide new infrastructure. While we have no plans at present to extend significantly the size of our military training

7
areas, we will nevertheless consider any proposals to acquire additional or reallocate existing land on an opportunity basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While it is essential to have adequate ranges and training areas, especially for our latest artillery weapons, which I understand are of high quality, does my noble friend agree that only the minimum of land should be retained or designated and that the process for deciding that should be explained fully to the public?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to stress that we should keep only the minimum amount of land. I can give my noble friend an assurance that the department is committed to keeping the minimal requirement necessary to train our forces to the appropriate standard. It would be a false economy to dispose of land which we still need for training our forces to the required standards so that they can perform their duties. As .regards whether we have adequately explained those processes to the public, I suspect that in the past we have not got the message over as well as we might. However, I give an assurance to my noble friend that we shall continue to seek to get over as well as we can the message explaining the absolutely vital necessity for military training in the United Kingdom.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that with the acquisition in future of the attack helicopter by the air regiments there will be a demand for air space to conduct three dimensional air warfare training? That will be in addition to ground training facilities. Can he say whether air space will be available for that purpose in the United Kingdom?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall always find the appropriate necessary air space or for that matter land to train our forces to the appropriate standard, whether the equipment be attack helicopters or whatever. I assure my noble friend that where possible we shall look abroad, to Canada and eastern Europe, to see whether some of the pressure on our own systems of intensive training in this country can be alleviated. There would be little point in acquiring the new attack helicopters if we could not train with them to the appropriate standard.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, given the Government's intention to reduce the Armed Forces by a large number—over one-third—is there any correlation between that and the reduction in training in this country, including low flying, making use where necessary of overseas training facilities, for example, in Canada or in eastern Europe, to make good any shortfall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say to the noble and gallant Lord that that factor is unlikely to lead to a reduction in the amount of training in this country for the reasons that I gave in my first Answer. There is considerable drawdown in forces from Germany and fewer available lands in Germany to train our forces there. It appears that we shall have to intensify training, in particular with armoured vehicles and artillery, in this
8
country by a quite considerable factor. As I indicated earlier, we shall seek to increase the amount of training undertaken in eastern Europe, in particular with regard to training our forces remaining in Germany for as long as that is cost efficient. We shall also continue to make use of the training grounds in Canada, again so far as possible within the environmental constraints imposed by the Canadian Government and the obvious cost constraints.
Lord Glenamara:My Lords, if the Government wish for further training areas in the north of England, will the noble Lord bear in mind that an extension of the Otterburn training area would command almost universal local support but that an extension of the training area on the north Pennines to the east, which was recently designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, would be widely opposed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of virtual universal support within the Otterburn area of Northumberland for our proposals for developing the Otterburn training area. I can confirm that at present there are no other plans for further increases in the size of training areas in that part of the world. The noble Lord is probably referring to the Warcop training area. Developments are under way to enhance facilities there. However, as I understand it, there are no plans to increase its size. It will still be necessary to provide infantry training for forces at Catterick.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the increase in training in tracked vehicles—my noble friend says that that is made necessary by changes abroad—will greatly increase the pressures on the environment and the archaeological heritage of Salisbury Plain where much of the training will take place. Can the noble Lord assure us that the concordat reached between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence for the management of those heritages will be strictly adhered to and monitored?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the situation on Salisbury Plain. We hope to see considerable intensification of training there. However, I hope that by the various measures we propose to take, and the spending of quite a considerable amount of money, we shall not cause any damage either to the natural environment or to the archaeological environment to which my noble friend refers. I can confirm that there are something of the order of 2,000 archaeological sites of considerable interest on Salisbury Plain. In similar parts of the world where the Ministry of Defence has not been present for a number of years many such sites have long since been lost to the plough.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is not just a matter of Salisbury Plain. Did I understand the Minister to say that there would be no new area apart from the seven major training areas we have at the moment? I believe he said that the emphasis would be on more intensive use of those areas. Does he therefore accept

9
that the ambient noise arising from training is an environmental problem, not only for Salisbury Plain but also for mid-Wales?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that noise can be a considerable problem. As regards whether there may be a new area, I think that we must wait until the full effects of the drawdown have been assessed to see what we need. At the moment it seems that there will be some intensification of use of all our major training areas in the United Kingdom.
I understand that there have been considerable complaints about noise recently, particularly on Salisbury Plain, resulting very much from in-service testing of the new gun, the AS90. A much higher charge has been used than is normally the case in training; I understand that it is referred to as charge 8. Normally, one trains with up to charge 5 or charge 6, producing a much lower noise threshold.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government continue the benign policy which has had the effect of creating places of special environmental interest within the training areas, allowing plant and wildlife to flourish undisturbed despite the shelling and use of heavy tracked vehicles?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the benign policy which the department has pursued. The shelling and the use of tracked vehicles can have a beneficial effect on occasions. I give two examples. The shelling on Salisbury Plain has done much, I understand, to improve the habitat of the Stone curlew, a species of bird of which there are few left. The birds are mostly to be found on Salisbury Plain. The shelling provides them with a habitat. I can also confirm that the tank tracks and the water that collects in them on Salisbury Plain have done much to assist development of the Fairy Shrimp.

Defibrillators: Airport and Aircraft Use
3.1 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to introduce legislation to require the main United Kingdom airport terminals and larger British passenger aircraft to carry defibrillators, and whether they intend to raise this issue at European Union level.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government have no such plans or intentions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Australia it is a requirement that all 53 international 747 and 767 aircraft and the main terminals should be provided with defibrillator equipment? Is she further aware that the equipment has been used about 50 times; of which 29 times were for cardiac arrests—I6 times on aircraft and 13 at air terminals? Is there not a strong case for investigating the
10
applicability of that on a wider scale, not confining it to the United Kingdom but taking it to the European Union?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the view of Qantas and Virgin is not shared by the Civil Aviation Authority, British Airways or, so far as we know, other airlines around the world. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is the Government's independent expert, has already considered the matter and believes that it is of little benefit. The use of defibrillators is not appropriate in every heart attack situation. If a patient is sick enough to need a defibrillator, he also needs immediate access to an intensive care unit, drips, medication and so on. While access to such equipment at airports might be thought appropriate, airports are no different from other public places such as sports grounds, leisure facilities, railway stations and ferry ports. In addition, like all other public places, airports have access to emergency services.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend lighten my darkness and explain to the House what is a defibrillator and why it should be thought necessary in the way the Question suggests?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thought that someone might ask that question, but I was not sure whether it would be my noble and learned friend. A defibrillator is a device which applies external electrical stimulation to the heart for the purpose of restoring it to its normal rhythm. Defibrillators are regarded as medical treatment rather than first aid.?
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least one person in your Lordships' House—that is, myself—has received the benefit of the use of a defibrillator on four occasions? However, it has been under strict medical supervision. Does the Minister agree that defibrillators can only be used under such supervision and that they cannot be used by air crews without special training?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is true that in certain instances in order to use a defibrillator the crew would need to have special training. That is absolutely right. Dr. Chamberlain, the consultant cardiologist at the Royal Sussex County Hospital, has made a study of the use of defibrillators in public places. He has said that the essential requirement, after the use of a defibrillator, is to get the patient to a coronary care unit within 15 to 30 minutes. That cannot be met with an aircraft in flight or even with an aircraft taxiing on the ground with its doors shut. So I believe that the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, can the Government give an estimate of the cost of installing the defibrillators mentioned in the Question?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes my Lords, I can. A defibrillator on its own costs £5,000. With its battery and an extra battery, which is an essential part, the cost would amount to about £6,500.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that defibrillators were likely to be of little benefit

11
to passengers. However, they were apparently of some benefit to the 29 people who received treatment on Australian aircraft or at terminals to the extent that their lives were saved. Is the Minister aware that all 370 flight service directors on Qantas aircraft are extensively trained in the use of the equipment? All I ask the Minister is that the issue should be further examined. Consultation with Qantas is clearly desirable. This is not a matter where the doors should be shut on the use of the equipment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if I did not make it clear then perhaps I ought to now. The matter is constantly kept under review and the Civil Aviation Authority has considered it on several occasions. The authority believes that the benefit that would be gained would be arguable. In addition, with the Australian experience all the evidence is that it was because the airports were so close to hospitals and the ambulance and emergency services that them was that success. As noble Lords appreciate, I am not a doctor, but we believe many of those people would have been saved in any event by ordinary cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Health Authorities Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Health Authorities Bill puts the finishing touches to the reforms which began with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. That Act brought about a major change in the way that the health service is run. Despite annual increases in government funding, the service was inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of patients.
The 1990 Act introduced a new way of funding and organising services. NHS trusts took on responsibility from district health authorities for the management of hospitals and community health services. Trusts have been a great success. Ninety-six per cent. of hospitals and ambulance services are now in trust hands and this figure will rise to 98 per cent. in April of this year. We have given trusts freedom to manage. As a result more patients are being treated than ever before. And in any one of the 419 trusts there are stunning examples of how the quality of service has been improved, reflecting a new sensitivity to the needs of patients.
The 1990 Act also established GP fundholders. GPs who wished to join the scheme were given the funds to purchase certain hospital services and other treatment for their patients. Fundholders have beaten a path towards better patient care, and our intention is that the rest should follow the best. Fundholders have shown
12
that, where family doctors are given responsibility for purchasing, better quality services can be provided more effectively. We are determined to extend the benefits of fundholding as widely as possible in line with the advice of the Audit Office, the King's Fund and the OECD. Last year we announced a major expansion of the scheme.
Finally, the 1990 Act created a new role for health authorities. District health authorities became purchasers of health care. Freed from the day to day concerns of running hospitals and community units, they can now concentrate on identifying the health needs of their population. They negotiate agreements with hospitals and others who provide health care to meet those needs.
The effect of these changes is to transfer the focal point of responsibility and decision-making to those closest to patients—doctors, nurses, therapists, managers and so on. Key decisions are no longer taken centrally, several times removed from the place and the people where they have a direct impact. The NHS is now a flexible and dynamic organisation in place of the flat-footed monolith it was in danger of becoming.
Regional health authorities played an important role in the old NHS. Their management skills were vital, not least in the hands-on management of hospitals and in directing district health authorities. But, as trusts and strong local purchasers have developed, a large regional organisation has become unnecessary. This has not come as a surprise to regions as they have worked their hearts out to implement the reforms. In doing so, they knew that their success would bring about the demise of their own jobs. People may deride management. Some have been all too ready to pour scorn on administration; but quietly and without fuss RHAs have shown others that working for a service may mean putting the good of others before your own—an attitude not always evident in life, We should spare a moment to thank them: chairmen, non-executives and regional staff.
This is a simple Bill. Only Clause I makes major provisions; the rest makes consequential changes. Clause I does two things. It abolishes the regional health authorities and it replaces district health authorities and family health services authorities with new integrated health authorities.
The Government propose that regional health authorities will be replaced by eight regional offices of the NHS Executive. They will be very different from old RHAs. They will be far smaller, employing a maximum of 1,100 staff, compared with the 2,600 currently employed by the regions, and they will operate with a lighter touch. They will concentrate on the essentials—only those things which have to be carried out at regional level. There will be no unnecessary duplication between health authorities and regions, or between regions and the centre, and as much management responsibility as possible will be delegated to local health authorities.
The second change in Clause 1 is the replacement of district health authorities and family health services authorities with new integrated health authorities. This is a measure which should command the support of the whole of your Lordships' House. The new health authorities will bring together responsibility both for

13
primary care and for purchasing hospital and community services. Many district health authorities and family health services authorities are already working closely together under a joint chief executive. They are eagerly awaiting the statutory changes, and they are right to be eager.
Health authorities will co-ordinate health care for the people they serve. They will work with local authorities and others in a way that has not been possible before. They will work closely with GPs, both fundholders and non-fundholders, to assess local health needs and to ensure that those needs are met. They will lead progress towards our goal of a primary care-led NHS.
There is one further—and substantial—benefit of this Bill. It will cut bureaucracy, and with it, management costs. We estimate that, when fully implemented, the Bill will result in savings of about £150 million a year in England and around £3 million a year in Wales. These savings will be spent on the front line—on direct patient care.
I shall not go through the other provisions of the Bill in great detail. But I should like to explain its major parts to your Lordships before going back to a few of the most important issues. Schedule 1 to the Bill makes the consequential changes needed to reallocate functions from the old NHS to the new authorities. It includes many minor amendments which simply remove references to authorities that are to be abolished, and inserts references to the new health authorities. But there are other, more significant provisions which I shall highlight in a moment.
Clause 3 and Schedule 2 provide for the transition to the new structure. Clause 3 gives health authorities wide powers to work together, so that, by 1st April 1996, they will be completely ready for a merger. This will ensure a smooth change from the old system to the new, and minimise disruption to services.
Schedule 2 provides for the reallocation of staff, property, rights and liabilities of the authorities which are being abolished. In a time of such change, there will inevitably be some disruption to staff. But we will do all we can to minimise that: for example, by setting up clearing houses, counselling services and sensitive relocation packages.
The reallocation of regional health authority functions can be explored in Committee, but I should like to outline the principles and some areas of particular interest to your Lordships now. Ministers will remain responsible, and accountable, to Parliament for setting the policies of the NHS and its strategic direction. They will be responsible for deciding the allocation of funds in line with the principles of weighted capitation. The implementation of Ministers' policies is the role of the NHS Executive, assisted by the regional offices which are an integral part of it.
The regional offices will monitor the performance of health authorities and NHS trusts and will be responsible for admissions and allocation of funds to the GP fundholder scheme. These responsibilities are clearly best carried out at regional level.
14
As many regional health authority responsibilities as possible will be passed down to the new health authorities in the spirit of devolution. For example, health authorities will be responsible for buying more specialised services; for more public health functions; and they will become the local supervising authority for the supervision of midwives. The Royal College of Midwives has welcomed this move.
Small groups of health authorities and NHS trusts will also take on responsibility for purchasing education and training. Over time, this will include most NHS staff apart from very small specialist groups and apart from medical training. I will explain the medical arrangements in a moment. Regional offices will initially be closely involved in this work. The NHS Executive, nationally and regionally, will continue to take responsibility for education planning. It will ensure that local plans continue to meet the national requirement for trained and skilled staff. In Wales, the Welsh Office acts as commissioner of nurse education, working closely with health authorities and trusts.
I know that medical education and training is a matter of particular interest to many of your Lordships. It was, after all, this House which established the new post of Director of Research and Development, and I know that many of your Lordships are eminent in this field and play an influential role in medical education both in this country and abroad. The new arrangements will be slightly different. The postgraduate deans will continue to be responsible for commissioning postgraduate medical education and training, and for GP vocational training, working with regional advisers for general practice. In particular, we are proposing that the deans should be responsible for the educational contracts of junior doctors (registrars and senior registrars) so that important arrangements such as training rotations are protected.
The deans form a vital link with the universities as well as holding substantial funds for training. We are making good progress in agreeing with them the details of their future role and contractual arrangements.
The Government are committed to maintaining and improving the essential partnership between the universities and the NHS, and to maintaining high standards in the training of doctors. For that reason, regulations will require that health authorities whose area contains a medical or dental school shall have a university non-executive member.
By and large, however, it is not our intention that health authorities should be made up of representatives of different interest groups. Members of health authorities should be appointed because of the personal qualities that they can bring to the work of the authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently issued guidance on the appointment of members of health authorities and trusts. It showed that, above all, appointments should be made on the basis of merit; and it contains important measures for making appointments more open and accessible. The regional chairmen, who, in the new structure, will be retained as members of the NHS policy board, will continue to advise Ministers on appointments.

15
We want the new health authorities to be compact and streamlined, following the model of district health authorities. The regulations, which we propose to lay shortly after Royal Assent, will require that there are five executive members. There will normally also be five non-executives in addition to an independent chairman. We recognise, though, that some of the new authorities may be covering a larger area than others. We will therefore leave flexibility, if the health authority makes a case to Ministers, for up to seven non-executives to be appointed.
In line with our general approach to membership, few places will be reserved for particular people. In addition to the university member in the relevant authority, only three will be prescribed in regulations: the chief executive, the director of finance, and, for the first time, a prescribed place for the director of public health.
Some health authority members will, of course, have backgrounds in nursing, medicine and other relevant professions. However, membership is not the only, or the most important, way of achieving a professional input to the work of health authorities. Prescribing that each health authority should include a doctor and a nurse would still leave gaps. What about the important input from dentists, pharmacists, and so on? A single nurse or doctor could not hope to represent the range of expertise needed even from their own profession. Individual nurses and doctors, chosen for their personal qualities, can make a very major contribution to health authority work; but that is still no substitute for wider involvement.
Let me therefore outline how the Government intend to secure that wider involvement. The Bill will abolish the old statutory structure of professional advisory committees. It was useful in some areas, but was not flexible enough, and it involved only a limited range of professions instead of the very wide range that we wish to see. It was too easily sidelined. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that the Government want professional advice to be integral in the new structure.
To show how seriously we take this, the Government tabled an amendment to the Bill in another place. The amendment requires health authorities to set up arrangements to ensure that professional advice is available to them. It makes clear that professional advice must come from doctors; but not just from doctors. The nursing profession must be fully involved. I agree with the Royal College of Nursing that nurses have a special expertise to bring to purchasing, based on their front line experience across the whole range of patient care. Nurses have 80 per cent. of patient contact in the NHS and their experience is needed to give purchasing plans clinical credibility. Our proposals in no way exclude nurses. Many other professions are also important. Each health authority's arrangements must also cover a whole range of professions, such as dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists and dieticians. I could not hope to provide an exhaustive list in this speech.
The legislation will not be rigid. It will not prescribe how professional involvement is to be achieved; that would be going back to the faults of the old system.
16
Health authorities will need flexibility to decide that locally. But the Bill leaves in no doubt the importance of professional involvement.
Let me now turn to the Government's plans for public health. A good deal of public health work is currently carried out at regional level. In the new system, the focus will move to the local health authorities. District directors of public health will report on the health of their populations and will be free to comment on the factors affecting health in their areas. For example, they will take on greater responsibility—in co-operation with other authorities where necessary—for communicable disease control, cancer screening and national confidential enquiries.
Regional directors of public health, working within the regional offices, will monitor the work of health authorities. They will ensure that important public health programmes, such as breast cancer screening and immunisation campaigns, are properly co-ordinated. Regional directors will also contribute to policy making in the central department. No longer will they be frustrated "lone rangers" but influential policy makers. This is an important advance on the old system. Together with the new statutory requirement of an executive director of public health at local level, it will make sure that public health work is sensitive to local needs and feeds into the national picture.
The new authorities will have major responsibilities, so they must be fully accountable to the people they serve. The Bill strengthens local accountability by simplifying the structure of the new NHS. Most members of the public do not know—and, quite frankly, are not interested in—the fine distinctions between district health authorities, family health services authorities and regional health authorities. They just want to know to whom to turn for help or information. In future, this will be clearer: there will be just one health authority at local level. The structure will be simple, clear and accessible.
That is reinforced by the code of conduct and accountability which my right honourable friend published in April 1994. It outlines the responsibilities of NHS bodies to adhere to three crucial public service values: accountability; probity; and openness. Each health authority must promote confidence between itself and its staff, patients and the public.
That is why we require health authorities to publish annual reports. That is why we encourage them to develop purchasing plans which command local support and confidence. We have made clear the need for authorities to be in regular discussion with local people and to take account of their views. That means consulting widely with CHCs, other statutory bodies, voluntary organisations, NHS trusts, Members of Parliament and the wider public. Only this weekend, when reading my local paper, I saw how East Sussex is doing just that.
We have also made clear that NHS contracts are public documents and that health authorities need to involve hospital clinicians and other interested parties locally in drawing them up.

17
The Government have shown how seriously we take accountability and openness in the guidance on appointments, to which I have already referred. The process will be more open to scrutiny and accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds. There will be greater advertising of posts. Candidates will be sifted and interviewed by panels of local chairmen and non-executives. They will be kept fully informed about the progress of their nomination, and selection will be based on nationally agreed criteria. Those procedures build on current best practice. They will provide a sound basis for future appointments. Consideration for appointments to new authorities in Wales will follow procedures established there already.
As part of our commitment to NHS accountability, we have published the Department of Health's annual departmental report for 1995. The report gives the public, as patients and taxpayers, a clear and informative account of the whole range of the department's work. It completes the chain of accountability—from community and hospital, to health authority, to the NHS Executive, to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, to Parliament.
Since 1990, the NHS has changed enormously. Through that time of change, we have not just maintained services to patients; we have improved them. Through The Health of the Nation we have set targets for lasting improvements in people's health and, in most cases, made good progress towards them. Patients are getting higher standards, better information and more choice through the Patient's Charter. The Bill will support all those initiatives. It will reduce bureaucracy and release a further £150 million to be spent on patient care. It will remove an unnecessary tier of administration. It will reinforce local innovation and local flexibility. That must be welcome news to all of your Lordships who care about the National Health Service, to all of us who use it, and to that vast army of intelligent, talented, and committed people who work in it. I invite your Lordships to give this important Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, let me first thank the Minister for the clear and helpful way in which she introduced the Bill. I am also grateful that the noble Baroness has set this further reorganisation so firmly in the context of the so-called "reforms" that have taken place in the past few years. It is precisely that broader picture that we on these Benches are anxious to examine and evaluate.
In principle at least we support one of the central provisions of the Bill: the merger of district health authorities and family health service authorities. However, we are firmly opposed to the abolition of regional authorities. We are not convinced by the Government's case for sweeping away this very important tier in the structure of a national health service.
The Government have presented the Bill as the final keystone in the triumphal arch of the reformed NHS. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we do
18
not share that view. We fear that the whole arch, far from being triumphal, is crumbling and that some of the measures proposed today may provoke a final collapse.
In opening the debate the noble Baroness repeated what has become a rather familiar litany of statistics designed to prove that reorganisation has achieved health care miracles which are appreciated by the whole population. We could spend fruitless hours this afternoon trading competing statistics, but, more pertinently, one has only to look at the many Questions and Motions on health issues raised on all sides in your Lordships' House to appreciate the widespread anxieties about the present state of the health service. Those anxieties are reflected throughout the whole country.
For example, recently we have discussed continuing care for the elderly and the disabled; specialist intensive care; accident and emergency services; and nurses' pay. Many questions have been asked about appointments to health authority and hospital boards, the number of managers in the new NHS, numbers on waiting lists and the special problems of London's hospitals. Deep concern has been expressed about all of those matters, based often on your Lordships' personal experience. Sadly, the health service frequently revealed by those experiences is different from that seen by the Department of Health.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the accurate assessment made by Mr. John Maples, vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, published before Christmas. He said:
"People perceive the reforms as clumsy and believe what doctors and nurses say about them, which is almost universally hostile".
Mr. Maples also advised that the best thing for the Conservative Party would be to keep the spotlight away from the NHS for the next year. Fortunately for all of us who care about the NHS, the Government have ignored that advice and have brought forward two pieces of legislation in rapid succession: today the Health Authorities Bill and the mental health community supervision Bill next week. Both will give your Lordships refreshing opportunities to keep the spotlight on the NHS and to consider in government time the whole spectrum of health policy and NHS reorganisation.
Given that broad context, it is useful to consider the fundamental criteria by which health policy should be judged and how successful or unsuccessful the proposals before us may be in meeting those criteria. I suggest five basic tests for any change in the NHS. Does it improve the effectiveness of the service? Does it improve efficiency? Will the change lead to greater equity? Will it lead to greater public accountability? The last question, which is perhaps the most important but also the most difficult to assess or measure, is whether the change will improve the overall health of the nation's population. In the jargon, what is the health gain or benefit? Will it be achieved?
As I have said, those of us on these Benches do not in principle oppose the reorganisation of the DHAs and the FHSAs to form one local commissioning health authority. Indeed, the Labour Party has suggested this for some time. Merging the functions of the DHAs and FHSAs will clearly make it easier to achieve planned

19
co-ordination between hospital and community services. It should be possible for the new general health authorities to assess their populations' total health needs and commission appropriate services to meet them. Resource management should be better streamlined as the purchasing of secondary and primary care is brought together. Many individual health agencies have pre-empted the legislation and now work informally in partnership under one chief executive. To judge by the test of improved effectiveness and efficiency, so far these arrangements seem to be going pretty well.
But the areas that we shall need to explore carefully in Committee are those relating to equity and accountability. For example, there is nothing in the Bill that addresses the two-tier system produced in many places by GP fund-holders getting preferential treatment for their patients. Equity might also have been improved by ensuring that in the legislation health authority area would include roughly the same number of people and be coterminous with local authority boundaries so that funding and services could be more equitably distributed across the country. The Government could have used this opportunity to deal with the familiar criticism that the services you get depend on where you live, not on what you need. But there are no provisions to achieve that.
There is nothing to improve the financial accountability of fund-holders and the overall probity of primary care funding. The Audit Commission in a report published shortly before Christmas described the present system as somewhat weak and ineffectual. The Minister said this afternoon that there would be progress towards a so-called primary-care-led NHS, but there are no proposals here for achieving that in a responsible way.
The vexed question of the membership of the new health authorities is buried deep in paragraph 59 of Schedule 1. Whatever the Minister says about the new clarity of the composition of health authorities, the membership of existing health authorities and hospital trust boards has become a political scandal. The Nolan Committee reports that it has received more representations on this subject than on any other. I shall pre-empt the Minister's, I am afraid, rather predictable observation that I myself am currently a member of a commissioning authority by telling the House once again that I have held a similar position for over 20 years, long before the present party political bias was introduced. I also repeat the comments of my honourable friends in another place that if Ministers can name all the health board members who are members of the Labour Party, frankly there cannot be many of us!
The truth is that the vast majority of the people who hold these posts are Conservative Party supporters personally selected by the Secretary of State. Recently the Department of Health responded to widespread criticism by issuing guidance suggesting that local vacancies could be advertised. But under the new legislation the chairmen and members of the new unitary health authorities will continue to be directly appointed by the Secretary of State. The Government have not taken this opportunity to make health authorities more open and democratically accountable. We shall wish to
20
Pursue the detailed questions of who will serve on these bodies and to whom they are accountable at a later stage.
On balance, the potential achievements of improving effectiveness and efficiency by creating new local health authorities seem to justify the change. The abolition of the regional authorities is a completely different matter. Here the Government are launching a frontal assault on many of the systems by which the NHS has maintained standards of excellence. Under threat are standards of excellence in medical and nursing training, in research and development, in public health and in health promotion. The Minister repeated this afternoon that all of this was to be done in the name of reducing expenditure on bureaucracy. In the Bill's original explanatory and financial memorandum the Government talked of saving £150 million annually through these changes. That was the figure mentioned by the Minister this afternoon. That was later revised in another place to £60 million. Although my right honourable and honourable friends in another place made strenuous efforts as the Bill progressed to get an accurate picture of precisely how much would be saved and by what methods, they had little success. We shall try again.
We on these Benches have been very critical of the enormous rise in the number of NHS managers and the corresponding rise in salary costs. I remind your Lordships that in 1987 the NHS had 500 general managers; in 1993 it had 20,010. In 1987 management costs were £25 million; today the cost is £49.8 million. But this explosion has not occurred at a regional level. It has been lower down the line in trusts and local purchasing authorities. Indeed, the number of people employed in RHAs has actually fallen from 7,845 in 1992 to 2,613 in 1994, even though in 1992, under the first stage of the so-called reforms, regional officers were given a wider and stronger role. Now apparently, three years later, they are redundant. But it is still unclear who will perform many of their important functions.
Some, the Minister told us, will continue to be in the hands of the regional outposts of the Department of Health, which of course means in the hands of civil servants. Frankly, that will often be completely inappropriate. Some of the other functions will be passed along to the smaller, local bodies where there may be little expertise to fulfil them. For example—again the Minister explored this but, I thought, did not explore it sufficiently—there have been important links until now between universities and medical schools and the regional health authorities. That has enabled the professional education bodies to contribute directly to strategic planning at that level and to be integrated into the health service management structure. It has been the region which has held the contracts for the training grades of hospital doctors. I would remind your Lordships that that means all levels up to consultant. They have overseen nurse education and vocational training for GPs.
All of this is now in the melting pot and, in spite of what the Minister said, there seems to be no firm long-term plan for maintaining the employment and training arrangements which up to now have ensured

21
high standards both in medicine and in nursing. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the deans of medical schools have all warned of the potential dangers of devolving responsibility to individual local providers who may not have the capacity to offer complete training. It is hard to see either effectiveness or efficiency being improved by this change.
Public health is another matter which the Minister mentioned and is another area where the National Health Service has a reputation for excellence and where until now the regions have played a crucial role. Regional directors of public health have been senior, independent doctors, experts in their field. They have often led the way in new policies, co-ordinating, for example, the response to HIV and AIDS in the past few years and taking a strategic overview of some of the so-called "Cinderella services"; for example, mental health care and drug abuse. These kinds of services may never be attractive to small purchasers and providers who will be operating in the competitive market. But up until now they have been rightly guarded and protected by the regional tier. Professor David Hunter, director of the Nuffield Institute for Health at Leeds University, has recently described this particular strategic function as,
"providing a challenge to local myopia in service development and commissioning".
Do the Government really believe that a few civil servants manning Department of Health outposts will give a similar challenge?
Two of the Government's own flagship initiatives—The Health of the Nation and the NHS research and development programmes—have been developed, as the Minister said, by the regions. Both initiatives have gained prominence in recent years and both have been designed to improve the effectiveness of health service delivery and to achieve that elusive goal of health gain for the population. In each programme individual regions have been given a lead role in spearheading specific projects. I have personal experience of both The Health of the Nation and the research and development work in the North Thames Region. Indeed, I must declare an interest in that I am the current chair of the North Thames Advisory Committee for research and development. The role of the region has been vital in supporting, for example, health promotion across wide sectors, creating the so-called healthy alliances of The Health of the Nation policy or urging local purchasers to accept research findings that can improve patient services. It is here, at the regional level, that the drive to create a "knowledge based effectiveness led NHS" has been strongest.
What will happen to those initiatives now? How can we expect that the ambitious targets set, if I may remind your Lordships, by the Government to improve health will be met? These targets include reducing coronary heart disease, cutting deaths from strokes and lung cancer and lowering our miserably high level of mental illness. If they were successful, all of these could help to reduce the stark inequalities in health which still exist in Britain. It really is shameful that in 1995 we should have widening gaps between the health of the richest and poorest people in Britain. This was once again
22
demonstrated by the recent Rowntree Foundation Report. Those gaps can only be addressed strategically through a broad approach. It really is wildly over-optimistic to expect that local health authorities will have the necessary skills or resources even to begin to do it.
So, abolishing the regions, on my criteria, improves neither equity nor health gain, and there is no evidence to suggest that health services will be run more effectively or efficiently; and, of course, the loss of the regional management tier reduces accountability. The lines of democratic responsibility and public accountability between the Department of Health and Parliament and the local health authority will be both longer and weaker. I would remind your Lordships that the slimmed down regional outposts will be staffed exclusively by civil servants, bound by the Official Secrets Act and answerable only to the Secretary of State. There will no longer be a regional authority chaired by a lay person.
Many current regional chairmen and indeed members may owe their appointments to political patronage but at least they were part of a separate statutory authority and they have in the past sometimes given a strong independent view of health policy and strategy. Their accountability has been both upward and downward. The Minister has herself not very long ago been a distinguished regional chairman. It is very hard to accept that she genuinely believes that all the valuable work undertaken by her and the regional health authority can now be responsibly devolved to local purchasers and providers or left to a small cadre of civil servants. The Government's case as it stands really is very unconvincing and we shall look forward to exploring the detail of the new arrangements with the Minister in Committee.
This Bill seems extraordinarily to achieve both fragmentation and centralisation at the same time, with little benefit to the National Health Service or to us, its users. Its real purpose is still unclear. Has it been designed to pave the way for easier privatisation of services? Is it really just a cost-cutting exercise, in which case it seems very unsuccessful? Is it intended to muzzle the few remaining independent voices in the health service structure; or is it just another reorganisation to try to disguise the failures of the present changes?
I hesitate in your Lordships' scholarly House to cite a classical authority but I cannot resist the words of Petronius Arbiter in AD65. He was complaining of Roman military organisation and wrote—I hope your Lordships will think this appropriate:
"Every time we were beginning to form up we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
The National Health Service will not survive further confusion, inefficiency or demoralisation. On these Benches we shall seek to amend the Bill so that that can be avoided, so that the excellence of the professional

23
staff and the professional standards of the health service are maintained and the democratic accountability of this outstanding public service is improved.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I apologise for speaking from the second Bench on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It is not because I disapprove of its policy on the health service, but because I have a very bad back at the moment. I need something to lean on otherwise I shall be unable to stand up. I am in great need of the services of the National Health Service at the moment.
As has been said, this Bill is supposedly the last piece of legislation in the reorganisation of the health service which has been taking place since 1990. As such, this Bill is a peculiar piece of legislation. It has four pages only, but a total of 50 pages of schedules. To me, that is an extraordinary example of the transfer of power into the hands of the Secretary of State through regulation open only to negative resolution in this House which cannot be amended.
The Government claim that the purpose of the Bill is the devolution of decision-making, not centralisation. How can the abolition of the regional health authorities and their replacement by civil servants from the Department of Health possibly be called devolution? Thanks to an amendment in another place, the Government have conceded that one lay member per regional office will be appointed. With only eight regional offices, how can one person in each be expected to represent all the various interests of such large areas? The Minister herself said that it was difficult for one doctor on a district health authority to represent the interests of the medical profession. The former is going to be a much more difficult job.
How are the new health authorities to deal with the responsibilities previously carried out by the regional health authority? Many of those responsibilities have already been mentioned, but the most important ones I should like to repeat are those which worry me most of all. Above all, there are the decisions on regional specialities; the statutory supervision of midwives nationally; the strategic planning of nurse education as well as former links between the regional health authorities and universities with medical schools. There is also the question of monitoring cancer screening services.
All those functions will now be controlled by a consortia of health service authorities and trusts who, by their very nature, will be more parochial in their outlook and will concentrate more on their local needs than on a national strategy for health. For instance, the Royal College of Nursing is deeply concerned that local consortia will fail to take into account the need for nurses beyond the NHS; in local authorities, in prisons, nursing homes and in the work place.
There exists great concern as regards maintaining cancer screening services. It was difficult enough in the past, even in this House, to get nationwide information from the Department of Health when it had only to
24
collate information from 14 regional health authorities. How much more difficult is it going to be with over 100 health authorities involved in the collection of data. What guarantee is there that they will all be using the same system so that the data obtained are truly comparable.
If we have to have a further reorganisation it is a pity that the opportunity has not been taken to establish a strategic planning body for the whole of London. Ever since 1974 when I first became a regional chairman, it has been obvious that to divide London first into four regions and now into two, was a great mistake. When I was a regional chairman and London was divided into four regions the Department of Health set up the London Co-ordinating Committee because obviously the system was not working with four different authorities running London. We wasted much time and achieved very little in that co-ordinating committee. London really needs a strategic planning body of its own.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, we also welcome the proposal to merge district health authorities with the family health services authorities. That merger must lead to better planning and a more efficient use of resources as long as adequate safeguards are built into the system. It will be essential to ensure an appropriate balance on the health authorities of both district health authorities and family health services authorities. The Minister has already said that she is not going to do it, but can she assure us that each authority will have representatives of both the medical and nursing professions as well as consumer representation? We should also like reassurance that the position of community health councils will be safeguarded and their right to attend health authority meetings restored, including their right to attend hospital trust meetings.
Under the powers given to the Secretary of State to merge health authorities, we also require reassurance as regards instances where one health authority, because of the merger of two health authorities, may still be served by two community health councils. As regards the merger of two health authorities, it is too much to ask one community health council to cover that enlarged area. We should like to see both retained.
The House is aware of how difficult a time these past few years have been for the wonderful National Health Service staff who have had to cope with endless changes and the detrimental effects which those changes have had on service morale. Can the Minister say how the merger between district health authorities and family health services authorities will be dealt with from the staff point of view? As in previous cases, will they be made to apply for their own jobs yet again, or will the problem be dealt with through a voluntary redundancy scheme?
The Secretary of State has made much of her claim that all these reorganisations will save money which will be returned to the service to achieve better patient care. However, the cost of these reorganisations now runs into hundreds of millions of pounds, and they have to be

25
paid for. How many years will pass before this money has been recouped and the service itself feels the benefit of these so called savings?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on the exceptionally lucid and concise way in which she presented the principles underlying this difficult measure. In my view it is a Bill which cannot be regarded as representing light, bedside reading in its present documentary form. It is a document which leaves so many unanswered questions. Essentially this Bill is an enabling measure. So many issues remain to be resolved by regulation that I believe it would be right to ask the noble Baroness to allay many anxieties that I feel about its provisions and to offer some reassurance on a number of important points of principle.
In common with other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the decision to merge the DHAs and the family health services authorities. I believe that that is long overdue and that it is a measure that is likely to achieve the degree of closer integration and collaboration between the hospital services and the services in the community which we would all commend. However, I have some serious reservations about the proposal to abolish the regional health authorities.
One of the greatest joys in our National Health Service, and one of the greatest safeguards in keeping down the costs of the NHS as a proportion of gross national product in comparison with expenditure in many other developed countries, is the gatekeeper function of the general practitioner. That gatekeeper function means that the individual seeking specialist care will, as a rule, first consult his or her general practitioner before learning whether specialist care is appropriate. That is a very important safeguard.
Another crucial safeguard that I believe has been fundamental in the history of the National Health Service since 1948 is the principle of regional planning. Perhaps I may ask the Minister first whether in the newly integrated DHAs and FHSAs there will be a satisfactory mechanism through which the voice of the general practitioner (and of the nurses and the other health care professionals) will still be heard. So that those professions may have confidence I believe that it is crucially important that the regulations which will follow the merger should be exposed and examined in your Lordships' House. Will those combined authorities have the accountability to enable them to monitor such matters as GP fund-holding?
One of my greatest concerns about regional planning is this: in medical care, primary care is provided by general practitioners and, to a much lesser extent, in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals. Secondary care is the specialist care that is provided by consultants and their staff in general hospitals. Tertiary care is the care that is provided in the super-specialties. One of the great strengths of regional planning has been that certain specialties, such as plastic surgery and a number of others, have been regarded as sub-regional specialties. They are not provided in every general
26
hospital, but in a selected number of general hospitals, whereas tertiary care—with its extremely expensive facilities and all of the supporting equipment and staffing required in such disciplines as neurology, neuro-surgery, cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, and many others—has been provided in regional centres which have been so planned to take in the patients requiring those special services from a variety of feeding general hospitals.
In the new system what will prevent the kind of problems that have arisen in the United States, where every small district hospital, for reasons of prestige, has felt it necessary to have its own cardiothoracic surgeon and its own neuro-surgeon? Will the monitoring process of the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, to which the Minister referred, be able to ensure that independent trusts do not inappropriately put their money into the support of the glamour specialities while neglecting, at the other extreme, the perhaps less attractive specialties such as geriatrics and mental health? That is a matter of very great concern, but it may arise as a result of the abolition of the regional planning authorities which have existed in the NHS to date.
One of the other important issues relates to medical and other professional advice. It was good to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State introduced an amendment in another place to make it a statutory requirement that such professional advice should be sought by the newly merged health authorities. Will the Minister explain how that advice will be obtained? Will the regulations specify exactly the nature and extent of that advice to the newly merged authorities? At regional level, I understand that it has been agreed (although it is not on the face of the Bill) that the regional director of public health would be one of the three key executive members at the regional office. But that would involve that doctor being transferred to be a member of the Civil Service. May we be assured that when he or she becomes a member of the Civil Service that will not in any way constrain his or her right to give independent medical advice?
Turning to the issue of the university voice, I was delighted to hear from the Minister that she had agreed that the newly merged district authorities will have, as of right, a non-executive member appointed by a university with a medical or dental school. That is not on the face of the Bill, although I understand that it will be included in the regulations. I believe that it is vital that the regulations embodying that requirement should be examined and discussed with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals before those regulations are promulgated.
In 1990, when we debated the National Health Service and Community Care Bill in this House, we had many discussions until a very late hour over the crucial issue of university links. I am absolutely convinced that, in the light of the important developments in medical care, in medical education and research and in the education of the other caring professions, such a link between the universities and the National Health Service authorities is even more important now than it was at that time.

27
However, it is equally important that that university voice should be heard at regional level. How will the universities have formal representation—I know that the Minister dislikes the word "representation"—and how will their voice be heard at regional level? There are innumerable reasons why it must be heard. The Minister referred to the crucial importance of post-graduate education in medicine, to vocational training for general practice and to the role of post-graduate deans. Post-graduate deans are at present employed largely by the universities, but with funding from the regional health authorities. Indeed, the same is true of the regional advisers in general practice who play such an important role in vocational training in general practice. How will those appointments be maintained, and what will their link be with the regional office?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned, the crucial importance of research and development following the publication of the Culyer taskforce report is another issue which makes one highlight the importance of a regional mechanism for looking at such processes. Culyer recommended that that should be dealt with in three streams: that the R&D budget of the NHS will have a stream which will fund nationally agreed priorities for health service research through the office of Professor Michael Peckham; but there will be a second stream that will be handled by the regional directors of research and development. It is important to know exactly how they will be linked to the new regional offices of the NHS management executive.
Perhaps of even greater importance to the universities is the distribution of that animal known as SIFTR—the service increment for teaching and research. It used to be nothing but SIFT until the Select Committee of your Lordships' House added what might be called the "R component" in 1988—an addition which led to the appointment of Professor Michael Peckham. That R component is absolutely vital in providing the infrastructure in hospitals throughout the land and provides the environment in which the research that is vital to the future development of the National Health Service and the future improvement of patient care can be conducted. Somehow or other, the universities must have a vital voice in the distribution of SIFTR from the regional level. It is not something which, in my view, can possibly be properly delegated to individual trusts or health authorities at district level.
Some of your Lordships will know that I am, at the moment, chairing a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is examining research in the NHS in the light of the Culyer Report. We hope to be able to make some recommendations towards the end of April this year. It is crucial that effective, statutory liaison arrangements should be achieved between the universities with medical and dental schools; between those involved in the education of the nursing and other caring professions, on the one hand, and the NHS regional office on the other. Those are questions which are unanswered in the Bill at present. That kind of liaison
28
is vital to the continuum of quality care, education, teaching, and research upon which depends the future vitality of the NHS.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is a bit daunting to have to follow two distinguished regional chairmen—a distinguished chairman of a regional research committee and a distinguished former chairman of the GMC and president of the BMA. I come before your Lordships as one of those political appointees—as chairman of an NHS trust. I happen also to have been a former Secretary of State, but perhaps in that context that is regarded as irrelevant. I declare an interest as chairman of the Forest Healthcare Trust, about which I shall have one or two things to say.
I should like to go back to look at the period when in opposition, as shadow spokesman for health, I was having to work out—in the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—what would be the Government's policy if we came into power. I discussed with a great many people in the health service and outside whether we needed to have regional health authorities. When the signal was given by the then Prime Minister that we could have brief discussions with the Permanent Secretaries of the departments that we were shadowing, I sought a meeting with Sir Patrick Naime. I said that I wanted to reserve the position as to whether we retained regional health authorities. I said, "It does not seem to me to be unreasonable that that is a tier of administration and management which might go". He begged me not to do this. He said, "I am glad that you have reserved your position and not committed it, because it is your only handle on the service".
Indeed, that is what I found in the service of 1979. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to stand outside the Chamber and nod. He should stay to listen to what I have to say. Because in a top-down service, which is what the NHS was, when everything went down from the Secretary of State to the regional health authorities, as they were then, to the area health authorities, to the districts, to the units, it may well have been the case that the regional health authorities were an indispensable link. Indeed, I regarded the quarterly meetings that I had with regional chairmen—the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, attended with unfailing regularity, and how we admire her courage in speaking today despite her back problem—as extremely valuable, because we were then running a top-down service.
I was persuaded that it was essential to keep the regions. However, since then we have had the reforms. From the point of view of delivery of services on the ground, the providers —whether they be the few remaining provider units or now the great mass of health trusts—do not look upwards with hands ever held out to regions, the management executive or the department, for guidance, resources, wisdom as to what to do; they are accountable to their purchasers, to the commissioners, and through them they are accountable to the people whom they serve.
In those circumstances, the fact of the reform and that one has now devolved so much responsibility and decision-making right down to the local level—if my

29
trust is any guide, devolution goes on down to individual care groups, to care group managers, to clinical directors who have financial responsibility—that makes the whole situation different. I therefore reject completely the case that was made with such force by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that it is essential to keep the regional tier to maintain the NHS. On the contrary, because the pattern of reforms has gone the way that it has, and because it has worked to devolve authority and decision-making so far down the line nearer to where patient care is delivered, one can look, as it were, at the superstructure in an entirely different light.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, having invited me back into the Chamber, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I ask a question. When he was Secretary of State, did he not feel that the organisation of the NHS was suffering, not from having a regional structure, but from having far too many district and area structures? Did he not find at that time that the planning role of the regional authorities was essential? If he did not feel that, why did he allow it to go on?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, because the service was top-down. The noble Lord is right. I inherited far too many layers. The Bills that I introduced got rid of three layers of administration within the NHS. I take his point on that, but in a top-down service one needs all this detailed planning at regional level. But once the decision-making is devolved to purchasers, the commissioners—the health authorities as they will be under the Bill—and the delivery of service to the providers, then a great deal of that top hamper becomes—if I may put it this way—supererogatory. It does not need to exist. There are some functions—the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, correctly pinpointed a number—in which there will have to be continuing involvement at the region. I have been provided by the department with a list of the services that will become part of the regional outposts of the management executive. Many of the subjects upon which he touched are on that list. I have no doubt that my noble friend will expand on that point when she replies.
Because one has maximum devolution right down to health authorities, to GP fundholders and to trusts, that has the effect also of making the service a great deal more responsive to the needs of the customers—to the patients —and to those who represent them.
It so happens that this morning I had a good example of that in my trust. I was due to pay a visit to the special care baby unit at Whipps Cross Hospital. Many noble Lords will be familiar with the astonishing work that such units can do in saving lives and the health of very premature babies—babies born seriously underweight; babies born with other problems (the mothers may have been drug addicts); and babies born with serious immediate problems, infections and so on. I saw some of those mites lying in their incubators. I was absolutely astonished that they should be alive at all.
When I was discussing that unit's future with the clinical director—a very distinguished paediatrician—and the care group manager, what did we talk about? We talked about the negotiations that they are currently
30
having with their purchaser to convince the purchaser that the quality of care that that SCBU is giving is better than that given by other potential suppliers of that service. They are producing figures of, for instance, rates of survival of babies born at 23 weeks, 25 weeks, 27 weeks, and so on. But, more than that, they are giving the subsequent medical histories, because it is no good enabling people to survive if they are then seriously mentally or physically handicapped if that could have been avoided. Outcomes of care are what the contracting system is now, not forcing out, but drawing out from providers. This has given rise to a higher profile for medical and clinical audit. Providers can prove that the service that they are giving compares with the best in the country. They can then convince their purchasers and others in the area that theirs is the place to take the cases. They can convince the GPs that their cases are in good hands in a particular unit.
That example is repeated in many other parts of the trust. The purchaser/provider system makes the providers look outwards to the community that they serve rather than upwards to some shadowy regional authority. It is bringing direct improvements in the quality of care—and quality is what it is all about.
Contrary to the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, reforms are alive and well in north east London. I do not say for one moment that life is easy for everyone; our nurses are extremely hard worked, not least during flu epidemics and other emergency admissions. Whipps Cross is a busy, hard-pressed hospital and is delivering high-quality care to those in the surrounding area.
Everyone is in favour of the merger of DHAs and the family health service authorities to form the new health authorities. However, I too do not believe that it should be another "Suetonius" event. I did not use that word but called it the shaking of the kaleidoscope: when one shakes it and then looks down the tube the colours are the same but the pattern is slightly different. The merger should be a major stride towards the more direct involvement of general practitioners in the purchasing and commissioning of secondary care from their providers. The health authorities should increasingly become strategic authorities, with a firm co-ordinating role. They should be small strategic bodies, leaving most of the decision-making as regards the contracts to the general practitioners.
That does not mean that they must all be fund holders. They may well be, but again there is an interesting example in my area. A group of 25 GP practices north of my area but south of the M.25 got together and concluded that they wished to put most of their secondary care to the Forest Healthcare Trust. They were not fund holders and did not have direct control of the funds. However, they approached the North Essex Health Authority and asked that the contracts should be drawn up enabling them to express that preference on behalf of their patients.
That illustrates how, if one devolves the authority down the line, those closest to the patients—namely, their own general practitioners—can begin to express

31
choices on behalf of the patients. That is what one means by primary directed care. It is care of which the primary sector is at the forefront.
Everyone talks about that and it is beginning to happen. However, one of the difficulties is the fact that GPs are worried that they will not be able to cope with the extra responsibility. One must ask—how can one enable GPs who have never previously done this to take on an extended role? Some of the best GPs and the most lively practices are able to take it in their stride, but many are not. I see this as a real duty which rests on the new health authorities. They will include the old FHSA, which has had the responsibility for GPs, and they should take on the task—lead GPs and guide them and help them to make their purchasing decisions more effective.
I turn now to GP supply. One is told that in London in particular—and it may be the case in other parts of the country—there is a shortage of young doctors who wish to become general practitioners. If it is seen that the health service is increasingly becoming a GP-led service, young men and women coming out of medical training will see the service as a more effective way of being able to carry out their professional duties on behalf of their patients than pursuing an ever-more recondite specialty in a hospital setting. The GP supply needs to be addressed and I hope that my noble friend will comment on that.
As regards medical education, no one has mentioned Calman. As regards those of us who employ large numbers of consultants and doctors in training, the Calman reforms in medical education are yet another area of considerable change in upheaval. I believe that the reforms in the Bill have not fully meshed with those that are being promoted through the Calman Report. I wish to be reassured about that.
Perhaps I may reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, about the place of universities and medical schools in the new structure. I too was delighted that in another place the Government agreed to add university representatives to the new health authorities. I was one of those who in 1990 argued that they should have a position on relevant trusts and that was accepted. I believe that there should be a more formal link than oral representations, or whatever, between the universities and the new regional bodies. I too have received communications from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I shall not bore the House by quoting from them but the committee makes a case that needs to be listened to.
If the Calman reforms are bringing about substantial changes in the pattern of medical education, if this Bill is bringing about valuable changes in the structure of the delivery of health care, somehow them must be a better linking between those two processes. Some form of clear university representation at the regional level is most important.
I warmly welcome the Bill and I believe that it will be to the benefit of patients. It will achieve all the five things that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, suggested that reforms should achieve. I differ from her in almost all
32
that she said about the Bill, except her comments about the health authorities. I wish the Bill very possible success.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am in illustrious company. My only qualifications to speak on this subject are that I am the son of a GP, who unfortunately has not practised for some years, and as a user of the National Health Service. For some years I was a member of the Stockport Community Health Council and later of the Manchester Family Practitioner Committee. Following reorganisation I received a letter informing me that my services were no longer required. I suspect that that was partly due to the fact that I was seen to be an active member of the Labour Party and not a Conservative supporter, but I may be wrong. I am also an engineer. I seek to assess the latest reorganisation of the health service on the basis of the practical effects.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, explain the problems of GP practices endeavouring to send their patients to a particular hospital. That clearly demonstrates what has changed in the National Health Service under this Conservative Government. It is similar to what has happened with the privatisation of the public services about which we have heard. I take the example of the electricity industry. Before it was privatised, we were all shareholders. Fifty million people were equal shareholders in the nationalised electricity industry. I heard recently that there are now 3 million shareholders of the privatised electricity utilities. We have gone from a situation in which there was openness and freedom in which 50 million people were involved to a situation in which fewer than 3 million people are involved.
Before this Conservative Government came to power, GPs could refer their patients to any hospital and any consultant throughout the land. They had access to literally thousands of consultants and hundreds of hospitals. Now they are restricted to a particular hospital with which their group, within the National Health Service, has a contract. They can send patients only to those hospitals with which contracts exist. They are denied the facilities to send their patients to the consultants and hospitals of their choice. That is very stark; I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, mentioned it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that the purpose of the Bill is to remove an unnecessary tier of administration. She added that there would still be regional offices. If there are still to be regional offices—I shall say more about that in a few moments—we are not doing away with a tier at all. We are changing the system. In practice, we are hiding away that tier from the public eye. That is not very sensible in a democracy.
Why does that regional tier exist? Let us compare the National Health Service with the national education service. The national education service provides schooling for all children in the country between the ages of five and 16. That provision is made under the aegis of local education authorities. Over the years the revenue support grant has been established through

33
which the Government help to fund the education service. That is done on a formula basis. Over the years it has been adjusted. The mechanism provides automatic funding from the centre. That has never existed in the National Health Service. Provision for funding at local level is not well established on a formula basis, Historically, the distribution of resources in the National Health Service has been determined within regions by regional health authorities.
The Government's objective may be to use a formula funding mechanism to ensure that there is a sensible distribution of resources at local level. But that is not yet in place. In practice, decisions will have to be made at regional level to determine where the resources go within that region. I am concerned that the distribution of resources will take place behind closed doors, administered, effectively, by a commissar—I repeat, a commissar—on a clear Stalinist model. That is not the right way to distribute resources which are so important to the people of this country.
We all recognise the importance and the positive gains which will flow from merging district health authorities and the FHSAs. But I enter two caveats. First, it is extremely important to ensure that at that level we maintain a voice for the professions involved in the provision of primary services—in particular, general practitioners, opticians, dentists, pharmacists and, of supreme importance, midwives. It is extremely important that those five professions are plugged in effectively to the district level. From the introduction which the noble Baroness gave, it does not seem that their voices will be heard sufficiently.
Secondly, there was no mention of the growing integration and inter-relationship between the National Health Service at local level and the social services provided by local authorities. We must recognise that essential integration. This Government started the process by absolving themselves of any responsibility in relation to community care. They laid that enormous burden of responsibility on local authorities and, in particular, their social services departments. We must recognise the importance of the integration at district level of the National Health Service and social services departments and make those operations coterminous. The new district health authorities covering the primary care sector need to be coterminous with local authority social services departments. Unless that is so, we shall lose the opportunity to ensure that the integration of service delivery goes ahead much better than it is doing at present because of the separation of those two areas of responsibility.
I suspect that we shall not be able to make many changes to the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will fight for what they see as improvements but I suspect that the Government have made up their mind. On the advice of the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, John Maples, they are trying to take the National Health Service off the agenda by getting rid of regional health authorities and replacing them with commissars who operate behind closed doors. Notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act,
34
I hope that the public will be able to hear enough about what is going on to alert them about the Government's management of the National Health Service.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on her clear explanation of the Bill. Indeed, there is much which will be welcomed in the Bill but the Minister will not be surprised to know that I wish to draw attention to three practical matters arising from it which, unless they are properly attended to, may handicap it seriously; namely, the education of medical and dental students in both their undergraduate and postgraduate phases and basic medical research.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with whose comments I largely agree, I am not a medical doctor but for many decades, I have been involved with medical education and research in a variety of senior capacities. It seems to me that the Department of Health, and indeed all its precursor bodies, have constantly to be reminded of a fundamental fact which applies whatever the organisation that is set up. To make my point, I wish to quote what I said nearly five years ago in the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. On that occasion I said,
"The quality of health care received by patients depends more"—
I believe this still to be true—
"on the skill, motivation and commitment of their doctors, nurses and ancillary staff than on anything else".
It goes above organisation:
"And those essential attributes receive their major cultivation in the clinical phase of the education of aspiring doctors … Responsibility for maintaining the quality of the teaching lies wholly with the universities and is exercised through their full-time members of academic staff, assisted by NHS staff holding honorary contracts and posts. The major part of clinical research in this country is also carried out by those academic doctors and their staffs".—[Official Report, 3/4/90; col. 1300.]
I further argued on that occasion that, as with all previous Bills from 1974 onwards, a principle had been conceded; namely, that for training, research and patient care to be truly effective and properly interdigitated, one with another, it was essential that the university which had responsibility for that education and research, and which for that purpose owned—and indeed still owns—accommodation in hospitals, should have a say in the deliberations of the policy and governing bodies of such hospitals, which in those days were of course, as has been mentioned, the district health authorities (teaching) and the regional health authorities.
Five years ago the National Health Service and Community Care Bill incorporated this principle for the newly introduced trusts which the Bill proposed to introduce in place of the district health authorities. But totally inconsistently on that occasion the Bill rejected the same principle for the DHAs (teaching) by withdrawing the right of membership by universities in the governance of those district health authorities (teaching) which for many years had at least one university member. Fortunately, in response to pressure in this House, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, saw the damaging illogicality of this situation and its unworkability and he agreed to amend the Bill

35
to provide for appropriate university representation on the district health authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Boding, has already mentioned.
The Bill before us today proposes new health authorities to replace the existing district health authorities and family health services authorities. I think most of us applaud that. As originally drafted, the Bill contained the same error as five years ago; that is to say, no university member was to be on the new health authorities. But, fortunately, as has already been mentioned, that error was spotted last December in another place and in response the Secretary of State said—I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm it today—that she will introduce a requirement for universities with a medical or dental school to have membership of a new health authority, and that that will be put in the regulations. Why it cannot be put into the Bill I cannot imagine.
Naturally the universities welcome the possibility of restoration of membership by whatever means, which in my view, as I have mentioned, should always be statutory. However, given that it is to be prescribed in regulations, it obviously makes sense if the universities can be satisfied that the whole of that part of the new arrangements which are to be incorporated in the regulations will be practical and workable, and to that end they have sought prior consultation on those regulations before they are drafted. That has been refused. May I ask the Government to think again? The Government, the health service and its patients now and in the future have everything to gain and nothing to lose by that kind of consultation which, in my view, is bound to result in better regulations.
The problems of the university/health service interface do not end there because, as the Minister reminded us, under this Bill it is proposed that the regional health authorities in England and Wales will be replaced by regional offices of the National Health Service Executive. As the Bill now stands there will be no provision for the relevant universities to be involved as of right in the deliberations of the executive in the decision-making process. All that is proposed in the Bill is that the regional director be reminded—I emphasise that—that universities are taken account of in appropriate circumstances. That is hardly the approach to ensure that universities have a real say in the decision making. Instead of a mere reminder to the regional directors, in my view they should receive an instruction to consult the universities.
Another important and cognate matter concerns the postgraduate deans, to which brief reference has been made, who are responsible for postgraduate medical and dental education and for academic standards. Hitherto, they have been employed either by the universities alone or sometimes jointly by the universities and the NHS. It is vitally important that that link with the universities be not lost and that the universities retain responsibility for the postgraduate deans, at least for the academic part of their work including, especially, immediate postgraduate pre-registration house officer training.
36
If the postgraduate deans are responsible solely to the regional directors—which appears to be a possibility under the Bill—I am sure those regional directors will see their major responsibility merely to satisfy the needs of patient care today. If that is the case, the training of doctors for future service in the NHS and elsewhere will inevitably suffer as will, of course, the prospects of medical care in the NHS of the future because that quality of teaching and research in the future is critically dependent on the preparation of doctors. I shall omit references to research and development which I had intended to make in view of the passage of time, and simply say that I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said on those matters.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, this is the first major legislation relating to health care since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. As my noble friend the Minister outlined so clearly, it contains a relatively small number of provisions but they have far-reaching implications.
Noble Lords have spoken about many of the key issues. I shall therefore confine myself to those which reflect my own interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. I wish first, however, to welcome the proposed merger of district health authorities and family health services authorities. This sensible streamlining can only improve the commissioning of primary and secondary care services. The integration of the two types of authorities is already taking place in some areas with the appointment of a single chief executive. The Bill will enable the policy to develop consistently across the country.
The merger of DHAs and FHSAs has been warmly welcomed by a wide range of organisations. For example, in its evidence to the review of community nursing undertaken in 1985 by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, the Royal College of Nursing called for the merger of DHAs and FHSAs, known previously as family practitioner committees, and for the creation of primary health care authorities. With two authorities working separately it was inevitable that some people with health and/or social needs would fall through the safety net of care. Greater integration of hospital, community and primary care services will help to provide a seamless web of services for patients, clients and carers. Therefore this proposed merger is, we believe, warmly to be welcomed. Moreover, by combining the expertise of both acute and community care services, the provisions of the Bill will strengthen the new health authorities' ability to commission appropriate services for their own local populations.
So far so good. And mention of the word "expertise" leads me to the main issue on which I wish to focus. The membership of the new health authority boards will be crucial. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the right decisions are made now about the membership as it is board members who will to a large extent determine whether patients receive good quality health services, appropriate to the local population and sensitive to individual needs.

37
As my noble friend the Minster said, there will be three executive board members prescribed in regulations: the chief executive, the director of finance and the director of public health. It has also been noted and welcomed that a non-executive director will be appointed from a university medical or dental school where one exists.
While appreciating the proposed membership as far as it goes, I do not believe that it ensures sufficient professional expertise on key aspects of policy in the health service. I urge serious and sympathetic consideration of what I believe is an overwhelmingly powerful case for the executive membership to include nursing expertise. I know that the Government are familiar with the arguments and, indeed, agree that nurses have a crucial contribution to make to the purchasing team. Last summer the Department of Health published a report called Building a Stronger Team in which it praised the role of nurses in purchasing. Only last week my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health in another place told a King's Fund conference:
"If purchasing authorities are to carry out their job even more effectively it is vital that they work hand in hand with nurses who have 80% of patient contact in the NHS. Nurses give purchasing plans clinical credibility based on longstanding and widespread experience".
Qualified nurses are the largest professional group in the NHS, constituting approximately 50 per cent. of the NHS workforce. Nurses also account for 40 per cent. of current expenditure in the NHS and 3 per cent. of total public expenditure in Britain as a nation. Thus, if purchasing bodies are to be cost effective they must ensure optimum use of nursing resources. Clearly, nurses themselves are the most appropriate source of knowledge to advise on professional issues such as staffing and skill mix.
I do not advocate the representation of nursing expertise on boards as a way of promoting nursing's interests in any sectional or partisan way. I do so because nursing expertise is needed for effective purchasing. Assessment of clients' needs and an understanding of the costs of providing care, participation in clinical audit, and monitoring standards of care are all part of nurses' everyday responsibilities. Nurses' expertise spans all clinical areas and their contact with patients is continuous rather than episodic. No other profession is better placed than nursing to give informed, detailed advice on services needed by patients, families and carers.
Organisations representing patients emphasise the important part that nurses play in the purchasing process. For example, the director of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, Mr. Harry Cayton, wrote to the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing claiming:
"We recognise that nurses' regular contact with people with dementia and with their carers mean that they have a unique contribution to make at the most senior level of the purchasing team...Unless the Health Authorities Bill gives legislative force to the importance of nurses in purchasing there is a risk that the quality of services could be poorer as a result".
Therefore, there seems little dispute that nurses have the knowledge and skills to make an essential contribution to the purchasing authorities. However, opinions differ on the mechanism through which their contribution can
38
be ensured. The Government have argued that there is no need to prescribe a place for nurses on health authority boards because there must be flexibility in each area to decide whether a nurse is needed. My honourable friend the Minister in another place told a Standing Committee that the Government fully expect that in many cases executive members will be appointed who have nursing qualifications and that the Government have encouraged that in the past and will continue to do so. While we welcome such great expectations and encouragement, that is not enough to ensure that nurses attain key posts.
A survey by the Royal College of Nursing in January this year found that only about one half of existing DHAs and FHSAs have nurses in executive positions and that even fewer intend that to happen under the new arrangements. There is already evidence of nurses in executive board positions losing their jobs as authorities merge in preparation for April 1996,
There is a related issue on which I would welcome reassurance from the Minister. Last month the Government published guidance on good practice on appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. Many of the suggestions are to be welcomed as they will indeed improve appointment procedures. However, I have one anxiety relating to the disqualification criteria at the very end of the document, identifying those who will be ineligible for appointment as non-executive directors of trusts and health authorities. For example:
"The Secretary of State would not normally expect someone who works for one health body to be appointed as a non-executive director to another".
That disqualification would appear to exclude many nurses and other health professionals working in the NHS from serving as non-executive directors on the new health authorities. Most of those who are eligible will be working outside the NHS, for example in occupational health services, prisons, universities or the Armed Forces. I appreciate their professional services, but the exclusion of those working in the NHS, as it appears from the wording of the document, means the exclusion of those with particular experience and expertise within the NHS which makes them such strong candidates for full involvement in all stages of decision-making, essential to the remit of the authority. I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify that point, not only as it relates to nursing but also as it relates to other professionals. If so many well qualified nurses are to be disqualified from membership and if there is no statutory requirement for nurses to be executive members, the Government's hope that many nurses will become board members is not likely to be realised.
I believe that it would be very serious if purchasing boards were to become an exclusion zone for nurses. Ultimately, it would be the patients and their families who suffered from the lack of nursing input on the boards. I shall be very grateful if my noble friend will consider some statutory provision for the inclusion of nursing experience on the boards.
I understand and welcome the amendment, to which the Minister referred, already incorporated into the Bill, requiring health authorities to seek advice from professional practitioners, including doctors, nurses and

39
midwives. However, that is not the same as ensuring their professional input at initial and other key stages of policy formulation.
Finally, I shall be grateful if my noble friend will clarify the implications for nurse education. With the abolition of the RHAs, responsibility for commissioning nurse education will fall to local purchasers and providers who will presumably base their decisions on local needs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, highlighted. I therefore share the anxiety, also expressed by the Royal College of Nursing, that such local decisions may not ensure adequate provision of the range of nursing specialties needed for national requirements or for long-term strategic planning for nursing services both within and outside the National Health Service.
There are signs that the need for nurses in the future has been under-estimated, as shortages are already evident around the country. Moreover, there were cuts of 33 per cent. in the number of student nurse places between 1987 and 1994. Trusts are increasingly looking to agency and bank nurses to fill the gaps. However good those individual agency and bank nurses may be, they cannot provide the continuity of patient care and thus the quality of relationships with patients and families which lie at the heart of good nursing. Furthermore, the Royal College of Nursing has received reports that even agency nurses are in short supply, for example in London, Manchester and Bristol.
Those shortages are serious, and must be taken seriously, if present problems are to be alleviated and a crisis is to be averted. I would warmly welcome assurances from the Minister that steps will be taken to ensure the involvement of nurses in the key decision-making bodies of the future NHS and that the new arrangements will ensure that education and employment of appropriate numbers of nurses overall, and of specialists in clinical areas, will be provided to enable the provision of health care for all people in the years ahead.
I emphasise that, although I speak as a nurse, I do not seek to promote the interests of nursing as such, as I have already said. My overriding concern is to seek to take the opportunities afforded by this valuable Bill to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the new authorities in providing the highest possible standard of care in the most cost-effective way and in ways which are most finely tuned to present and changing health needs, individually and nationally.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give assurance on the issues I have raised because I believe that they are essential if the Bill is to achieve its very worthy objectives.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have an engagement later this evening. Given the rate at which the debate is proceeding, it may not be possible for me to stay until the end, for which I apologise.
40
Let me say, first, a word or two in defence of dinosaurs. In introducing the Bill, the noble Baroness said something about the NHS in the old days being like a flat-footed dinosaur. Dinosaurs lasted 2 million or more years. Human civilisation will be lucky to last that long. Dinosaurs did not die out because they were inefficient; they just had a nasty shock. Therefore let us not hear anything against dinosaurs; they are good. I wish that humans were that good.
If my memory serves me correctly, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, by and large, people were not dissatisfied with the National Health Service. Indeed, everyone was proud of it. Then when the late lamented Lord Joseph was in charge of health it was thought that the health service should be reformed, and that reform would bring progress and all kinds of other good things. Therefore the service was reorganised. We have had reorganisations ever since, and every reorganisation has promised progress. But if one asks the people in the streets, they are more dissatisfied with the National Health Service than they ever have been. The noble Baroness will tell us how much more money is being spent, how many more patients are being treated, and so on. However, at ground level the dissatisfaction with the National Health Service is much greater than previously; and that cannot be denied.
I have my doubts whether this reform—it is the fourth or fifth in about 20 years—will perform miracles. As my noble friend Lady Jay said, reform by reorganising is a non-solution to a problem. We are not so much abolishing regional health authorities as transforming their nature and making them rather more subservient than at present. The only other reform has been welcomed by this side of the Chamber; and I have nothing further to say on that.
It is often argued that removing one tier such as the RHA decentralises and gives more power below. I believe that exactly the opposite occurs: the more one abolishes middle tiers, the more power is concentrated in the centre because one sets up weaker and weaker authorities on the ground which do not have the power or resources to stand up and challenge the central authority. We have seen that occur regarding education. We now see it happening within the health service. I do not believe that decentralisation always leads to giving power to the people.
Let me give an extreme example. Someone might say that Parliament is an intermediate level of authority between the ruler and the people. Therefore let us get rid of Parliament and local authorities; let us give power to the people themselves. What would happen? The people would not gain much power. One needs bodies at certain levels to concentrate power and authority. Without them one only makes the centre more powerful.
In its report on priority setting, the health committee in another place made a number of good suggestions about why some of the priority settings and analyses of health care need to be comparative across regions, age groups, classes and so on. Who will undertake such analyses? If we do not have regional health authorities, that would be undertaken by some specialist group, but without proper feeling for the opinions of the people.

41
Some noble Lords may have read in this morning's newspapers about the King's Fund—on whose sober authority there was reliance about a reorganisation of hospital care in London. The Tomlinson Report followed. At that time we all considered that the King's Fund had some expertise. Now that body has changed its mind and tells us that it was all a ghastly mistake and should perhaps be stopped. Throughout the Tomlinson reform the ordinary people had a suspicion all along that London needed not fewer hospital beds but more. Perhaps there should have been better ways of consulting the patients and users of the National Health Service. I am sure that there are methods of consultation. But the methods used have failed to spot the problem which the people saw and the experts did not.
I am not sure whether the removal of one tier and bits of reorganisation address the problem that we face: that the people's confidence in the National Health Service has been and is being eroded. That is happening despite more money being spent. In that case, we should be doubly worried. If that loss of confidence occurred when money was not being spent, one could understand it; but it is occurring despite more money being spent. We ought to consider how to improve the situation. Short as the Bill is, I see very little which addresses the problem.
The noble Baroness said that the provisions would save money. I have heard that said before and I have never found it to be true. That was promised when the National Health Service was reorganised in the 1970s. When local government was reorganised in the 1970s, it was promised. Every time some service is reorganised, that is what is promised. But all that happens is that another tier of professionals is hired. No one ever goes away; more and more people come in. If I were a betting man I should place a bet—I am not sure that one is allowed to take bets in your Lordships' House—that five years on we will find that not a penny has been saved and the whole package may have cost about £500 million, give or take £100 million.
I do not believe that the Bill, short as it is, will improve the National Health Service very much. At a later stage I hope that we shall be able to consider more constructively how we can restore the people's faith in the National Health Service. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the National Health Service is one of the most efficient services around. All that we are doing is to make it less efficient and less popular. I wish that we could do better.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, unfortunately I too must leave before seven as I had earlier accepted an invitation to a pharmaceutical dinner tonight and I must go. I apologise. I become cross when I hear other people saying exactly that to the House, but it is difficult when one is asked to accept an invitation well in advance and then one finds at the last moment that it clashes with a debate.
The Bill appears to be both a simple and yet a complex one. It is simple because the aims are very straightforward. The abolition of the RHAs, the merging of DHAs and FHSAs will help to remove some
42
unnecessary bureaucracy from the health service and should benefit patients and staff. It will free funds for more direct patient care.
It is complex because the changes require a huge number of consequential amendments to a large variety of Acts. That will make the Act a nuisance in terms of the legalities of using the law when the Bill is enacted. I am sure that other Members of your Lordships' House will appreciate the need after this for a consolidation Act sooner rather than later.
From 1990 to 1994 I was vice-chairman of the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority. After years of involvement in the NHS administration and general dental practice, I found it most interesting to be working at the strategic level. Among other responsibilities, we were closely involved with the formation of the new NHS trusts. I welcomed those, as it seemed to me to be returning the control of the health services to those most closely concerned with direct patient care.
Earlier, I had served on an area health authority for all the time that such authorities existed. We sat in an office, remote from all hospitals, determining how the hospitals should be run. At the same time, I was a member of the retained board of governors of the Brompton and National Heart Hospital, where meetings were held on the premises and governors really knew the particular needs of patients, staff and even the building. The area health authorities were abolished, as noble Lords know, and that brought management closer to the point of delivery of services to patients, with just the region and districts. NHS hospital trusts are, I believe, run in ways more or less the same as the hospitals were run years ago and I am convinced that that has benefited patients. The RHAs have largely done their job now and I think that it is good to remove that extra layer and again to bring control back closer to people. Now, combining the district health authorities and the family health service authorities will again bring control to a more local level.
Much has been said about how little say patients have and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that it is important that community health councils should not be reduced to only one per new authority. I echo that. I am now chairman of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust on which we have a great deal of consultation and time spent with the Hampstead Community Health Council, and now the Barnet Community Health Council, as those are largely the two areas that we cover. A separate Islington Community Health Council covers the other area, with the University College Trust. They would find it tedious to have to come to the many meetings we hold, just as the Hampstead people would find it tedious going to the other meetings. If we want good local consultation, we must keep it at a sufficiently local level.
There has been much comment during the debate on NHS appointments. My vice-chairman is a lifelong Labour supporter, a real stalwart and also a tremendous asset to me, with his local knowledge and awareness of the history of all that has gone on in Hampstead for many years. I have no idea of the politics of my other members; I do not care about that. The members are

43
there because they are efficient and capable; they have the knowledge that we need to run the trust. We believe in working closely with local authorities and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned the need for closer liaison, which is important. However, the connections must be built up over a period and I do not agree with him that it is essential for them to be coterminous. Patients do not consider themselves coterminous with anything. They still wish to go to the hospital with which they have had past associations or which are more conveniently situated. If people live across the borough boundary, they still go to the hospital of their choice, as they are entitled to do. As a general principle, coterminosity may be good but one cannot restrict patients by the same coterminous rules.
The Royal College of Nursing sent me a statement which I found interesting. I emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lady Cox that there is grave anxiety about whether we will have enough nurses. We are already finding a shortage of agency nurses and I have doubts about the. Project 2000 scheme for nurses. We are losing the identity and association that nurses used to have with the training hospital where they learnt their nursing skills. I appreciate that educationally it is considered better, but the scheme is changing the nursing scene, taking nurses away from the hospital, giving them an education with a different flavour. There will not be the same allegiance to hospitals as there was in the past. However, my anxiety in this debate is not how nurses are trained; it is to ask the Government to ensure that we have enough, under whatever body controls the system.
The National Consumer Council wrote to me suggesting that a rather complicated and cumbersome process of consultation should be brought in. I thought it was quite impractical. The council suggested that the new commissioning authority should advertise what form of consultation it intended to introduce as a start and then it would be able to work out the consultation. By the time one has consulted to see what kind of consultation might be introduced, and then reconsulted people, the whole issue has gone so far that the system is quite hopeless and we hope that it will not be brought in.
There should be good liaison with the community health councils. Years ago, I would have spoken and probably did speak against community health councils. When they were first introduced in the days of the area health authorities, I thought that they were nothing but obstructive. If the area health authority took two hours for a meeting, the community health council took four to six hours for the equivalent meeting. I was then chairman of social services and health in the Westminster City Council. We advertised and interviewed people so that we were far ahead, but to find people to represent the local authority was extremely difficult. My husband was appointed and served for four years, at the end of which I suggested he might like to be reappointed. He said: "Never! I couldn't possibly stand any more of it". The process was hopelessly cumbersome and time consuming.
44
Since then I have seen a gradual change in community health councils. Their attitude and interest in what they are doing, their understanding of medical and hospital problems and even the commissioning problems have changed to the extent that the councils are an active partner within the health service. If I had been asked 10 or 12 years ago I would never have thought that I would stand here and say that, but I believe that they now have a great role to play and will continue to play it.
I end by echoing some of the points brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The man in the street is probably dissatisfied with the health service. After my 40 years in it, I consider that I am accurate in assessing the reason. It is partly because treatments have progressed unbelievably. Forty years ago, if you had a bad heart you were given bed rest, and that was all there was. Now the list of treatments available is enormous and expectations have increased tremendously, as well as awareness of what is available.
Another more worrying point is that there is an awareness of what one is entitled to. We have seen much on television about malpractice suits and years ago as a dentist in this country you could almost cut the patient's head off, but if he had faith in you he would not mind. As time went on, patients reached the point where they questioned everything one did. Recently a professor explained that dentists might be carrying out unnecessary fillings. From that day on, I hardly did a single filling without the patient questioning whether it was needed. So we have created a whole different atmosphere for patients. That is one of the disadvantages.
We have to realise that we shall never be able to satisfy the expectations that people have. We just have to do our best to see that the patients really do receive treatment to the highest standard and with the greatest care that we can possibly give.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, like many Members of this House, I thoroughly support the merging of the district health authorities and the family health services authorities. I listened carefully to the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness the Minister about the disbanding of the regional authorities. I was almost persuaded—almost. But I need some convincing and I want to be assured that, for what seems a very small saving when you look at the total cost of the National Health Service, we have systems in place that will undertake the very important services which we have heard today that regional health authorities undertake.
I want to focus my remarks on two issues. I feel some embarrassment, because they are the two issues about which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already spoken. Therefore, I shall not detain the House and repeat all that she said. We have not been in collusion, but it is evidence that we feel deeply about the same issues. I speak as one who spent almost 30 years in nursing education and then, for a short while after the 1990 Act, served as a member of a district health authority and was chairman of its complaints committee.

45
So far as nursing education and training are concerned, it is that experience that I want to share with the House. My memory goes back long, long before the "flat-footed monolith" about which the noble Baroness the Minister spoke, to the days when district hospitals recruited individually—and under-recruited for their needs. The national need for nursing staff was met only because teaching hospitals over-recruited. I have a great fear that we may quickly find ourselves in that position again.
The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, described how the regional authorities have responsibility at the moment for determining the demands of employers for nurses and for purchasing education and training places. Under the provisions of the Bill, that strategic planning function is to be devolved. It is to be taken on by the local' consortia of health authorities and trusts, which will make an estimate of their local needs. The plans will be monitored by the new regional offices.
I have a deep concern that there is no intention to continue with a national overview for nursing manpower needs. Without such an overview, it will be impossible to detect and prevent impending shortages. That situation may very quickly be upon us. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned the cuts in training places; and I am told that a further cutback of 55 per cent. over the years between 1993 and 1997 is envisaged.
The inevitable conclusion is that there will be many fewer trained nurses and that the skill mix, both in the community and in hospital, will be diluted to the point where the quality of patient care will suffer. I do not wish to advocate the misuse of highly trained nurses and expensive staff. But I wish to point to the evidence that says that patient outcomes and patient turnover is vastly improved where registered nurses are employed. I believe that that points to a need for a national overview.
Increasingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, nurses are being employed on a casual basis—on short-term contracts or as agency or bank nurses, in the interests of cost saving. The implication is that we have a highly mobile and volatile nursing workforce. The implications of that for the quality of care can only be imagined. The ethos of the institution in which one works, or even of a ward and its working procedures, can take time to absorb, and the continuity of care which individual patients need is lost.
At the same time, there are numerous commendable government initiatives in Health of the Nation targets and in care in the community for frail and disabled people which demand more, rather than fewer, skilled nurses. Furthermore, it is difficult for any local determination of manpower needs to take into account the training demands of small, highly specialised groups such as paediatric intensive care nurses. We have heard that indications are that the service is already under strain. That strain will be exacerbated by wholly devolving manpower planning to a local level.
My years in nursing education have made me aware that, for courses to be economically viable, a critical mass of students and suitably qualified staff is needed. If the future demand for students is underestimated and
46
training places are cut back, then the colleges and higher education institutes will cease to offer courses. Besides nurse tutors facing redundancy, it will be difficult to reinstate the courses once the true manpower needs are identified. In other words, the infrastructure for nursing education will have been lost. I trust that the Government, in devolving the regional responsibilities, will recognise the need for a national overview of nursing education and manpower planning.
My second point is related to the membership of the new health authority boards. Again I reiterate that I am not making the point for the representation of sectional interests. We have already heard that five particular professions were named. The basis of trying to be representative in the membership of health boards is just not feasible. However, I am making a case for the necessary expertise and knowledge in the planning of the nursing manpower needs that the health authority will have to undertake.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that nurses form a major component of the healthcare team. They provide 80 per cent. of direct patient care and account for a great deal of the National Health Service budget. Nurses involved in purchasing therefore have an intimate knowledge of what is a major component of the work of district health authorities. From my experience of serving on a district health authority, I would say that that knowledge of manpower planning in nursing and purchasing is needed by the authority.
Nurses also bring an important dimension to the general management of health authorities. They work across all clinical areas and understand the role and contribution of other staff at all levels. Nurses in purchasing have the credibility to challenge practice in provider units and to negotiate contracts from a standpoint of clinical knowledge.
Each NHS trust is required by statute to have a nurse executive on its board. It seems only logical that the purchasing health authority should have an equivalent executive position to negotiate contracts from an informed position and to advise on the balance of provision between different services. Indeed, the Department of Health's own draft guidance on the involvement of professionals in the work of health authorities emphasises the importance of nursing involvement:
"the skills and knowledge which nurses bring include an appreciation and clear understanding of health care drawn from practical experience across all clinical areas, an ability to challenge clinical practice and an understanding of nursing costs and how staffing and skill mix can be fine tuned to achieve optimum use of resources".
It seems to be accepted that nurses have a pivotal role to play in the work of purchasing authorities. The Government have recognised that and issued good practice guidance for consultation on involving them at various levels in the work of health authorities and have incorporated into the Bill a requirement to seek their advice.
My concern is that, despite those welcome measures, there will be no statutory force behind the involvement of nurses at the highest level. That is in contrast to the present legislation, under which district health

47
authorities in Wales must have a nurse executive member on their boards, family health service authorities in England and Wales must have a non-executive member with community nursing experience, and, as I said earlier, trust boards must include a nurse executive.
The Bill will remove any existing requirements to include nurses on boards, with no adequate replacements. Despite the assurances of the Government that nurses who are able will automatically rise to such positions, it appears, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, that they may not even be eligible. I believe that unless the Government give statutory force to nurses' involvement at board level, few able and skilled nurses will reach those key positions and their knowledge and expertise in purchasing will be lost.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and the lucid explanation that we received from my noble friend the Minister when she introduced it. It follows naturally from previous reforms. However, I was also glad to hear that it is regarded as the final step in the progress of NHS reforms.
However necessary reform may be, inevitably it creates uncertainty, particularly for those who work in the service. It involves a lot of time and effort in planning and implementation and, however well thought out the reforms may be, difficulties will arise and unforeseen snags will appear. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill, I am glad that it is regarded as the last in the line.
There has been a general welcome both in this House and outside for the formation of all-purpose health authorities to replace the existing DHAs and FHSAs. That is in contrast to the controversy that arose when the National Health Service was first formed. At that time GPs were fearful that the new organisation would mean that their voice would be swamped by that of the hospitals. As a consequence, the family practitioner committees were set up and in one form or another have continued from that day to this. The fact that there is now a general welcome for the all-purpose authorities shows very clearly the progress that has been made over the years in viewing the service as a whole, with the family practitioner as the first link in the chain involving the GP surgeries, services in the community and in people's homes and services in hospitals.
The composition of health authorities has been mentioned on many occasions this afternoon. I too welcome the statement that a growing number of members of health authorities will have a background in nursing, medicine and other relevant professions. It is clearly highly important in such a specialised service, with so many professional disciplines involved, that the voice of those who have experience in these matters should be clearly heard. I hope that in considering that point my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response to the plea on behalf of the British Medical Association that the voice of primary care should be clearly represented on the health authorities.
48
I agreed very much with the point made by my noble friend Lady Cox and other noble Lords. It was a powerful plea for the representation of nursing. I hope too that we shall not lose sight of the importance of having an independent element on the health authorities. We want some people who are gifted amateurs and do not have a health service axe to grind. People who are experienced in management are also needed. If we are to have rounded health authorities, all those aspects are required.
I should like to raise with my noble friend the Minister three specific points. The first relates to the co-ordination of services, particularly the relations between health authorities and local authorities. One of the most difficult problems with which I had to deal when I represented a constituency in the other place concerned the demarcation disputes that sometimes arose in that area. Such problems arise most obviously in connection with services for the elderly or the mentally ill. For example, there may be an elderly lady in hospital who has had her treatment and is ready to be discharged; but she is not fit enough to go back to her own home and look after herself. Naturally, the hospital wants the bed. In many cases the local authority or voluntary organisation does not have a place. That comes partly from the inevitable pressure on services, which is bound to grow as the number of elderly people in the community grows. But also it arises from the different funding arrangements for the National Health Service and for local authorities.
I wonder whether my noble friend can say whether the health authorities are likely to be in a better position to deal with those kinds of demarcation disputes. Can she say also whether joint funding arrangements are likely to be able to make some contribution to the solution to such demarcation problems, which can be very distressing?
My second specific point concerns the community health councils, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I am very glad that they are to be retained. Not everybody agrees that they are necessary but it seems to me that they provide a valuable safety valve and watchdog. Can the Minister say whether their role will continue as before under the new arrangements?
My third specific point concerns relations between the National Health Service and the private sector. I declare an interest as a former governor of BUPA. When I was on the BUPA board I was able to see first-hand some of the valuable work done by that organisation in its own hospitals and also the fruitful co-operation that existed between the private sector and the NHS. In my view, the NHS and the private sector are complementary and not competitive. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an assurance that the co-operation between these two sectors will be encouraged to develop further.
The background to this Bill is the massive government investment in the National Health Service. My noble friend was too modest to mention that in her speech today. I remind the House that spending on the NHS has increased by no less than 66 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Even in last autumn's very tough spending round the NHS was able to get an increase of

49
1 per cent. in real terms, which was an extra £1 billion. These are impressive figures. They are the essential wherewithal for the great progress that has been made in curing disease and alleviating the pain and suffering of millions of our fellow countrymen each year. I believe that this Bill will help that progress to continue.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chairman of a district health authority. I was originally appointed by the Secretary of State in 1988. I am proud of it. We have come a long way in the past four years since the first wave of trusts came into being as the most obvious and well publicised element of the fundamental set of changes to take place in the National Health Service.
As far as public awareness is concerned, although press coverage has concentrated on trusts and GP fund-holding, the new role of the district and family health authorities is of great importance for the improvement of health care for local people. This Bill will strengthen the way in which local health authorities improve services. It will certainly have a big effect on the way that local hospital and primary care is managed. I hope to be able to demonstrate that the authorities in west London are ready for it, and to indicate how important it is that the powers conferred by the Bill are used sensitively.
This afternoon and at other times it has been asked whether the new health authorities will have the capacity to carry out the responsibilities devolved to them from the regional health authorities. In part answer to that question, perhaps I may say that at our district health authority meeting last week we considered a list of over 30 service areas for which responsibility was being taken through devolution to the authority of a substantial proportion of the region's previously top-sliced budget. Many of the services on that list are ones that we already manage where the funding has for historic reasons been top-sliced, and all of the items relate to activities with which we are familiar.
As one would expect with an authority that plans and provides services across a wide spectrum, from home bathing to heart by-pass surgery, one needs to have the benefit of advice and guidance from a wide range of clinical specialists, GP advisers, public health specialists, nurses, psychologists and many other disciplines. Many of the specialties that we plan and fund which are provided by hospitals and other services have been subjected by the authority to service reviews. Each review team relies considerably on medical input. This means that the statutory obligations to take professional advice which the new health authority will be under will be a continuation of what we do at present.
Alongside the greater devolution of funding—this year some £360 million of public money is being shared by the two local authorities in my district—one must have greater accountability. I welcome the proposal that the chief executives of health authorities and trusts will become more accountable to Parliament by being designated accountable officers. Clearly, it is unreasonable that the chief executive of the entire NHS,
50
no matter how able he is, can realistically be held to account for how services are organised in west London or any other part of the country.
I turn now to relationships within our district. It has always been important for the local health service to work closely with the local authority, the voluntary sector and other services. In addition, over the past few years the contribution of the private sector has grown substantially. Since the introduction of Care in the Community, local authorities have taken the lead, but work in tandem with health authorities to provide a tailored package of care for each person in need. In order to ensure that this system works, it is essential that the new health authorities are in a position to play their part fully. That can be greatly assisted by up-to-date and relevant funding mechanisms, and also by both authorities—one part of a national service and the other locally determined—taking their full share of responsibility.
The merger of health authorities will allow services to be planned so that those of GPs and hospitals are better co-ordinated than has been possible to date. In west London we are well ahead. Soon after Working for Patients came into effect, the erstwhile North West Thames Regional Health Authority encouraged all DHAs and FHSAs to become coterminous with one another and the local boroughs. That was implemented very successfully. In our case, the FHSA was already coterminous with three London boroughs. The merging of one part and two whole DHAs in April 1993 enabled us to work as a health agency, thus combining the two statutory authorities covering three boroughs. That may sound rather laborious, but it makes the point that the coterminosity of the authorities and the boroughs is of great importance. For us, this proved to be a neat arrangement which provided an essential foundation to bring together the work of the two authorities. A year ago we moved into one building in the centre of our area. That has contributed greatly to the degree of integration that we have achieved.
Local differences, even in a superficially uniform area of west London, are significant. The development of services that reflect the particular needs of localities and ethnic groups is crucial to our new role. Twenty-five per cent. of our population comes from a wide range of ethnic groups. Across the whole country there are considerable local variations in the structure and needs of the population. This is inevitable, and it is also to be valued. As the effects of this legislation take hold, these differences must continue to be respected.
Comments made in support of the manpower and functions review, which was the forerunner of this Bill, stressed the increasingly light touch applied by the centre to local management of the NHS. My noble friend the Minister mentioned this in her speech this afternoon. Policy needs to ensure that this philosophy prevails and that local diversity is respected.

51
I welcome this Bill as an opportunity for the highly competent management of existing health authorities to meet the challenge and take the NHS forward as a modem service, well equipped to meet the health needs of the local populations that each serves.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish to express my personal thanks to those who have spoken who play an important role in the operation of the National Health Service. I may be critical in a moment or two, but I am not critical of the time that is given by Members of this House to serve and improve the National Health Service.
This is the first time I have spoken in a debate on the organisation of the NHS since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 came on to the statute book. Much has happened since that very fundamental reorganisation. I welcome the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that this is the last of the reorganisations. I have not been happy about most of the previous ones. One of my feelings about this Government has been that whenever they see anything their first thought is, "How can we reorganise it?"—not always with very satisfactory results.
Much has happened since that reorganisation in the health service. For example, the number of senior and general managers in England has shot up since 1986 from 5,000 to more than 20,000. That is quite an achievement. Secondly, total bureaucratic costs have more than doubled since 1987–88 as a result of that reorganisation. Thirdly, the trend towards political appointments to paid posts, with much higher pay than 10 years ago, has accelerated. I await with interest, as I am sure will the whole House, the comments of the Nolan Committee on the politicisation of quangos, including the NHS quangos.
Fourthly, local authority representatives on NHS management bodies have been removed. I do not mean that none plays any part but none has a right to. That was a very derogatory step which we fought against hotly when the Bill was before the House. The Bill also removed or reduced greatly the role of non-governmental organisations, which are so important in the National Health Service, and reduced the role of the professional organisations, including those of doctors and nurses.
Fifthly, the role of community health councils has been reduced in recent years. They play a very important and healthily critical role in the National Health Service. Sixthly, whatever may be said about episodes of treatment and whatever may be the figures for episodes of treatment, the total number of patients on hospital waiting lists has increased and passed the 1 million figure for the first time. The trend is still upward.
Seventhly, concern about the Conservative handling of the National Health Service has steadily increased. That concern is reflected in every kind of election and opinion poll. The public, who value their National Health Service almost more than any other service, do not believe that it is in safe hands or that it has been in
52
safe hands for many of the years past. I do not suppose that they will be interested in this Bill but we who are here debating it are interested in it. I believe that the extraordinary unpopularity of the Government owes more to their handling of the NHS than to any other single issue. The public feel more deeply about the National Health Service than anything else.
From my introduction one might suppose that I oppose the whole of the Bill. I do not. During the progress of the National Health Service and Community Care Act I supported on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House the concept that DHAs and FHSAs should not retain their separate status. It is a pity that the proposals that were made and voted on did not see the light of day. At that stage the Government did not believe that it was a good idea.
That brings me to the abolition of the regional health authorities, which the Government present as a streamlining of management and a reduction of administration. There are strong arguments against the proposal that is the main part of the Bill, though I certainly welcomed the decision that was taken some time ago to reduce the number of regions from 14 to eight. That is not a bone of contention. Apart from putting at risk 1,500 jobs—unless everyone is to be turned into a civil servant, which I cannot believe is the Government's intention—there are many reasons for believing that the Government's proposals are a great mistake.
I am not happy about the role of regional health authorities, which over the years has been a very important one, being taken over by civil servants who by their very title and definition are arms of central government. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who spoke so well, is present, in spite of her bad back, because we had many happy days, weeks and years when I was Secretary of State and she was a regional chairman. As I said in an intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I believe that regions have an important planning role. That somehow or other that planning role is to be reduced by all that has happened in the reorganisation of the National Health Service is absolutely wrong. Their role ought to be increased rather than decreased.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, have emphasised research as a critical part of the role of regional health authorities. One asks about the supervision of regional specialities. If that is to be done by civil servants it can only be on the instruction of their Ministers. That step goes further to take away any independence of thought from the National Health Service which might have existed. Much was done in the National Health Service and Community Care Act to take away that independence. A regional officer or civil servant serving health Ministers is not an adequate replacement for the regional structure.
A number of consequences will flow if this decision is carried into law. First, it will undermine the ability to provide a strategic and planned service, which is essential for a comprehensively equipped NHS. It will be a further step away from the National Health Service which was so proudly created long years ago by a

53
Labour Government. Secondly, it will weaken the service's ability to regulate and monitor the internal market activities, with a resultant threat to health care. Thirdly, for reasons that have already been given, it will further damage the already enfeebled accountability of the service. Fourthly, it will result in the NHS losing access and expertise in areas such as intermediate treatment or estates planning. One could give countless examples.
Such services and advice will now have to be either duplicated at local level or bought in from the private sector, both of which would be more expensive for the National Health Service. In my view the regions have played and should go on playing a very important strategic role.
No doubt Ministers would be glad to say that the days are gone when we tried to make of the National Health Service a national service where planning documents were brought out annually to indicate which regions needed to have more provision in one field than another. Those days are gone. A regional health authority plays an essential role in allocating resources to local purchasing authorities. It is important that a region-wide perspective is retained and that an intermediate tier is involved in ensuring the implementation of national priorities at regional level. Clearly, some RHA functions will be undertaken by the new National Health Service Executive regional offices which the Minister so clearly described. But there again, they are civil servants. I have nothing against them, but it is a question of simply taking away any element of independence from the National Health Service.
Perhaps I may look for a moment at regulation and monitoring the internal market activity. I know that the health service unions strongly believe that the market system will not deliver a comprehensive, equitable service which offers equality of access and is free at the point of use. Unless checked the logic of the market will lead to inequitable provision and to a two-tier service where cost rather than need becomes the driving factor. Everyone in your Lordships' House can give examples where that is already happening.
Regional health authorities have a vital role in monitoring and, if necessary, regulating the activities of the market. While purchasing authorities have a primary responsibility for monitoring providers, trusts should have to account for their performance to wider audiences than simply their purchasers. On the purchasing side, RHAs have a more direct responsibility for holding authorities to account for their performance. They should influence the strategy and objectives, if not the detail, of the purchaser's plans at their inception.
In addition, RHAs need to monitor the contracting process through which purchasers and providers interact to ensure that the process is in the public interest. If necessary, they should mediate where problems arise. Although the new NHSE officers will be expected to undertake some of this work, we have to question whether it is better that that is done by eight government offices or by an integrated part of the National Health Service, which I believe most noble Lords on this side of the House wish to preserve. The whole question of accountability within the National Health Service, and
54
other public services, is currently a matter of great public concern. I believe that the public will be interested in what decisions are taken in the passage of this Bill.
We shall have plenty of opportunity during Committee stage to try to deal with some of these issues by amendment. The Government make it very difficult when they virtually ensure that there is nothing in the Bill and that everything is done by regulation. That has become a very bad habit of this Government. It undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy when we are not given on the face of the Bill the essential decisions that the Government intend to take.
I am sorry that I have taken a few minutes longer than I intended, but perhaps I may conclude with a final argument which I know will not appeal to noble Lords opposite. I believe that the Labour Party will win the next election. Noble Lords would expect me to believe that. No doubt all noble Lords will look askance that it is possible for opinion polls to show a 42 per cent. Labour lead—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: How many?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am told that it is a 43 per cent. lead. It has gone up since I gave the first figure! Apart from assemblies for Scotland and Wales, there is a debate about English regions. I saw Mr. Gummer yesterday bursting with joy as he proclaimed that Labour was split from top to bottom on this issue. That is not true. What is true is that the patterns of regional activity may vary because needs vary. There may be a difference in structure and performance because that is the wish of the regions concerned. But there will be a regional tier in one form or another. It would be absurd to move in the opposite direction at this stage. I hope that we shall be able to convince Ministers and noble Lords on the other side of the House of this argument during the course of the Committee and Report stages.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Government, as many noble Lords have done, on this further step forward they are making in the structure of the National Health Service. That service is of immense importance to us all. Not long ago when I was chairman of a special health authority within the National Health Service, I reached the conclusion that the then administrative structure of the service was—if I may put it no more strongly—a little bit weighty. Therefore, I do not share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it is a pity to change the structure. I believe that change is very necessary. With the publication of The Health of the Nation it became even clearer to me that a more simple and sensible structure is necessary if the health service is to attain the very sensible objectives of that newly framed policy.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that many different contributors have their part to play in making the National Health Service a success. The new health authorities are going to be extremely busy groups of people. They must continue to rely, as did their predecessors, on the vigour of a number of agencies,

55
including quite a number outside the field of the National Health Service itself. Among them I hope that I shall be forgiven for mentioning the organisation called Disabled Living Centres. I must declare a personal connection with at least one of them, the William Merritt Centre at Leeds.
In the task of making it possible for people who have been ill or injured to live independently at home, I believe that it will be agreed that the work of these centres is beyond praise. I need say little about it because the contribution made by the centres to supplement the rehabilitative work of the National Health Service is well known to your Lordships. Consequently, any diminution in the efficiency of organisations of that kind would have a considerable effect on the efficiency of the National Health Service which this Bill aims to improve.
Therefore, after speaking very briefly, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that there is no proposal in view to decrease the effectiveness of the centres. The council which helps to service them already works on an extremely modest scale. At a time when care in the community is rightly commended as the way forward and as a supplement to all the things we are trying to do, I believe that disabled living centres should be more important in supplementing the contributions that the new health authorities and various other authorities will have to make.
My plea is that if the centres are to function properly they need resources and the back-up of a supporting body. I hope that the disturbing rumour that the modest support accorded them at present will be reduced can be refuted by my noble friend. That suggestion surprised me, because I am aware of the wide recognition in the department of the excellent results which the council and the centres have achieved. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that there is no foundation to the rumour.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, some years ago I took an elderly relative to an outpatients' hearing clinic. The appointment was for 9 a.m. We decided to be a few minutes early to ensure that we were on time. Your Lordships may imagine my surprise and horror when I found that 25 others had had a similar idea and that their appointments were also for 9 a.m. We were sent to a waiting room without an outside window where the door was propped open by a fire hydrant. There we sat, including a lady of over 90 who had not been out of her house for over three years.
As time went by, I decided to investigate and asked the receptionist what was happening. She said that the consultant had not arrived. As it was close on 10 a.m. I thought it fair to ask why not. Her retort—not the friendliest—was that she did not know, she had not heard from him and would I please return to my seat and please close the door as it was not permissible for the door to be propped open. She certainly did not care for it when I suggested that no one could be expected to sit in a cupboard without fresh air.
56
With no apologies for lateness, we eventually saw the consultant at about 12 noon. In those days it seemed to me that the NHS was badly organised and that addressing the needs of the patients came very low down on the list of priorities.
Your Lordships may wonder what relevance that story has to the Health Authorities Bill. I suggest that it shows how far we have come since the Government embarked on the reforms five years ago. Today we have a user-friendly service where the patient comes first. In addition, the Patient's Charter specifically deals with the issue of patients being kept waiting longer than 30 minutes after their individual appointment time.
At the time of the 1990 Act, many people thought that the NHS was teetering on the brink. It was, and is, an organisation massive in employee numbers, yet it was administered centrally. It was, and is, funded generously, yet the advantage to the patient of any extra funding seemed minimal. Furthermore, the unfortunate taxpayer was encouraged to believe that whenever a problem arose, the solution was to throw more money at it.
The principle of the 1990 Act in devolving power and responsibility to the local level is unquestionably right, particularly in an organisation so large. The establishment of the NHS trusts, the creation of the new role for local health authorities and the granting of new powers to GPs through fund-holding have transformed the service to patients.
There were 56 hospitals in the first wave of trusts and it is, indeed, remarkable that from April this year 98 per cent. of all hospitals will have trust status. And now GP fund-holding is blossoming also. It is the ability of those concerned with primary care to call the shots that will guarantee the maximum efficiency of a service of which nobody who has used it can properly speak ill.
The proposals outlined in the Bill build on the success of the reforms and so enable the final tranche of organisational change to take place. I believe that the RHAs are now an unnecessary tier of management and that the savings from their abolition will contribute to the total estimated savings of £150 million per year from the Bill—money which can be spent on direct patient care. That should be welcomed on all sides of the House, as should the retention of the overview to ensure that the NHS continues to deliver its objectives and to maintain the high standards of the quality service that is recognised throughout the world.
I must admit that I have always found it difficult to describe the actual role of the RHA, the DHA and the FHSA. As a lay person I have always felt that there must have been a certain amount of duplication. I am therefore delighted that the new structure will be much simpler, with only one authority at local level. It must be right for the power and responsibility and the resultant decision-making to rest with those nearest to the interests of the patients.
To some, the Bill may seem of a technical nature, but to me it seems to put the finishing touches on a creditable and bold change of direction that was begun in 1990. For the future, I hope that many more GPs will join the ranks of fund-holders. That way, working with the local health authority in partnership, they will have

57
more flexibility in arranging services for their patients. I am also certain that more and more treatments will take place in doctors' surgeries. Consultants are already taking advantage of that co-operation in some areas. Surgeries could be the mini-hospitals of the future.
As a result of the Bill, the structure will be in place for the development of a comprehensive, high-quality service to tackle the formidable challenges of an ageing population as we enter the 21st century. I look to the future with confidence and excitement as the continuing involvement of local people allows flair and innovation to flourish. That can only be of benefit to patients. I welcome the Bill as an important piece of legislation.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, when the Health Authorities Bill was introduced, press releases that were issued by the Secretary of State for Health in November 1994 said that it completed the NHS reforms that were begun in 1990. I am sure that there was a big sigh of relief when people heard that, but if the Bill is the last tranche of reorganisation, that makes it even more important. Many of us on this side of the House would challenge the proposition that the outcome of those changes in the health service is serving patients well and whether that would have been possible without some of the changes that the Government have introduced.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a non-executive member of the board of University College, London. I am not speaking this evening wearing that hat but in a purely personal capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House.
It is essential that we get this right. It is essential because the provisions will mean so much to local people both in terms of accountability and representation and in terms of the quality of the service that they receive.
I was interested to hear the story at the beginning of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. No Member of your Lordships' House could say that that was a proper experience for an old lady. I am sure that we would all condemn such occurrences. However, while I listened to the noble Baroness I wondered why, if those experiences no longer occur, we have a record number of people waiting for a first-time appointment with a consultant. I also wondered whether, if that old lady had needed hospitalisation in years gone by, she would have been kept waiting for a bed in hospital, as are so many old people today, and then, having got her bed, whether she would have been taken out of hospital as soon as possible because of the shortage of beds which has been reported in the press in the past few days.
The Bill has been presented under the guise of removing levels of hierarchy in the health service. If there are fewer levels of hierarchy in an organisation, the managers will have more involvement in the system. However, when I read the Bill, I questioned whether it would achieve that. Will the Bill achieve greater openness, greater accountability and greater efficiency? Most importantly, will it achieve greater quality of
58
service for the people this is all about, the patients? I question whether it will do so, just as I question whether the projected savings will actually be achieved. They were estimated originally at £150 million, but I gather that the figure has now been reduced to £60 million. There must be a big question-mark over such figures.
I shall deal with the three themes that come through in the Bill. They are not unique to this debate; a number of noble Lords mentioned them. The first relates to the proposed abolition of the regional health authorities. I am not saying that the present structure of the eight regional health authorities is perfect; that there are no complaints about it; and that it does not need changing. But why throw the baby out with the bath water when the structure has many good elements within it?
Over the past four years a number of changes have been introduced. We had the National Health Service and Community Care Act whereby universities and medical schools had a statutory right to participate in the planning and decision-making with regard to the education and training of clinicians in the health service. With the proposed abolition of the regional health authorities, out will go our national planning for education and training, not just of doctors but of nurses and a whole range of other professionals who work for patients in the health service.
It is all right to say that the new health authorities will decide how many professionals they will need to train for their areas, but their concern and concentration will be on their areas alone. It will not be about the service as a whole. It will not, for instance, take into account the need for nurses in prisons, in local authorities, in the work place and in a whole raft of other areas, including nursing homes, where those services and skills are essential.
One could take that on board and say that it will be taken care of if there is a surplus of nurses in the system, but there is not. In these days of high unemployment, unemployment among nurses runs at about 1.7 per cent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, we have seen a 33 per cent. cut-back in training. The College of Occupational Therapists recently conducted a survey with local authorities, the Association of County Councils and a whole raft of local involvement. It found that there was a 15 per cent. shortfall in the number of occupational therapists needed. That is not something that can be pushed to one side; planning is needed. One cannot pluck a qualified nurse or therapist out of the blue. They have to be trained, and that has to be planned for. They have to be recruited and they need a long period of training. Those are some of my worries about the abolition of the RHAs. I have a number of others, but those are my key concerns.
Perhaps I may turn now to the merging of the DHAs and FHSAs. That development is clearly to be welcomed, but I am critical about the way we are doing it. Here again, we are starting with almost a blank cheque. There have been specific placings on FHSAs for a pharmacist, a dentist, a GP and a community nurse. We will not have that with the new health authorities. I know that we talk about management and structures

59
within the health service, but we should ask the patients in whom they really have faith. Those in whom they have faith are the doctors and nurses.
If we set up a new body without a statutory requirement for the placing of those professionals on it, the new health authorities will get off to a bad start. The Minister may say that of course the health authorities can appoint a nurse, a doctor or whoever. But we should look at the practical experience of such things. That is not the case at the moment with the district health authorities, which can also do that. The RCN carried out a recent survey. Liverpool said that it had four nurses on its health authority and expected to have a nurse on the new body. If one goes just over the border to Chester, one finds that Chester does not have one and does not expect to have one. When questioned in the survey, 73 health authorities said that they would be cutting back considerably on the number of executive nurses they employed.
Not only is there no provision for a professional to be on the health authority under the Bill, but the health service is faced with the problem of having a smaller number from which to draw. It is important that the standard is maintained. Currently, 52 per cent. of health authorities employ nurse executives; but only 8 per cent. said that they planned to do so when the changes were in place. That should worry us all.
During the course of the debate, a number of key themes have been brought out from different points of view with the different positions of noble Lords. We need to return to them in Committee, and I look forward to doing so. I hope that the Minister will listen to the views put forward by many able and experienced noble Lords and will be prepared to amend the Bill in a way that will make it more relevant to and representative of local people, in particular the patients.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, we have had many reform Bills before the House in recent years, and the passage of some of them has been a marathon. Most have marked up watersheds in our affairs. I am glad that, because of the paving Acts already in place, we are unlikely to have a marathon this time. It is not quite a one-clause Bill; if it were it would be incapable of amendment. It is a Bill with a single purpose in its first clause. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, described it as an enabling Bill under which the Secretary of State has power to make alterations, and to update and regulate it through statutory instruments.
We must assure ourselves that current Acts, public policy, and government regulations do not undermine the management of public health care and the translation of scientific research into medical practice. Patients have everything to gain from the new management system now being brought into health care. Your Lordships will wonder why I am speaking in the debate. I admit readily in the presence of so many experts that I have little experience of the organisation of the NHS and of health authority affairs. My only experience is as
60
an observer. So, although I may have missed out on the supply side, I have learned a great deal recently about the demand side.
I also declare an interest which many noble Lords heard me declare in debate last year; namely, that my wife is president of RAGE (the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure) whose members, numbering possibly as many as 2,000 in the UK, have suffered disastrous injuries from radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer surgery as a precautionary measure.
On a more personal note, my grandfather was an FRCS—what was commonly known in the Army as a sawbones; and my mother's stepfather was a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Cambridge. People believed him when he pronounced the Piltdown skull as being genuine. I hope that the mistakes of the past generation will not be visited on its successors.
I welcome the Bill, as I believe it recognises the way the new management strategy is permeating all our affairs. The rapid spread and acceptance of trust hospitals and fund-holding practices shows that the strategy has wide support. The Bill brings the law into line with the watersheds in science, medicine, surgery and treatment techniques which are now driving forward primary and secondary health care. We have heard that there is also tertiary health care, but I do not want to talk about that. The Bill deals with the situation very simply by enabling management to be devolved from the centre in order to serve the patient better. I see health authorities better able to match the demand from everyone entitled to healthcare in the UK to the increasing skills and techniques being provided at hospitals and treatment centres.
My experience in the defence industrial field has given me an insight into the greater value for money that can be obtained from a procurement system, which now works principally on a through-life quality criteria, governed by management as well as performance standards, competition, market testing and, above all, a healthy—probably the right word to use in this debate—interaction between the private and public sectors. The relevance of all these factors in selecting the best way forward for the NHS is important.
In giving my support to the Bill, I wish to draw attention to the breast cancer problem now facing most countries. The EU 1995–99 third five-year action plan in the fight against breast cancer (on which 64 million ecus are to be spent) shows the breast cancer mortality rate in the EU at 24 per cent. of all cancers and incidence and mortality higher by a ratio of nearly 2:1 in the northern EU member states—Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK—than in the Mediterranean member states such as Greece, Spain, France and Italy. Incidence has increased in all states, although it is true that mortality among younger women in some northern member states has started to decrease. The EU goal in the action plan is 15 per cent. by the year 2000.
The problem is two-fold. The first is prevention, which must be one of the goals whether or not it is a pipedream. The second, while cure remains elusive, is treatment. It is clear therefore that, while prevention remains the ideal solution, treatment is crucial.

61
However, I do not believe that we can look at the problem of breast cancer in isolation. There are parallels to be drawn with the USA as well as in the context of the EU action. What I am concerned about is to what extent the NHS and health authorities can pursue the problem effectively when it is clear that co-ordinated action is needed in translating research into practice, in getting the quality of treatment right, in getting screening and diagnosis right, in eliminating the risk factors in treatment and in doing a lot of other things which could be done, for example, by creating a one-stop-shop.
The experience of RAGE members before, but particularly after, radiotherapy treatment shows little recognition that a pattern of injury exists and no understanding of why the injuries happened. There is no dispute about the radiotherapy being the cause of injury. But why was it that some many injuries were concentrated at just a few treatment centres and one in particular; namely, the Royal Marsden Hospital? Because of that, the call for the one-stop-shop in breast cancer treatment is now so strong that I wonder whether the Bill will provide the health authorities with sufficient powers to co-ordinate access to such facilities when so many inputs are involved.
One of the inputs in this scenario is quality assurance. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege knows of my anxieties in this area. I do not have to remind her that the health sector is being bombarded with quality issues which need to be resolved. We both know that there is resistance to adopting BS EN ISO 9000 within the healthcare sector and therefore in-house it is dismissed as being unsuitable. When other public sector departments as customers call for quality assurance approval, suppliers have greatly benefited from compliance. I wonder why doctors believe that they are exempt when the quality route can be seen to have so much going for it. Already, the British Standards Institution has registered many elements of healthcare, including radiography, neurosurgery, maternity, accident and emergency. It also covers national blood transfusion services, hospital laboratories, fertility units and general practice. Therefore, I suggest that because of what has been achieved already by the BSI in this field the "NIH, or rejection, factor" in the NHS no longer holds water.
The BSI draws parallels with what the Food and Drugs Administration has done in the USA and the way in which the neurological unit at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford has addressed ISO 9000, which encompasses the whole process of patient referral, diagnosis, treatment, post-operative care and eventual discharge. I have drawn parallels with the USA in mammography, and the way in which that could be picked up here, and for radiotherapy too. The US Mammography Standards Acts 1992 requires facilities to be accredited by the FDA for equipment, operators, film and, last but not least, diagnosis, with yearly renewal of accreditation. With 80 such facilities in England, that would be a welcome advance. My noble friend has not been able to tell me the UK capacity but I understand that the health authority, as speciality purchaser and customer, can call for quality assurance
62
standards from the provider. My noble friend Lord Jenkin said that in his experience of Whipps Cross Hospital the unit is looking for credibility in discussion with the purchaser. Surely, the purchaser is able to set the standards. If the health authority has no powers in this respect, perhaps my noble friend will say who has. The power of the purchaser surely wields the quality stick; he is purchasing in order to obtain an effective outcome.
The British Standards Institution, I am told by the chief executive, takes the view that major benefits are to be obtained by having nationally accepted quality standards applied to the healthcare sector. I believe that after the disasters at Exeter and North Staffordshire—and now apparently shortcomings at the Dundee Royal Infirmary—as well as injuries at the radiotherapy treatment centres, something certainly needs to be done to put momentum behind quality assurance in the health sector. I hope therefore that as a result of the Bill becoming law the Secretary of State will set something in motion with the BSI. If powers are not delegated to the health authorities as purchasers, I assume that the Clause 6 powers under statutory instrument are adequate to ensure that quality assurance can be introduced. The EU action plan calls specifically for the introduction of quality assurance controls.
I turn to the defence field. Is my noble friend satisfied with the arm's length relationships that will exist between the Armed Forces and the NHS? For instance, if the RAF Personnel and Training Command at Innsworth has responsibility for the planning and provision of RAF medical services how is it that it can function without some dialogue with the NHS Executive, regional offices and health authorities? As service health profiles by selection are high and greater physical demands are placed on servicemen and servicewomen, the RAF will, for example, want to know that it is getting for its money. I am sure that the waiting lists of hospitals will be unacceptable to the services. If there are to be hospitals with military wings, I imagine that in certain cases it will make sense to have a military presence on a health authority. Presumably, there will be nothing to stop application in any case. Perhaps my noble friend can say more about the lines of communication that are to be put in place. The Royal College of Nursing is calling for places on health authorities. Perhaps it follows that the Queen Alexandra's Royal Nursing Service has just as strong a case for consideration if the NHS is to provide adequately for the Armed Forces.
Finally, I have seen how my general practitioner, as a fundholder, is giving greater value for money in the services he provides. I have seen how the healthcare sector needs a spur as regards quality assurance. I have seen how the Government are determined to deliver improved breast cancer services in a co-ordinated way through their expert advisory group on cancer. I hope that my noble friend will explain to the House and give publicity to the fact that the Government already have in place a national strategy for breast cancer services in view of the fact that, as the Minister is well aware, a Bill has just been introduced in another place to provide for a national breast cancer plan.

63
I hope also that my noble friend will give an assurance that when this Bill is enacted, all concerned with its implementation will be able to work together and, in the case of breast cancer, in a way in which all women will have confidence. I support the passage of the Bill.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and I thank her for her excellent, lucid presentation of the Bill. The Bill is fairly short, in that it has only one or two major, enabling clauses. That is a real luxury when one thinks of much of the health legislation that has passed through your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is looking at me rather quizzically. He may wonder why I am speaking in the debate. Some 18 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who, at that time, was wearing a different hat, attended a great dinner held by the pharmaceutical industry. I was taking an interest in the Bill which was passing through your Lordships' House at that time. At the dinner the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, announced that the Government were taking decisions in relation to the pharmaceutical industry and patents and licences of right. Since that time, I have never lost my interest in the health industry and pharmaceuticals.
I much appreciated what the Minister put forward today and I agreed with many of the points raised by my noble friends, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. It is the first time in my memory that I have picked up a Bill and looked at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I was absolutely struck dumb, in that it claims that the savings are in the order of £150 million per year. That must be something of a record. We should all take note of that prediction in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum because it is an incredible saving.
I ask my noble friend to explain some of the figures given in relation to manpower; namely, the 3,900 staff in the regional health authorities and 1,100 staff in the regional offices of the NHS Executive. I am not sure how those figures come together. Perhaps my noble friend will explain that to me either this evening or at a later stage.
I commend the great patience of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in not moving from her seat. I enjoyed her comment about the Roman army but I wonder, very politely, whether she did not put a dart in her own foot. I do not know who —was it Catullus?—made that excellent statement about the disorganisation within the Roman army but, if one looks at the map of the Roman Empire as organised by the Roman army, the organisation cannot have been all that bad. If anyone complained about it, it might have been the Baroness Jay of the day. But if the organisation of the National Health Service today is as good as was the organisation of the Roman army at the time in question, we ought not to have much to complain about.
64
The noble Baroness tempted me to look at one of the comments of Cicero. The four words which Cicero wrote were: "si vales, bene est". If you are in good health, all is well. That should be the motto of today's Bill because that is what we are all trying to achieve.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assist me in relation to a number of small, detailed points. If she does not do that this evening, that can be done when we consider the Bill at a later stage. Will the Minister confirm those astonishing figures of £150 million per annum for England and £3 million for Wales? Where can I check up on those figures and obtain independent verification?
Secondly, I believe that I am right in confirming what my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said on an earlier occasion in relation to local government in Scotland. The provision of the services is not necessarily the most important aspect but the effectiveness of the services provided to the consumer is of crucial importance. Is that the rationale behind the Bill which we are discussing this evening?
Thirdly, I am astonished that there are only eight regional health authorities and I wonder why there are so few. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, gave us a brief outline of another aspect connected with regionalisation. No doubt those comments will be monitored closely by the press and those who are interested in the wider political sphere.
Fourthly, I hope that the combined functions which at present are carried out by district health authorities and FHSAs will continue to be provided, as far as possible, on the present terms. My noble friend Lord Jenkin raised that matter, as did the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in his excellent speech.
Fifthly, I hope that the existing relationships between health authorities and outside organisations—for example, university medical schools—will continue under the new organisation as proposed in the Bill this evening.
The needs of the health service are changing constantly. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned a personal interest of hers; namely, HIV and Aids. Between 1987 and 1990, that aspect of health was much under discussion, as it is now. What was the cost of providing remedial treatment then and what is it now? That is only one feature of a constantly moving target for financial providers at all levels within the National Health Service. We must look at that matter.
The Minister invites us to take a close interest in the Bill. I have done so. Perhaps the Minister and her advisers will look at page 35. What on earth do the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 and the payment of tolls have to do with this Bill? I am sure that there is a good explanation for that. I hope that my noble friend will be able to help me with that.
This Bill aims to save £150 million per year, which will be reinvested for the provision of further patient care. With that in mind as a main driving priority, I

65
believe that the Bill deserves the support of us all. To assist the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, perhaps I may say that I studied Catullus, who said:
"Vir sapet qui pauca loquitur".
That means that the noble Lord who speaks briefly does himself a great deal of good and above all, shows wisdom.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in preparing for this debate, I found only one aspect which met with the approval of all the professions involved and that is the one which has met with the approval of all noble Lords who have spoken this evening; namely, the merger of the FHSAs and the DHAs into one HA.
I remember advocating that step when I first reached your Lordships' House 12 years ago. But, as my noble friend said, the Government were not in the mood to listen at that time. However, there are a number of anxieties in relation to that aspect of the legislation which have been raised by those who have at heart the interests of primary health care. This merger is an arranged marriage and, although the two partners know each other extremely well and have always had to co-operate, it has not always been as friendly a relationship as it might have been. The district health authority, being much the richer and controlling the high-powered, high-tech acute hospital services, was always in the stronger position. Since the purchaser/provider split, however, the situation has changed, but still the DHA, as purchaser of the hospital services, is in a position —to use the same analogy—to wear the trousers in the new relationship.
Even though strengthening primary and community care makes sense and is part of the Government's strategy of a primary healthcare-led service, demands for expensive hospital services will still fall on the health authority. There is nothing in the Bill to protect the position of primary and community care in the new health authorities. I hope the noble Baroness will address this in her reply. If I am wrong and there is something on this point in the Bill which I have missed, I hope she will point it out. If that is not the case, we shall move amendments to safeguard FHSA staff and responsibilities in the new health authorities.
Apart from that one sensible part of the Bill, the rest is, in our view and that of all the professions and consumer interests involved, harmful. It is harmful to the interests of the National Health Service, those who work in it and, ultimately, to patient care. We are all against unnecessary bureaucracy but I would draw a comparison here with surgical practice in the 19th century and earlier, and bureaucracy. When dealing with abscesses and other infections, the discharge from them was categorised as "laudable pus and malignant pus". I suggest that types of bureaucracy can also be similarly divided.
Quietly, over the past few decades, regional health authorities have, as many noble Lords have pointed out, played a major part in ensuring the equitable spread of healthcare throughout the country; and maintaining high standards in patient care, teaching and research, not only
66
through the distribution of funds but also through a whole variety of other checks and balances. The cost of administering the regional health authorities is tiny compared with the cost of the vast increases in managers and supporting staff that the internal market has spawned. I should point out that we have yet to see research-based evidence that the nation's health has benefited as a result of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 any more than it would have done had it continued under the previous structure. Research to show whether or not health has improved was precluded by the Government when they denied a provision in the Bill that it should be properly evaluated.
By eliminating the regional health authorities, the Government hope to get brownie points, I suggest, through reducing bureaucracy. In fact the effect of the reforms will be to free NHS hospital trusts from regional control and to allow them to operate in a market-driven environment which pays less attention to the needs of the population. As my noble friend Lord Ennals has in particular pointed out, there is a need for a wider view than that of individual health authorities and trusts. This Bill will get rid of that vital planning and resource allocating role.
There are numerous other objections to the abolition of regional health authorities. Before the debate I totted up 15. During the debate all of these except one have been mentioned, as well as five others that I had not listed. During the debate I have been impressed by the repeated anxieties expressed on all sides of the House about the future of man- and woman-power, planning, professional training and research. We need much more explicit assurances about those matters on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said they were in the Bill. They are not in the Bill. We have had promises but we have not had words in print.
One issue which could well be incorporated into the Bill is the problem of the increasing number of complaints against the National Health Service—up 52 per cent. last year. Alan Wilson's committee, which has looked at the problem of the mechanism for handling complaints, has made recommendations for streamlining the complaints procedure. As many noble Lords have said, since it would appear that this is to be the final Bill on National Health Service reorganisation ever, perhaps this is the time to incorporate his valuable suggestions into legislation. The increase in complaints sits uncomfortably with the claims of noble Lords opposite that things have greatly changed for the better since 1991. In Committee we will bring forward amendments which will give the Government the opportunity to clarify in more detail what the regulations—which are of course the active teeth of the Bill—will say.
But, again, as my noble friend Lord Ennals has said, we are far too familiar with this sort of task. I wonder when the Government will start enacting legislation in a more democratic way by first consulting widely, listening to the views of those involved and drafting legislation to meet concerns, rather than throwing a Bill at us whose detail has not been thought out, allowing

67
only a brief, time-limited consultation period (if any), with consultation too often a one-way process with no shift in the Government's position as a result.
However, we are always hopeful. We think that the Government might respond to at least some of the points raised this afternoon by bringing forward amendments of their own. We shall certainly bring before the House probing and substantive amendments which we hope will improve the Bill so that its beneficial effects will be ensured as regards the FHSA and DHA merger, and its other more deleterious effects will be reduced.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this has been a most interesting, wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. Perhaps that is not surprising as we have in the Chamber this evening two former Secretaries of State for Social Services who have taken part, the chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities and trusts, both past and present, three vice-presidents of the Royal College of Nursing, some very distinguished members of the medical and scientific professions, two vice-chancellors, a former courageous regional chairman on the Liberal Benches, and countless others who are knowledgeable about the National Health Service.
The support for our proposals this evening has been very encouraging. It confirms our view that these are sensible and timely measures. However, your Lordships have identified some important areas which I believe need to be handled with great care. I hope that in these closing remarks I shall be able to offer some reassurance about the Government's approach and I look forward to constructive discussions during the Committee stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, although giving partial support for elements of the Bill, questioned whether the NHS had improved since the reforms. I believe that there are two health services—the one people read about and the one people use. I care deeply about the image of the National Health Service. I am very sad every time the NHS is denigrated. I feel diminished every time it is rubbished. It lowers staff morale, it affects recruitment, and it knocks the confidence of the British people in what I think is a remarkable British institution.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening but will she indicate where, in any of the contributions made by the three speakers to whom she referred, that is myself and my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Ennals, we did anything but praise the services of the NHS? It is the structure and management we do not agree with.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will be patient she will hear more. Certainly she said that services had deteriorated. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said that waiting lists were longer and commented on the present service.
The views of the people who use the NHS matter even more to me than the views of political commentators. I take encouragement from those views.
68
The British social attitudes survey published in November 1994 shows increased satisfaction with GPs, hospital outpatient services and waiting times. Since the Government's health reforms the number of people expressing dissatisfaction with the service has fallen noticeably with more people satisfied than dissatisfied with the way the NHS is run. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree rightly reminded us of the huge investment made in the NHS, which I suspect has much to do with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, shed tears for the regions whose members' and officers' roles can only be described as administrative. I am surprised that, in line with her policy of reducing management numbers, she does not welcome this slimming down and streamlining of bureaucracy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, was less than generous when mentioning waiting times. She will know, surely, that before the reforms the average wait for in-patient treatment was 8.6 months. Today it is 4.6 months. I sincerely hope that as a non-executive member of a trust she is aware that from 1st April this year, for the first time ever, standards will be set for waiting times for outpatient appointments. I say that I sincerely hope that she is aware of this because she and the other members of her trust will be responsible for meeting those standards.
Some of your Lordships expressed anxiety that there would be a loss of accountability at local level when regional health authorities are abolished. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that the abolition of RHAs would mean the end of strategic planning for the NHS. That is not the case.
The role of the NHS Executive headquarters and regional offices will be to co-ordinate health policy across the country and to determine the overall strategic direction of the NHS. For example, the executive will develop and evaluate the overall NHS research and development strategy. It will set the policy framework for the provision of education and training in the National Health Service, and it will provide support for consortia of health authorities in purchasing specialised services.
The role of the regional offices will be quite different from that of the old regional health authorities. In the old NHS structure it was appropriate for RHAs to be separated from the Department of Health, but in the new system health authorities will be the main operators. They will take most of the decisions which directly affect local people. They will continue to be open and accountable through public meetings, published reports and public consultations.
The regional offices will have a different role. They will contribute to the development of national policies for the NHS and monitor health authorities and trusts, intervening where necessary. It is entirely appropriate that such tasks should be performed by members of the Civil Service.
Information held centrally which is not of a confidential nature is, and will continue to be, available under the open government policy. Information about

69
the NHS Executive, of which the regional offices will be an integral part, is also made public in the executive's annual report, in a new series of quarterly reports and in a variety of statistical and other bulletins.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, queried the savings that were being made, as did some other noble Lords. My honourable friend the Minister made it quite clear what savings will be made and how they will be achieved. Perhaps I may repeat what he said. We estimate that the abolition of RHAs and mergers of DHAs and FHSAs will result in savings of approaching £60 million in 1995–96. By 1997–98, when the new structure is fully implemented, those savings will rise to approaching £150 million a year. Some £100 million of the total savings will result from the abolition of RHAs and the consequent reduction in overlap of work between the central department and the regions. The remainder is due to the replacement of DHAs and FHSAs by the new integrated health authorities.
My noble friend Lord Lyell, after a skirmish round the Roman army, asked about particular savings and how they were to be achieved. Those savings will be achieved at regional level through the new light touch approach to management by the regional offices and also through the reduction in overlap between regions and the Department of Health. For example, there will be no more overlap in areas such as performance management and checking of statistics, nor in development and implementation of national policy. Regional health authorities employed 3,900 staff in March 1993. That figure has already been reduced to 2,600, and once the regional health authorities are abolished only 1,100 staff will be needed.
At local level the reduction in numbers of statutory authorities will mean fewer authority members, savings in accommodation costs, streamlined and integrated management structures, and economies of scale; for instance, in purchasing skills which will be deployed for a larger population. Unlike the Roman army, my noble friend showed some mercy. Perhaps I can write to him on the other detailed questions he raised, including the Dartford and Thurrock crossing.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of regional directors of public health. In my experience, RHAs are artificial entities in public health terms. The new health authorities will be much more appropriate places for public health work. Their areas will be smaller than regions and they can be more sensitive to local variations in health and health care needs. They will have better links with local government, which has an important public health role.
In the new system most public health functions will be carried out by the health authorities. District directors of public health will report on the health of their local populations and will be free to comment on the factors affecting health in their area. The regional directors of public health will have a new and important role in contributing to national policy and ensuring it is implemented at local level.
70
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of the distribution of resources. The noble Lords were concerned about how resources would be allocated to health authorities in the new structure. I can assure them that this will continue to be done on a national basis fairly, diligently and carefully, by the NHS Executive. I can also assure them that we remain guided by the principle of equal access to health care for those of equal need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Dean, and many other noble Lords referred to the membership of health authorities. I tried to be straightforward. I made clear that the Government do not in general support reserved places on authorities for representatives of particular groups. I have been asked today to reconsider that approach, particularly in relation to the nursing profession.
I have a great respect for the nursing and midwifery professions, and I wish to reinforce the Government's view that we see an increasing role for nurses over the coming years, not only in taking day-to-day decisions for their patients but also in using their skills to shape our services for the future. There is nothing to stop health authorities appointing executive members with nursing experience. Indeed, I should be very surprised if the majority do not do so. But where that is not the case, indeed, even where there are nurse members, health authorities will still need input to their purchasing decisions from employees with nursing qualifications and from nurses outside the health authority. That happens now, as my noble friend Lady Eccles so vividly described in relation to her health authority. I know that in Leicester and in Camden and Islington health authorities nurses are used to review specific services such as mental health. In the South East London and Dorset health authorities nurses are employed on a consultancy basis to review particular services, for example, for people with learning disabilities.
The Government's new guidance on professional involvement is intended to promote just such initiatives and to draw upon the expertise and knowledge of health professionals. The Bill as it now stands will require health authorities to ensure professional involvement, including that of nurses. We believe that that will be a more constructive and effective solution than reserving places for people who would inevitably come to represent particular sectional interests.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his powerful and illuminating speech—I think almost more of a tutorial. I am sorry that I shall not be able to answer all the points he raised. One related to the crucial issue of the training of future doctors, a matter also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others. The Government recognise and are committed to high standards of medical education but it is a complicated area which needs to take into account, as my noble friend said, not only the Calman Report but also the Government's policy of achieving a reduction in junior hospital doctors' hours. It is therefore essential that we work closely with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the British Medical Association and the

71
Royal Colleges. We have taken them into our confidence and are continuing to consult and work with them.
I have explained that postgraduate medical education will still be the responsibility of postgraduate deans. They will work closely in both the NHS and the medical schools. We are discussing fully with the deans the contractual and support arrangements which will enable them to carry out their role effectively and maintain the necessary lines of accountability to the regional offices and the universities.
The deans will also play an important role as members of the new regional education and development groups (REDGs). Those groups will represent health authorities, GPs, and health care providers, both NHS and non-NHS. The REDGs will have important, but slightly different, roles in both medical and non-medical education. For the medical education side, the groups will be able to advise the dean on future staffing needs and training arrangements. I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to a vital partnership between the universities and the new NHS. Where new health authorities have a medical or dental school within their area, there will be a requirement for a university representative on the authority, as I mentioned in my opening remarks.
The regional offices will be very different from the old RHAs. They will have boards on which different groups arc represented; so it would not be appropriate to have a university representative within the regional office. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the regional policy board members in each region to take a particular responsibility for building links between the universities and the NHS. In relation to non-medical education, for example nursing, REDGs' role will be to co-ordinate and oversee the education purchasing plans drawn up by groups of health authorities, special health authorities and trusts. Those consortia will take on responsibility, in a controlled way, for purchasing non-medical education from those who provide it. The NHS Executive will continue to set the national framework and be responsible for the overall national supply of trained staff.
Through the NHS Executive, Ministers are in the process of agreeing a joint statement with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. This will set guidelines for education contracting and satisfy the concerns of professional bodies. In particular, the regional offices will have clear criteria for deciding when consortia are ready to take on their new responsibilities.
My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, both of whom I believe are vice-presidents of the RCN and outstanding nurses, wondered why membership of health authorities was so constrained. My noble friend asked about the policy of not appointing as health authority members people who have contracts of employment with another NHS body such as an NHS trust. I can confirm that that is our approach. I am sure that my noble friend will accept that separating purchasers from hospital providers is the key
72
to our reforms. We endorse the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree that it would not be right for non-executive health authority members who are there as independent voices from the local community to be working for local trusts. Them are other and better ways of securing input from providers.
My noble friend Lady Cox raised the issue of nurse workforce planning, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. The Government recognise the need to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained nurses. That is why we are putting in place arrangements for commissioning education and training which will take place within a policy framework and guidelines set by the NHS Executive headquarters.
The NHS Executive will maintain a national overview of demand and supply, taking account of the needs of the NHS and other providers of health care. Most importantly, we are ensuring professional input at every level of the new arrangements. We will be supporting the development of workforce planning and education commissioning skills at local levels.
More flexible arrangements and better use of professional skills mean that nurses and midwives are remaining in their posts longer and more people are returning to the profession after career breaks—a fact that we welcome. But it is reflected in the reduced student numbers. Of course, longer term supply of nurses has to be constantly kept under review. I can assure your Lordships that that is what the national policy framework is intended to do.
The vital role of research and development will continue to be recognised in the new NHS. The Government believe that R&D must underpin the development of priorities for the NHS. In December my right honourable friend announced a new system of funding and supporting R&D in the NHS, based on recommendations from Profession Culyer's task force, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in his questioning speech. The noble Lord will know that the announcement was warmly welcomed by the academic and research communities. I am sure that he will be relieved to know that that report will be put in place at the same time as the measures in the Bill, on 1st April 1996. The new system will target funds towards high quality R&D which meets the needs of the NHS. The NHS will continue to work in partnership with the universities, the research councils and users of health and health care services to develop a clear understanding of health issues and research solutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, my noble friend Lord Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, expressed concern about the future of CHCs, as did my noble friend Lady Gardner who gave a rather different perspective. Community health councils are the community's watchdog of the National Health Service. They are perceived as independent by the public. In the 20 years they have been operating, they have developed a reputation for speaking out and making positive and valuable contributions to the development of health services. The health service has learned to respect CHCs' independence. It is a respect they have earned and it must be protected. That principle has underpinned our approach to future arrangements for CHCs.

73
Currently they are set up and established under regulations by regional health authorities. But when RHAs disappear new arrangements are needed and in principle we have agreed that the overall responsibility for establishing CHCs is to be moved to the new regional offices. This protects the independence of the CHCs better than any other practical option. It would not, of course, be appropriate for CHC staff to become civil servants, so we are discussing where the employment contracts of staff will be held. It need not be with the establishing authority. My honourable friend the Minister for Health hopes to make an announcement fairly soon.
My noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lady Seccombe spoke about the role of GPs, including GP fundholders in a primary care-led NHS. I agree that health authorities will have an important role in supporting and monitoring GP fundholders and a strategic role. It is encouraging to see how constructive partnerships are already being developed locally. In the new, simpler system, that co-operation will be easier to achieve. Health authorities and GP fundholders will be able to work together to develop strategies across primary and secondary care boundaries.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Eccles not only for the work she does as chairman of a very challenging health authority but for spelling out clearly the importance of boundaries and working together with local authorities, and to my noble friend Lord Dean for setting that in the context of community care. We agree that health authorities and local authorities must work together to provide an integrated and effective response to people's needs. The replacement of DHAs and FHSAs with the new health authorities will make that collaboration easier. Local authorities will have just one health authority in each area to deal with. That health authority will be responsible for both primary and secondary care. A high proportion of recent DHA mergers have resulted in a simplified relationship with local authority social services directorates, for example, avoiding the cutting of boundaries.
My noble friend also mentioned private health care. I can assure your Lordships that the Government want to see cost-effective co-operation between the NHS and the independent sector to increase choice and patient satisfaction. We are committed to ensuring that co-operation with the independent sector will continue to develop after the implementation of the Bill.
Many of your Lordships have expressed support for at least limited parts of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lyell, Lord Ironside, Lord Holdemess and Lady Seccombe for their wholehearted support. As my noble friends said, the NHS has to face the challenge of an ageing population and the advances in sophisticated modern technology concerning cancer care, and we believe the Bill will do it. My noble friend Lord Holderness spoke most eloquently about the valuable and important work of the disabled living centres. I can assure him that the new integrated health authorities will be even better placed to deal with them in the future.
74
In conclusion, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the inspiring words of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I believe that the NHS is daily performing minor miracles. My noble friend highlighted neo-natal intensive care and we know that through the NHS there are many more examples. Blind people have their sight restored, people dying of kidney failure are given new organs and new life, stroke victims are rehabilitated, and mentally ill people restored and brought back into domestic family life. Of course, expectations may run ahead of possibilities and, sadly, sometimes the search seems to be for failure. Triumphs are disregarded.
This Bill is about management structures, which may appear ancillary but, like any other thrusting, dynamic organisation, without good management the NHS would not work. Good management has to adapt quickly to serve the needs of medicine. One of management's essential roles is to set an example to those they lead. Management in the NHS has already given the whole country a lesson in flexibility and service that enables so many people to enjoy a new life. I believe that the Bill will give us an NHS fit for the challenges of the 21st century. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995
7.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995 and at the same time I should like to speak to the North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Viscount would not speak to the orders together. It would be much more convenient if they were dealt with separately.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that it would be possible for noble Lords to make comments about either order but for the convenience of the House it would be proper if I introduce both orders. I shall, of course, deal with points raised on the individual orders in winding up.
The orders concerned were laid before the House on 16th February. With modifications, they implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the future structure of local government in North Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I take the principal issues relating to the orders in the following order: first, details of the proposed new structure in both areas, then boundaries, powers and functions, electoral arrangements, staffing, planning and ceremonial arrangements.

75
First, as regards North Yorkshire, from 1st April 1996 the city of York will be a unitary authority on extended boundaries which will incorporate parts of the districts of Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate. I shall return to the details of the boundary changes in due course. The remainder of the county of North Yorkshire will remain two-tier, retaining both district and county councils.
On 1st April 1996, the county of Humberside and Humberside County Council will be abolished and will be succeeded by four unitary authorities. The existing authority of Kingston upon Hull, on its existing boundaries, will be given unitary powers. The existing authorities of Holdemess, Beverley, East Yorkshire and the northern part of Boothferry will be abolished and comprise a single new authority to be called the East Riding of Yorkshire; the existing authorities of Cleethorpes and Grimsby will be abolished and comprise a single new unitary authority to be called North East Lincolnshire; and the existing authorities of Glanford and Scunthorpe and that part of Boothferry district south of the northern boundaries of the parishes of Crowle, Eastoft, Luddington, Haldenby and Amcotts will he abolished and will comprise a new unitary authority to be called North Lincolnshire.
As a rule, decisions about where boundaries should be drawn are difficult and provoke strong feelings. As my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in another place, our decisions about the boundaries of York and Hull have not proved to be an exception to that rule. And the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has an amendment on the Order Paper about this issue.
Perhaps it would help if I first of all explain that in the case of the city of York we have accepted the commission's recommendation—with only very minor modifications to exclude five small parishes—that the city's boundaries should be extended to include the York greater planning area. This will substantially increase the area covered by the city and will increase its population from its existing 101,000 to approximately 167,000.
In making its recommendations to us the commission took into account a number of factors, including the ability of a unitary authority to deliver services effectively and efficiently and the need to recognise community identity and the expression of local opinion. It acknowledged that opposition to the extension of the city's boundaries to include the greater planning area was strongest in the outlying areas beyond the ring road. The strength of this opposition has also been made clear to us in the many representations we have received from local residents and their parish councils. Nevertheless, the commission concluded, and we agreed, that the balance of advantage lay with providing an enlarged boundary to enable the new authority to deliver services efficiently and effectively and to adopt a strategic approach to, among other things, economic development, transportation, planning and environmental issues.
In the case of Kingston upon Hull, we have accepted the commission's recommendation that the unitary authority should be established on the city's existing
76
boundaries. We have, however, decided that, in the light of representations we received from the city, in due course its boundary with the new East Riding authority should be reviewed. This will not involve major revisions or extensions to the boundary, but will, we hope, sort out a number of small anomalies that exist at the moment.
Staff at all levels will have a crucial part to play in implementing change and ensuring that services continue to be provided effectively by local authorities during and following reorganisation, and we recognise the importance of allaying their anxieties about their future. It was because of this that early in the review process we established the Local Government Staff Commission. It is an independent body which advises on staffing matters arising from local government reorganisation. The commission has talked to local government at all levels and has produced a series of circulars setting out the framework for staff transfers and appointments.
To be of assistance to the House I shall now briefly explain the arrangements which will be put in place. First, Humberside: most staff—we estimate some 90 per cent.—will simply end up working for the successor authorities. The majority, those who are frontline service providers such as teachers and care workers, will transfer by statutory transfer order. This will be drawn up by the outgoing authorities working together with the successor authorities and in accordance with the criteria set out in the staff commission's circular 3. The purpose will be to ensure continued provision of essential services from the first day of reorganisation. Other staff will secure posts by appointment, again in accordance with the rules set out in the staff commission's circular 3.
New chief officer posts will be filled through a process of open competition. Other posts will be filled by prior consideration, in which competition will initially be limited to those not in a transfer order and whose current job is vulnerable because of restructuring arising from reorganisation. It will, of course, be for the newly elected authorities to decide on their new staffing structures and how to fill posts, taking into account the available resources, their new functions and the need to ensure continued provision of services.
Recently we announced new measures for those who are to be made redundant as a result of local government reorganisation. They are as follows. First, it will be mandatory for local authorities to pay the amounts prescribed in the regulations, which provide for up to 66 weeks' pay based on age service banding to eligible staff below the age of 50. These arrangements are, at the maximum, 2.7 times more generous than otherwise statutorily provided under employment legislation. Secondly, the regulations also provide extra powers to provide benefits to those aged 50 and over. At the employer's discretion, such employees' pensions can be increased if they have five or more years' service, or they can receive a lump sum compensation payment. For those with between two and five years' service we are making available the option of additional payment in lieu of immediate payment of pension.

77
We have also consulted on a scheme for detriment compensation for those who take a drop in salary as a result of local government reorganisation. Having considered the responses, we are drafting regulations defining the detriment scheme, and we shall be consulting on these soon.
Turning briefly to North Yorkshire, the same principles will apply, with staff being transferred to the new unitary York to reflect the transfer of functions and to ensure continued provision of services.
Once the orders are made, all of the authorities in Humberside and the authorities affected by the changes in North Yorkshire will have extra duties and powers to prepare for the reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information they need. Once the councils for the unitary authorities have been elected they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff for the functions which they assume responsibility for on 1st April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, we believe these provisions will ensure a smooth transition to the new structure while providing proper safeguards for essential services.
We believe that authorities which are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate to do so. There will therefore be whole council elections to the four unitary authorities in Humberside and to the new city of York authority in May this year.
In future, with the exception of Hull, all of the unitary authorities will hold whole council elections every four years. If they wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of elections by thirds, they may do so following the passing of a resolution by the whole council passed by not less than two-thirds of the members.
Hull will return to its current arrangement of elections by thirds from 1997. This follows the city's representations that it wished to retain elections by thirds and that it did not wish to have elections in the year immediately after reorganisation. We agree that this is a sensible arrangement and have made similar provision in Bristol.
With the exception of minor changes we have made to accommodate leaving Goole in Boothferry while it is being re-reviewed, warding arrangements for the new authorities are as recommended by the commission.
As unitary authorities, the new York District Council and the four Humberside districts councils will be responsible for both strategic and local land-use planning in their areas. We are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas affected by reorganisation. Reflecting its recommendations for structural changes, the commission recommended that the authorities for the area north of the Humber should work jointly on a structure plan for their combined areas. They made a similar recommendation for the authorities for the area between the Humber and the Wash. However, because
78
of the modifications we have made to the commission's structural recommendations, we have also had to modify its recommendations for planning arrangements.
Therefore, having considered representations from the local authorities and other bodies, we have concluded that the most satisfactory grouping of authorities for joint structure plan purposes would be: the new York unitary authority working with North Yorkshire County Council; the new East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority working with Kingston upon Hull City Council; and the new North Lincolnshire and North-East Lincolnshire unitary authorities working with Lincolnshire County Council. We believe that voluntary arrangements for joint working within these groupings will achieve the desired results.
The draft orders transfer the counties' strategic planning responsibilities for the areas concerned to the new unitary authorities. Each authority will also be responsible for maintaining a local plan for its area. We look to the relevant authorities in North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their respective groupings. Voluntary joint working arrangements are more accountable locally than the statutory joint authorities which it would become necessary for us to impose if such voluntary arrangements were to fail.
Following a consultation exercise on the future policing arrangements for the area, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided that a separate Humberside police force will be retained. The force will cover the areas of Kingston upon Hull, the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North-East Lincolnshire.
The North Yorkshire police authority to be established on 1st April 1995 (under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994) will continue to be the police authority after reorganisation. The order makes provision for the members of that authority to be appointed by both North Yorkshire County Council and the new York unitary authority.
In North Yorkshire there will be a combined fire authority of which the constituent authorities will be the North Yorkshire County Council and the new York authority. The order does not provide for the establishment of the combination scheme; this will be done by the Home Office under the Fire Services Act 1947.
The Humberside order provides for each of the new unitary authorities to be created a fire authority. The Home Office will then create a fire combination scheme, under the Fire Services Act 1947, that will establish a combined fire authority to exercise those fire functions currently carried out by the county council.
The order does not provide for ceremonial arrangements; separate provision will be made for this in regulations. However, it may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the arrangements we propose to put in place.

79
In the case of North Yorkshire, the City of York will be deemed to be part of the county of North Yorkshire for ceremonial and related purposes. It will therefore have the same Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff as the county.
Before the existing City of York authority is abolished we will make specific provision for the continuation of the city's status and privileges. We are discussing with the Home Office and Privy Council the most expedient way of doing this. Whatever we decide, the city will continue to be a city and will continue to have a Lord Mayor and Sheriff.
As Humberside is to be abolished, its Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff will also be abolished. Instead, north of the Humber we intend to provide for both a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff of the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire. For ceremonial and related purposes Hull will be deemed to be part of this county and will therefore have the same Lord Lieutenant and Sheriff.
South of the Humber we propose that the North Lincolnshire and North-East Lincolnshire unitary authorities should be deemed for ceremonial purposes to be part of the county of Lincolnshire and to have the same Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff.
The amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also refers to the arrangements for the future of the Yorkshire Museum. The museum has mounted a very professional campaign not to be transferred from the county council to the City of York. However, as with other property within the York district area, the museum will pass to the city under the regulations for the transfer of assets and liabilities.
The museum is a charitable trust and the terms of the trust state that the beneficial area of that trust is the City of York. As a consequence, the museum and its gardens will transfer to the City of York on reorganisation. We are, however, aware of the local concern that the museum should continue to play a role as an institution serving the areas of both North Yorkshire County Council and the new City of York Council—and we will expect the authorities to co-operate in safeguarding that role. And I hope the House would agree that if we are to entrust the City of York with responsibility for education and social services it would perhaps be ludicrous to say it could not be trusted to run a museum.
In conclusion, I believe that the changes for which these orders provide will create more comprehensible and consequently more accountable local government in the areas that they affect. The abolition of Humberside and the restoration of individual and independent cities of York and Kingston upon Hull will be welcomed, as will the restoration of the East Riding to Yorkshire. I commend to the House the Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I understand that I can speak to the points in my amendment but not move the
80
amendment formally until the Minister has moved the North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995.
I am aware that this matter has been discussed in another place, with results that have left many residents unhappy and bewildered. Apart from the debate, I call attention to a Question for Written Answer in another place, which the Minister answered as recently as 23rd February. He had been asked how many representations his department had received (a) supporting and (b) opposing the proposed boundary change in his draft order to create a new York local authority, from individual members of the public, from local authorities, from parish councils and others.
The Minister replied that 1,066 members of the public had opposed the proposed boundary change, with only 30 individuals in favour; and seven local authorities and 26 parish councils had declared against the proposal, with none for it. As to the others—I do not know who those "others" were—there were 15 against and one single individual in favour.
That is why I speak tonight in support of all those who have tried to make their voices heard, not least the district council in which I live and the parish council in the village where I have lived for nearly 30 years. I live outside the proposed greater York boundary and so I have no personal axe to grind, except in regard to its effect on my district council of Ryedale. But the unhappiness and distress of most people is very evident.
Most people would be happy to have a unitary authority for York. In fact, I have said on previous occasions that I have long thought that York should be a self-governing city. It had been so since at least the 12th century and until 1974. It is generally acknowledged that an enlarged boundary might be necessary, but not the huge one recommended by the commission, extending to what is known as the greater York planning area. Can the Minister say whether York will keep its old name of the City of York? It is not at all clear in the draft order.
In other orders brought before Parliament, Ministers have laid very great emphasis on public opinion. This is the first case on which Ministers will agree that a decision has been made in the teeth of opposition. Replying to the debate on the Cleveland order, the noble Viscount quoted from a press release:
"It is very disappointing that the County council is still attempting to mislead the people of Cleveland at this stage. It really is time they accepted the decision of local people, the Commission and the Government and used their energies to help plan the way forward for the future".—[Official Report, 23/1/95; col. 960]
The Minister agreed with that. Does he now agree that that is precisely what his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has failed to do in the York case—listen to the people?
There are a number of other points of concern. There are technical problems in regard to Article 11, which deals with appointments to the police authority. During the debate on the Avon order, the noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hamwee, referred to uncertainty over the powers and duties of authorities in relation to certain statutory functions during the shadow period. That relates also to Article 18 of the North

81
Yorkshire order. There are also questions in regard to the pension fund and the right of transferor authorities to be consulted and to seek information. I am sure that other noble Lords will speak on these matters.
The North Yorkshire County Council and three affected districts—Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate—will need to review their own operations. To make responsible decisions about their own operations they will require information from the new authority at certain points. The new authority is compelled by Article 17 to consider whether it wishes to seek any joint relations during the shadow period. The new authority's wishes will need to be known reasonably early. It would be a needless loss if an existing authority were compelled to scale down a particular specialist service, for example, only to hear too late that the city authority would, after all, like to draw on that service.
Therefore, it is a pity that the order does not explicitly require the new authority to consult the county council where services inherited from it are in question—for example, child protection, or special educational needs. Likewise, it is unfortunate that the order requires the county and districts to provide the city with information, but not vice versa. Will the noble Viscount confirm that the new authority will be obliged to assist its neighbours by co-operating to provide information and consulting as early as it can wherever its decisions might affect its neighbours' decisions about the future?
I turn now to the Yorkshire Museum, which has been the subject of much discussion, as the Minister said. The Yorkshire Museum is a major museum with nationally important collections. It has developed greatly in the past 20 years as a museum which serves all North Yorkshire. It is understood that the existing city council has proposed that if it acquires the museum it will refocus on the City of York, with a much reduced remit.
The Department of the Environment has discovered that there is extensive support for continuing county council control of the museum. The department has received formal advice to that effect from the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is the Government's own museums advisory body. The Government have been advised to vest the museum in North Yorkshire County Council by means of a statutory instrument, but even if that were possible it would not satisfy the city.
May I have an undertaking from the Minister that all possible mechanisms will be explored to ensure that the county council has continuing involvement in the planning, running and funding of the museum? One possible way, for example, might be a joint arrangement; another that the city council offer a substantial number of trustee places to the county council and that the trustees should be able to co-opt other interested bodies such as the York Philosophical Society, which started the museum in 1822, and York University, with which the museum already has a treaty of alliance to promote academic work and excellence.
In recent times the museum itself has raised more than £3 million to develop its resources and promote a stable organisational relationship for the management and its dedicated staff. The museum's director and staff would be happy to work together with both councils. I add that three universities and 23 other organisations,
82
including one from France and one from India, have written to the Secretary of State asking that it should stay under the control of the North Yorkshire County Council. However, I realise that that may not be possible by itself.
In 1994 the Yorkshire Museum was honoured in winning the Gulbenkian Museum and Galleries award for the best museum publication, with its publication Medieval Pottery in the Yorkshire Museum . Last Saturday, my husband and I went to visit the museum. It is beautifully clean, has well set out showcases and is well labelled. There were numerous publications on its various collections. The one that I mentioned was very well produced and the photographs were excellent. If the Secretary of State will agree, I believe that my suggestion of a joint arrangement for trusteeship can satisfy both parties.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I listened to the Minister with a degree of contentment and satisfaction, even though I am one of those who to the last moment remain loyal to Humberside and the feeling that its service to the people for 20 years deserves a better fate than abolition. However, that is ancient history, and it is not of that I speak. I speak of Goole. I thought for one moment that the Minister was not going to mention Goole. He gave an account of the neat division of Humberside but said nothing about the 10 parishes, lately of West Riding and all in the diocese of Sheffield, which fell originally into none of the new unitary authorities.
In recent months each new development has offered a new and sometimes bizarre proposal for what is to happen to this area. I believe that it has left both the commission and the Government bemused and uncertain. At the last moment, without consultation with anybody, as far as I am aware, it has been provisionally placed in the East Riding. It has never been part of the East Riding. It may just conceivably be the right answer. However, it seems to me to be extraordinary that at a week's notice a proposal is made without consultation; and it is even more extraordinary when the word "provisional" is attached to it.
Sadly, the East Riding does not want the town and port of Goole or the country parishes around it. Nobody knows—because they have not been asked—whether Goole wants to be part of the East Riding. But a provisional arrangement, particularly in the areas of strategic planning and so on, is the least satisfactory result. The town and port of Goole is a special place. There is something curiously discouraging and dispiriting about being tossed from one authority to another when the only common feature is that nobody seems to want it to be part of their new area.
I hope that serious attention will be given by somebody to finding the right answer to these lands of Humberhead, anciently West Riding and still important. Nearly 50,000 people live in those lands and in the growing port at the heart of them. I hope that the promise of consultation and a future settlement that has both the consent and the good will of all the parties

83
concerned will not be left on one side once the order has been approved. This a piece of unfinished business that needs careful attention.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, will forgive me if I stay more closely to the right reverend Prelate at Goole than to York. I wish to speak for a few moments about the Humberside order. I doubt whether my noble friend will need from me any support in convincing your Lordships of the wisdom of the Humberside order and the creation of the four new unitary authorities. The first 50 years of my life were spent in the East Riding of Yorkshire. For the past 25 years I have lived in the County of Humberside and have therefore ceased to be a Yorkshireman. Naturally, I look forward to the restoration of my Yorkshire status when the order is carried. My qualifications in speaking to this matter are much less than those of my noble kinsman Lord Halifax, whom I see in his place and will, I hope, speak later.
I am convinced, first, that people want the change and, particularly in the East Riding, the restoration of that county. Secondly, I am convinced by the commission's advice that after a period of large transitional costs the savings will be considerable. I also believe that the services provided will be very much better than they have been recently. Finally, I am convinced by the assurances of my noble friend about the employment position of the present employees of the county. I hope that he will have no difficulty in persuading your Lordships to carry through this order.
8 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and also to the Humberside order. I place on record my interest as chair of the Association of County Councils and stress that it is not in that capacity that I speak but on the basis of knowledge from that capacity.
It is with great trepidation that, as an adopted Lancastrian, I dare to trespass onto the subject of what is best for those who are unfortunate enough to live on the wrong side of the Pennines. I first deal with the point made by the noble Lady. The York boundaries are deeply unpopular with those who are encompassed within them. It was said at the beginning of the review of local government by the Secretary of State that the views of the people would be paramount. Therefore, it is distressing to learn that the boundaries of the new York unitary authority will encompass people who do not wish to be there. Therefore, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, is worthy of support, if people are to be consulted. Secondly, the noble Lady referred to the need for clarity in services and the vital role of the county council during the process of change in being fully and automatically involved in the discussion of the transfer of services to a newly-created authority. I do not wish to refer to the series of technical questions that I raised in the debate on the Avon order because I am assured that I will be receiving answers from the Minister. I await those detailed answers.
84
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield is not alone in regretting the passing of Humberside; not because Humberside, like Avon and Cleveland, the other two in the trio has the historical background dating back centuries of many other counties, but because of the quality and quantity of services provided by members and officers since the creation of the County of Humberside. I should like to place on record my tribute to the work that has been done and all that has been achieved. A range of services and activities has been undertaken by those officers and members, based as they are around the Humber estuary. I refer to the work done in the field of planning; the work in support of the views of the Heath/Walker plans of 1974, and the importance of estuarywide planning. There is also the work that has been done to develop Humberside International Airport, the work to support the development of the rail network, the education service, and the unique scholars scheme which extends real parental choice by offering half-price bus transport to scholars who would not be eligible under the statutory scheme. Nursery provision has been expanded in spite of the constraints placed on expenditure by national government; and there has been a wide variety of work in the field of environmental awareness, with conferences and co-operation. There has been work on transport and with sixth-formers on environmental issues and on the potential for the future. In your Lordships' House the problems facing social services departments have been debated.
Humberside has a fine record. It has successfully implemented care in the community strategies; it has maintained free domiciliary and day care services; and it has developed a new intensive homecare service system for the elderly disabled and resource centres for adult clients. It has achieved a high performance and has given people a wide variety of services and choice.
I spoke in the last debate on the subject of the Government's policy on local government reorganisation partly because of the issue of continuing authorities. This order for Humberside is flawed in the same way by that feature. I shall not repeat the details of the problem that it creates, but it does not provide an equal and level playing field for those who will be considered for employment in the new authority of Kingston-upon-Hull, whatever the good will of those elected.
Many references have been made in previous debates on local government reorganisation to the importance of effective delivery of strategic services. There is a tragedy behind the history of the review of local government in England of which this order represents part. It began in a spirit of malice towards local government rather than a logical and consistent plan and point of view. It was quite clear from the documents at the beginning that Avon, Cleveland and Humberside had had their futures determined before the process began. Therefore, it was not open and not equal, and the people were not given an equality of opportunity to express their point of view. There was no concentration at the beginning of the review on establishing what the

85
services and the financing and function of local government should be in England outside the metropolitan areas. That is a fundamental weakness.
We live in a time when many people refer to subsidiarity. I would make the point to your Lordships that subsidiarity is the principle of looking at the best level at which decisions can be taken for and by the people affected by those decisions. We have also heard interpretations which refer to subsidiarity as being those appointed or those chosen by some means other than universal suffrage and universal electoral mandate. The fragmentation of that strategic function in the abolition of Humberside County Council will have one fortunate result. It will bring nearer the day when the people in England become more aware that they are governed at regional level less and less by those they elect and more and more by those who are either appointed to make decisions on their behalf or who are civil servants.
I was interested to note in the previous debate in this Chamber that the Minister, when speaking of the health service, said that it was appropriate for civil servants to be responsible for taking decisions and carrying messages from the regions to central government. That is not subsidiarity. If those decisions—strategic planning decisions, important transport decisions, economic development decisions, all those environmental decisions that need to be taken at a larger level than unitary authority but away from Whitehall which knows little of the problems either side of the Pennines or in the north of England or the south-west—are to be taken at that level, I agree that civil servants ought to be involved in the professional analysis. But so ought the people of the region be able to express their views, through the democratic process, on what happens to affect their lives. Therefore, in the tragedy of losing that good strategic capability of the county of Humberside, we shall also see brought near us the process of people becoming aware that we have regional government in England, but it is unaccountable regional government and it is Whitehall deciding for people rather than people being elected.
This is a new phase of local government reorganisation and your Lordships are being asked today to say yes to a process which began with the words that the people and their wishes would be paramount; a process that was flawed from the beginning because it did not consider functions and finance; a process which is being marred by staff compensation which is not as good as that offered in 1986. The noble Viscount can refer in vain to the fact that local authorities may pay above that level. That is of little avail when the Government say that local authority expenditure must be reduced.
The cost of the reorganisation is also a tragedy. The Government have set aside £50 million in the coming year for the cost of reorganisation of the comparatively small number of authorities that it is planned should be changed in the coming financial year. They have set aside £50 million, but it is not a new £50 million. It is £50 million that was top sliced from the total standard spending level for local government in England before
86
the money was then allocated to continue services. So the other local authorities and their services are being reduced to pay for this reorganisation.
As I said, it is with some trepidation that I speak about what is right for those in other areas. It is quite clear that the services that are offered cannot be protected if the Government intend to impose decisions and then remove money intended for home helps, teachers and fire fighters instead of finding new money to carry out their policies. I thank your Lordships for listening.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I do not want to get too involved in the rights and wrongs of the Humberside order other than to say that the arguments must be very similar to those for Cleveland. However, unlike Cleveland, I think that Humberside was an unpopular county, particularly in the older rural East Riding, even if that unpopularity has been caused mainly by the prejudice aroused by not being in Yorkshire.
There are many concerns which will have to be addressed and I hope that the Minister will be able to say a word or two about them. There is the whole question of the management of the estuary, with regard to both its environmental and economic significance. Individual new authorities will not be able sensibly to replicate the county council's service with trading standards. Education in respect of special needs will become more difficult for individual authorities to manage economically on a smaller scale, with duplication of specialised control management. Highly specialised social service units such as the guardian ad litem service will have to be duplicated, as will the highways accident investigation team and the materials laboratory, the county archives and emergency planning services. If these are run by joint bodies there will be a reduction in control and accountability. But if run by districts there will be expensive duplication.
Some of the authorities will be new and others continuing authorities. Clearly, the former will take time to establish chief officers and will be far behind the continuing authority in planning for the future. It does seem odd that, when the Government are continually tightening the financial control on local authorities, they should make these changes that will involve the expenditure of millions of pounds. Goole has been in and out and does not know what is going to happen to itself from one day to the next.
The Local Government Commission estimates that the cost of implementation will be £500,000 and the county council estimates that it will be £33 million. Murphy's law suggests that it will be closer to the latter. I believe that the Government long ago decided to have unitary districts or unitary authorities, and the whole process, I suggest, has been a PR exercise to try to prepare for it. Undoubtedly the Government never realised what a hornets' nest they were stirring up and, if they had, they would probably have left the whole thing alone.
As regards York, the rural area—the old East Riding—has never been happy in Humberside and so now we see it being returned to Yorkshire. One would have thought that that would have been a lesson. But

87
here in the York order we see exactly the same mistake being made, with a rural area being taken from the county council and put into the city. That will cause just as much unhappiness and it will be only a few years before the situation will have to be reversed to where it is today, when half the people will be satisfied, half will be dissatisfied and everybody annoyed at being mucked about. The only thing people do not like is having their counties mucked about, with all the necessary uncertainty, the re-identification and the cost of renaming.
With the York order there is still much to be settled in the same way as with Humberside. I am not sure whether the police authority has yet been legally constituted. Staff pensions have to be provided for. There are outstanding problems such as the local legislation applying to trading standards, as in Hull, which will no longer be valid for the new areas coming out of the county council area.
My main reason for speaking tonight is to draw attention to the Yorkshire Museum. This was left to North Yorkshire to run in 1974, when no one was very interested in it either way. Since then it has been greatly enhanced until now it is a regional museum of great importance, employing some 26 full-time staff and having put on some fine exhibitions over the period. The vast majority of its visitors come from outside York: only 3 per cent. come from York, while 97 per cent. come from the rest of the United Kingdom and abroad. As regards exhibits, for example, of the coins displayed, only 2 per cent. were found in the City of York.
The museum supplies exhibitions to many other museums in the region. It is now so successful that York City would like to take it over, but not to continue as it is, but to transform it into a museum to tell the story of York. That would involve dispensing with much of the staff, terminating the exhibition programme, curtailing the inquiry service, and making other changes that would completely tear down all the success built up over the past 20 years.
I was born a Yorkshireman—though I have become a Clevelander and got used to it—but I still believe that this museum should be preserved with the North Yorkshire County Council. It has a good reputation for managing the museum and it should continue to do so. There is a proposal to run it under joint arrangements with the city, but that really could not work as there is a complete divergence of view as to both the funding arrangements and the direction that the museum should pursue. I hope that the Government will at least listen to those who want to keep the museum where it is.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I address my remarks solely and briefly to the North Yorkshire and York order. It is a misguided and shabby little instrument. I support warmly the amendment to it moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Kinloss. But, frankly, I am astonished by her moderation. My remarks of course pay regard to the accustomed disarming presentation of
88
the Government's case by the noble Viscount. He has the enviable ability to put a parade ground gloss on badly scuffed old leather.
I mention in passing that we witnessed last Thursday yet another violent U-turn in the Government's policy towards the commission in particular and towards local government in general. These flippant interventions by the Secretary of State for the Environment are not the way to manage change —if it were needed, which it is not—in a great national institution like local government. The unhappy commission and the even more unhappy former chairman, the manner of whose going became him, set great store by the fact that their recommendations for change should reflect the wishes of local people. They had an embarrassingly loud and tragic hiccup over the first tranche of counties. After that they went to great lengths to try to discover what these wishes were. They spent money like unregulated water in so doing.
But in the event, when it came to York, both the commission and the Government ignored local wishes. They are trying to get together chalk and cheese. As my noble friend Lady Kinloss and a number of other noble Lords and noble Baronesses pointed out, there is remarkably little support in the City of York for its enlargement, and the neighbouring communities which are to be the source of this enlargement uncompromisingly reject it.
As we all know, consistency is a quality infrequently found in governments. But there is something spectacular in this Government's refusal to enlarge other cities and their insistence against all the evidence on enlarging York. Rupert Brooke, I fancy, would have found the inconsistency romantic like the unofficial English rose. Others—of course I am not one of them—claim to have detected the fingerprints of a Mr. G. Mander. So these deeply unpopular, incompetently prepared, costly and actively harmful proposals are being forced through regardless. Never mind the disruption to essential services such as children in need, education, elderly people and handicapped people or the disruption to the police, to staff pensions, to the future of the Yorkshire Museum, which has been mentioned more than once, and to strategic planning.
I pause for one moment as regards strategic planning. The commission and the Government show a touching faith in the ability of the new authority and its neighbours to collaborate in producing future, joint strategic plans. That faith may be unwarranted. Indeed, the Government themselves believed that that would be the case until, with Hamlet-like irresolution, they change their mind in a matter of days. What then? The Government say, "Never mind these important issues. We must press on at all costs with our vision".
What is that vision? It is that the only route forward anywhere at any time must be, not modest minor roads, but always the road to Damascus. On this occasion would it were the winding road to Goole.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I rise to intervene briefly in this debate to welcome the Humberside order, but I do so with mixed feelings. The abolition of Humberside also brings with it the abolition of the

89
councils of Cleethorpes and Grimsby. As I was born in Cleethorpes and lived and was educated in Grimsby, I see the departure of those councils with some regret. But when we are talking about consent, there is absolutely no doubt whatever that the people of Grimsby and Cleethorpes totally support the abolition of the county council. To be fair, I do not think that as far as people south of the Humber were concerned the county council had a hope of succeeding right from its creation. I agree with my noble friend Lady Farrington about the tremendous work that has been done by the county council, but I think that the new unitary authority will be able to continue that good work.
The problem is that the towns south of the Humber, particularly those near the mouth of the Humber, have had a long history of self-government. Grimsby was a county borough from 1891 until the reorganisation in 1974. For years, people in both Grimsby and Cleethorpes thought that the towns should be joined. Those two boroughs are now to be joined, and Immingham is to, be included. Having worked for years in Immingham, I am pleased about that. The evidence is that the people warmly support the creation of the new authority. I cannot speak for Glanford and Scunthorpe, although I claim to be able to speak for the people of Cleethorpes and Grimsby.
However, there are problems and although I think I know the answers to some of them, I should like to ask the Minister to comment. First, the area is currently governed by 100 councillors from Cleethorpes Council, Great Grimsby Borough Council and the county council. The unitary authority will take over all of the powers exercised by the county but will have only 42 councillors. That will create problems. Secondly, there is deep concern about the fact that elections will be held only every four years. Given that Hull has annual elections for one third of its members, there is real pressure south of the river for the unitary authorities also to have such annual elections.
My next point relates to planning. The authorities both north and south of the river have co-operated in terms of structural planning, land use and estuarial development. However, the towns that skirt the river now seem to be being told, "Turn your back on the river and face south towards Lincolnshire county", and those north of the river are being told to face north towards Yorkshire. That will create some planning problems in the estuarial area. I heard what the Minister said about co-operation and I am certain that there will be continued co-operation within the Humber Forum, but, like the town, I am a little concerned about looking towards the county in terms of planning matters. I wonder whether the Minister can say something about that.
My final point relates to regional government, to which my noble friend Lady Farrington referred. Although we are concerned about the undemocratic nature of regional government, given that we are where we are, the boroughs to which I have referred do not
90
wish to be transferred from Yorkshire and Humberside to, for example, the East Midlands, I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will not take place.
The Earl of Halifax: My Lords, I wish to add my voice to those of other noble Lords who support the Humberside order. In particular, I applaud the new authorities for the city of Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire, for no other part of Britain has greater cause to rue the folly of the 1974 local government reorganisation.
I can assure your Lordships that traditional loyalties to the East Riding are deep-seated and as strong as ever. The creation of a new East Riding unitary authority for the north bank will, I believe, establish a strong and effective single tier to work alongside the Kingston upon Hull authority, and will accommodate a strong community identity with Yorkshire and the East Riding. The proposed authority is perceived as a most welcome and sensible solution to a situation which has troubled us in Yorkshire for the past 21 years.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid that the debate is somewhat ragged due to having to take the two orders together. I desire to speak only to the North Yorkshire order and I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lady Kinloss.
There is general agreement that the York authority should be a unitary authority. I venture strongly to support that. It brings government closer to the people who are affected by that government on the principles that were stated by the noble Baroness. As she said, it is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
So there is no question about the type of government: it is to be unitary. The only question is as to its boundaries. On that, there have been three main contentions. The first, not much urged, is that of the status quo, with the city remaining within its present boundaries. That has not been properly considered because the city council went for the second option, the expansion of the city up to the ring road. The third option is that which is now proposed by the Government under the name of the "Greater York area". That is nominally justified by the former strategic planning area of York. But even that is not consistently maintained because five parishes are taken away from that area. The Minister must in due course tell us the difference between those five parishes and the other rural parishes which surround York and which have been brought into the York area.
There is inevitably a certain amount of politics in these matters. It is impossible for any authority to proceed blindly and oblivious to the political repercussions of the decision. I suppose that the classic example of that is the old London County Council, which had a solid Labour majority that was distasteful to the Conservative Government of the time, so the idea of the Greater London Council was adopted, bringing into the government of London the surrounding suburbs and commuting areas. That was not a great success. The Minister will have to justify the difference between the Greater London Council and what may have impelled it, and the Greater York Council. What is the difference?

91
Those are the three matters that have been mainly considered, but there is a fourth which should be studied. I refer to adding to the existing York area two urban parishes which are in juxtaposition already. No one going from York City into those parishes would ever know that he was crossing a boundary. I think that I can appeal to noble Lords and my noble friends who have already spoken who know the area well.
I say that that should be considered, because we now have, as the order is before your Lordships' House, the opportunity to ask the Government to think again about it. We can very well do so because, after the order was approved in the other place, the Government decided to give fresh guidance to the Local Government Commission. They have altered the commission's personnel, including the removal of its chairman. They have decided to refer back to the new commission a great many matters that have already been discussed. What could be more appropriate than to do that in the case of York?
I mentioned the political implication. It is perfectly natural for the York City Council, which is a Labour-controlled council, to wish to expand to the York ring road. It would thereby not merely add to its rateable value, which, as I am sure the noble Baroness will bear me out, is difficult for any local authority to resist, but it would add also to its party political strength. I do not believe that any authority can be blamed for having some eye to the political repercussions. It is only because the proposal under the order is so extraordinary, so deplorable, that there are now dark mutterings about gerrymandering. One need not go so far, one can merely draw attention, as I have ventured to do, to what happened to the LCC and the GLC. No government or local authority has been blind to political advantage.
When I started in politics, Herbert Morrison was a master at the game. There was a far more recent example when a Labour Government, finding the parliamentary boundary commissions' recommendations contrary to their interests, merely laid the order before the House without, as was their constitutional duty, recommending that they should be accepted. So no government, no local authority, is blind to the political repercussions. I am therefore glad that the amendment has been moved from the Cross-Benches by my noble friend Lady Kinloss and supported by my noble friend Lord Bancroft.
The Minister rightly rehearsed the two main considerations which lie behind any local government reorganisation. The first is efficiency of service, and the second is acceptability to the local community. The Minister is to be congratulated on keeping a straight face as he enunciated that second consideration in the context of the order; but, even looking at the efficiency, it is said that York needs a bigger population. What is done? It is to be increased from roughly 100,000 to 170,000—an increase of 7 per cent. But what about the area? That is increased 10-fold. What is the greater cost of delivering services in that greater area? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point too, because there are some figures which I have seen.
92
The most expensive, as well as the worst, of the three provisions which I mentioned is the so-called greater York provision. The least is the status quo. So much, then, for the efficiency of service. Why is it said that a city of 100,000 is too small to deliver efficient services? What about Rutland? That has only one-third of the population. What about Darlington, which was the subject of a decision at the end of last week only? If Darlington can do it, why cannot York do it? So much, then, for the efficiency of the service.
Even if that were a valid consideration, the scheme would fall down because it offends, and offends grossly, the second consideration: that the local authority organisation should be acceptable to the people who are affected.
My noble friend read the figures—they are astonishing—of the representations to the department: 1,066 individual members were against it, with only 30 for it; of the local authorities, seven were against it and none was for it. That included the county council itself. Of the parish councils, there are 26 parish councils and none was in favour. All 26 were against the proposal. Then there are the others to which my noble friend referred: 15 against and the odd other one in favour. I hope that the Minister will tell us from where the odd one came. So what one has is an order that does not justify itself on the score of better delivery of services, and fails utterly when one comes to consider its acceptability and whether the communities that are now to be joined are compatible.
Dr. Johnson said that marriages would be equally happy if they were all made by the Lord Chancellor. I am bound to say on the fate of this order, and perhaps being prejudiced, I would prefer a marriage to be arranged by the Lord Chancellor rather than by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The extraordinary thing is that among those who are sought to be married, every party is against it. The city council does not want the plethora of wives and concubines who are being pressed upon it by the eunuchs of Whitehall—because what we have come to is a claim that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, and that is simply deplorable from a government who call themselves Conservative. Did the gentlemen of Whitehall know best in 1973–74? Did they know best about Humberside and about Avon? Why should we now believe that they know best about York? I hope that my noble friend will press her amendment. I hope that it will encourage the Minister to reconsider the matter.
Finally, the matter lies in the hands of the noble Viscount. He is in charge of the order, not his department. We had a notable example of that in the Criminal Justice Bill of last Session. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a Minister of State like the noble Viscount, was faced with an amendment that sought to make touting outside games stadiums illegal, as it was outside football stadiums. His brief ended "reject". However, he yielded to the arguments. He knew that he would be defeated on a vote and he threw away his brief and accepted the amendment. I hope that the noble Viscount will follow his example.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to be brief. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord,

93
Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for putting before the House the technical reasons that will enable the Minister to withdraw the order. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
I wish to make only two brief statements. First, the degree of unanimity as between the various levels of local government in their opposition to the boundaries of the proposed new unitary York is in my experience as a county councillor during the past few years quite unique. I believe that that, in addition to the results of the MORI polls carried out by the commission and the polls carried out by local organisations, should be taken into account and heeded.
Secondly, the proposal that York should extend to the ring road appears to offer the most economical solution net, as it were, to the change and to the establishment of a York city. I too support the amendment and ask the Minister to reconsider the boundaries of the new York authority.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too am a Lancastrian by birth. The rivalry between the Red and White Roses, which I experienced during my childhood, in particular at Old Trafford, does not affect my judgment of the orders before us tonight.
My assessment is that Humberside is yet another authority which has not won the hearts and minds of its population. Again, as with the authorities that we waved on their way earlier this year, I pay tribute to the councillors and the staff. It must be remarkably difficult to work in an authority where one knows that the end is coming and where the county has not drawn together the communities in the way that was intended 20 years ago. I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about unelected government and the inherent problems for the new authorities in the Humberside area and for all the other authorities. I am grateful in particular to the right reverend Prelate for describing so vividly the feelings of the local community being tossed about at the whim of Whitehall. That is no way to go forward.
North Yorkshire is a different and significant case. It is clear that the proposed arrangements do not command support; indeed, they command articulate and loud opposition. Those inside the old boundary and those inside the new dislike the proposal. So do those in the rest of North Yorkshire. I too ask myself why the expansion is required. I drew the comparison with an authority in respect of which this House and another place has taken a decision; that is, Hartlepool. The current York has a population of some 101,000, but Hartlepool only 91,000. I agree with other noble Lords that size is by no means everything.
I was concerned to hear some of the reasons given for the decision that certain subjects would be better dealt with by an expanded York. The examples given included transport, planning and economic development. I believe that such strategic subjects need a wider area than the expanded York on its longest boundaries. I also believe that the suggestion that Whitehall knows best about the way in which local communities define themselves is extraordinarily patronising.
94
Some have accused the Government of gerrymandering. It is notable that tonight those accusations have come not from the party politicians in the Chamber but from the Cross-Benchers. My charge is, if anything, even more serious. By imposing a political boundary, I believe that the Government are alienating people from the political process and that strikes at the heart of democracy. I warmly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. If she divides the House I shall follow her into the Lobby.
At the same time as the expansion of York, Ryedale is to be halved. We have heard comments about that but I cannot help believing that the continuation of the provision of services by that authority will be a challenge.
Mention has been made of the museum. It is difficult to explain why, when matters as important as education and social services are being transferred to the new authority, the museum is not being transferred. Having heard the comments from those who know the museum personally and having heard that it is a centre of research, local history and archaeology and that it is run as a local museum and resource and not as a tourist attraction, I understand their anxieties about its future. The county council invested substantially in the museum, but before 1974 the investment by York was in the building and not very much in the exhibits. I understand the anxieties about downgrading the museum to focus on York alone. I believe that York's own submission indicated that it would concentrate on the city and would be likely to stop or curtail the innovative work of the museum.
I turn from the sublime of the museum to the gorblimey of car boot sales. That matter too is important and I raise it because I wish to ask the Minister about a particular piece of local legislation. Part III of the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991 contains powers and duties relating to the control of occasional sales and dealers in second-hand goods. I understand that those powers are enforced strictly and have proved a considerable success, in particular in the York area.
In its passage through Parliament as recently as 1991, the Act was supported by the police and the trading standards department. However—and this is the problem—Article 5(1) of the order provides that the new district of York:
"shall cease to form part of North Yorkshire".
As a result of that, the North Yorkshire County Council Act is disapplied to York. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how the 1991 Act's provisions can be re-extended into York and, indeed, why the department, which obviously considered a number of detailed matters, has not inserted a special provision to deal with that into the order before us this evening. Your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties in relation to unregulated, second-hand sales—in particular car boot sales—and the need for public protection. I make no apology for raising that issue in the same breath as mentioning the difficulties in relation to the museum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raised a number of technical matters in connection with Avon. Perhaps I may follow up some of those issues this

95
evening in the context of the two orders before us. A week ago we talked about Article 21 of the Avon order, and the relevant articles are Article 18 of the North Yorkshire order and Article 19 of the Humberside order. I do not seek to impugn the reassurances given by the Minister last week on the Government's view that the article does not prevent the transferor authority from undertaking the vital planning and consultation work required during the shadow—the preliminary—period. But the general regulations cast some doubt on that. That is why I raise the issue. Will the Minister clarify what prevents Article 12(2) of the general orders from being an absolute prohibition on the county council carrying out the activities covered? It states that:
"The transferor authority shall not, notwithstanding any enactment, undertake as a local authority any activity mentioned in or pursuant to, regulation 11(2) (c)".
That refers to the preparation of budgets or plans required by the newly established authority when those functions are assumed.
That sounds very dry, but the possible difficulties in relation to the divisions of responsibility may have major implications for the local community. For example, a community care plan must be submitted early next year. Not for some time will the new authority have a committee or officer structure capable of dealing with the process for the York area. I need not spell out the potential rivalries or the scope for matters falling between stools as a result.
Secondly, as regards Article 17, the debate on the Avon order dealt with the differences in the powers available before and after shadow elections. The Avon order allowed all existing authorities to take certain steps—the steps which they considered necessary. It has been mentioned already that Article 18 of the Humberside order grants that power only to the transferee authorities and not to the transferor authorities. In North Yorkshire, the power is granted only to the transferee authority—that is, the enlarged York—and therefore, by definition, it is granted only after the shadow elections. Will the Minister explain the implications of the different wording between the order this evening and the Avon order and the implications of the timings in relation to the making of the order and the elections for the powers of existing authorities in each of the three areas?
My final technical point is in relation to finance; namely, the proposed timescale within which continuing authorities with a changed area and unchanged functions may apply for supplementary credit approvals. That is more restrictive than the relevant timescale for new authorities or for continuing authorities with new functions. Unchanged function authorities may apply for SCAs for expenditure incurred from the date of the order up to the reorganisation date or, exceptionally, to the date at the end of the financial year which begins on the reorganisation date. But, in contrast, new function authorities have until the end of the financial year ending three years after the reorganisation date. That builds in a double incentive for the unchanged function authority to tackle the down-sizing which is required before the reorganisation date itself and out of
96
synchronisation with the new function unitary authority. The incentive to make redundancies before reorganisation is a matter of anxiety and is certainly not in line with the principles set out in the national agreement.
The second financial point is that the eligible costs for a continuing county with unchanged functions were regarded as very tightly drawn. The eligibility criteria for those authorities limit the expenditure to staff costs. I take this opportunity to draw to the Minister's attention other costs which seem not to have been recognised up until now. The examples of which I am aware are accommodation and technology. Quite simply, items will be in the wrong place and there are no guarantees that the county will be compensated adequately for the effect of the loss on its ability to provide the same services for its continuing population. The Government have yet to acknowledge—I hope that they will do so soon—that in principle it will be possible for the loss of an asset to a unitary authority to create new costs for the remaining county.
I apologise to your Lordships for going into detail on those technical matters but they become increasingly of concern as the debate goes on. I apologise also to the Minister for not giving him notice of those questions. I should be grateful if he would answer them this evening, but I understand that there may be some questions that he cannot answer. If he will answer those questions in writing, I shall seek the leave of the House to mention the points briefly at some time so that they can be put on the record in Hansard.
Lastly, reference has been made to last week's quite staggering announcement, and there is one question on that which I should like to ask which will be of considerable interest to your Lordships. It is in relation to new guidance. Will the Minister tell us this evening how the Government intend to consult on the new guidance which will be of immense importance to the new authorities whose future is still undecided?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to speak to both orders and to the amendment in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. In Humberside, we are seeing the replacement of Humberside County Council and 69 district councils by four unitary authorities. That has received widespread support. As my noble friend Lady Farrington said, it is important, indeed vital, that people's wishes in that respect are considered. A MORI poll showed that 65 per cent. of the population there is in favour of unitary authorities and only 23 per cent. is against. While there is strong attachment to towns and cities in Humberside, only 9 per cent. of the population identified itself with Humberside, excellent though the delivery of its services clearly is.
Further, this reorganisation in Humberside scores on the potential effectiveness of service delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, notwithstanding, the Local Government Commission made the point that to the two major challenges facing local government in the next decade—care in the community on the one hand and the prevention of crime and social alienation on the other—unitary authorities combining social services, housing, education, youth and community services can offer a

97
more effective response. The size range of authorities, from 152,000 in north Lincolnshire to nearly 270,000 in Hull, is comfortably within the LGC guidelines and is larger than many metropolitan and London districts.
This reorganisation scores, too, on efficiency and cost savings. It is—as was Cleveland and Avon—respecting the national agreements on 100 per cent. staff transfers and the no detriment clauses, although the Government are still failing to produce the more generous voluntary redundancy agreements experienced in the 1986 review. Of the nine MPs for the area, only two do not support it, and one of those supported unitary status for the City of Hull.
Within this reorganisation, which, as I say, has been widely welcomed and meets all the criteria laid down by the Local Government Commission, there are at least two points that I hope the Minister may care to address. The first, which was absolutely rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Gladwin, is the number of councillors. In these authorities the total number of councillors will be reduced and the rural areas especially will suffer something of a democratic deficit in consequence.
It is worth reminding ourselves that already in Britain we have fewer councillors per thousand population than anywhere that I am aware of in Europe, where the average is one councillor to perhaps 250 or 500 people, At the moment in England it is something like one to 1,250 people. Under these proposals and the guidelines of the Local Government Commission, it is nearer one councillor to 4,000 people. North Lincolnshire, for example, will see the total number of councillors fall from 100 down to 42. That is really rather unwise. Local government is not—Baines notwithstanding—a specimen of corporate management. Its very real strength lies in its local representative quality and its committee rather than cabinet system of governance so that all services are collectively run co-operatively across all parties. To do so, and to make possible a committee structure with this range of responsibilities, needs an adequate number of councillors if one is not to force them to become full time, which I personally would not wish to see.
The Local Government Commission states naively,
"The commission consider that by reducing the number of councillors, it will force the introduction of an improved support network for councillors, enabling effective representation across the review area".
That, frankly, is the Local Government Commission at its silliest, hoping that by making the situation worse one will thereby force a remedy. As far as I am aware the Militant Tendency has given that up as a viable option.
The other point that I hope the Minister will pursue is the City of Hull boundary. The city wanted to extend into Beverley and Holderness the built up areas which use its services. I recognise that the Local Government Commission found that three-quarters of those in Beverley, and even more in Holderness, were reluctant to enter the Hull boundaries. The Government accepted the Local Government Commission's view. I think we all appreciate that this is a difficult matter but this is one issue of boundary that I am confident will have to be addressed by the Boundary Commission fairly soon.
98
I now wish to turn to North Yorkshire. Here, the City of York is to become a unitary authority and the rest of North Yorkshire is to remain two-tier. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raises two issues in her amendment—the Yorkshire Museum and the boundary of York. As regards the Yorkshire Museum, I accept that museum professionals across the country are worried that county museum services may be fragmented. Yet it is worth reminding ourselves that the City Council of York already runs the York Castle Museum, its city art gallery and its city archive service, which is somewhat unusual. Until 1974 it ran the Yorkshire Museum as well. I think all of us accept that it is hard to believe it could not run the Yorkshire Museum; the question is how wide and comprehensive the service will be. I think we recognise that the trustee deeds insist that the museum must be returned to the City of York from which it originated, and of course the City of York could offer lead services to North Yorkshire if it desired. I hope that the call of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that there should at the very least be county representation among the trustees is observed. That seems to me entirely reasonable. I believe that should go hand in hand with a continuing financial contribution.
I also support the concern of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, as regards the City of York's boundaries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, also spoke with his customary and elegant moderation. The current population of York is drawn on tight boundaries100,000—and there has not been a general review since the 1950s. The city itself, as many of your Lordships have said, proposed to take its boundaries out to the immediate built-up area; that is, to the outer ring road, which would have raised the city's population to 125,000. The Local Government Commission recommended—and the Government accepted—that it should go out far beyond that to what it calls the greater York area, increase its population to some 167,000, and multiply its size by some 900 per cent., into neighbouring Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate. Why should that be? Both the Local Government Commission and the Government have been accused of political gerrymandering. What is the case is that the Local Government Commission's recommendations which the Government have followed are unduly influenced by issues of size.
The Local Government Commission states,
"with such an enlarged boundary, the new authority will be better able to deliver services efficiently and effectively".
It assumes that 125,000 is not enough and therefore pushes the population up to 167,000. It does so because it assumes that the City of York needs both a stronger revenue base and, frankly, more people. The Local Government Commission and the Government are wrong on both counts. As regards the stronger revenue base, that would not be an issue if Government did two things that we on these Benches have been calling for for many years. On the one hand standard spending assessments should reflect the additional responsibilities of regional capital cities such as York, their stock of historic buildings and their pressures for planning, car parking, street cleaning and cultural services. If SSAs

99
were properly formulated, York would begin to have an appropriate financial base on which to meet those demands.
The other way in which the demands and needs of York for appropriate finances should be met—again something that we have called for from these Benches on every possible occasion—is through the return to local authorities of the business rate; in other words, the denationalisation of business rates and their return to the local authorities from which they emanate. I am confident that the York business community is paying far more to central government than the city receives back from the national business rate on the basis of the population formula. In comparable cities, the business community contributes at least twice as much to the national Exchequer as the city receives back in business rates.
Those two measures—the reorganisation of standard spending assessments and a return of the business rate to local government—are the right ways to strengthen the revenue base, not a simple extension of boundaries. In any case, the Government's concept of enabling authorities, which was much in play when the Bill went through your Lordships' House, should allow them to avoid the numbers game.
The Local Government Commission is also wrong in its assumption that the city needs more people. That is again mistaken. The Local Government Commission shares, although to a reduced degree, the fallacious view exemplified in Derek Senior's call, as a dissenting member of the Redcliffe Maud Commission of 1969, for city regions. Derek Senior was wrong then and the Local Government Commission is wrong now.
By extending the boundaries as proposed, the new York will include the old city with population densities of more than 350 people per 10 hectares as well as rural parishes with population sparsity—in Holtby and Stockton on the Forest —of less than 10 people per 10 hectares, where they are greatly outnumbered by their sheep.
In such a boundary reorganisation, the concept of the city loses its identity. Its edges blur into rural communities. It loses its distinctive character. Far from achieving economies of scale, the distances almost certainly mean diseconomies of scale as a result of which the City of York will have to spend more to provide the same level of service to the scattered populations of villages miles from the city hall.
It is a fallacy. Those villages are not thinned out towns and should not be included. The city and the country are different. One manages the problems of density and the other the problems of sparsity. They should not be homogenised to suit the fleeting managerial whims of the Local Government Commission.
The Local Government Commission seems to think that there is general support for expansion and relatively little hostility to the new unitary authority extending to the greater planning area. That is clear from page 17. How wrong it is. Poll after poll, and noble Lord after noble Lord this evening, have shown that three-quarters of the people of York want the ring road boundaries and
100
a similar number, both within the ring road and between the ring road and Greater York, oppose the extension of the boundaries beyond the ring road. Only a quarter of those polled in the whole of the Greater York area support the new boundaries proposed by the commission.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, forcefully and correctly quoted the representations made to the Local Government Commission. There were 30 people and one voluntary organisation in favour: 1,066 people, seven local authorities, 26 parishes and 11 voluntary organisations were opposed, as well as the local MP for York and MPs for adjacent Ryedale and Selby.
This is a grave mistake. The proposed boundaries are deeply opposed by residents both within and outside the ring road. A ring road York is entirely competent to carry out the full range of services. Extending its boundaries will add more to costs than the city will gain in revenue. Above all, it blurs the distinctiveness of the natural and historic community of the City of York, which was what the local government review was designed to achieve.
I conclude on a different point. These are the last of the three orders on the counties created in 1974. We are now moving into the strategic framework outlined in the Statement in the other place, with its proposals for giving unitary status to former county boroughs and historic cities, which was welcomed by my right honourable friend Mr. Dobson. In the 1970s and 1980s these Benches called for such a proposal, and called it organic change. It could, and I hope will, provide the basis for a coherent and stable system of local government across England until, if and when we reconsider the wider constitutional settlement involving regional structures in the years to come.
9.12 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in paying tribute to the work done by the members and officers of Humberside County Council. I agree with the noble Baronesses that, as the Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State have said in another place, reorganisation is not about passing judgment upon existing councils. It is concerned with the best structures for future local government in the areas concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was quite right again in attributing the remarks that she made about Avon to Humberside: the situation has not really gelled in people's minds or appealed to their instincts.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the constructive and helpful contributions to tonight's debate and for the general welcome that noble Lords have given to our proposals for Humberside—I think that they were generally welcomed—and the rather more muted welcome for the proposals for York. Your Lordships have raised a number of points. I shall attempt to reply to as many as possible in the time available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, began by criticising the proposals because they do not implement the wishes of local people and take government further

101
away from the people. However, what I started to say in my opening remarks was that it was the commission's recommendations that we implement.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to intervene? Can he possibly shelter behind the commission after what happened at the end of last week?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sheltering behind the commission. I am saying in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who said that we were not implementing the people's wishes, that it is up to the Local Government Commission to consult upon local people's wishes. It is the commission's recommendations that we are implementing. It went to great lengths to establish what local opinion was. I believe that the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, about gerrymandering was unworthy of him and, incidentally, does not reflect well on the commission or its former chairman, of whom he spoke, who certainly would not appreciate the suggestion—and in fact has gone into print on it—that he had been doing the dirty work of the Government or, for that matter, the Opposition.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I was careful to say that "gossip had it", or words to that effect, that the fingerprints of a Mr. G. Mander were on this; and, I said, of course I did not share that view.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is renowned for his cynical approach on these matters but he was taken up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, since the noble Viscount mentioned me, perhaps I may say that I did not make any accusation of gerrymandering. However, I said that that is what is being said now in the neighbourhood; and it is.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall accept that that is what the noble and learned Lord says. I shall certainly look carefully at Hansard to make certain that those were the remarks that he made.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. Does he not agree that it is possible for Government to accept those recommendations of the commission which suit them politically and not to accept those which fail to suit them politically, and that therefore an accusation might be levelled by someone of a suspicious mind that the Government were considering the matter in a gerrymandering way, quite outside anything that the commission had intended?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness has her own views on this.
Perhaps I may address straight away the opposition to the greater York boundaries which was conveyed in the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and indeed is referred to in the amendment that she put down. I acknowledged in my opening speech the weight of representations on the point. Indeed, I recognise that the
102
figures put forward by the noble Baroness are taken from answers produced in another place. Therefore I shall not quibble at the figures that she produced. However, the commission concluded, and we agree, that on balance that is outweighed by the advantages of extension. Some of those advantages were given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, indeed they were. The noble Baroness indicated that to increase the size would increase the opportunity of providing services for the people of York.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry, but I actually said exactly the opposite. I look for support from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I said that the city of York was calling for an extension to the outer ring road, which had the general consent of the people of York, but to go beyond that into rural areas, from a population density of 350 people per 10 hectares down to 10 people per 10 hectares, would produce additional costs to provide the same level of service for smaller communities. Therefore the city of York would be financially the loser by that. In that context, I called on the Government to address the problem of finance through reform of the standard spending assessments. I am sure that the Minister will recall that that is what I said.
Viscount Ullswater: Indeed, my Lords. If the noble Baroness had waited, I would have mentioned the suggestion to increase the size of the city of York up to the ring road. Then there would be a further extension which was proposed by the Local Government Commission and accepted by the Government. I understand the fear that the extension may lead to domination by the city of the surrounding area, but I believe that it is unduly pessimistic. The boundary change will bring about an increase in the population of the area of over 50 per cent., as I indicated, and it will be reflected in the composition of the new council. I feel sure that representation from the surrounding area will be capable of ensuring that the new council takes due account of its interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned the proposal to extend York to the ring road. We considered it, as did the commission. The ring road, however, is not a natural boundary; in one place it cuts into the urban area and it also splits a number of parishes. We did not want to divide them. The commission did not recommend that and noble Lords have been unkind about relying on Whitehall advice, but that is exactly what we would have been doing if we had made the change to go to the ring road.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Is he saying that the new revised outer boundaries of the greater York do not similarly cut through wards?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am saying that they do not cut through parishes and we did not wish to divide parishes. Following representations made to us by local people and by Members of Parliament, we

103
agreed to exclude five small parishes on the outer edges of the greater planning area. We were persuaded that the characteristics of the parishes were such that their exclusion was justified. Cases were made for other parishes to be excluded, but in our view they were not as strong. We also took the view that if further parishes were removed, with each additional parish that was removed the case for allowing the city to adopt a strategic approach to planning and service provision would be weakened.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked me what the difference was between the five parishes taken out and those remaining within the new boundaries. The parishes are rural by nature and on the basis of specific representations which were made on their behalf, they were excluded from the boundaries. I do not deny that there must be a nice judgment on the point, and on balance we thought that it was justified by the representations made to us; otherwise we would accept what was proposed by the Local Government Commission.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked me whether the city of York would retain its city status. We have absolutely no intention of abolishing the city of York. Because its boundaries are to be extended and it is to be established as a new authority, its charter falls. Before the new authority is established, we intend to make specific provision for the continuation of the city's status and privileges either by laying an order extending the city's existing charter or by providing for York City Council to apply to the Home Office for its charter to be transferred to the new authority.
Various noble Lords complained about the transfer of the Yorkshire Museum to the new unitary city of York council. I share the anxiety that that important museum should continue to play a role as an independent trust beyond the boundaries of the city of York. While I can see a case for North Yorkshire continuing to have a part to play in the museum's running, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—who recommended that a number of the trustees should remain with it—I believe it would be inappropriate to put that into effect by statutory means. It is for the two local authorities to co-operate. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Jones, has written to both authorities outlining our expectation that robust arrangements for safeguarding the museum's role serving both North Yorkshire and York city should be put in place
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for keeping on interrupting the noble Viscount. He is always so courteous in giving way. I ask him at least to reconsider the matter of the Yorkshire Museum. Very close to the Yorkshire Museum is the National Railway Museum, which gets on perfectly well by being administered not in York, and not even in the county, but nationally.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may also mention the nearest large museum, Bowes Museum, which, if my recollection is right, falls under the aegis of more than one local authority. That may include Lancashire,
104
I do not know. The noble Baroness does not nod, so I am probably wrong. It certainly covers more than Durham.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. The Railway Museum is part and parcel of the Science Museum in Exhibition Road. It has nothing to do with local government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Earl has rather answered the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Certainly, not only from this House, but from the other place, we have heard the discussions about the Yorkshire Museum. As noble Lords will know, it houses important collections of archaeology and other material. I would expect the two local authorities to co-operate, as I said. We should seek to make certain that that happens.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield raised the outstanding boundary issue; namely, the future location of the parishes that form Goole and the rural Goole. The commission had recommended that Goole and its hinterland should, with the districts of Craven, Harrogate and Selby, form a unitary authority to be called the West Riding Dales and Vale of Yorkshire. We rejected that recommendation because we believed that in particular it failed to take account of community identity. As a modification to it, our preferred option was to combine Goole with Selby as new districts in North Yorkshire. But in the light of the representations that we received, and to enable the full range of options for the future of Goole to be considered, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will next week direct the commission to undertake a boundary review between the districts of Boothferry, Selby, Glanford and Doncaster in relation to the parishes that form Goole and rural Goole. The commission will be asked, taking into account the structural arrangements that these orders will produce if they are approved, to recommend whether these parishes should remain with Boothferry; transfer to one of the other authorities; be divided between them; or be established as a district council in its own right in a two-tier North Yorkshire. The commission would be asked to give priority to this review and to submit its recommendations to us as swiftly as possible.
I hope that that will in some way relieve the right reverend Prelate's mind in that the position is to be reconsidered. He indicated to the House, quite rightly, that where Goole falls is not indeed clear in any consideration, and therefore it is rather a difficult matter to deal with in local government terms—
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: Perhaps we really ought to go back before 1974 into the West Riding.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lord Holderness, in welcoming the Humberside order, as other noble Lords did, talked about the wisdom of the order and indicated that he had lived for 50 years in the East Riding and perhaps regretted the past 25 years during which he had been forced to live in Humberside

105
and was looking forward to becoming a Yorkshireman yet again. My noble friend Lord Halifax equally welcomed the Humberside order.
My noble friend Lord Holderness also reckoned that there were savings to be made from the new arrangements. The Government share the district's view that there is substantial scope for improved efficiency and savings; but it is up to the new unitaries to ensure that the potential for savings is realised. The number of local authorities in Humberside will be reduced from 11 to four. I expect that to create scope for savings which will more than offset the transitional costs and provide lasting benefits for local people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, began her remarks with what I thought were rather uncharacteristic sentiments. She said that the local government review in general, not necessarily just for these two counties, was begun in a spirit of malice—those, I believe, were the words that she used—and when dealing with Avon, Cleveland and Humberside, they were "doomed from the outset". Again, I believe that those were her words.
There was no .prior consultation at the start of the review on the right structure in principle. I do not feel that it would be right for me to rise to the noble Baroness's bait on the "spirit of malice". The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I agreed that some of the 1974 creations, particularly Avon and Humberside and perhaps Cleveland, have commanded less public affection and support than their long-established neighbours. As to prior consultation on the principle, is it not perhaps an advantage of the review that it did not begin with a predetermined approach but allowed different solutions to emerge in different areas with different circumstances?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that on every occasion when successive Secretaries of State have referred to Cleveland, Avon and Humberside, the content of their speeches has always been "the sooner those new counties go the better"? Does he also agree that the review started earlier? In the case of Humberside it began in 1985 when the boundary commission was asked to look at the matter. In his own words when speaking of Avon, did not the noble Viscount refer to the fact that there was a difference between people's sense of place and their sense of the best structure for delivering services, and whether or not they were necessarily the same?
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, perhaps I may beg the indulgence of the House, just to recall that it is a matter of public record that the former chairman of the Local Government Commission for England, Sir John Banham, in 1993 wrote to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, saying in effect that "We want early wins in Cleveland, Avon and Humberside".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps that just reflects what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested; namely, that they had not made the friends from 1974 onwards. I do not believe that there has been any problem when talking about those three counties.
106
They do not seem to have commanded the same respect, apart obviously from some people who would want them. By and large, the new orders have been welcomed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked about the redundancy scheme being inadequate and much less generous than the 1986 provisions. The present scheme balances fairness to the individual with affordability to the taxpayer. It would be irresponsible to adopt a scheme in 1994 simply because it matched what was done eight years ago. Whatever the justification for previous schemes, they should not determine what is to be available now. The circumstances in local government are now different from those in previous reorganisations and it is important to avoid placing extra demands on public resources.
The noble Baroness indicated that the transitional cost figure of £50 million for 1995–96 was not additional. It is additional. Without reorganisation, the settlement total would have been lower. It is not true to say that the £50 million has been top-sliced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, queried whether the start dates for the assumption of power should be the same for all authorities. The Government wish the playing field to be as level as possible. That was taken into account when drafting the order. All authorities, including the districts which are to be combined to form new authorities, will have equal powers and duties to co-operate and prepare for reorganisation both before and after elections. We took the view that none of the authorities involved would forego the opportunities provided by the order. Certainly it would be wrong to take steps to hold back authorities artificially by saying that none can start preparing for reorganisation until after the May elections.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, were worried about the management of the Humber estuary and training in Humberside. The Humberside Training and Enterprise Council covers the whole of the existing area of the County of Humberside. The TEC is active in Humberside Forum Limited, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and has been a partner in a number of bids for support under the single regeneration budget. We understand that, following reorganisation, the TEC will retain its existing boundaries and continue to work with businesses and communities on both sides of the Humber River. The Humber Forum is at present composed of all nine district councils in the existing County of Humberside, plus the Humber Chamber of Trade, the Humberside TEC, the University of Hull and the National Rivers Authority, which are associate members. That body tackles issues across the region and with others is preparing a strategy for the estuary region. The Government acknowledge the contribution made by these different organisations involved in the area and hope that their work will continue. The Government wish to see continued co-operation on economic and planning issues between local authorities across the Humber.
I take note of the comments that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the number of councillors in the new

107
Humber authorities. This was the subject of recommendations by the Local Govemment Commission which we accepted. The noble Lord also asked whether the new unitary authorities could apply for election by thirds. If they wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to such a system they may do so following the passing of a resolution by the whole council passed by not less than two-thirds of the members. But I believe that it is right for it to settle down before that application is made and the reorganisation takes place.
The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Gisborough asked whether there would be separate structure plans for the areas north and south of the Humber, and whether the nature conservation interests in the estuary, which were currently covered by the Humberside county structure plan, would be undermined. Ministers have stated their desire to see continued co-operation on planning issues across the Humber. The present Humberside Structure Plan contains policies for the protection of wildlife of significance. On reorganisation, these policies will continue until they are replaced by provisions prepared by the new authorities. In preparing structure plan proposals, the new authorities will be required to have regard not only to regional planning guidance, which covers the whole of the estuary, but also to consult neighbouring authorities. These measures will help to ensure that proper consideration is given to cross-estuarial planning issues. The Humber estuary management strategy currently in preparation will also assist the wider development plan and process on both banks of the Humber.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was worried about disruption to essential services. I indicated in my opening remarks that all staff providing the essential front line services such as the teachers and the care workers will transfer automatically on reorganisation day by statutory transfer order. The noble Lord also asked what would happen if the voluntary basis of structure planning did not work. Some safeguard is needed. In the unlikely event that it should become necessary, the Secretary of State has reserve powers under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 to establish a statutory joint authority to prepare such a plan for combined local authority areas if voluntary arrangements fail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of questions to which I hope I shall be able to give at least some answers. However, if I cannot, or if I have answered them inadequately, I shall write to her. She asked in particular about the application of local legislation—the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991—to the city of York after reorganisation. This matter will be addressed before the reorganisation date—before Article 5 comes into effect—and suitable provision will be made if that is considered necessary.
The noble Baroness also asked about the activities preliminary to the exercise of function. The order simply removes from authorities which are to be abolished any duties which require them to prepare budgets or plans for the years after they are abolished and passes those duties to the successor authorities. Not to make the
108
successor authorities responsible for deciding the way in which they are to deliver services would be indefensible. However, the order does not prevent authorities which are to be abolished from working in these areas. Indeed, the duty to co-operate promotes that. It is not feasible, nor is it necessary, to provide in orders in detail for every single service. The Government have a better opinion of local authorities and their staff to make sensible practical arrangements. It is likely that individual departments will be providing guidance to help with the transition. Further assistance is also being provided by the Local Government Management Board, the Audit Commission and the local authority associations.
The noble Baroness asked me about the eligibility criteria for authorities with unchanged functions which were too tight in two respects. With regard to the period over which authorities may bid for supplementary credit approvals, I can confirm that we are prepared to consider extending the period for an additional year to take in the year after the reorganisation date. She also commented about the range of expenditure that was eligible. Arrangements provide for authorities to submit a case where there are other expenditures that fall outside the main eligibility criteria. We shall consider any such bids very carefully. If they are genuinely a consequence of reorganisation they will be sympathetically considered.
The noble Baroness also asked whether and when we would consult on the new approach, as outlined by my right honourable friend last week. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will issue new guidance drawing attention to district specific issues. He proposes to consult local government and the Opposition about this in April or May.
We have had a good debate. I hope that we have entered into the spirit of the debate. I believe that our proposals for North Yorkshire and Humberside will produce more responsive and accountable local government in these areas. They will restore the independence of two justifiably proud cities and restore to Lincolnshire and Yorkshire parts of those counties which many, including many noble Lords who have spoken today, would argue should never have been removed. We believe that the proposals will secure for each area a structure of local government which is not only more accountable and reflects the identity of local people but will also provide efficient and cost-effective services to the communities.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may say that I am grateful to him for answering my question about consultation on the new guidance. Will he consider whether consulting during April—the period when local authorities will be consumed with other activities—is necessarily the most appropriate time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall take into account what the noble Baroness has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

North Yorkshire (District of York)(Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995
9.46 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the second order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lady Kinlossrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets that the proposed boundary does not enjoy full public support and notes the lack of clarity about arrangements which will be made for a number of matters, including the future of the Yorkshire Museum.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I would like first to thank all noble Lords who have spoken tonight in support of my amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the position of the future of the name for the City of York. It was no great surprise to hear what he had to say. I listened to him more in sorrow than anything else. The Government seem unwilling to heed the wishes of the people. The voice of the people, not only of the City of York but in increasing volume of those in the villages and surrounding areas of the proposed greater York planning area, is being ignored.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the position of North Yorkshire County Council and York City Council in the running of the Yorkshire Museum on the lines proposed this evening by others as well as myself. Because of the Government's refusal to listen to the feelings and views of the people of North Yorkshire and York City, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
110
Moved, That, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets that the proposed boundary does not enjoy full public support and notes the lack of clarity about arrangements which will be made for a number of matters, including the future of the Yorkshire Museum.").—(Lady Kinloss.)
9.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 28.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bancroft, L [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Craig of Radley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cross, V.

Manton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McConnell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Freyberg, L

Sheffield, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L

Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Long, V.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Astor, V.

Lucas, L

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Clark of Kempston, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Halifax, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde. L [Teller]

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Lindsay, E.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.

  Criminal Legal Aid: Control
  Criminal Legal Aid: Control
  World Summit for Social Development
  World Summit for Social Development
  Foreign Lorries: Emission Offences
  Foreign Lorries: Emission Offences
  The "Derbyshire"
  The "Derbyshire"
  British Rail: Chairman
  British Rail: Chairman
  Teletext Service
  Teletext Service
  Northern Ireland: Integrated College Proposal
  Northern Ireland: Integrated College Proposal
  Northern Ireland: Cost of Terrorist Activities
  Northern Ireland: Cost of Terrorist Activities
  Gulf War Costs: Contributions to UK Expenditure
  Gulf War Costs: Contributions to UK Expenditure
  Former UK Officers and Officials: Employment in Defence Field
  Former UK Officers and Officials: Employment in Defence Field
  Public Expenditure: Authorisation by Parliament
  Public Expenditure: Authorisation by Parliament
  Landfills: Guidance Paper
  Landfills: Guidance Paper
  Development Rights and Environmental Assessment
  Development Rights and Environmental Assessment