Sitting of 1 May 1995

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

    Social Security Card
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a social security card for the payment of benefits. [20116]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Last year, I announced plans to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books and girocheques will be phased out and replaced by a benefit payment card for all claimants who wish to be paid via a post office. That will help to eliminate fraud, reduce costs for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and support the future of the post office network.
    Mr. Legg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the next three years, he will be spending £300 million to help to combat fraud? Can he also confirm that combating fraud effectively will help to ensure that benefits can continue to be paid through post offices?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. I have obtained agreement from the Treasury to spend extra money on preventing fraud. We believe that that will save substantial amounts of money for the taxpayer and ensure that the money goes where it should—to those in genuine
    2
    need. That is in addition to the investment that we hope for in the new payments system, which is of the order of £130 million. We hope to involve private finance in developing that operation.
    Mr. Frank Field: What is the point of issuing the new cards when large numbers of people, often working in gangs, are wrongly claiming benefit? How many spare national insurance numbers are there? What action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to prevent the use of any of the millions of spare national insurance numbers for fraudulent claims?
    Mr. Lilley: The cards will, I hope, directly eliminate the sort of fraud that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is correct to say that gangs of people steal order books and then impersonate their owners. Order books are one of the least secure means of payment.
    Once we have a payment card and post offices are directly linked to the central source of information, this form of fraud and abuse will be virtually eliminated, with a saving of about £150 million to the taxpayer. We are in the process of cleaning up the national insurance number system to make it more effective. It is true that a number of people who have emigrated or died still have their numbers on the system, but they are not, for that reason, available for anyone to use.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would my right hon. Friend care to commend my local office, which spotted a slight inconsistency about a gentleman who claimed to be incapacitated but who managed to drive up in a jazzy sports car to collect benefit? He was today convicted in Preston Crown court of defrauding the system of £60,000.
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the detection of that abuse of the system. We are introducing a more objective system of evaluating whether people are fit to work. If they are fit to work, they will be helped back into work through back-to-work

    3
    benefits; if they are unfit, they will receive the new incapacity benefit, which we want to go to those who are genuinely medically unable to work.
    Mr. Bennett: Given the large number of people whose credit cards are stolen, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to enable people who lose their cards to get their payments quickly without having to go through a bureaucratic process that will cause them further distress?
    Mr. Lilley: That is an important aspect. The consortia competing to bring in the system have been narrowed down to five. They are making their detailed proposals. One aspect for which they have to ensure that they have the best possible arrangements on offer is coping with people who lose their cards or who are unable to go to the post office and want to nominate a relative or friend to go in their place. All these things have to be done, and done securely.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the introduction of the new incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement. [20117]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit since the changes were announced in December 1993. Those changes will target help through a fairer, more objective medical test and provide an affordable and sustainable system of incapacity provision for the future.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are right to restructure the invalidity benefit system so that those who are genuine claimants will continue to receive benefit and others can be encouraged to return to work? Should that not help to control the ever-rising cost of benefit expenditure?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The old system was well intentioned but inconsistent and haphazard in its application. The new test will focus help on those who are entitled to it. That is what the welfare state is about and that is what the taxpayer is entitled to expect.
    Dr. Reid: In the representations that the Minister has received, has anyone remarked on the amazing foresight—indeed, the prophetic nature—of the Department? Even before questionnaires have been completed and medical examinations undertaken, the Department suggests that there will be savings of £3.3 billion over three years. How is it that it can make that prediction before medicals have taken place? Is that not illustrative of the fact that the exercise has been led by the Treasury as a cost-cutting measure and is not a system of fair payments for disabilities?
    Mr. Hague: No. The test is about focusing help on those who need it most and are entitled to it. Of course there are estimates of savings. We believe that there will be savings because we know that the old system was inconsistent and haphazard in its application. Everyone knows that except those in the Labour party.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I note the Government's intention next year to refer to placing, assessment and counseling
    4
    teams the 29,000 people who, it is anticipated, will fail to qualify for incapacity benefit and will therefore sign on and claim the jobseeker's allowance. What plans do the Government have to provide advice and help to another 120,000, on the Government's estimate, who have degrees of disability, will not be eligible for incapacity benefit and will be required to seek work actively if they are to be able to claim benefit?
    Mr. Hague: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Employment Service will be ready to provide the full range of its usual help to anyone who has been receiving invalidity benefit but is not eligible for incapacity benefit. I draw his attention to the improvements that we are making in the disability working allowance system for the many disabled people who want to work and are able to do so. The improvement will bring considerable benefits to many people.
    Ms Lynne: I have no doubt that the Minister has received representations from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country, along with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Where will the Government find extra funding for citizens advice bureaux so that they can cope with the increased work load due to the devastating effect that the introduction of incapacity benefit has had on many people?
    Mr. Hague: Incapacity benefit will not have a devastating effect. It is about focusing entitlement on those who are medically incapable of work. The Government have a most constructive relationship with citizens advice bureaux, and I am confident that that will continue.

    Fraud
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he is currently making in combating fraudulent claims. [20119]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): The fight against fraud remains a top priority. Some £645 million was saved in 1993–94 due to direct action by fraud staff. This was an increase of 17 per cent. on both the previous year's figures, and the target set for the year.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that there are few things that anger the British people more than the activities of rip-off merchants who fraudulently take the money of the British taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It seems that that does not worry Opposition Members, but my constituents consider such rip-off activities a disgrace. That is why my constituents, along with people throughout the country, congratulate the Government on the work that has already been done to reduce fraud. What work is being done to harness computer technology and modern payment systems to ensure that fraud is further driven back?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. It is of great concern throughout the country that some people defraud the social security system. That is why we are determined to squeeze fraud out of the system altogether so that it is not there for us to catch. We shall be concentrating on the electronic stop-notice system, which is already doing valuable work in London. We shall be increasing the use of data matching. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary

    5
    of State has said, we shall be introducing benefit payment cards as well as increasing the number of highly targeted visits. These measures will be effective in reducing and eliminating fraud.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Given the Secretary of State's miserable failure to answer the question asked by the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, will the Minister now confirm that there are about 15 million spare national insurance numbers, and give an undertaking that the availability of those numbers for fraud will be dealt with by the Government, because his right hon. Friend does not seem to be able to give an answer?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the question that he has just asked. A large number of national insurance numbers are in existence, partly because when somebody dies it may well be necessary to keep a number in existence to allow a pension that is payable as a result of it to continue to be payable. Perhaps he does not understand his question.

    Family Credit
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of families receiving family credit. [20120]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): In July 1994, 572,000 families were receiving family credit. Figures for October 1994 will be published later this week.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend draw a contrast between the policy of the Government, who are helping 572,000 families with low incomes, and the policy of another party, which is determined to create mass unemployment among the low-paid by introducing a national minimum wage? Does he expect it to recant on that policy on the road to Sedgefield?
    Mr. Burt: I do not see why my hon. Friend should be shy about it. I think that he should name the Labour party as the party determined to bring in a minimum wage, which would destroy jobs. The great difference between us is that, while the Labour party remains obsessed with the level of benefits, we are equally concerned about the level of benefit dependency. Whereas our policies take people off benefits, the Labour party's policies would return people to them.
    Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister care to tell us what studies have been done by his Department on how much family credit could be saved by the introduction of a national minimum wage of £4.10 per hour and what the effect would be on the poverty levels of a large number of people who have to rely not just on family credit but on other benefits, because the wages paid—often by multinational corporations—are so disgracefully low? Indeed, in some cases they are actually falling.
    Mr. Burt: The average payment for family credit at the moment is some £48 a week, which, as I said earlier, goes to some half a million families. As to studies, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would not rather rely on the judgment of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said straightforwardly that a minimum wage policy would cost jobs. That seems to me a good enough study.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time in people's lives when they are most likely to be poor is when they have their first child and move, normally from two incomes, two mouths to feed, to one income, three mouths to feed? Will he commit the Government to continue to pay child benefit as a way of ensuring that only one household in 12 needs family income support?
    Mr. Burt: Child benefit remains a cornerstone of our support for families. The commitment was in the manifesto. The policy of the Government since that time has shown that we care very much about ensuring that the poorest families have the greatest support, which is why the 1988 reforms have produced £1 billion-worth of benefits, which are going to the poorest families in the country. That is £1 billion more than there would have been but for those reforms.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the impact of changes in invalidity benefit payment arrangements on individual areas of the United Kingdom. [20121]
    Mr. Hague: Estimates about the effects of the introduction of incapacity benefit are derived from national data and therefore cannot be broken down regionally with reliable accuracy.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The operative word being "reliable", of course. The data can be broken down if the Government want to. Notwithstanding the considerable distress that is felt by individuals who are being switched from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit, why did the Government not measure—in areas such as my own in west Cumbria—the economic impact in terms of job losses and business closures as a result of the introduction of incapacity benefit? Has it not yet dawned on Ministers that a very large amount of money is being paid in invalidity benefit in areas of declining industry, where health is poor, and that the removal of much of that money from the local economy will have a major economic impact on areas such as mine?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind two points. First, the forecast national savings are savings in relation to what would have been spent, rather than in relation to the current spending level. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman, and all Labour Members, should remember that increases in spending mean increases in taxation, which also takes money out of the local economy and the economy across the nation. Labour Members never seem to think about the number of businesses that that closes, and the number of job losses that it causes.

    Jobseekers Bill
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings from the passing of the Jobseekers Bill; and if he will make a statement. [20122]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The direct benefit

    7
    savings are projected to be around £270 million in a full year. However, that figure takes no account of success in getting people back to work earlier.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the financial considerations, there is also a moral aspect? Does not the taxpayer need to be protected from those who are not genuinely seeking work, and is that not precisely what the Bill will achieve?
    Mr. Evans: Yes. The provisions for a jobseeker's agreement and direction are focused on that specific problem.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there have been against refusal of benefit under the habitual residence test; and how many appeals have resulted in an award of benefit. [20123]
    Mr. Lilley: The independent tribunal service records appeals according to the relevant benefit, not according to the reason for refusal. How many income support appeals refer to habitual residence is therefore not known.
    Mr. Timms: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in an Adjournment debate on 21 March, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), told the House that the information was available. I do not blame him for that error, which exemplifies the enormous amount of confusion that there has been in both his Department and the Benefits Agency over the test since its introduction.
    Is the Secretary of State aware of anecdotal evidence that at least half, and possibly two thirds, of appeals against refusal of benefit under the habitual residence test are successful? Does that not confirm that there are severe problems with the test, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the information for which I have asked is basic data that the House needs to make a proper evaluation of this deeply flawed legislation?
    Mr. Lilley: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a sincere and continuing interest in the subject, and I respect him for that, but I do not necessarily accept all his analyses. Adjudication officers' decisions are not themselves law-making; only when they reach the commissioners do they determine the position, and become precedents elsewhere. We shall have to wait a while before any of them do that.
    The courts have, however, upheld the validity of the test as a whole. I think that the House will welcome the fact that we have acted to prevent benefit tourism, thereby saving the taxpayer considerable sums. Opposition Members always resist any changes that we introduce to prevent abuse of this kind: they are out of touch with the British people in that regard, as in so many others.
    Mrs. Roe: I welcome the habitual residence test. May I urge my right hon. Friend to clamp down on bogus asylum seekers? Is he aware of the recent case of the Algerian asylum seeker, Mr. Abeey Dikes, who, on the tube, kicked and head-butted a young doctor? Does he agree that people like Mr. Dikes should not be able to stay in this country at the taxpayer's expense?
    Mr. Lilley: It is not for me to comment on individual cases, but I am aware of the outrage that is caused when
    8
    people abuse this country's hospitality, either by committing crimes when they are being supported here or by obtaining support to which they are not entitled. We shall do all in our power to prevent both abuses.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank the Under-Secretary for correcting his statement in the Adjournment debate that he had supplied me with figures showing the number of people who had won appeals. In a written answer, he confirmed that he had not made that information available. That is not good enough, however: we need to know how many British citizens have been denied their entitlement to income support through the habitual residence test.
    As the Secretary of State is able to provide me with figures for every office in the country showing the number of people who have been denied benefit through the test, will he now supply me with the number of people whose benefits have been started again because they have won their appeals against the test?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly see whether such information is available, but I fear that it may not be. Obviously, information that comes directly from the independent tribunal service is normally provided by the service, and I do not think that it would be cost-effective to try to produce the records that the hon. Gentleman proposes.
    There will be a number of appeals. Some will be successful; some will fail. An appeal mechanism is an essential part of our system—a proper safety net whose existence we should welcome, rather than counting it as a failure when an appeal succeeds.

    Pensioner Households (Consumer Goods)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had (a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many do today. [20125]
    Mr. Burt: In 1979, some 88 per cent. of pensioners had access to a fridge; by 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, that figure had climbed to 99 per cent. In 1979, 34 per cent. had access to a car; 49 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 32 per cent. had access to a freezer or fridge-freezer; 75 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 57 per cent. had access to a telephone; 92 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 96 per cent. had access to a television; 99 per cent now have access to one.
    Mr. Brazier: Do not those practical examples illustrate how wealth has trickled up from the general economy to retired people? Is it not easy to forget the plight of so many retired people in earlier generations, including those who lived under the previous Government, who saw the retirement living standards, which they had worked so hard to save for and hoped for, destroyed by the scourge of inflation, which this Government have overcome?
    Mr. Burt: The most significant finding from studies on low income shows how the income of pensioners as a group has come out of the bottom decile of income in a manner unprecedented before the Government came into office. Pensioners are increasing their income through occupational pensions and the like, but, as my hon. Friend

    9
    said, they remain vulnerable to policies that would produce inflation—policies advocated by Opposition Members. I see no answer in new Labour to old inflation.
    Mr. Wicks: Lest this question is designed to produce complacency, will the Minister tell the House how many pensioners paid VAT on fuel in 1979 and how many do so today? Will he explain why more old people die in the winter in this country than in any European country for which figures are available?
    Mr. Burt: Labour Members persist in presenting the image of the pensioner as a dependent person. When will they appreciate that pensioners are fitter than they were before, live longer than they did before, have more varied interests in their leisure time, and are making a substantial contribution to the voluntary sector and society? The Government cater for the poorer pensioner by reforms introduced in 1988. We have been able to put in £1 billion in extra support to the poorest. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the VAT compensation package was higher than that suggested even by his Front-Bench team.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that his figures demonstrate the success of occupational pensions in enhancing living standards for the elderly, and that we need to do even more to encourage more people to put money into occupational pensions for their retirement?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right. The picture continues in the United Kingdom of pensioners being much more reflective of society as a whole, with a variety of different incomes and statuses. The Government seek to encourage those aspirations. We recognise that, when people retire, they still retain aspirations in life. We want to fuel those aspirations; we do not want pensioners to be bracketed as a group that is continually dependent on the rest of society. Pensioners are not, and they do not deserve to be because they have worked for us.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that some 25 per cent. of all single pensioners have an income of less than £70 a week, and that is before housing cost? Does not that information, which was given to me in a parliamentary reply, illustrate the scale of pensioner poverty? Despite all that the Minister has said, the fact that so many pensioners are living on such low incomes should embarrass the Government. It is undoubtedly a factor in why so many people conclude that the only group that the Government are really concerned about is the rich and the prosperous. They could not give a damn about the millions of pensioners who live in poverty.
    Mr. Burt: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman ignores the information that, since 1979, the total average income of pensioners has increased by 50 per cent., which is faster than the rate of growth in the population as a whole. He must have his own motives.
    In seeking to protect the poorer pensioner, the Government are ensuring that, through our reforms in social security, we put money where it is most needed. At the same time, we have encouraged the pensioners to make contributions for themselves, and that is reflected in the growth in income over the years.
    The hon. Gentleman never apologises for the damage done by the Labour Government to the pensioners during 1974 to 1979, when not only was their income robbed by inflation, but his Government presided over a one-third
    10
    cut in capital spending on the national health service—a service that we have built up to support all pensioners. Instead of displaying incredulity and arrogance in the way that he puts his questions, when will the hon. Gentleman apologise for what his Government did to pensioners?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that central to our belief that the quality of life of our pensioners must improve is our intention that their real spending power should also improve? Does he agree that, between 1974 and 1979, one of the tragedies to befall our pensioners was that those who had put income to one side for their future saw the real value of that money halved by inflation? Will my hon. Friend give a commitment today that the Government will ensure that inflation is kept to a minimum to preserve the real value of pensioners' money?
    Mr. Burt: Yes. The House and the country know that the Government have pledged to keep inflation low. We have pledged to follow policies that will keep down inflation. If the country thinks that a return to the inflation policies of the Labour party will benefit anyone, it is sadly mistaken. I do not believe that the country will make such an error of judgment.

    Social Fund Funeral Payments
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed limit to social fund funeral payments and the Government's response to that report. [20126]
    Mr. Lilley: I am considering the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and I will lay the report, and my response to it, before the House shortly.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the huge regional variations in the cost of a funeral? Today, I telephoned round my constituency and the cheapest funeral I could find cost in excess of £1,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider scrapping the national limit of £875? Has he no sympathy for the bereaved families on low incomes, or is it just another cynical attempt to raise funds so that the Government can cut taxes before the next election?
    Mr. Lilley: I am aware of the differences across the country in the fees for cremation and, in particular, burial and I want to take that into account in the examination that I am currently conducting. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the number of claims for social fund funeral payments has doubled over the past six years and the amount spent has trebled. Therefore, it is only right that we should take action to prevent abuse. Indeed, we have already taken action to stop people seeking a distant relative on income support to make the application. I thought that we had the support of the Opposition in that measure. Are they now withdrawing it?
    Mr. Dewar: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintaining that the growth in the number of funeral grants is the result of abuse, lead swinging and fraud? Is it not rather a direct reflection of the growth in poverty over the past few years?
    Can we take it from the parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on 5 April that the £875 ceiling—a figure that is below

    11
    the mean and the median award in the previous financial year—is now being abandoned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the one essential test for any replacement scheme is that it genuinely allows for a dignified funeral for a bereaved family facing difficult circumstances?
    Mr. Lilley: Since we took steps to ensure that the nearest relatives or friends with a genuine connection with the deceased undertook the funeral—rather than distant people brought in purely for the purpose of ensuring eligibility for grants—the growth in claims has stopped almost overnight. The hon. Gentleman may wish to withdraw his support for that measure, in common with the Opposition's usual practice of not taking any steps to ensure that money goes to those who are genuinely in need.
    Conservatives want to ensure that those in receipt of income support can give their relatives a proper, dignified funeral, but we do not want to see the money wasted under the method to which the hon. Gentleman seems to wish to return.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of retired people had occupational pensions in 1979 and 1994; and if he will make a statement. [20128]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: In 1979, 43 per cent. of people over state pension age had an income from an occupational pension. By 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, that proportion had increased to 60 per cent.
    Mr. Dunn: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's encouragement of occupational pensions has helped to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979? Will he further confirm that measures in the Pensions Bill, against which the Labour party voted, will help to make occupational pensions more secure in future?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Our policy is to encourage private pension provision, the money from which goes into industry and into creating assets to build up pensions for the future. Last Monday, however, in its reasoned amendment, the Labour party voted not to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. It voted to deny pensioners the security that the Bill will provide, it voted to deny women the equality that the Bill will provide and it voted to deny the entire country of the choice that the Bill will provide, yet Labour Members pose as the friends of pensioners.
    Mr. Ingram: Everyone would welcome the growth in the number of people in receipt of occupational pensions, but will not many millions of our fellow citizens, who will become pensioners in the years ahead, be dependent on the state earnings-related pension scheme to supplement their pension income? Does the Minister accept the assessment of the Government Actuary that the proposed changes to SERPs in the Pensions Bill—the very Bill that he is defending—will substantially reduce people's supplementary pension income, with a total
    12
    reduction of more than £9 billion by 2050? Will he give detailed figures assessing the effects of those changes on individual entitlement at the time of retirement?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Today is Labour Day and this is new Labour speaking. It surprises me that Labour has decided to attack a reduction in state spending in the light of its new Labour image on Saturday. It also surprises me that Labour dares to say anything about pensions, as it will not even tell the country whether, if it were in office, it would uprate pensions by prices or by earnings. It is necessary, as I have said before, to improve and increase private pension provision. One of the reasons why there will be a reduction in SERPs is that so many people will be going into private pension provision over the next 20, 30 or 40 years.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that occupational pensioners have seen an increase of about two thirds in the amount, on average, that they receive from their occupational pensions since 1979? Will he also confirm that the very poorest pensioners, who probably do not receive occupational pensions, will from April this year, as a couple, receive a minimum of £100 a week, with all their housing costs being paid? Does not that show how the Government care for the welfare of poor pensioners?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. On average, newly retiring pensioners have an occupational pension of about £100 a week over and above the state retirement pension.

    Disabled People (Civil Rights)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with disabled people to discuss civil rights questions. [20130]
    Mr. Hague: I have met, and shall continue to meet, disabled people and members of their organisations to discuss a wide variety of issues.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that on Friday hundreds of disabled people—some in wheelchairs, some on sticks—came to Parliament hoping to see the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill pass its Committee stage and be passed into law? They were met by a stony-faced Government who swamped the Bill in Committee with more than 100 amendments, many of which the Minister was responsible for. The net result was that those people were turned away at the gates and the Government kicked their crutches away. No wonder the people out there treat this Government with contempt.
    Mr. Hague: Later this year, disabled people will have a great deal to celebrate because the Disability Discrimination Bill, which has been passed by the House and is now in another place, will spell the end of discrimination against disabled people in this country. It is a Conservative Government who will have placed on the statute book a working piece of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

    Elderly People (Residential Care)
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in residential or nursing home care are being supported financially

    13
    by his Department; and if he will forecast the number he expects to be in these categories in three, five and 10 years' time. [20132]
    Mr. Roger Evans: The latest figures show that 280,000 people in residential care or nursing homes are being supported financially by my Department through income support, either through preserved rights to higher limits or through income support, including residential allowance. In three, five and 10 years' time, the figures are estimated to be 294,000, 303,000 and 327,000.
    Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware that, in Stockport, residential grant from the Department of Social Security is £30 lower than the grant available from the local authority to people who were admitted to residential and nursing care after 1993? Is he further aware that that is causing enormous problems in respect of the personal allowances being used by elderly people to top up that grant, and that relatives, who can ill afford it, are having to contribute? Will the Minister review the DSS grant to bring it into line with the actual charges of care and so prevent some of the humiliation and distress to my constituents? After all, it is not their fault that the Government have privatised health care for the elderly.
    Mr. Evans: Of course the income support limits under preserved rights are reviewed annually. The limits have risen substantially in real terms since 1985. In nursing homes, the rise is 38 per cent. and for the elderly in residential care homes the rise is 16 per cent. in real terms. However, no Government could meet all fees, however high. In many parts of the country, fees are as high as £1,000 a week.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Special Advisers
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has recently had on the terms of appointment, and pay of, special advisers to Departments. [20146]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): None.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that special advisers have highly unusual terms and conditions of service? Not only are their salaries arbitrarily linked to the remuneration that they received before they took their posts, thus causing the ridiculous differential between a merchant banker and an academic, but there is no scope for performance-related pay thereafter. Of more concern, perhaps, is the fact that about 50 per cent. of special advisers earn more than the Ministers they advise. Is it not about time that this ludicrous situation was sorted out?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points on an area of responsibility that passed from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me and my Department last month. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me time to ponder the significance of some of them. I will then certainly consider reviewing the policy in the way that he has suggested.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Chancellor find out whether there is a special adviser at the Department of
    14
    Employment? If there is, will he send him or her to my constituency to find out why and how the Allerton outreach team has had such remarkable success in placing unemployed people in jobs and full-time training? Will the adviser then go back to London and persuade the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that the team's funding, which has come from the Department over the past few months, is continued so that its remarkable success may continue and the unemployment toll in my constituency be significantly reduced?
    Mr. Hunt: I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I hope that he will recognise that there has been a significant fall in the number of unemployed people in this country, with 1,000 people coming off the dole every day for the past two years. It is about time that Opposition Members realised the facts, which are appreciated widely throughout the country: that the Government are responsible for the economic policies that are reducing the rate of unemployment.

    Institute of Virology
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he is sending to the representations he has received concerning the dismissal of the director of the Institute of Virology in Oxford by the Natural Environment Research Council; and if he will make a statement. [20147]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): This is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council, under its royal supplemental charter. However, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, and I will write to him shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is a perfunctory three days to clear one's desk and leave really an acceptable response to an internationally distinguished scientist on whose personal behaviour there is no blemish? Is that really the way in which the NERC should behave?
    Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the bottom of the dispute is a difference of view about future research between the Institute of Virology and the NERC. The matter was discussed over a year, and an independent review came down on the side of the NERC. It was impossible to resolve the dispute, and Professor Bishop, the director, was given six months' notice and quite a generous package. It was clearly impossible to continue on the wrong direction for research, so he received three days' notice. None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no aspersion is cast on the ability of Professor Bishop, who remains a distinguished and eminent virologist.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional measures are required to improve the co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. [20148]
    Mr. David Hunt: We are always looking at ways of doing even better.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Chancellor comment on reports in this morning's The Guardian that he is a leading doubter of the wisdom of rail privatisation and that he

    15
    wants to see it shelved this side of the election because the policy is too difficult to sell to the general public? Is there any truth in that? What are the presentational advantages, supposed or otherwise, of the privatisation of Nuclear Electric?
    Mr. Hunt: I am very happy immediately to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no foundation to those reports; they are groundless and incorrect. As for the hon. Gentleman's general point, the concept of privatisation has swept the world, with the sole exception of the Labour party. There is an international queue at the Government's door asking how to go about the privatisation process and how to go about improving public services. Privatisation and the citizens charter are the tip of a formidable iceberg. All that I will say about Labour councils and the Labour party is that the Labour party is heading for that iceberg.
    Mr. Dunn: As the Labour party finds it hard to distinguish fact from fiction, does my right hon. Friend agree that the red rose party is the red nose party—a party of comic relief?
    Mr. Hunt: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend gives me an opportunity to reiterate that what we respect in the House of Commons—in this Chamber—is the fact that politics should be about policies, not about soundbites. It is about time that the Labour party learnt that lesson.
    Mr. Pike: As the people of this country will once again show their view of the Government's policies on Thursday, and as the Chancellor is responsible for the presentation of Government policy, is he or the Prime Minister to be blamed for the Government's failures?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten once again that at the last general election the Conservative party secured a larger number of votes than any political party had ever secured before. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman remembered that.

    Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further charters; and if he will make a statement. [20150]
    Mr. Horam: New charters for further and higher education in Northern Ireland will be published later this year, as well as revised charters for council tenants and court users. A revised contributors charter for national insurance payers was published last week.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that British Gas has been put on probation for a year in relation to its charter mark—it could be taken away if it does not improve—and that that is an excellent use of charter marks? Will he further confirm that, despite its endless hollow boasting, the Labour party will never qualify for a charter mark?
    Mr. Horam: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and he is particularly right in the light of the press releases that Labour has released today on consumers. The point about charter marks is that they are designed to be the Oscars of public service, and a mark of quality for someone who is doing well. It does not matter whether we are talking about British Gas or a local library—if it does not live up to its promises, it should have its charter
    16
    mark removed. British Gas has another nine months to come up to the mark. If it does not do so, we will take its mark away.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that if bosses of utilities such as British Gas cannot self-regulate their snouts out of the trough, someone else must protect the public interest? Does he further agree that there is a need to revise the legislation that governs the powers of the regulator in gas and in other utilities so that the regulator can intervene where bosses fail to meet acceptable public standards in pay and conditions, which may be true of British Gas?
    Mr. Horam: The Labour party would wrap everything up in more regulation and red tape. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that this matter is being considered by the Greenbury committee. Members on both sides of the House would wish to support the purpose of charter marks, which is to improve the quality of public services. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said with regard to privatisation, the Government are ahead of every other Government in the world in improving public service.

    Foresight Process
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received from industry scientists and other interested parties during the foresight process. [20151]
    Mr. David Hunt: A great many. The technology foresight programme has been based on very extensive consultation, reaching out to more than 10,000 people through the work of panels, conferences, seminars, surveys and workshops.
    Mrs. Gillan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what must be the most thorough and comprehensive consultation process that has ever taken place on science research and development in this country, which will result in the identification of opportunities in markets for our businesses in the next 10 or 20 years. When will the process be completed, and when will the entire foresight programme be drawn together by the steering group? When we can expect some action plans?
    Mr. Hunt: We expect to publish the final report in the second half of this month, and we are responding to many of the reports with new research programmes. For example, the programme on applied biocatalysis, which I announced at the relaunch of the LINK programme on 14 March, focuses on a generic theme spotlighted by three of the foresight panels. The Government will contribute £4 million to the programme, with matching funds coming from industry. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 15 reports on technology foresight in "Progress Through Partnership" are examples of a programme that is beating the rest of the world. We intend to follow up that programme with clear initiatives that respond to the imaginative ideas that have been put forward.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that many of the recommendations of the foresight panels go far beyond the laissez faire policies of the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of his colleagues in pursuing the recommendations?
    Mr. Hunt: It would have assisted me had the hon. Gentleman told me to which of the 15 reports he was referring. The President of the Board of Trade and I have announced an extension to the LINK programme, which is determined to follow up many of the initiatives proposed in the panel reports. The whole technology foresight programme has been a remarkable success, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join with many others throughout the country in welcoming the reports. We must ensure that the Government and all the relevant parties—in particular, industry—respond in the best way possible.
    Mr. Battle: I welcome technology foresight in principle, but what is the point of the exercise when the recommendations in the various reports are undermined by the current actions of other Departments? The Department of Transport is privatising the Transport Research Laboratory, which undermines proposals in the transport report. The Department of Trade and Industry is pushing on with the privatisation of AEA Technology, despite the recommendations of the energy foresight report to extend and use our nuclear clean-up expertise. How can the Chancellor and his Department credibly claim to be co-ordinating the Government's science policy when other Ministers are undermining their work day by day? Where is the joined-up thinking?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has got the facts wrong again. I have read through the 15 reports. The transport report to which he refers contains some imaginative thinking, to which the Government will respond after very careful thought. As for all Government Departments, we will consider with colleagues how best to respond to the reports. The hon. Gentleman failed to refer to the fact that the science budget, which underpins all this work, reached a record level in the last financial year. In this financial year, the record cash figure of £1,281,675,000 will be spent. That is more than enough to ensure that we follow up many of the recommendations, in partnership with other Departments.

    Citizens Charters
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what examples he has of improvements influenced by the citizens charters. [20152]
    Mr. Horam: Many. They include hospital waiting times, passport applications, first-class letter delivery, driving licence applications, publication of school, police and local authority performance tables and guaranteed minimum standards for gas, water and electricity.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the spin-offs of the citizens charter is a bringing together of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices, which ensures that people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed can receive the full employment services that they need to get back into a job?
    Mr. Horam: Yes, I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that, but the agencies in question now see 98 per cent. of people within 10 minutes of their going to the office.
    Mr. Flynn: Under which charter can the people of Wales and England complain on this glorious spring day because they have been denied their traditional May day
    18
    bank holiday, which is being enjoyed by the lucky people in Scotland? When will the Government stop mucking about with May day?
    Mr. Horam: I really do not think that we need to keep the red flag flying on this day.

    Engineering
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the Institute of Civil Engineering to discuss the role of engineering. [20153]
    Mr. Horam: In the last year my senior officials met engineering bodies on six occasions. I look forward to continuing this close relationship.
    Mr. Marshall: In view of the importance of engineering to the economy, can my hon. Friend state that a Minister as well as officials will meet officials of the industry in future?
    Mr. Horam: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend met engineering institutions three times in January, four times in February and three times in March. I have also met many engineers at all levels of—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the Minister would use the microphone not only so that we can hear him but so that I can see him.
    Mr. Horam: I was turning away, perhaps out of excessive politeness, to deal with my hon. Friend's question.
    The results of yesterday's race at Imola, which Damon Hill won, and the fact that no fewer than nine of the 10 Grand Prix cars used were British-built by British engineering, shows the quality engineering that we have in Britain, which we should support.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Minister like to astonish himself on one of the occasions when he or his newly found colleagues address the engineering institutions by recommending some way in which new jobs can be created in engineering so that we might begin to get back to the state in which we compete as engineers and do not have to import other people's goods?
    Mr. Horam: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is behind the times. Manufacturing in this country has strengthened considerably in the past few years, particularly in vehicle manufacture, which she knows all about in her constituency. Engineering in Britain is on a high now. That is partly as a result of the interest of the Government and partly as a result of the inward investment that the Government have successfully encouraged in the past five or 10 years. The hon. Lady should come up to date.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as from next year, technology will be part of the national curriculum for all young people from five to 16 and that over the next three years the Government are committed to putting in an additional £10 million to top up bursaries for top-flight undergraduates studying technology?
    Mr. Horam: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those facts. The Royal Academy of Engineering is getting another £400,000 this year, which will bring up to £2.6 million the contribution that we are making to that body. As a result of science being in the school curriculum for

    19
    the first time on a comprehensive basis, about 1.6 million pupils are now taking science subjects at GCSE level. That is more than double the figure of five years ago and is the result of the first group of children coming through the new science curriculum.

    Women's Issues
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the work of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on women's issues in the past year. [20154]
    Mr. David Hunt: The ministerial Committee on women's issues plays a key role in developing and monitoring policy on issues of special concern to women. As I explained to the House on 7 March, the Government have introduced a range of measures that have improved the position of women in our society.
    Mr. Bayley: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Government Actuary's report on the Pensions Bill, which says that in the first year in which the Bill comes fully into force—if it does come into force—pensions paid to women will fall in value at today's prices by £4,600 million in that year alone? Has the Cabinet women's Committee considered the Pensions Bill and the disastrous effect that it will have on women? If so, what advice has it given the Cabinet?
    Mr. Hunt: The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are very much matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Of course the ministerial Committee considers a range of issues affecting the position of women. As we said in the debate on 7 March, we have a very impressive record on ensuring that the position of women in society continues to improve.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to enlist your help on how to proceed with a matter. On 5 April, in response to an oral question, the Minister with responsibility for information and technology said that he had an undertaking from the Cable Communications Association that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises would be connected. I then asked the Minister whether I could see a copy of that undertaking. No such undertaking exists. It is important for the Minister to make the matter clear because this is an important issue. His undertaking is in Hansard.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me: it is a matter for argument between the hon. Lady and the Minister. She might care to use the Order Paper to put down more questions or perhaps use an early-day motion to bring the matter to light.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday the House dealt with a number of private Members' Bills, one of which was the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill [Lords]. A Government Whip and I objected to that Bill, but Hansard does not record that fact.
Madam Speaker: I will have a look at Hansard. I went through it today but I did not see that point in it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On entering Parliament today through St. Stephen's entrance I noticed that the automatic screening apparatus had been removed. Everybody will appreciate that it is necessary to have those security booths intact, but when I inquired, the security people told me that they had removed them all because they had to lay a red carpet for the Queen on Friday. There is a strange language of priorities in this place when people can shift all the screening apparatus for several days to put down a red carpet. I suggest that it is high time the matter was looked into with a view to making sure that people coming into this place are effectively screened, that there is security and that red carpets are not regarded as being as important as security in the Houses of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is usually the first who wishes to dispose of security in this place. I am sure that the House would wish to see a red carpet laid in Westminster Hall for the Queen's visit there on Friday. At the same time there must be a proper balance in terms of security. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been the first to notice this matter and I shall take it up as soon as I leave the Chair.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the presence of a Scottish Office Minister show that there might have been a request for the Scottish Office to make a statement explaining on what basis it gave permission to Shell to sink a terminal structure with arsenic, cadmium and other nasties, which, like the oil sludge, will doubtless end up on the shores of my constituency?
Madam Speaker: Not to my knowledge. The Scottish Office Minister is here to deal with the House's business but he will doubtless have noted the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on a question that relates to two different Departments. You will be aware of the outcry in the country about hospital closures, which has now been underscored by the work done by my right hon. Friend the shadow health spokesman, who today revealed that 304 hospitals have closed in Britain and that 34 of those are in Scotland—
Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I cannot deal with policy matters. I can deal only with points of order that affect our Standing Orders and procedures, so perhaps she will come straight to those.
Mrs. Liddell: I seek your advice on how to proceed with getting a statement, not just from the Secretary of State for Health, given her coyness on these matters, but, as this relates to the closure of 34 hospitals in Scotland, from the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, who sits in another place.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady could do a number of things. She could ask the shadow Leader of the House to press for a statement; seek an Adjournment debate through me on a Wednesday or a weekday evening; or use the Order Paper for early-day motions or parliamentary questions.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There are no further points of order now that I have given the answer requested by the hon. Lady. She asked for my advice and I have given my best advice.
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, should be grateful for your advice on how to proceed. A report in today's edition of The Times highlights the fact that an all-party group of Back Benchers has produced a draft report for the Transport Select Committee which says that, despite the Government's arguments to the contrary, subsidy will still be needed for at least a decade if the railways are privatised. As the Department of Transport consistently hides behind commercial confidentiality to avoid answering those issues—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows full well that that is a matter not for me but for the Committee. I never comment on newspaper reports—it is very foolish so to do.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your support because I am worried about the growing habit in the House, which is a grave discourtesy to yourself and the Chair: the continuing inability of Ministers and others on the Front Bench to address the Chair. It happens not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. Many of us are worried about the new habit of referring not to Her Majesty's Opposition or Her Majesty's Government but only to the names of the political parties of those

23
concerned. If that is to be so, are we now to abandon any reference to the Government and refer to them by their doubtful title of "the Conservative party"?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is a long-standing and respected Member of the House. She is quite right. I find it very disagreeable when hon. Members refer to political parties. They should refer to Her Majesty's Government or Opposition.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I must be allowed to answer one point at a time.
The hon. Lady is correct, too, to say that when Ministers and others appear at the Dispatch Box, they often turn to and answer the person concerned, believing it to be polite. They should speak through the Chair because, not only do I want them to be heard through the microphone but there is the occasional handsome face which I should like to see. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised this matter. It is one of the more genuine points of order, which I see is sparking off many new ones.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Madam Speaker: I hope that this is a new point and does not relate to Scottish health.
Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having listened to the advice given to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), I, too, wish to register concern. What advice can you give me with respect to finding out how much money has been transferred in Scotland from the health service to local authorities for community care?
Madam Speaker: I refer to my earlier answer to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has left. She raised a point of order with you and quickly went out of the Chamber. When hon. Members rise to speak on matters in which they have an interest, they have to declare it, but the hon. Lady did not declare her interest on that point of order. Would it not be a courtesy to the House for hon. Members who are sponsored by unions to make that clear when they are raising points of order?
Madam Speaker: The House has never required hon. Members when they ask questions—and a point of order is a method of asking a question—to declare an interest. But I must say, on points of order, that there are far too many of them and that most of them—99.9 per cent. of them—are bogus points of order, disingenuous points of argument, points of frustration and points of politics. I ask hon. Members, before they raise points of order in future, to make sure that they are raising genuine points of order. I hope that that has been a shot across the bow of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
Mr. Foulkes: Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to rise on a point of order, but earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that today is a bank holiday in Scotland. Manifestly it is not one for everybody but, seriously, there is a great deal of confusion in Scotland and, indeed, in the whole United Kingdom, about how and by whom bank holidays are designated. That creates many problems for conditions of service. I seek your advice on to whom to direct this question, because it is not clear who is responsible for the total chaos and confusion over bank holidays.
Madam Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the person who is not responsible: the Speaker of this House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put a question down, he might seek the advice of the Table Office, which is always sound.

Orders of the Day
  Children (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Children (Scotland) Bill
    New clause 6

      REFERRAL OR REMISSION TO CHILDREN'S HEARING ON CONVICTION
      '.—(1) In section 173 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (reference or remission to children's hearing where child guilty of an offence: solemn proceedings) for subsections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted—

      "(1) Where a person who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

      (a) is a child who is not subject to a supervision requirement; or

      (b) is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement,

      the court on that plea or finding may—

      (i) instead of making an order, remit the case to the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing to dispose of the case; or

      (ii) request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

      (2) Where a child who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

      (a) is aged under sixteen years; and

      (b) is subject to a supervision requirement,

      the court dealing with the case if it is—

      (i) the High Court, may; and

      (ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall,

      request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

      (3) Where a court has obtained the advice of a children's hearing in pursuance of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) above or of subsection (2) above, the court, after consideration of the advice received from the children's hearing may, as it thinks proper, itself dispose of the case or remit the case as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the said subsection (1).".

      (2) In section 372 of that Act (reference or remission to children's hearing where child guilty of an offence: summary proceedings) for subsections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted—

      "(1) Where a person who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

      (a) is a child who is not subject to a supervision requirement; or

      (b) is aged sixteen years or over, and who is subject to a supervision requirement,

      the court on that plea or finding may—

      (i) instead of making an order, remit the case to the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing to dispose of the case; or

      (ii) request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

      (2) Where a child who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence and—

      (a) is aged under sixteen years; and

      (b) is subject to a supervision requirement,

      the court dealing with the case if it is—

      (i) the High Court, may; and

      (ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall,

      request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

      26

      (3) Where a court has obtained the advice of a children's hearing in pursuance of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) above or of subsection (2) above, the court, after consideration of the advice received from the children's hearing may, as it thinks proper, itself dispose of the case or remit the case as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the said subsection (1).".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.41 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 201 to 206 and 215.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of earlier exchanges, I should say that this is a serious point of order. It relates to the fact that the Government tabled, at the close of business on Thursday night, some 43 pages of amendments and new clauses to the Bill, which is now on Report.
      The Government may have been close to being in order in doing that, but it cannot be good for the House that 43 pages of amendments and new clauses are submitted at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night. A number of those amendments, but not all of them, may relate to commitments that were given in Committee, but it cannot be right for the Opposition, and especially the Scottish Opposition, to be faced with 43 pages of amendments on a Thursday night and then have to plough through them. That must be getting close to being an abuse of the House.
      I make this point of order in all seriousness, because this is a special Bill, which is widely welcomed throughout Scotland. It is long overdue and we welcome it. Not only that, it is a Bill for which the Opposition made a special concession to the Government by agreeing to have the Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee and consequently saving Government time. It is therefore all the more objectionable—I hope that you will agree with this, Madam Speaker—that the Government should treat the House in such a way, and make life so uncomfortable for Opposition Members who are concerned about and deeply interested in the issues raised by the Bill, by tabling so many amendments and new clauses at the last conceivable moment.
      Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. During the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in an effort, no doubt, to be helpful to the Committee, said that he would take away and consider a range of issues. The difficulty with the amendments having been tabled so late is that it is only after they have been tabled that we have been able to identify the issues on which consideration was promised but about which nothing has been done. By that stage, it was too late to table amendments to raise the matters today on Report.
      There has been an effort to ensure that we go forward on a non-partisan basis, but our patience is starting to stretch a bit. I know that the issues are complex, but I would have hoped that if they were that complex, even this debate could have been delayed until another day—

      27
      perhaps to a day that was not a Scottish bank holiday—when we could have considered the issues further after the Government had had time to table amendments.
      Madam Speaker: Does the Minister wish to respond?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an effort to be helpful in this matter, may I say that many of the amendments arose out of representations made by Opposition Members in Committee. In line with the precedent of the English Children Bill, to which there was an enormous number of amendments, genuine efforts were made to meet those representations. However, the matters were complex in detail, although not controversial.
      There are, of course, other provisions that will, no doubt, be further amended in the other place and there will be further debates in the Commons. If Opposition Members feel that there are substantive issues that require further consideration, the House will, I have no doubt, have a further opportunity to consider them in due course. Most of the amendments meet points raised in Committee and are a response to concerns and requests from Opposition Members.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I cannot allow a debate to follow points of order. I am concerned about the matter because I am aware that in trying to be helpful and generous, the Minister gave a number of commitments in Committee. However, I realise how extremely unhelpful it has been to Opposition Members to have the amendments tabled so late. They have not been able to make a full appraisal or take full account of the amendments in conjunction with the Bill. The Minister has tried to be helpful, but he has not been as helpful as he might have been. I am sure that he has taken note of that, as we all have. This is a lesson to be learnt for the future.
      3.45 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause would amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to provide a facility for the courts to refer the cases of certain children who have pleaded guilty or who have been found guilty of an offence directly to the hearings system for disposal. It is considered that the children's hearings system is genuinely better placed to deal with such offenders.
      Sections 173 and 372 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975 have the effect that the court cannot make a direct referral. Many courts seek the advice of the hearing and only then dispose of the case or refer it again to the hearing for disposal. This introduces delay into the system and causes inconvenience to the courts, the hearings system and the child. The new clause would allow the court, in appropriate cases, to refer the child's case directly to the reporter for disposal by a children's hearing.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister explain why, in proposed subsections (2)(i) and (2)(ii), the High Court has a degree of discretion which is denied to the sheriff court? Is the reason the severity of the offence presumably dealt with by the former?
      28
      There is a huge mass of new clauses and amendments. Has the Minister tabled the amendments he promised on Friday 21 April during the Report stage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill? He promised that he would either table amendments on Report or see that they were tabled in the other place.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point is simply that the principal reporter can arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining its advice on the treatment of the child. The new clause would give the court the power to refer the case directly to the reporter in certain circumstances, which is a safeguard, makes for more efficiency and is generally in the interests of children.
      Clause 59 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to provide 100 per cent. funding for 16 and 17-year-olds subject to supervision requirements. The clause provides for a simplified means of disposal and improves the interface between the courts and the children's hearings system.
      Amendments Nos. 201 to 206 and 215 introduce various changes to ensure that the references in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are brought into line with the provisions of the Bill.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I should like to ask the Minister a couple of brief questions, one of which has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). In new clause 6(2), why is it stipulated that
      "the High Court, may; and
      (ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall, request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing"?
      Equally serious cases come before both, so it is not clear why the distinction has been made.
      Why have the district courts not been mentioned in the new clause? Most of the crimes likely to be committed in Scotland come before district courts, so it is surprising that the new clause does not mention them.
      Dr. Godman: I asked the Minister the same question earlier: why does the High Court have a discretion that is denied to the sheriff court? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is also right to ask why the district courts are not mentioned. Is the
      "advice as to the treatment of the child"
      referred to in subsection (2) of the new clause analogous to a social report of the type sometimes asked for by a judge or sheriff?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer both points. First, the High Court "may" because the cases referred to it will in all likelihood be considered more serious. Secondly, I shall examine the point about the district courts not having been included. If there is merit in the point, we can insert it later in the passage of the Bill.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows very well—his wife has played a leading role as a social worker—the role of reporter is different from that of a social worker. He, of course, is independent and has to make an independent report to the court—[Interruption]. I see that Opposition Members are amused to note that I have the information ready to hand. The reasoning behind the precise wording of the new clause is that it repeats the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act.
      Mrs. Fyfe: It is hardly an answer to say that this simply repeats the wording of existing legislation. This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the law on children. To say, furthermore, that the High Court generally deals with far more serious cases does not answer the point either. No matter how serious a case may be, it would still seem necessary to request the principal reporter to arrange a children's hearing so that advice can be given about the treatment of the child. Even in the worst cases at the High Court, surely such advice would need to be sought.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It depends on the circumstances of the case. If the child were involved in a murder inquiry, the gravity of the case would be such that it would properly come before the High Court.
      The new clause enables the courts to refer the cases of certain young people who have offended direct to the children's hearing for disposal. We think that that is a sensible provision which complements the provision in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to provide for such young people non-custodial disposal, which attracts 100 per cent. funding from the Scottish Office. I believe that that too is generally welcomed; it discharges the undertaking in the White Paper "Scotland's Children", to enable children's hearings to deal with certain young people aged 16 and 17 for whom full criminal justice disposals are not appropriate.
      If the child has been involved in a murder investigation or a serious crime, of course he will not fit into that category. I understand that that is why "may" has been used in that context.
      Mr. Phil Gallie: New clause 21 was discussed in Committee during the 13th sitting on 6 March. On that occasion we talked of supplementary secure units and suggested that the courts, especially sheriff courts, should have discretion to use such units without reference to children's panels. Does not new clause 6 cut across the objectives behind new clause 21? Does it not conflict with the sympathetic words of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are not now discussing new clause 21. I note what my hon. Friend has said and no doubt we shall return to his point later in our debates.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 8

      REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS BY PERSONS WHO ARE THEMSELVES CHILDREN
      '.—(1) In paragraph (a) of section 14(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (duty of father and mother to give information of particulars of birth), for the words "father or mother of the child" substitute "child's father or mother (whether or not they have attained the age of sixteen years)".

      (2) Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of subsection (1) above, a person mentioned in the said paragraph (a) who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years purported to fulfill the duty mentioned in the said section 14(1), he shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to fulfill that duty.

      (3) In section 18 of the said Act of 1965 (registration of birth of child born out of wedlock), after subsection (2) add—

      30

      "(3) A person under the age of sixteen years has legal capacity—

      (a) to make a request, declaration or statutory declaration under subsection (1), or (2)(b) above if, in the opinion of the registrar; or

      (b) to make an application under subsection (2)(c) above if, in the opinion of the sheriff,

      that person understands the nature of the request or, as the case may be, of the declaration, statutory declaration or application; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a person twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to have such understanding.".

      (4) Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of subsection (3) above, a person who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years made a request, declaration, statutory declaration or application mentioned in subsection (1), or (2) of the said section 18 in relation to a child in respect of whose birth an entry was consequently made under the said subsection (1) in a register of births, or as the case may be under the said subsection (2) in the Register of Corrections etc., the person shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the request, declaration, statutory declaration, or application in question.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 141 to 143.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the new clause. Its purpose is to ensure that parents who are under the age of 16 years will have the necessary legal capacity to fulfil their duty under the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 to register their child. The clause is required because doubts have arisen whether after the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 a person under the age of 16, who is the father or mother of a child, has the legal capacity to register the birth of the child or to have his or her name entered in the register of births. It is clearly desirable that such doubts should be removed as soon as possible so as to ensure that accurate details about the birth of children can be entered in the register of births, which may have been given by persons under 16 since the 1991 Act.
      The clause also has the effect of validating any entry in the register of births that may have been made by a person under 16 years of age since the 1991 Act. We do not wish to encourage parenthood in persons so young but we recognise that it happens. The aim behind the clause is to avoid compounding the difficulties by not allowing such young parents to meet their duty under the 1965 Act.
      The clause meets the concerns of the registrar general, who is anxious to ensure that the register of births is as complete and accurate as possible. These provisions will apply retrospectively so as to make lawful all registrations by under-aged parents for the avoidance of doubt.
      Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 make it clear that an application for the re-registration of a birth, or for a change of name, may be made by a person aged under 16 years. The amendments make it clear that such applications since the 1991 Act are valid.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 9

      WELFARE OF CERTAIN CHILDREN IN HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES ETC.
      '.—(1) Where a child is provided with residential accommodation by a person mentioned in subsection (3) below and it appears to the person that the child either—

      (a) has had no parental contact for a continuous period of three months or more; or

      (b) is likely to have no parental contact for a period which, taken with any immediately preceding period in which the child has had no such contact, will constitute a continuous period of three months or more,

      the person shall (whether or not the child has been, or will be, so accommodated throughout the continuous period) so notify the local authority in whose area the accommodation is provided.

      (2) A local authority receiving notification under subsection (1) above shall—

      (a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is so accommodated; and

      (b) consider the extent to which (if at all) they should exercise any of their functions under this Act with respect to the child.

      (3) The persons are—

      (a) any health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

      (b) any national health service trust established under section 12A of that Act;

      (c) any person carrying on—

      (i) a private hospital registered under Part IV of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; or

      (ii) a nursing home in respect of which either he is registered under section 1(3) of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 or exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.

      (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a child has parental contact only when in the presence of a person having parental responsibilities in relation to him.

      (5) A person duly authorised by a local authority may in the area of that authority, at all reasonable times, enter for the purposes of subsection (2) above or of determining whether there has been compliance with subsection (1) above any such place as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (3)(c) above and may for those purposes inspect any records or registers relating to that place; and subsections (2A) to (2D) and (4) of section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (exercise of powers of entry and inspection) shall apply in respect of a person so authorised as they apply in respect of a person duly authorised under subsection (1) of that section.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause provides a further element of child protection that we consider entirely relevant to a children Bill. It relates to children who are accommodated in health care establishments for lengthy periods and who for various reasons appear to have had no contact with parents or people with parental responsibilities for them for three months or more.
      I believe that the chances of children finding themselves in such a situation are remote. The links between hospitals and social workers are strong. In many instances, hospitals have dedicated social workers.
      If, however, there is any chance of a child being abandoned or neglected by his or her parents within the health care system, it is right that we should take steps to deal with the matter. That we have done with the clause,
      32
      which will ensure that if a child has not had contact with parents or those with parental responsibilities for three months, the health board, nursing home or a person operating a private hospital will be required to inform the social work department, which will take steps to enable it to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted. The social work department will also consider the extent to which it should exercise any of its functions under the Act, with respect to the child.
      I commend the new clause to the House as a small but useful further safeguard for children.
      4 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: A couple of questions also arise out of new clause 9, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer at once. First, the White Paper promised to get children out of long-stay hospital. Can the Minister tell us today when that happy day might arise? Secondly, we welcome the fact that the Minister has, in subsection (4) of the new clause, taken up the point that was made in Committee—that parental contact should not only be a matter of telephoning and sending letters to the child but should be physical presence—but the way in which it is worded means that such a contact could literally be for just a minute, with an infrequent visiting time and long times between visits. That hardly seems an adequate way to respond to the criticism of the Bill. Will he have a further think about subsection (4) before the Bill finally comes to a conclusion?
      Dr. Godman: I welcome the new clause, but I would like to ask the Minister—if I can catch his ear for about 10 seconds—just a couple of questions. If the child is incapacitated in a hospital, would it be the hospital social worker who would take on responsibility? I know that we are talking about only a few cases, but if a child is in a private home, would he or she simply be assigned, or consigned, to the local social work area team? I think that the period of three months is reasonable enough, but what about the child whose single parent is incapacitated, who stays in a hospital? Where the parent is unable for entirely legitimate reasons to visit the child in hospital, what safeguards are given to her?
      The Minister is racing through these new clauses so quickly. I think that it is only right and proper that we ask him such questions. With reference to the questions that I have asked him, it would have been helpful if he and his officials had provided us with notes on the new clauses and amendments.
      Also, what of the mother who is incapacitated and cannot visit her child in hospital? What safeguards does she have in those circumstances in relation to the specified period of three months?
      Dr. John Reid: Like most hon. Members, from both sides of the House, I welcome the measures that have been introduced in the new clause. During the Minister's explanation of the new clause, he emphasised the need for particular care when a child is suffering—presumably in a long-term institution—from bad health or is shown to be socially deprived, in the sense of a lack of parents. My one worry is why it has taken us so long to fill that gap, to plug that loophole. What was the position up until now? Was it possible under similar

      33
      legislation for a child thus placed to have gone for a considerable period in ill health and also be deprived of the social support of parents or guardians?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should reply in relation to the White Paper, as it addresses the points that have been expressed. The requirement for the removal of a child who does not need to be in a long-stay hospital has, I understand, now been met.
      I am quite happy to look at the terms of subsection (4). It is perfectly well drafted, but I will examine it and give considered reflection to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
      Hospital social workers would be involved. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of a mother who was incapacitated; I believe, from my experience as a Member of Parliament, that social work departments respond positively and sensibly whenever they can in such circumstances.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 10

      INQUIRIES INTO MATTERS AFFECTING CHILDREN.
      '. After section 6A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there shall be inserted—
      "Local authority inquiries into matters affecting children

      6B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 6A(1) of this Act, a local authority may cause an inquiry to be held into their functions under this Act, or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, in so far as those functions relate to children.

      (2) The local authority may, before an inquiry under this section is commenced, direct that it be held in private; but where no such direction is given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it, or any part of it, in private.

      (3) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section, so however that, for the purposes of the application, any reference in those subsections to a Minister shall be construed as a reference to the local authority and any reference to an officer of his Department as a reference to an officer of that authority.

      (4) The expenses incurred by a local authority in relation to an inquiry under this section (including such reasonable sum as the authority may determine for the services of any of their officers engaged in the inquiry) shall, unless the authority are of the opinion that those expenses should be defrayed in whole or in part by them, be paid by such party to the inquiry as they may direct; and the authority may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred.

      (5) Any sum certified under subsection (4) above and to be defrayed in accordance with a direction under that subsection shall be a debt due by the party directed and shall be recoverable accordingly.

      (6) The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 200 and 216.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause would confer on the local authority a specific power to
      34
      hold social work inquiries into children's issues. It would enable social work of concern relating to such issues to be investigated locally and in a credible way, removing the need for a full-scale inquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of State.
      The powers are not intended to be used as a first resort; such inquiries are not designed to be undertaken lightly, but are meant rather to complement other measures available to authorities such as local inspection, management, consultation and informal investigations. Guidance will be issued to remind local authorities of those alternative options.
      Amendment No. 200 would ensure that such an inquiry could be held without prejudice to the Secretary of State's power to hold his own inquiry under section 6A, and amendment No. 216 makes minor amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
      Mr. Wallace: If the proposed provision had been in place in 1991, would it have been for the local authority itself to set up an inquiry into the events surrounding the removal of nine children in my constituency, rather than for Lord Clyde to set up a judicial inquiry? That appears to be one possible consequence of the new clause, and, if it is, important considerations are involved.
      As is well known, one of the issues involved in the case to which I have referred was the action of the council's own social work department. Whatever the nature of a case, however, and whatever the eventual outcome of action by a social work department, I do not think it satisfactory that the council involved should be responsible for initiating an inquiry.
      Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. If the initiative for such an inquiry came from a body whose officers and employees were closely involved in the matter to be scrutinised by that inquiry—however independent and distinguished the person appointed to conduct it—many might feel that it would not be as rigorously independent as was warranted by the circumstances.
      Costs are important as well. The new clause looks to me like an effort to offload costs from the Scottish Office to local authorities in the event of a repetition of the circumstances surrounding Lord Clyde's inquiry. On that occasion, the Scottish Office underwrote most of the costs—certainly those incurred by the local authority—and provided assistance with some of the legal costs of people with a particular interest in the inquiry, but it was a hard-won fight.
      If such inquiries are to achieve what they set out to achieve, they will often cost money. I can imagine the impact and the possible ramifications in my constituency if people had been told that they must pay extra council tax to finance that inquiry: although everyone considered the inquiry necessary, many Scottish local authorities are relatively small, and the burden would have been considerable.
      My final point relates to subsection (6), which says:
      "The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid."
      Discretion is pretty well unfettered. If parents are dissatisfied with what happened and the way in which social workers or other local authority employees have dealt with their children, and if they ask for an inquiry and one is granted, the council could say to them, "You

      35
      have got to pay for it too." That is not a satisfactory outcome. It may inhibit some people from asking for an inquiry that they believe is necessary.
      I am uncomfortable with the new clause. A much greater explanation than the purely technical one given by Minister is required.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has raised some important matters, especially in relation to Lord Clyde's inquiry. I support what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for a more comprehensive explanation of the new clause's implementation.
      The Minister talked about guidance given to councils on the holding of such inquiries. I remind him, if he needs reminding, that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament in the near future, and that, shortly afterwards, social work departments as we know them will be abolished and scattered. The new social work departments—and, more important, social work committees that will be set up by the new authorities—will need comprehensive guidance, especially in relation to new clause 10.
      Less than 20 per cent. of the new members in the new Inverclyde unitary authority are regional councillors. Hence, some 15 per cent. or more have no experience in relation to the creation and implementation of social work policies, procedures and practices. I do not know what the case is in Aberdeen, but in Glasgow fewer than 20 of the new councillors, out of a total of 83, are regional councillors. Again, the majority of those councillors, unless they are ex-social workers, will have no experience in these matters.
      On Friday 21 April, during the Report stage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill—I refer to column 443—the Minister promised that the Government would table amendments on the assessment of disabled children's needs. I have experience of ships draughtsmanship, but not much of parliamentary draftsmanship. I should have thought, however, that new clause 10 could be amended in another place to take on board that promise. Does the Minister intend to amend new clause 10 to achieve adequate protection for disabled children?
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise for missing the introduction to the new clause. The Bill seems to be moving rapidly apace. I have no intention of delaying the Report stage. I am, however, somewhat concerned about new clause 10 and how it will operate. We have all had experience in our constituencies of the particular difficulties in relation to the abuse of children. People find the crime of child abuse so impossible to comprehend that, instead of a presumption of innocence, there is a presumption of guilt. Once an allegation of child abuse is levied against a family or an individual, they are often damned for ever and must bear the consequences.
      I do not want to go into the detail of the case in the city of Aberdeen, partly because it would take too long, but also because it may awaken memories in the city that are best not awakened. However, I can say that a child was taken into care who then made very strong allegations of sexual abuse against a number of families with whom she had been in contact. There was one incontrovertible fact—the child had been badly abused from an early age. What was less clear, certainly in the initial stages, was who had carried out that extensive abuse over a long period.
      36
      4.15 pm
      The social work department felt it necessary to lay charges against six different families, and to take all the children of those families into care immediately, at 7 o'clock in the morning. By the Tuesday of the following week, all the children had been returned home, but it took almost two years before the charges against the six families were finally dropped.
      Those families were devastated. In some cases, marriages split up; in others, people were so demoralised that they became alcoholics. I understand that, even today, people in buses that travel through Aberdeen and pass a house belonging to one of the falsely—as it turns out—accused families say, "That's where those bloody child molesters live." A charge of child abuse can have serious repercussions. Of course, I am not suggesting that, if there are suspicions of child abuse, they should be withheld, but inquiries need to be conducted with some care.
      When one of the six families first contacted me, I made a private approach to a counsellor in the region, who was sympathetic and who knew all the background to the case. I wanted an internal inquiry, so that I could at least hear the side of the social workers involved. It was not possible to have a rational discussion. I was told, "It's a witches' coven, with ritual satanic abuse." It became clear that there could be no private local inquiry on which I could rely.
      I approached the then Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—I have rather lost track of where he is now, but that is neither here nor there. I do not want to make any cheap points. Coincidentally, I approached the right hon. Gentleman at the time of what became known as the Orkney child abuse case, which will be uppermost in the memory of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He will know that there was a strong demand for a public inquiry in that case. I believed that my case was equally deserving of a public inquiry.
      There were two differences between the cases—in the Orkney case, the people concerned were, generally speaking, middle class; they were certainly articulate. I make no complaint about that. They were able to put together a network of people throughout the United Kingdom to support their claim for a public inquiry. With my case, the people concerned came from six ordinary working-class families. I am sad to say that the only person on whom they could rely to articulate their case was me. Perhaps I failed them in not putting their case strongly enough. There was certainly no question of a public inquiry in that case, nor was there any question of it being conjoined with the Orkney inquiry, which is what I had sought.
      I am almost sorry that I have raised the case again today, because I do not want it widely reported in the city of Aberdeen. The families concerned are now, with great difficulty, beginning to settle down.
      The issue of inquiries being held either in private or in public is very serious. I share to some extent the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the new unitary authorities have no experience of social work, but it must be remembered that, when we set up the social work departments, we had no experience, either. Although the new social work departments will be a different size, I

      37
      strongly urge my colleagues in the unitary authorities to make certain that there is a properly qualified—I think that this is already in the Bill—
      Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Of course.
      Dr. Godman: I hope that all the social workers employed in the regional and island authorities are re-employed by the unitary authorities. The point that I was making was that, if the Minister is to issue guidelines to social workers—to chief social work officers—he should also issue guidelines to councillors who are unfamiliar with the mass of legislation which has been passed since 1974.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not disagree at all with my hon. Friend, but I was pointing out to him that I was a councillor in the city of Aberdeen following the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, when social work departments were set up. Those of us who were lay members of authorities in those days had very little experience—well, we had no experience of social work departments—although some of us gained experience through the health and welfare committees.
      I agree that since then a great deal has happened, so I hope that my colleagues in the unitary authorities—as I said, I believe that the Bill requires only that the director of social work is a qualified officer—will appoint not only a qualified director of social work, but a highly qualified director of education, and that the councillors will take an active interest in social work matters.
      With regard to matters in the new clause and to other matters surrounding social work, the Scottish Office certainly ought to hold a series of seminars, at which experienced councillors who know social work and those who have never worked in the area because of the split of functions may share their experiences.
      The ability to obtain proper advice—legal advice, if necessary—representation and expenses to enable people to put a case is of absolute importance. I frankly do not mind who pays for that, as long as the access of people who feel aggrieved to proper legal advice is not impeded or inhibited in any way.
      When the Under-Secretary makes his winding-up speech on the new clause, I hope that he will address in a little more detail the circumstances in which he believes proceedings should be held in private and in which they should be held in public. There is certainly a balance to be struck between publicity, which is necessary to show that nothing is being hidden, and privacy, which is necessary to try to protect people against whom false allegations may be made. I hope that such false allegations—or mere allegations, since they are proved false or otherwise only once the investigation is completed—will always be taken seriously.
      In the case to which I referred—I shall finish on this note just to show how serious the matter is—allegations were made not only against the six families, but against a senior social worker and a general practitioner. I found it particularly reprehensible that the allegations made against the working-class families were investigated, but not a single question was asked of the GP or the senior social worker; they were apparently above reproach. Yet we know from bitter experience that, in some places which are regarded as safe for children, such as residential
      38
      homes, people have been employed whose abuse of the children in their care has been absolutely disgraceful and terrible.
      I hope that we shall not take the attitude that if people are professionals they should be—necessarily—free from suspicion. However, we should not say the alternative. We should not say that, because an allegation has been made, it must be true.
      I hope that the possibility of inquiries under new clause 10 will open up the scope for proper investigations, so that the interests of the children, which must always be paramount, will be protected. The interests of children are not always necessarily met by an investigation. There are sometimes innocent third-party children.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about how the procedure will work, to ensure that the interests of children are properly looked at and to ensure that the interests of families are not destroyed because of prejudice in respect of particular allegations.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, new clause 10 reiterates a theme that I raised several times in Committee. That theme is the protection of other persons and third persons involved in allegations of child abuse. I am not certain whether the proposal will deal with the problems.
      I have no confidence in internal investigations by social work departments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, I have personal knowledge of a case which was brought to me by a person who was wrongly accused of abuse. The matter was pursued by the social work department, and it held an internal inquiry based on its various methods of operating.
      That internal inquiry amounted to an examination of whether the procedures had been followed. No one challenged the basic evidence on which the charge was brought. That was the issue. People do not worry too much about the procedures, but if the basic premise is wrong, it does not matter what procedures are followed: in the end, the result will be wrong. We could not have that issue challenged. At the end of the day, I received a perfunctory half-page letter saying that all was well, when clearly it was not. Like many others, I have no faith in internal procedures. I have tabled amendments in an attempt to deal with that problem.
      With regard to new clause 10, we would like an undertaking from the Minister that he will at least consider tabling two amendments in another place. The first amendment should state not that the inquiry may be held in private, but that it will be held in public unless the local authority gives a good reason for not doing that.
      The second amendment should state that there must be an independent person running the inquiry, not a member of the social work department. If the latter is the case, there will be a social work department investigation into the procedures and not into the facts. Without those two criteria, involving some form of independence and a presumption towards public hearings, the proposal will be of limited value.
      Mr. George Foulkes: I join my colleagues in welcoming new clause 10. I want to comment briefly on the circumstances in relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, which has received an inordinate amount of publicity. My view

      39
      might differ somewhat from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but it is certainly not diametrically opposed to it, because I agree with much of what he said.
      In relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, I have great sympathy with the problem facing social workers when they are confronted with allegations of child abuse. For example, if a mother, who may be hysterical, reports child abuse and, after some examination and investigation, the social workers shrug it off and say, "No, no, this woman is hysterical. No child abuse is taking place," and it is subsequently found that child abuse has taken place, those social workers are likely to be, and in some cases in the past have been, pilloried by the press, by the media and, on occasion, by Parliament, for not following up those allegations.
      With regard to the Ayrshire case, where social workers have pursued the allegations, have believed them and have taken some action, the press obviously felt that they knew a great deal more than the social workers, the medical people, the sheriff and everyone else involved. The press make their judgment and decide that they are absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North knows, the media never get it wrong.
      The media decide that no abuse has taken place, and they pillory the social workers in that instance as well. If social workers take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. If they do not take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. It is very difficult, as the Minister will know. He has great experience of such issues as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian. It is a difficult problem for social workers, and difficult decisions have to be made.
      4.30 pm
      In the case of Ayrshire, however, those decisions were made in the first instance by individual basic grade social workers, but in every instance they were reported right up the line to the senior social work managers. Of course, before any action could be taken, it had to be reported to the children's panel. The children's panel had to make a decision on the report from the reporter. In the Ayrshire child abuse case, the ultimate decision was made by Sheriff Neil Gow, after very careful thought and after hearing the children themselves.
      It is quite astonishing that, after all that careful consideration by social workers, by members of the children's panel and by a sheriff who had gone into the matter in great detail, someone—in that case, it seemed to be only one person, in the press—who knew better than every one of them said that no abuse had taken place.
      Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to pillory social workers. My hon. Friend and I are not in great disagreement in this matter, but he must realise that the initial charge on which the case is based is generally made by one person. That is rarely challenged. By the time it comes to the report of the children's panel, decisions are based on the initial report, which is often done by a fairly junior individual, yet that is taken as gospel and never challenged. That is where the problem lies.
      Mr. Foulkes: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. If he looks at that case—there is voluminous paper that he can look at—he will see that it was not only questioned very seriously by the children's panel but corroborated by
      40
      two doctors. That might impress him a little more than the views of social workers. It also went to the sheriff, who tested the evidence very substantially. It went through very well tried and tested procedures.
      Because the media made up their minds that the social workers were wrong, they harassed and threatened the social workers concerned. There was doorstepping of the social workers in the early morning—their lives were made an absolute misery. All the social workers had been concerned about were the interests of the children, protecting the children, and carrying out the job that was given to them by Parliament.
      The media try to get everything into black and white—it is either right or wrong; it is either clearly proved or it is not clearly proved. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but lawyers get the same perception; that everything is either right or wrong, and that it can be proved or disproved by evidence. I am afraid that in such cases it is much more difficult to prove.
      In family circumstances where abuse may have taken place, the only witnesses are the children who have been abused or other members of the family who may themselves be children. It is very difficult to obtain evidence. It is certainly very difficult to prove something beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why the issue is very complicated. Social workers deserve our sympathy.
      In the Ayrshire case, an independent inquiry was carried out. We are talking about inquiries by two outside members of staff of other local authorities. They came to the conclusion that the social workers in the case had acted in an honest way, without any collusion. They certainly said that there were some faults in practice. Of course matters are difficult, and practice is not easy. Advice and guidance are needed as experience develops, as we have more cases and social workers can talk to each other about them.
      The social workers did not do everything perfectly—we know that—but they acted honestly and there was no collusion, yet the media are still persecuting those social workers. They are asking the Lord Advocate to take up a prosecution against them. I shall see the Lord Advocate later this week, to tell him that he should make it clear that there will be no prosecution of those social workers, who have been cleared by that independent inquiry, and that it is intolerable for the threat of prosecution to continue to hang over their heads.
      I have a couple of questions which the Minister may be able to answer. I wrote what was, for me, a reasonable letter to the Secretary of State some weeks ago about the case, because I take it seriously and I am deeply concerned about the way in which the lives of social workers and their families have been affected. My letter contained a number of questions, but I have not yet had a reply from the Secretary of State. My assistants have contacted the Secretary of State's office to ask for a reply as soon as possible, and the Minister may be able to use his good offices to say when I will receive such a reply.
      I am no expert in this matter, although I served on a social work committee in Lothian region many years ago and saw the reports on such cases. My wife was a member of a children's panel for some time, although she has had no dealings at all with the Ayrshire abuse case. I was on a children's panel advisory committee for some time, and chose the members of those panels in Lothian. However, I do not pretend to have any expertise on the matter at all.

      41
      As a result of the Ayrshire abuse case, I have had to try to understand some of the procedures, and that has caused me to ask one question. Is it compatible with the caring role of social workers for them also to be investigators in child abuse cases? It must be at the moment, because only the police and social workers—with their statutory role—can carry out that task.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that I doubt whether doctors would be keen to take on the role, because it is very difficult, and there are no other obvious people to take it on. It is difficult for social workers, who have other responsibilities in communities and in society for supporting vulnerable people, to take on that investigative role.
      My main concern is that we in Parliament should not jump to conclusions in relation to such cases. When a reporter phones a Member and explains what he understands to have happened, it is far too easy to accept that as gospel and say that it is disgraceful and that there ought to be an inquiry, and that the social workers ought to be charged. That is what has happened on occasion in the past.
      In this instance, particular sections of the Scottish media have done themselves a great discredit by pressing in that way without looking at all the facts in a reasoned and objective way. I use this opportunity to call on the media to try to deal with these cases more sympathetically and to understand the dilemmas and difficulties for social workers and social work departments.
      I make a final plea, and in this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, who believes that the views of the children ought to be taken into account. It is easy enough to get the views of parents, but the views of the parents and of the children in child abuse cases will in some cases—by definition—not necessarily be the same. We must get the children's views, not only in an evidential way but also on what should happen to them in future. If different options are being considered for the future of the children, we must get their views.
      Above all, we should not rush to an early judgment on the cases, which are very complicated. We must make sure that—wherever possible—the abuse cases which we know have taken place do not recur. The interests of the children who have been abused must be paramount on every occasion.
      Mr. Gallie: In following the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I register some sympathy for the front-line social workers who were involved in the Ayrshire case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they had to make difficult decisions. The social workers were on a knife edge. They could have made an error if they had not taken into account the needs of the children. On the other hand, we ended up with a situation in which, for five years, the children were without their parents, and that gives me grave concern.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to Sheriff Gow, but failed to acknowledge that other sheriffs were involved. For example, Sheriff Crozier found in another case a fortnight later, after the first cases were taken into account, that there was no case to answer. In those instances, the children went home with their parents. Then we had Sheriff Miller's findings. Here, I find a problem with the position in which the social workers were placed in those hearings. They were
      42
      left isolated. I wonder how much responsibility their masters in the regional social work department should have in the matter.
      I also wonder what examination has been made of the managerial structures in the social work department. I do not believe that the problem—if there was a problem—lay with the front-line social workers. I think that it lay behind, with the management structure, but I am not entirely convinced. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley feels differently.
      Mr. Foulkes: It is perhaps too easy to criticise the social work department. The inquiry that took place at Western house at the racecourse was unprecedented. The social work department was guilty only of not understanding the magnitude of the inquiry it faced and the strength of legal support, advice and representation that the parents would have. The inquiry turned into a far more legal investigation than the department had realised. It was entirely wrong that it did so. The QCs took it over and made it into a legal hearing, when it should have been much more informal. If the social work department was guilty of anything, it was guilty perhaps of innocence and of being caught unawares rather than of negligence.
      Mr. Gallie: I am not sure that it was guilty of innocence. In my involvement in the case over several years, I was perhaps guilty of naivety, if Sheriff Miller was to be believed. I did not follow issues through. I took assurances from senior members of Strathclyde social work department. I have a nagging doubt now that perhaps I was wrong. I am still not convinced, either way, precisely where the truth lies. If the children had been believed, perhaps they would have been back with their parents at an earlier date, but that is another matter.
      The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has highlighted another difficult case in which there are many questions. It emphasises the overall difficulties of the issue.
      Mrs. Fyfe: This brief debate on new clause 10 has demonstrated the difficulties that a Minister can get into by throwing down new clauses and amendments at the last minute without giving people time to consider them. The Minister can see for himself how many serious concerns have been raised even in the short space of time that we have had to examine the new clause. I want to ask him a few questions about that.
      What advice has the Minister sought on the general content of the new clause? I for one am not entirely clear whether the inquiry mentioned in newsection 6B(1) is intended to be an inquiry into the conduct of a social work department under the Act, or into its functions as such. I am not sure whether the purpose is to criticise the functions or the way in which a department fulfilled those functions.
      A key question was put at the start of the debate, which I do not want the House to lose sight of. Is the new clause an attempt to pass the buck from the Secretary of State to the local authorities for inquiries into cases such as Orkney? Let us remember that it cost more than £1 million to inquire into the Orkney case. That is a lot of anyone's money. For a small, new unitary authority, it could be an impossible amount of money to find to conduct an inquiry as fully as necessary.
      The Orkney case was of interest and concern far beyond the bounds of Orkney or, indeed, Scotland. It hit international headlines. Therefore, it would seem unfair

      43
      and unreasonable to expect any local authority, especially one of the smaller new unitary authorities, to bear such a cost.
      My last point, which I do not think any hon. Member has raised, relates to subsection (4) of the new clause, which refers to expenses being defrayed by such parties as the inquiry may direct. It is not clear what the Minister envisages by "such party". Could it mean parents? Could there be a circumstance in which parents were expected to pay the cost of an inquiry, which was necessary not only in the interests of the children for whom they had direct concern but in the wider public interest? Such an inquiry might seek to set a general principle on which to base the functions of social work departments.
      If the Minister is to reassure the House that the new clause is not an effort to pass the buck, he must amend the new clause to make that clear.
      4.45 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will take on board the points that have been made on drafting and look closely at the new clause in subsequent stages. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) raised the Ayrshire case. We have looked carefully into the case. I can well understand their concerns about it.
      The procedures adopted for the proof re-hearing were in accordance with the framework set out in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The reporter to the children's panel and the families were represented as parties to the proceedings. The social workers were called as witnesses and, as such, were not separately represented. Following the proof re-hearing, the Court of Session ordered the return home of the children, and appointed curators to oversee the process of their return.
      I understand that Strathclyde regional council fully co-operated in the implementation of the court's decision. We are now looking carefully at Sheriff Miller's report to see what lessons can usefully be drawn for the future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate commissioned some time ago guidance for social workers and police involved in the investigation of allegations of child abuse. They expect to receive those proposals shortly.
      Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. It is a step forward. As well as examining the outcome of the proof hearing at Western house, will he examine the procedure? As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), it was a rather legalistic inquiry. It became intimidating for witnesses and created many problems. The witnesses were cross-questioned almost as if they were accused. The QCs—I know that the Minister is a distinguished lawyer—took over.
      That is not necessarily the best procedure for such hearings, in which much of the information is obtained in an informal way, not the formal way that we understand for trials. Could the Minister have a look at that as well?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look closely at the case in general to determine what lessons can be learned. I will take account of the hon. Gentleman's points.
      44
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked the relevant question whether the Orkney inquiry might have been handled differently if the new clause had been in place. It would have been possible under the new clause for a local inquiry to be held. However, the issues were of wide significance, and other local authorities were involved.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly retain his inquiry powers. The background to the new clause is that, when the events with which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is so familiar took place, a review of the arrangements was ordered by the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). One of the principal conclusions of the review was that local authorities should properly be equipped with a specific power to hold social work inquiries.
      The new clause would increase the options available where matters of concern arose. However, a full-scale inquiry by the Secretary of State, with its burdensome consequences, was hitherto regarded as the sole option. In some cases, in which the issues are primarily minor and local, it is perhaps more appropriate for the local authority to be involved.
      It is certainly not the purpose of the new clause to offload the burden of the costs on to local authorities. It would be for local authorities to weigh up the costs in deciding whether to exercise their powers to hold an inquiry. We believe that local authorities would act responsibly to their electors.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that there is no intention to amend new clause 10 to provide for the assessment of disabled children. However, we shall amend the Bill as and where necessary to take account of the needs expressed in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill for which the hon. Gentleman and I were present during a Friday debate.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the interests of children must be central in the determination of these matters. There is a need to save children added pain and trauma, and under the clause local authorities will have three possibilities to consider. They can decide whether the whole of an inquiry should be in private, whether part should be in private and part in public but with limits on the identification of children, or they can decide to have no inquiry at all.
      The clause gives power to appoint an independent person to hold an inquiry, which need not be internal. I am also covering the points raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). Like the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, I have been a councillor on a social work committee. If I were still such a councillor, I would be inclined towards privacy.
      Under the clause, I think that local authorities will use their powers responsibly. The essence of the matter is that there will be new powers for authorities to hold inquiries into matters related to children, and they will complement measures that are already available to them to deal with local problems. The powers will be available where the local nature of matters or problems make it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to hold a national inquiry.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
    Finance Act 1995.
    Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Act 1995.
    Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
    Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.
    Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Act 1995.

    CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    New clause 11

      CO-OPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES
      '.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority that an appropriate person could, by doing certain things, help in the exercise of any of their functions under this Part [Promotion of Children's Welfare By Local Authorities And By Children's Hearings etc.] of this Act, they may, specifying what those things are, request the help of that person.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, persons who are appropriate are—

      (a) any other local authority;

      (b) a health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

      (c) a national health service trust established under section 12A of that Act; and

      (d) any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;

      and an appropriate person receiving such a request shall comply with it provided that it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and (in the case of a person not a natural person) does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) was responsible for one of those Acts and I am glad to see him in his place.
      The purpose of the new clause is quite clear: it is a response to issues that were raised in Committee and it seeks to ensure proper co-operation between the various service providers in addressing the needs of children. It achieves that by providing power for the local authority to approach appropriate persons when it appears to the local authority that such persons would be able to help the authority in the exercise of its functions under part II of the Bill.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause states that the persons whom the authority can approach are: any other local authority, a health board, a national health service trust and any person authorised by the Secretary of State. Any person so approached is required to comply with the request, provided it is compatible with that person's statutory and other duties. The new clause should
      46
      encourage closer working among the various agencies and must be to the benefit of Scotland's children. I commend it to the House.
      Mrs. Fyfe: The Opposition welcome the new clause, which responds to criticisms made in Committee.
      I have a brief question. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) imply that persons who are not listed would be inappropriate. Surely the Minister does not mean that a local authority could not seek help from the Secretary of State. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to evade such a responsibility, but will the Minister clarify that point?
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I, too, have a brief question on subsection (2). Why does it not include the recognition of registered voluntary organisations, which often do a great deal of work in providing for children, including those with special needs and disabilities who were referred to earlier? How does the Minister see voluntary organisations playing a role under this subsection?
      Dr. Godman: I should like to add to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Voluntary organisations and charities play an important role in catering for the needs of many children. Will the Minister confirm that the definition in subsection (2)(d) embraces the voluntary organisations and charities that do such fine work in the care of children?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not give such authorisation. The Scottish Office will give guidance in due course on all these matters. It would be open to a local authority to apply to the Scottish Office for guidance on any point that might arise. The new clause does not require co-operation between departments of the same authority, because social work and housing will be the responsibility of a single authority after reorganisation. It clearly would not be appropriate to require under primary legislation a body to co-operate with itself. Under subsection (2)(d) voluntary organisations can be authorised. They play a strong and supportive role and we look forward to that continuing.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      REMOVAL OF DUTY TO REPORT ON OPERATION OF CHILDREN ACT 1975
      '. Section 105 of the Children Act 1975 (which among other things provides that every five years there shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State a report on the operation of such sections of that Act as are for the time being in force) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 208, 90, 209, 210 and 95.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This new clause and the associated amendments seek to repeal section 105 of the Children Act 1975, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament every five years a report on

      47
      the operation of the sections of the Act that are in force. As all the substantive provisions relating to adoption and custody have now been updated and incorporated in other legislation, the need to produce a report on the 1975 Act becomes redundant.
      Amendment No. 208 seeks to add section 105 to the repeals schedule in the Bill. Amendment No. 90 makes various changes to section 51 of the Children Act and is required as a consequence of the Bill. It does so by setting out the revised subsection in its entirety. Amendments Nos. 209, 210 and 95 propose minor consequential amendments.
      Mrs. Fyfe: As it has occurred to the Minister to repeal a section of the 1975 Act, why has it not crossed the mind of anyone in the Scottish Office to include provisions in the Bill to report on or monitor the operation of the clauses of this Bill? Such a request was resisted in Committee and I thought that the Minister had undertaken to consider how often such reports could be made. Has that matter been considered?
      Dr. Godman: I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's plea. As the new unitary authorities will implement this Bill, it is important for such reports to be presented to the House so that we can see how the Bill's provisions are being implemented by the new authorities.
      Mr. Wallace: I was not entirely clear from the Minister's comments whether the provisions to which the statutory duty of reporting relate are being transferred to another Act. Is there still a duty to report, albeit under a different Act, or has it disappeared altogether? How many times in the past 20 years has the Secretary of State laid a quinquennial report before Parliament?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee. We propose to monitor what happens by research, social work inspectorate reports, statistical surveys and other ways. We remain firmly of the view that regular reports are of limited value. If produced annually, they do not adequately reflect changing patterns of service provision, demographic changes and other such matters. Indeed, they can be something of a bureaucratic chore. However, we strongly believe in the need for specific research projects, the results of which will be and are published; the regular publication of statistical data; the preparation and publication of local plans for child health care services; and the ability of the social work services inspectorate to carry out necessary inspections. All those represent a more useful and realistic way to proceed in future. After four quinquennial reports and the extensive development of services, we believe that provision along those lines would serve no useful purpose. New clause 12 removes a provision for the preparation of reports, which was useful in its time.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 13

      EFFECT OF ORDERS ETC. MADE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for a prescribed order which is made by a court in England and
      48
      Wales or in Northern Ireland, if that order appears to him to correspond generally to an order of a kind which may be made under Part II of this Act or to a supervision requirement, to have effect in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes of the law of Scotland as if it were an order of that kind or, as the case may be, as if it were a supervision requirement.

      (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing—

      (a) for a prescribed order made under Part II of this Act by a court in Scotland; or

      (b) for a supervision requirement,

      if that order or requirement appears to him to correspond generally to an order of a kind which may be made under any provision of law in force in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, to have effect in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes of the law of England and Wales, or as the case may be of Northern Ireland, as if it were an order of that kind.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2)(a) above may provide for the order given effect for prescribed purposes to cease to have effect for those purposes, or for the purposes of the law of the place where the order was made, if prescribed conditions are satisfied.

      (4) Where a child who is subject to a supervision requirement is lawfully taken to live in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the requirement shall cease to have effect if prescribed conditions are satisfied.

      (5) Regulations under this section may modify any provision of—

      (a) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or this Act in any application which the Acts may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order made otherwise than in Scotland;

      (b) the Children Act 1989 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in any application which those Acts may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order prescribed under subsection (2)(a) above or to a supervision requirement; or

      (c) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 in any application which they may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order so prescribed or to a supervision requirement.' — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 159 and 191.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause and amendments are technical. I can explain them in greater detail if any hon. Member so wishes.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: As I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that the new clause will end as quickly as possible the problems of cross-border custody. I hope that it covers that problem as there have been cases where court orders in England and Wales have either not been recognised in Scotland or the other way round. It is important that, where custody orders are granted, they are put into effect as speedily as possible so that the parent with custody gets the child back if it has been illegally taken across the border. If the Minister can assure me that the problem is covered in the new clause or elsewhere, I shall be happy to leave matters as they stand.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 28, as drafted, does not wholly meet our objectives as it does not provide in all cases for the transfer of a child who moves to or

      49
      from another jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. It would allow the transfer of welfare cases but would not—this is the problem—include cases where the principal reason for the child being subject to a supervision requirement is that he or she has committed an offence. The new clause covers all the cases that could arise when a child moves. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      REASONABLE CHASTISEMENT
      '.—(1) In any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) against a person for striking a child, it shall not be a defence that the person struck the child in the purported exercise of any parental right if he or she struck the child—

      (i) with a stick, belt or other object; or

      (ii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, injury; or

      (iii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.

      (2) Any person who has care or control of a child but who does not have parental responsibilities or rights in relation to the child shall have no greater right than has a parent to administer corporal punishment to the child.

      (3) Section 12(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 shall be amended by leaving out the words "assaults" and "assaulted".

      (4) Section 12(7) of that Act is hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      May I express a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and other Opposition Members who served on the Committee? I did not do so but I appreciate that this is a hugely important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill undertook a huge amount of consultation and was backed up by a strong Committee, which added its force of argument to the points put forward.
      I am sorry that it was necessary to break the unique consensus on the Bill earlier this afternoon by criticising the Government for the number of amendments that they tabled at such a late stage. I hope that Madam Speaker's reprimand will serve as a lesson to the Government.
      This important new clause deals with the last remaining area where domestic violence is still legal in Scotland. The proposal in respect of chastisement and punishment of children in the family home is moderate, modest and reasonable, and should be accepted by the Government. It is not political or partisan and has no party background. It has been taken directly from the excellent and thorough report of the Scottish Law Commission on family law, which was published in 1992 and dealt with this subject in commendable detail. It reached a definitive conclusion that I should have thought the Government would accept without dispute.
      The new clause is not prohibitionist and does not seek to prevent physical punishment of children in the family home. It is not absolutist and does not prohibit all forms of punishment. It is specific about the areas in which it seeks to protect children. It would not ban or criminalise parental control or diminish the right to administer reasonable physical punishment against children in the
      50
      home. There is a case for stopping all forms of physical punishment in the home but the new clause does not go that far and should not be portrayed as doing so. It sets out in explicit terms areas where a civilised society would want to protect its children. We therefore propose the new clause in the light of strong argument in its favour and in the hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will see the light and accept a change in the law.
      It should be totally unacceptable for a child to be hit by a parent or anyone else with a cane, belt or whip. If the Government resist this necessary change to the law, they will be rightly condemned throughout Scotland. In addition, they should be forced to accept the full burden of responsibility and blame if even a handful of parents use the Government's attitude this afternoon to indulge in that form of violence.
      The new clause seeks to clarify the law not only for parents and guardians but for the courts. That must be for the good of children and the criminal justice system.
      Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Tripe.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) catcalls from a sedentary position. We all look forward to Mr. Eleven per cent. having an opportunity to speak later in the debate. We shall listen to any of his arguments that might conceivably be slightly more elevated than what he just shouted.
      There is no reason why the Government should not accept the new clause, which is, after all, the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission. If they resist this valuable clarification of the law, they will leave a serious question mark over their true intentions.
      Under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting or abandoning a child are criminal offences. Section 12(7) allows:
      "any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control … to administer punishment".
      The prescription in law and the associated case law leave judges and sheriffs to decide what constitutes reasonable physical chastisement of children by parents and others. There is simply no legal precedent or generally accepted case on which judgments are based. That means that the law is confusing, with much disparity between the judgments of individual sheriffs of what they deem to be reasonable. That has, sadly, resulted in some parents who have inflicted fairly significant abuse on children—using belts, sticks and other implements in the name of physical punishment—being acquitted by the courts. That is why we believe that it is perfectly reasonable and sensible for the House to agree to the new clause and to give the guidance to the courts and to parents that they clearly want.
      The new clause would offer more clarity for courts and for sheriffs. It would tidy up this unnecessarily loose area of legislation. We are not seeking to outlaw any form of physical punishment; we are simply providing clear legal parameters within which sheriffs can exercise their discretion.
      The new clause has widespread support, from not only professionals and the Scottish Law Commission but public opinion, to which the Government should listen. If the Government tell the House that they will resist the new clause simply on the basis that the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales, does not move into this territory and does not give this valuable

      51
      clarification, their response will be seen as feeble and inadequate by people in Scotland. The new clause would make it clear to parents and to everybody else in society that it is no longer acceptable to use sticks, belts and other implements to deal a violent blow in the cause of disciplining children. Adults would no longer be able to use the defence that they were exercising parental rights.
      It is important when considering the case for the new clause and for setting out forms of punishment that are not acceptable for parents to use against children to look at the background to the Scottish Law Commission's conclusion. This is not some woolly, liberal, soft-soap measure that has come out of some enlightened working party; there is no possibility of caricaturing the proposal in that way. If the claim that a modest smack to the leg will be made illegal is used as an excuse for not moving in this direction, the House should listen carefully to the reasoning and the arguments of the Scottish Law Commission.
      The commission advanced a number of arguments as the background to promoting a change in the law. It said:
      "If all corporal punishment is made unlawful there is less chance of violent abuse taking place. Parents will know where the line is drawn. There will be less chance of conduct which begins as chastisement ending up as violent abuse because the parent does not know his or her own strength or because the initial chastisement does not produce the desired response."
      That was one of the clear arguments that the commission said could be used in favour of making the law much more definitive.
      5.15 pm
      A second key argument deployed by the commission was:
      "We should follow the lead taken by Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Austria."
      The commission refers to an American assessment of the Swedish legislation, which reported:
      "The 1979 law is now taken for granted in Sweden. Whereas in 1981 parents reported 'thinking twice' before using any physical punishment, in 1988 parents simply say they do not use it."
      That is the argument that we advance today.
      Another powerful argument is available to the House in reaching a decision on the matter. I hope that Conservative Members do not feel that I am promoting the new clause in a partisan way or that there is a good argument for overriding their consciences; conscience may be in short supply among certain Conservative Members. I believe, however, that those who have read the Scottish Law Commission's report will have been affected by the arguments, especially by the one that the commission deploys in relation to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1989. It says:
      "States must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child."
      That view is subscribed to by all the members of the General Assembly.
      The Scottish Law Commission went into the matter in enormous detail; it is a subject worthy of that attention to detail. The Association of Reporters to Children's Panels,
      52
      which in Scotland would be regarded as being among the most authoritative voices in this field and an organisation that is closer to the issue of delinquent children than any other in Scotland, said in its submission that, at the very least, clarification of the scope of reasonable chastisement was required.
      The Scottish Law Commission said:
      "We received a particularly cogent submission from Professor Michael Freeman, of the Faculty of Laws, University College, London."
      The argument here is especially strong. Professor Freeman made the point:
      "The present law was, in any event, so imprecise and uncertain in its application as to be unjust to parents (as well as children). Moreover"—
      this is an extremely serious point—
      "much child abuse was corporal punishment gone wrong."
      He quoted an American study which concluded that well over half of all instances of child abuse appeared to have developed out of disciplinary action taken by the parent. That must worry hon. Members as it worries so many people when they think about the horrifying stories of child abuse which are now becoming public.
      The Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children makes exactly the same point in its submission to the Scottish Law Commission. It says:
      "From experience staff know that cases of child abuse often start as physical punishment and escalate."
      Those two strong arguments should convince anybody considering the case on the margin. I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully.
      The Scottish Law Commission went on to discuss the options that should be considered by it and by the policy makers—ultimately, this Parliament. It produced two options that should be drawn to the attention of the House. It said:
      "At the most general level we have to choose between recommending some change or no change in the present law. We have been impressed by the level of support, particularly from organisations concerned with child care or child welfare, for some change. We have accepted that there is force in some of the arguments for change, particularly in relation to corporal punishment at the severe end of what may be permitted by the present law. We do not therefore recommend that the law should remain unaltered."
      It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us why, in the face of that strong recommendation from a body as authoritative as the Scottish Law Commission, the Government, in their mighty wisdom, are choosing to put to the House the option of no change in the present law.
      In the next paragraph of the report, the Scottish Law Commission says:
      "So far as the direction of change is concerned we have no doubt that, if there is to be any change, it should be in the direction of reducing the level of physical force which can lawfully be used in the punishment of children. No-one argued that the existing law unduly curtailed the powers of parents, even although what is permitted today probably falls short of what was regarded as normal and desirable in earlier times."
      That is the vividly expressed argument of the Scottish Law Commission.
      The force of the conclusions in the commission's report needs to be read and understood by anyone who intends to vote at the end of this short debate. The commission says:
      "It seemed to us, on the basis of the comments which we had received, that there would be likely to be general agreement that a parent should not, in the purported exercise of parental rights, he allowed to cane, belt, whip or flog a child, or hit the child with a

      53
      shoe, slipper, wet cloth, piece of rope, wooden spoon, fish slice or any of the other objects which we know some parents use as instruments of punishment."
      That is another vivid phrase and a horrifying commentary on what happens in the tiny minority of homes in which people hide behind the current imprecision in the law while doing these things to small children.
      The commission went on:
      "It also seemed to us that almost everyone would agree that a parent should not be allowed to strike a child in a way which actually injured the child (by breaking an arm, for example, or damaging an internal organ, or lacerating the skin) or involved a risk of injury to the child (as a heavy blow to the head, face or abdomen would do, even if by good fortune it did not cause injury in a particular instance). It also seemed to us that almost everyone would agree that a parent should not be able to strike a child in such a way as to cause, or risk causing, prolonged pain."
      The commission believes that everyone would subscribe to that. Its conclusions are based on a sentiment which I doubt anyone in the House would dare to suggest was wrong or controversial. Yet the Government intend to resist the new clause. They intend to say, in effect, that they will not offer children the protection that the Scottish Law Commission believes essential. The Government would appear to be willing to continue to allow these excesses to take place in a minority of homes, and they are not willing to effect the clarification of the law that the commission and almost everyone else in Scotland believes important to protect vulnerable small children in the family home.
      The commission went on—as if it needed to—to carry out an opinion poll of its own, conducted by System 3 Scotland, to establish what public opinion is in respect of assaults of the kind that I have described. We are discussing not ordinary physical punishment—a slap on the leg—but the sort of brutality for which people can be acquitted in the courts because of a legal imprecision. The opinion poll discovered that 94 per cent. considered that it should be against the law for a parent to hit a three-year-old child with a belt, stick or other object, even if the hitting was not likely to cause lasting injury. Many of us might hesitate before hitting a 15-year-old, given the possibilities that might be involved—I say that as one who has brought up three children, two of whom are older than that. But the fact is that 68 per cent. thought that it should not be lawful to hit a 15-year-old with a belt, stick or other object.
      Public opinion, too, supports the view that the law should be clarified. The Scottish Law Commission, after powerful consideration of the detail and having listened to all the authoritative arguments, has conclusively told the Government that the law needs amending in exactly the terms that new clause 1 proposes. Only Her Majesty's Government claim to know better than all these people.
      I shall not press the Government further until we hear what the Minister has to say, but I sincerely hope that he will recognise this powerful argument, that he has re-read the SLC report and that he recognises that a change in the law is necessary. If he does that, we will achieve all-party support for the new clause and for clarification of the law. If not, we shall have to divide the House, whereupon I shall invite hon. Members on both sides to support the new clause.
      Mr. Galbraith: It is important, first, to point out what the new clause does not do so that we can avoid its being caricatured by the Minister and others. It does not tell people how to bring up their children—that is a matter for them. It revolves around good judgment and very good
      54
      luck, probably more the latter. I would not want to proffer advice to anyone on how to bring up children; in any case, the new clause does not do that.
      Secondly, the new clause is not, as I heard claimed on a BBC television programme, about telling people not to smack their weans, although it is often caricatured thus. I fully appreciate the pressures; sometimes one can be driven across the floor with the intention, if one can get one's hands on them, of doing more than just smacking the children—but most of us manage to resist the temptation. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone would want to smack children, but if people want to inflict a mild smack on them, within reason, so be it. The new clause does not outlaw that. It clearly establishes the limits that society wants to impose as to the extent to which children can be punished.
      As it stands, the law is unclear and allows some people to abuse their parental and other rights. Physical punishment is often justified on the ground that it provides a learning mechanism to obtain some sort of Pavlovian response. It is said that children can be taught the difference between right and wrong in this way. Not true: we can teach them what to do and what not to do, but we certainly cannot teach them the difference between right and wrong—that will come only from reasoned arguments once conceptual analysis becomes possible. The problem is that many people start to think that the only method of getting something done is to inflict physical violence. We must put a stop to that idea.
      We can apply two tests to find out what is acceptable in this area. The first is whether we would allow it between adults. Would we allow adults to hit one another with sticks, sometimes in public? Would we allow them to bruise one another in public? The answer is that we would have them up on charges—apart from in the case of boxing, which is the anomaly that proves the case.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rose
      Mr. Galbraith: It would appear that the Minister wishes to defend boxing. He is a classic example of the reasons why it should be banned.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would introduce legislation to ban boxing?
      Mr. Galbraith: Looking at the Minister sometimes I think that perhaps we should—but I am being ungenerous to him. He knows that I do not mean it: he is rather a nice chap. The House has expressed its view against such legislation, and that is the end of the matter for now.
      We would not, as I was saying, allow adults to whip each other, beat each other with sticks or bruise one another. That would be considered assault. If it is wrong for us, it is wrong to do it to children.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: How then would the hon. Gentleman distinguish between smacking children, which would still be permissible under the new clause, and one adult slapping another, in public or in private, which would be classified as an assault?
      Mr. Galbraith: Presumably if someone started slapping me in public without my consent, he would be charged. For some reason we permit this with children, although I do not like it either. People should certainly not be allowed to thump children with sticks or belts in public and get away with it.

      55
      The second test is whether we would allow it to happen to animals. The answer is that we would not allow much of what we are talking about to happen to them. We would not allow people to beat them with sticks so that they became bruised, cut or generally damaged. We would not allow them to be whipped. If we do not allow such punishment to be inflicted on animals, why do we allow children to be treated in that way?
      The clause is not partisan, nor is it party political. I am not lecturing people on how to bring up their children. We all find the task difficult enough. I am merely saying that society has a duty to draw limits, and they should be drawn on the basis of the provisions of the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Gallie: It may surprise the House to learn that I agree with some of the comments about widespread public support. If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) spoke to his constituents and other people in Scotland, I suggest that he would find a great move throughout the country to bring back the belt in schools. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I challenge him to come with me to any town of his choosing to ask people if they would like the belt to be reintroduced in our schools. I guarantee that more people would side with me in that instance than with him.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: I have only just started.
      Mr. Hughes: I would like to take up what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
      Mr. Gallie: All right, I will give way.
      Mr. Hughes: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. There is a demand in some areas for the belt to be brought back into schools. The hon. Gentleman has a point there, but he does not have to follow that demand. If the public demanded that kids' right hands should be cut off when they were caught stealing sweeties from a shop, would the hon. Gentleman go along with that?
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that we should take account of widespread public support. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has realistically and practically acknowledged that there is a demand for the belt to be brought back into our schools, and I thank him for that. To take up the intervention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I would not vote to introduce legislation that would result in people's hands being cut off on being found guilty of theft. I regard that argument as incidental.
      Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a while and others wish to speak. I have no doubt that he will have the chance to speak again in this debate.
      Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: All right, I will give way.
      Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but there is a protocol in this place whereby we give way to an hon. Member if we refer specifically to him and he rises to intervene.
      56
      Whether the hon. Gentleman is right about people wanting to bring back the belt in schools is beside the point. We are talking about clarifying the law to give protection to children—in some instances, small children—from hard implements being used upon them of the nature that I described. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "Let us go to an average street in Scotland and conduct a straw poll." The Scottish Law Commission predicted that people like the hon. Gentleman would advance that argument. That is why it conducted an opinion poll. We know the finding of the poll, which is better than the hon. Gentleman begging me to join him in conducting a poll in a street somewhere in Scotland. We know that about 90 per cent. of those who participated in the opinion poll were opposed to punishment of the sort that I described being inflicted on three-year-olds. About 68 per cent. were opposed to it being inflicted on 15-year-olds. Surely even the hon. Gentleman can recognise that that public opinion is clear and firm.
      Mr. Gallie: I am always reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who tends to make speeches out of interventions. That was hardly a short intervention, bearing in mind the fact that others want to speak. My challenge remains: if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about public support, I leave my challenge on the table, as it were—I will go anywhere in Scotland that he suggests to ascertain public opinion.
      In Committee, we debated a similar new clause. New clause 18 was voted down in Committee. No one voted in support of it. That was the right decision at the time. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of that decision when he responds to the debate. It is clear—[Interruption.] I hear Opposition Members saying "Silly man." The fact remains that in Committee new clause 18 was rejected. No one voted in favour of it.
      Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is contriving to mislead the House. Although he called a vote on new clause 18 in Committee, it was not voted upon. There was no calling of a vote through the Chair. I did not take any part in debating that new clause because I did not want a lengthy debate to take place if that would prevent today's debate from taking place. The new clause related specifically to children in local authority day nursery care. We were not talking about parents' responsibilities.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an argument between hon. Members; there is nothing for the Chair to rule upon.
      Mr. Gallie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)—this appears in Hansard—begged to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Hon. Members said "No" and thereafter the Question was put and negatived. If the hon. Lady reads my words in Hansard tomorrow, she will find that I said that not one Member voted in support of clause 18. I was right to make that statement and there was no point of order for the hon. Lady to make.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton suggests that the new clause will clarify the law. I shall go through the clause in detail and refer to parts of it which would raise questions in the mind of any sane man. I believe that the clause has been motivated by political correctness. It is yet another small step towards the ultimate goal of removing from parents any right to chastise their children.
      Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution in due course.
      We have heard about Finland and Sweden, but there has been no mention of Singapore, where the use of corporal punishment has wiped out crime. I accept that the clause is directed towards children, but there are wider implications. For example, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) talked about physical punishment being inflicted on adults. If a straw poll were conducted in Scotland on that issue, we might find majority support for such punishment. If the clause were agreed to and implemented, it would bear upon adults because it would lead to a ban on all forms of corporal punishment.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: No, I will not. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to the debate by making his own speech—[interruption.] I hear someone say, "Oh no," but I assure the House that it will happen.
      Subsection (1)(i) provides that no parent shall strike his or her child "with a stick". Would a rap across the knuckles with a pencil be considered as use of a stick? We have already spoken about the belt, and subsection (1)(i) refers to "or other object". That takes into account everything, including my Order Paper. Would hitting a child with an Order Paper across the legs constitute an offence under the terms of the new clause? I suggest that that would be the position. Far from clarifying the law, the new clause would confuse it.
      Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gallie: No. The hon. Gentleman has already made a mini-speech within my speech.
      Mr. Robertson: I want to ask a question.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman can take up the issue later.
      Subsection (1)(ii) provides that "to risk causing, injury" constitutes a crime. If a parent were gently to strike a child, the child might take avoiding action which could result in injury. Such action by the parent could infringe the law. Perhaps an Opposition Member will choose to take that matter up.
      There is further comment in the new clause on the risk of causing pain or discomfort
      "lasting more than a very short time."
      I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on that. Does it mean five seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, an hour, a day? Will the hon. Gentleman declare at this point what he means by "a very short time"?
      Mr. Robertson: We are trying to give clearer parameters to the courts than they currently have. The court may decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. At the moment, there is no guidance at all. As the hon. Gentleman keeps asking me questions and not letting me answer any of them, I shall ask him a question, as he has the chance to answer. Has he read the Scottish Law Commission's report on the
      58
      subject? Why does he not take its arguments apart, instead of the rather feeble debating trick of taking apart the new clause that it has proposed?
      Mr. Gallie: I have seen and read part of the commission's report, but I agree that I have not gone through it line by line. I frequently read such reports and I frequently feel that the conclusions arrived at are unsound and are conclusions with which I disagree. The reason why I stand here today is to vent that disagreement. I make particular reference to the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments in support of the new clause because I am trying to negate the points that he made.
      Mr. Connarty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it will avoid me making a long speech later. Does the hon. Gentleman strike his adopted children with a belt or a stick? If not, why is he unwilling to support a law which would prevent other people from doing that legally?
      Mr. Gallie: Looking back, I have to say that I certainly would not strike my children now as one is 25 and the other is 22; they are adults in their own right. In the past, as a parent, yes, I struck my children, although I never ever struck them in a way that would have marked them: had I done so, I believe that the law as it stands would certainly have allowed me to be taken to court and due justice to be exacted. I certainly did strike my children when they were younger, and I make no apologies for that. I do not believe that I at any time created undue pain or misery to my children by so doing. It was infrequent and I would like to think that any such punishment is more a deterrent than a controlling factor.
      On that basis alone, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reject the comments coming from Opposition Members. Let us not make another mistake on such issues by listening to the siren vices of the Opposition; let us maintain the status quo.
      Mrs. Ewing: I intend to speak briefly. I have listened with considerable interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Needless to say, I do not want to pursue many of the points that he raised, as the arguments that he deployed were similar to those advanced on issues such as the abolition of slavery, about slavery being good for the slaves, who would not be able to cope with freedom; or how it was good to keep pushing young boys up chimneys because it gave them employment.
      As society develops, we have to look carefully at the parameters laid down by its legislature. I believe that the ideals enshrined in this very important new clause are admirable.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady does me a great disservice when she compares the comments that I made with the days of slavery and pushing young children up chimneys. We are in a different situation. I have raised questions of detail on the new clause. If the hon. Lady wants to contribute, perhaps she could ease my mind on some of the questions that I have posed in relation to the confusion that would ensue if the new clause were adopted.
      5.45 pm
      Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman must accept the clear point that I made: the legislature has a responsibility to bring forward ideals into its society which reflect views

      59
      and developments. The arguments that I used from history were put forward at that stage. Now, everyone regards them as ridiculous. In another century, people may look back on our debates—students of history, perhaps at some of the wonderful universities in Scotland—and wonder why on earth anyone opposed the principles being propounded here.
      Of course there will be difficulties in legal interpretation. Any law that is instituted is subject to legal interpretation; otherwise we would not have lawyers, a legal system, and courts, in all their many different aspects. I believe that it is important, therefore, that we give some guidance. The Scottish Law Commission is one of the most respected legal bodies, and far too many of its reports have gathered dust on shelves and in the libraries of Scotland. We have not seen many of its very sound and effective recommendations brought into effect. This is a small measure, but it is one for which the Law Commission has clearly indicated its support, after taking substantial evidence.
      The provision is also supported by organisations which see the effect of such punishment on children. The Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has clearly endorsed the new clause. We all accept that we are not trying to abolish the right of a parent to punish a child, but we are expecting limits to be set. I do not speak as a parent. Unfortunately I am not a parent, although I would have liked to be, but I have very interesting nephews and have watched them growing up and developing. I also worked as a teacher and saw the results in my classroom of some of the so-called "punishments" meted out to the children with whom I had to work from Monday until Friday.
      It is right that if a social worker, teacher, doctor, health visitor—anyone who has a right to be in contact with the child—is concerned about the kind of chastisement being dealt out by a parent, he or she should be able to say, "This is outwith the parameters of the law and I will not accept it." That is where I come from. Of course there must be ground rules for parents, just as there are ground rules for teachers.
      On punishment—not necessarily the belt—I could tell amusing stories about the class that I had to deal with for the last two periods on a Friday. The boys were desperate to leave school, could not wait for their school leaving date, and would be in competition all week to see how much of the belt they could get. Because I was the last teacher on a Friday, I was expected to be the one who would decide the competition. It was great fun for them until they discovered that I was not going to do it. So they had to sort it out before they came to my class. They knew the ground rules that I laid down within my classroom. I believe that that is what we expect within families as well. Children should always understand the parameters of the discipline and the behaviour that is expected of them.
      The new clause lays down the social parameters of a responsible and caring society. I hope that all hon. Members will endorse it, because there are valid reasons for doing so.
      Mr. Wallace: I, too, support the new clause. The real interest in the debate, which was opened so comprehensively by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is in what in the world the Minister will say in
      60
      opposition to it. We had a foretaste from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Let us examine his arguments. First, he argued that because for some technical or procedural reason no one voted for a parallel amendment in Committee that is somehow a compelling argument. He knows full well that that does not stand up at all.
      The hon. Gentleman then suggested that there was some uncertainty in the law. The present law, however, is far from certain and the courts have interpreted widely what is meant by reasonable chastisement. In the briefing sent to us by Children First, we find that in one case a judge ruled that it was "reasonable" for a mother to use a belt on her nine-year-old daughter, leaving bruising—he said that that punishment was rightly deserved—yet in a different case, just a few weeks later, said that it was "unreasonable" that a mother had slapped her two-year-old in the face. Clearly, the present law is uncertain.
      Mr. Devlin: I read that as well, and I felt that a clear distinction was made. One child aged nine had been slapped on the body and the other, aged only two, had been slapped on the face, which was obviously unreasonable.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has made my point even more compellingly by introducing another factor—the age of the child. That complicates matters further, but I find the use of implements to hit even nine-year-old children unacceptable.
      Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wallace: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's argument in a moment, and then allow him to respond.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned a tap over the knuckles with a pencil, or on the leg with an Order Paper. He knows that such action would not attract proceedings: he knows that the bringing of any criminal prosecution in Scotland will require the procurator fiscal, and he knows that no procurator fiscal would dream of bringing a case in such circumstances. If someone sought to use the civil courts, I suspect that—even if the case got anywhere—zero damages, or damages of 1 p, would be awarded. It is as if a motorist was doing 30.5 mph in a 30 mph area: a prosecution simply would not be brought.
      Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman's approach shows much common sense. As a well educated lawyer, however, will he tell us whether hitting a child in the eyes with an Order Paper or poking a child in the eyes with a pencil, as part of a disciplinary procedure, would be prosecutable?
      Mr. Wallace: I think so. Indeed, I hope that it would be prosecutable even under the current law. Acceptance of the new clause, however, would put the matter beyond doubt.
      Much of what we are discussing must happen within the four walls of a family home. It is clear that enforcement may be difficult. I do not think that we should take the new clause further, and include smacking: that would constitute an intrusion into the family home, and it would be almost impossible to secure any evidence. The fact that cases have been brought to court, however, proves that evidence of

      61
      unreasonable chastisement or chastisement with an implement can be obtained. School authorities, friends or parents may notice a mark on a child.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has defeated his own argument. He says that a smack is okay, but a smack was involved in the instance featuring children aged nine and two that he used to demonstrate the current confusion in the courts. I believe that at that time the court acted wisely and justly, and made a rational decision. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned a poke in the eye, and the hon. Gentleman himself said that the present law would recognise that. I think that he has made the case.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not agree. I was trying to illustrate the huge discrepancies in the interpretation of the word "reasonable". The position would be clear, however, if a child had been slapped in the face so hard that the evidence remained: that would undoubtedly come into the category of having caused pain for more than a short time. The hon. Gentleman asked what constituted a short time. He may have been such a perfect child that no hand was ever raised against him—there is always a possibility, although the suggestion may stretch the House's credulity—but he probably remembers what it was like to be given a smack on the bottom, and how long the pain lasted. A sensible approach would tell him what sort of time scale we are discussing.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned public opinion and political correctness. He may be interested to learn that only 3 per cent. of those surveyed by the System 3 poll to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred agreed that it should be lawful to hit a three-year-old child with a belt, stick or other object, and only 10 per cent. thought that it should be lawful to hit a 15-year-old with a belt, stick or other object. Given that the Conservatives' poll rating in Scotland is now about 11 per cent., some Conservatives—indeed, quite a number, even at that time—must have thought that the new clause makes good sense. Political correctness, if such it be, is clearly pervading the rump of Conservative support in Scotland.
      Opinion poll evidence is important in regard to a change in the law to reflect a change in social conditions. When taking such a step, it is important to carry public opinion. There are two categories: public opinion that considers it unlawful to use a stick, implement or object that would cause harm to a child, and the large body of opinion that would not consider it right to extend that as far as a smack. I believe that the Scottish Law Commission has got the balance right, reflecting public opinion. It is difficult to imagine what opposing arguments the Government may deploy.
      Unfortunately the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the Minister will remember our Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 5 December. The Secretary of State said:
      "The Bill is founded on principles derived from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 December 1994; c.4.]
      Let me remind the Minister that article 19(1) of that convention, which this country has ratified, states that parties to the convention must
      "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
      62
      maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
      I very much doubt whether our current legal position addresses that international obligation, into which the Government have voluntarily entered. I believe that the new clause would meet it, and I hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support this modest measure, which I believe is supported by public opinion. It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has not read the Scottish Law Commission report; if he had, he would have had second thoughts about many of the points that he made in his alarming and extreme speech. It concerns me that only four of his hon. Friends are present—five; another has just entered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six."] It also concerns me that Conservative Members may be whipped through the Lobby to support—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good debate this afternoon, and so far we have kept to the amendments. Let us keep to them now.
      Mr. Chisholm: I was only going to say that Conservative Members may be whipped to support the status quo and oppose the new clause.
      We have heard the definition of unreasonable chastisement in Scots law, which is very unsatisfactory. The judgment of whether a child is beaten unreasonably is highly subjective; as a result of that subjectivity, adults have been able to get away with inflicting severe beatings on Scottish children for years—indeed, centuries. The new clause attempts to change that subjective definition into one that is at least partly objective.
      It might be simpler to outlaw any kind of hitting, and I am personally attracted to that option, but I realise that it would go too far for public opinion. Many people still wish to administer a modest smack. The new clause tries to draw the line between such chastisement and the serious physical abuse that, as we all know, still goes on day in, day out in Scotland. I ask the hon. Member for Ayr and his colleagues to think seriously before opposing the measure in a knee-jerk reaction.
      Let me advance three arguments in support of the new clause. First, I instinctively feel—according to the Scottish Law Commission, the majority of Scottish people feel the same—that it is barbaric for adults to inflict pain on young people, particularly with sticks, belts and similar objects. That is just an emotional reaction but one of which I am proud. I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Ayr suggest that he approved even of the sort of barbarity that goes on in Singapore. Most people in this country have a natural revulsion against that and, indeed, physical violence of a less severe nature.
      If the Conservative party is not persuaded by and does not sympathise with that feeling, it should at least consider—I said this many times in Committee—that the Government have signed up to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. If that were taken seriously, the Government would have to support the new clause because that convention says that Governments must take legislative measures to prevent physical violence against children. As throughout the Bill, this is a simple matter of the rights of children. In the past, the

      63
      problem has often been that children have not been seen as full human beings. That is often why adults have felt able to beat children.
      6 pm
      My second argument against striking a child, apart from the simple barbarity of it, is that it is unnecessary. That should be clear if we look around society. Most children are brought up without such treatment and the majority of children are reasonably well behaved. We all know from our own experience that we do not have to treat children in such a way to get them to behave properly and to teach them the difference between right and wrong.
      We should consider what has happened in relation to schools. The hon. Member for Ayr will disagree, but he if had read the Scottish Law Commission report he would have realised that it had considered all the evidence on the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and found that that in itself did not make a significant difference. Those of us who have been teachers can add our personal experience to back that view. We know that it is not necessary to treat children in that way.
      The third argument that should be taken on board—again, reference was made to this in quite a lot of the evidence to the Scottish Law Commission—involves the long-term effect of such treatment on the children who receive it. This is perhaps the most important of all the arguments against such treatment. A wealth of evidence suggests that it makes children more aggressive and contributes to violent and anti-social behaviour. The Conservative party should consider that wealth of evidence.
      This is a serious point. If one talks to violent criminals in prisons, it is amazing how many of them have been physically abused. Violent figures in history have often suffered such abuse. It brings to mind the fact that this week Alice Miller's book, "The Drama of Being a Child" is republished. She has concentrated on the effect of severe physical beatings on dictators and other vicious characters in history. In this week of all weeks, it would not be inappropriate to reflect that that was one aspect of Adolf Hitler's background. It is important, therefore, that the Conservative party considers the effect of severe beatings on the character and behaviour of young people who must endure them.
      Subsection (2) may have something to do with the objections of the Conservative party. Of course the logical conclusion of not allowing parents to strike children in this way is not allowing other adults such as teachers to do so. We all know that certain private educational establishments still allow corporal punishment. It may be that a lobby made up of parents of children at such schools is influencing the Conservative party, but I urge it not to be so influenced or it will be seriously out of step with Scottish public opinion. I know that it is out of step with it on many issues, but it would be particularly regrettable if the Conservative party were to bury its head in the sand on this issue, ignore all the evidence and take what can only be described as a reactionary and deeply damaging position.
      Mr. Devlin: I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). We are all concerned that people should not be unduly flogged
      64
      or viciously assaulted. The question is not whether we agree that that is a satisfactory way to treat children—we all agree that it is not—but whether the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his hon. Friends is the best way to deal with the matter.
      I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he read article 19 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Having been on the Special Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill and having been approached by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others to sign the new clause, with which I have considerable sympathy, I have studied the matter carefully and spent some time on researching the issues around it. I have one or two reservations about supporting them and I shall tell them what they are.
      Article 19 could be interpreted as calling on the Government to outlaw smacking. Subsection (1) of the new clause states that it would not be a defence if a child were struck
      "(ii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, injury; or
      (iii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time."
      It all depends on how one interprets the words
      "to cause, or to risk causing".
      That is the difficulty. I can see why the Government are diffident about writing the new clause into the Bill.
      Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Gentleman has shown diligence in relation to the Bill, he will undoubtedly have read the Scottish Law Commission's report, which considered that very point: whether the United Nations convention—
      Mr. Devlin: I am coming to that.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will note, however, that the report concluded that the convention did not outlaw an ordinary smack any more than it outlawed an ordinary scolding.
      Mr. Devlin: The hon. Member for Hamilton, who opened the debate so well, rightly said that the proposal had been lifted directly from the Scottish Law Commission report. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I have read the report. It states:
      "The vagueness of the existing law exposes children to risk of quite severe violence which parents may believe, rightly or wrongly, to be legally permissible".
      That is the whole point. The difficulty is whether their learned Lordships—and I am an English, not a Scottish lawyer—are correct in their interpretation of the law as it stands.
      Under the new clause, the use of such objects as belts or sticks to chastise a child would be outlawed, as would a violent blow. Subsection (4) of the new clause states that section 12(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 should be repealed. That is the existing Scottish law. My understanding of that law is that a violent blow would he construed as an assault on the

      65
      child, and that it would not be a reasonable defence if parents said that they were only administering reasonable parental chastisement.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Devlin: I should like to cover a few more points.
      One or two important points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said that we would not allow adults to hit each other with sticks and belts, and that we would not allow them to hit animals with whips, belts or other instruments of that nature, but an interesting distinction exists. We would not allow adults to slap each other—a point that I put to him in an intervention. In Scottish law, a slap, and even the placing of a hand on an arm, is construed as an assault. We allow parents, however, reasonably to chastise their children, and the new clause would still allow parents to administer some reasonable chastisement in the way of a slap.
      Of course, the position is different in relation to animals because some animals must be controlled with the use of sticks, straps or whips. That is an everyday part of the animal's management. Anyone who rides a horse knows that it is permissible to strike it with a crop. We see that on our television screens most Saturday afternoons. No one prosecutes jockeys for administering some reasonable encouragement to the horse to run faster, so I do not want to get involved in that point.
      The new clause would repeal the existing law—the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937—which makes assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting or abandoning children a criminal offence. It would also repeal section 12(7), which allows any parent, teacher or person with lawful control to administer punishment. That, together with the extensive associated case law, leaves individual sheriffs and judges to decide what constitutes reasonable chastisement of children.
      The law in this area can be confusing. However, in any area the law has to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. That is why I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there was a great of difference depending on the age of the child. He pointed to a case highlighted by the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children of a judge ruling on appeal that it was reasonable for a mother to use a belt on her nine-year-old daughter, but not reasonable for a mother to slap a two-year-old in the face. Obviously, there would be different degrees of physical chastisement for different children. No one would condone—and no one does under current Scottish law—the use of sticks or straps on very small children.
      The proposers of the new clause say that it would significantly tighten the law in this area, provide clear parameters within which sheriffs can exercise discretion and provide a clear statement to parents about what is acceptable physical chastisement for children.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Does he accept that one difficulty is that parents do not necessarily know what the law is? Would he hazard a guess at what age, under current Scottish law, it might be legitimate for a parent to take a belt to a child and at what age it might be illegitimate?
      Mr. Devlin: As I understand it, there is no age divide—[Interruption.] I am happy to stand corrected if I am
      66
      wrong. I understand that a parent can chastise a child of about 13 with a belt. That has been held to be acceptable in many cases. However, doing so with a child of 10 has been held to be unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman obviously knows Scottish law better than I do.
      There is a problem with the arguments put forward by those who support the new clause. If they want to outlaw all physical chastisement, they have a good case. However, the new clause covers only belts, straps and other instruments. That leaves rather confused arguments. I have great sympathy with the view of the Scottish Law Commission that a safe disciplinary slap involving no risk of injury and no more than transient pain would be no more unlawful under the proposals than it is under existing law. Therefore, why is it necessary to change existing law?
      I agree that there should be some guidance. Currently, the discretion to decide what constitutes reasonable physical chastisement lies with individual sheriffs. The question is whether the new clause is the best way to secure the clarity of guidance sought by my colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
      Mrs. Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman feels that we are least travelling in a direction of which he approves—even if we are not going all the way that he would want us to go—will he vote with us so that we can at least achieve some improvement in the law, or will he stick with his hon. Friends who are opposed to any change in the law? Has he read the Scottish Law Commission's statement that the current law is vague and that individual children are suffering because of that?
      Mr. Devlin: In fact, earlier in my speech I read that part of the Scottish Law Commission's report into the record. The hon. Lady must have missed it. The current law appears to work quite well, taking into account the fact that it has to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. I can tell her that I always endeavour to support my hon. Friend the Minister if I possibly can. I look forward with great interest to what he has to say.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: As I have listened to the debate, I have been struck by the enormous change in climate that has occurred over the past 10 to 20 years. Had we been having this debate all those years ago, dozens of Conservative Members would have stood up not just to oppose the new clause, but vigorously to state the case for the efficiency of corporal punishment. Today, not a single Conservative Member has said that corporal punishment is the best way to enforce discipline. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) came closest to doing so when he referred to what happens in Singapore and said that crime there had been wiped out by the use of corporal punishment. I do not want to argue with him, but as Singapore is still using corporal punishment, it cannot be working.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Gentleman also said that a section of public opinion believes that behaviour would be much better if the belt was still available in schools and if the birch—or the cane, in England—was still available as corporal punishment for misdemeanours. Those who hold that view express it vociferously, but the Scottish Law Commission takes a different view. An interesting point is that there was a tremendously higher level of violence in Glasgow in the days of the razor gangs, when corporal

      67
      punishment was routinely administered day by day in primary and secondary schools and by parents. Treating violence with violence does not work.
      There appears to be a nostalgic view about the use of violence in the past. It struck me as perverse that the press should have presented the funeral of one of the Kray twins as a coming together and healing of the community. There was a suggestion that when the Krays were not in prison, but were carrying out their foul deeds on the streets of east London, it was some sort of paradise. Where does such a nostalgic view come from? I certainly do not know. The truth is that the use of violence, whether by an adult against an adult or by an adult against a child, is wrong. It cannot be justified by giving it some sort of legal respectability.
      The climate has changed and it is our duty not only to take account of that, but to try to persuade people that there is a better way of enforcing discipline and a much better way of teaching children the difference between right and wrong than to try to beat sense into them.
      I am not a lawyer, but when a question of law has been examined by the Scottish Law Commission I feel that, unless there are very powerful arguments to the contrary, we should support the commission's. What it wants done is quite clear; it has set it out for us. I believe that, in this case, we are duty bound to accept it. I hope that the Government will do so.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When considering this subject, it is useful to examine the current position under the law. A parent can exercise a degree of discipline and moderate chastisement upon his or her children. However, the punishment must be moderate and reasonable in relation to its end. If it is, that constitutes a defence to a charge of cruelty to the child, to a charge of criminal assault and to a claim for damages for civil assault. Discipline is not a right in the strict sense, but a parental power or authority. There is no reason why its exercise cannot be delegated—for example, by a widow or other single mother with an unruly son—to the child's uncle or grandfather.
      On the question of the United Nations convention on human rights, in no Scottish case has the exercise of disciplinary powers over children been held to contravene its prohibition, in article 3, of inhuman or degrading punishment. However, the developing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—although its decisions are not directly enforceable—may influence views of reasonableness.
      I mentioned earlier that only reasonable and moderate chastisement is permitted. What is today acceptable punishment by parents may well be limited to slaps and the like which do not cause injury, extensive bruising or long and lasting pain. Excess definitely constitutes an assault. What constitutes excess will vary according to the circumstances of the case, including the age, sex and any known disabilities or weaknesses of the child. Factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration and its physical and mental effects will all be taken into account.
      To slap a child of any age on the face or to knock a child over is an act as remote from reasonable chastisement as anybody could possibly imagine. Punishment which is intended to cause significant physical injury or which is inflicted in disregard of a
      68
      readily foreseeable risk of such injury is clearly excessive. Punishment that goes beyond the reasonable objectives of discipline and is degrading or grossly humiliating is definitely excessive. Where punishment is inflicted without any justification at all or is out of proportion to the triviality of the offence, it may be wrongful and constitute an assault although the physical results may not have been otherwise excessive. An objectionable method of punishment may also constitute excess, irrespective of whether physical harm results.
      The court will not sanction as moderate or reasonable punishment which carries with it an appreciable risk of injury, even if that injury does not materialise or is not shown. In any event, it appears that there are certain methods of punishment which are to be regarded as improper and that blows to the head generally come into that category.
      Dr. Godman: If the law is so comprehensive in protecting children from what the Minister has described as moderate or reasonable chastisement, why has the Law Commission presented the argument for reform?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Law Commission provides an invaluable function, but we have a duty to examine its terms very closely. The test that I would apply is that any change in the law should not prevent the court from deciding that an excessive punishment of a child is unlawful.
      I have some sympathy with the intention behind the new clause. It is my view that no violence to children should be justifiable under the guise of punishment. On the other hand, we certainly do not want to criminalise the great majority of parents who occasionally have to resort to a safe smack, if only to safeguard their unruly offspring. The law as its stands—both statutory and common law—already offers sufficient protection to children from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children. We must resist new clause 1 as it may prevent the courts from arriving at the conclusion that they felt right in the circumstances.
      The Law Commission, in its "Report on Family Law", discussed whether all corporal punishment should be made unlawful. It concluded—rightly in my view—that an outright ban would not have popular support, nor would it be enforceable. Instead, it recommended clarifying the law to make it unlawful to hit a child with a stick, belt or other object or in such a way as to risk causing injury, pain or discomfort lasting for more than a very short period of time. In essence, that is the principle of new clause 1. But I must make Labour Members aware that the formula that they have adopted would not necessarily achieve the objective sought.
      New clause 1 would place unnecessary constraints on the power of the courts to take all the circumstances of each case into consideration. That has proved to be a key factor in recent case history. Some reports in the media of such cases may have been misleading. There was the unfortunate case of the girl whose thigh was bruised by a belt. In fact, in that case, the court did not say that it approved of belting children. It found that after taking account of all the circumstances, the act of the mother could not be categorised as criminal.
      It has also been pointed out that a blow to the head of a two-year-old was found to be unreasonable. I find that entirely credible. A blow with a hand to the head may be much more dangerous for a young child than for an older

      69
      child being struck with an implement on a less sensitive part of the anatomy. A court has to take many things into account in determining if punishment is reasonable, such as age, sex and known disabilities or weaknesses, the manner and method of execution, duration and the physical and mental effects of what has occurred.
      New clause I may limit courts to only two factors: the use of the implement and discomfort lasting more than a very short period of time. I fear that that may force a court to come to a decision that it did not feel was justified given all the circumstances of the case. It may lead to a court finding against a parent who administered a light tap with some inoffensive—
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In a moment. It may lead to a court finding against a parent who administered a light tap with some inoffensive implement, while someone giving a much more severe blow with the hand may escape censure.
      Dr. Godman: When were guidelines last issued to sheriffs, especially new sheriffs or temporary sheriffs—these days there seem to be more temporary sheriffs than those with security of tenure—concerning the Minister's definition of what is reasonable chastisement?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Any excessive force against a child in any circumstances should be prohibited and could give rise to a charge of assault. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) raised—
      Mrs. Ewing rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to follow through this point. My hon. Friend made a very important point when he raised the question of reasonable punishment being a defence to a charge of assault. That is an assumption on which the new clause is based. It seems to restrict that defence so that it is not available in certain circumstances, such as where a parent strikes the child with a stick. But reasonable punishment is strictly not a defence to a charge of assault. A mother who hits a child may be prosecuted for assault under common law. An essential ingredient of that crime is the existence of evil intent. The courts have held that there is no evil intent when all that the parent did was to administer reasonable punishment to the child. It is not therefore the case that the assault is established and reasonable punishment constitutes a defence. Where there is reasonable punishment, there is no assault at all. The new clause therefore appears to miss its mark entirely.
      There are other technical difficulties with the new clause.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me develop the argument and then lion. Members may intervene if they wish. Courts would have some difficulties interpreting subsection (1)(iii) of the new clause. Under it, a parent would have no defence if the child were struck
      "in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr asked what was a very short period of time. It would be very hard to judge that other than by subjective standards. For example, would the length depend on the seriousness of the
      70
      misdemeanour? More importantly, since the test would arise where there is no injury, it is extremely hard to see how anyone could ever tell whether the pain lasted more than a very short time or, indeed, risked doing so.
      Other important points concern me. What is meant by "other object"? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr considered whether it would be legitimate to hit a child with an Order Paper. Would it be legitimate to hit a child in the eye or to use a heavy magazine? Whenever excessive force is used, it should be prohibited and the necessary action taken.
      The effect of paragraph (ii) of the new clause is not clear and I fear would do nothing to clarify the law. There are a number of deficiencies in the new clause.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister's response so far has been somewhat unconvincing. He seems to be saying that the new clause does not provide what he would consider to be a satisfactory solution to the problem. Given that a United Nations committee chastised the British Government earlier in the year specifically on the ground that there was no legislation in force to avoid physical punishment to children, what proposals would he see as being appropriate to deal with this area, which would meet and honour our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Appropriate proposals would create a situation in which the courts may consider any and every case in which excessive force against a child is used. I do not believe that the new clause helps the creation of that situation for the following reasons. It is impossible to enforce. It misses the legal point and therefore would not be effective, which I mentioned earlier. It limits the court's power to take all the facts of the case into account. It lacks objectivity as to what is a very short period of time and it categorises a gentle blow with a soft object as worse than a hard blow with a hand. For all those reasons, the new clause in its present form is defective and I recommend that the House rejects it.
      Mr. George Robertson: This has been a considered debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House made serious points on one of the most serious issues that the House could possibly consider, but the Minister's reply did not live up to the debate.
      6.30 pm
      We are talking about violence against small children. That is what we are trying to prevent. We are trying to clarify the law so that no body, and no parent, can hide behind the vagueness of the present law in order to inflict pain and injury on small children. That seems to be one of the most important issues that we could address our minds to. Quite frankly, the complacency and unconvincing nature of the Government's case would lead anyone with any objectivity outside this place to believe that they had made up their minds in advance and were simply repeating their points.
      Mr. Devlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we are all seeking to protect small children from violence, the new clause will also prevent reasonable chastisement of young hooligans who are considerably older than very small children?
      Mr. Robertson: Of course we are trying to implement the same principles. However, when hon. Members go

      71
      through the Lobby tonight, they should consider the fact that we are about to make a judgment based on a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission on how we can prevent physical violence against even the smallest children. That should be weighed in the balance and should persuade hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the recommendation.
      I return to what I said at the beginning of my comments and make a simple elementary point. This new clause did not come from the Labour party. It has not been tabled in a partisan context. Word for word, it is the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission. If the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) wants to make a few cheap political points about political correctness, perhaps he should consider that the accusation of political correctness—
      Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the charge before he pleads guilty to it. To make an allegation of political correctness against Lord Davidson, Dr. Clive, Professor Love, Sheriff Macphail and Mr. W. A. Nimmo Smith QC is perverse in the extreme. However, it is an indication of the weakness of the case of the hon. Member for Ayr. At least the hon. Member for Ayr has the honesty to say that he has not even read the Scottish Law Commission report before he makes a decision here tonight which might save some small children from violence and which might change a law behind which negligent and evil parents might hide when it comes to a court of law.
      Mr. Gallie: My objection to the new clause is that it does nothing for young children. The present law covers the situation, as has been acknowledged in the debate. That is the point. The new clause would simply confuse the issue.
      Mr. Robertson: In all fairness, if I thought that that was the case, I would not support the new clause tonight. I do not believe that if the hon. Gentleman had read the Scottish Law Commission report, he would have reached that conclusion. The commission considered the issue in enormous depth and it consulted widely, here and abroad, and reached its conclusion. It stated that its proposal, which is the proposition before the House tonight, would
      "draw the line at a point which could be easily explained and understood. No implement. No injury or risk of injury. No lasting pain or discomfort or risk of lasting pain or discomfort."
      That is the line which those eminent lawyers and people looking at the issue arrived at. However, they have met a wall of trivia from the Government.
      We are told that if someone is hit by an Order Paper or receives a light tap from an implement, there might be a risk of prosecution—as if there was no procurator fiscal service in Scotland and no public prosecutor could decide between the trivial and the real. In the past, the procurator fiscal service has had to make the judgment about what was real and proper. All that is swept aside in order to make debating points.
      The Scottish Law Commission report considered the point that was made in the debate. It stated that
      "A safe disciplinary smack, involving no risk of injury and no more than transient pain would be no more unlawful than it is under existing law."
      72
      The commission addressed itself to the excess referred to by the Minister. It considered the excess of some parents against small children. We have a heavy responsibility on us today as to whether we believe that the Scottish Law Commission was wrong and irrelevant and that we will simply rely on the present vagueness of the law, which has unfortunately led to some parents receiving precisely the wrong signal, or whether we accept our responsibilities, consider the commission's advice and accept that new clause 1, which enshrines the commission's wording, is something that would give the additional protection to small children.
      In the face of the Government's hostility, I hope that hon. Members will decide that we should be on the side of the children and that they will vote in favour of new clause 1.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 260.

      Division No. 138]

      [6.39 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Denham, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dewar, Donald

      Allen, Graham

      Dixon, Don

      Alton, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashton, Joe

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Austin-Walker, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Banks, Tony (Newham.NW)

      Enright, Derek

      Barnes, Harry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Battle, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bayley, Hugh

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fraser, John

      Berry, Roger

      Fyfe, Maria

      Betts, Clive

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boateng, Paul

      Galloway, George

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gapes, Mike

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

      Garrett, John

      Burden, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, Stephen

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Graham, Thomas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Church, Judith

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Gunnell, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hall, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cock, Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Davidson, Ian

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jamieson, David

      73

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Tessa

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Keen, Alan

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Purchase, Ken

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lewis, Terry

      Redmond, Martin

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Reid, Dr John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rendel, David

      McAllion, John

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McCartney, Ian

      Rooney, Terry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McFall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McMaster, Gordon

      Short, Clare

      McNamara, Kevin

      Simpson, Alan

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Mandelson, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Spellar, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meale, Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Michael, Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Milburn, Alan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wallace, James

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mudie, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Winnick, David

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wray, Jimmy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Olner, Bill

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mr. Joe Benton.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowis, John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Amess, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Ancram, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Atkins, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Butcher, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Butler, Peter

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Butterfill, John

      Bates, Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Booth, Hartley

      Coe, Sebastian

      Boswell, Tim

      Congdon, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      74

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knapman, Roger

      Day, Stephen

      Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Devlin, Tim

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

      Dicks, Terry

      Knox, Sir David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dover, Den

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan, Alan

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lord, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Luff, Peter

      Faber, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Madel, Sir David

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forth, Eric

      Malone, Gerald

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      French, Douglas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gallie, Phil

      Merchant, Piers

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mills, Iain

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Garnier, Edward

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gill, Christopher

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Norris, Steve

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hague, William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Page, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Paice, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Patrick, Sir Irvine

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Harris, David

      Pawsey, James

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pickles, Eric

      Hawkins, Nick

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heald, Oliver

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Richards, Rod

      Horam, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

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

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Sackville, Tom

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      75

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Shersby, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Walden, George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Ward, John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spring, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sproat, Iain

      Watts, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Stewart, Allan

      Wilkinson, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Willetts, David

      Sumberg, David

      Wilshire, David

      Sykes, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thomason, Roy

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2

      AWARD OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PARENTAL RIGHTS TO FATHER
      —(1) Where a child's father does not have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to him and the mother and father have not agreed to provide for the father to have such responsibilities or rights, the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so—

      (i) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth; and

      (ii) no later than a maximum number of years to be prescribed by the Secretary of State from the date of the child's birth if during the intervening time he had no active part in providing for or caring for the child.

      (2) Before awarding parental responsibilities and parental rights under subsection (1) above, the court shall satisfy itself that arrangements are made for these rights to be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the address of the mother if she does not wish him to have such information.

      (3) Where a father awarded parental responsibilities or parental rights under subsection (1) above is subsequently convicted of any offence involving violence or of any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply) or in sections 2A to 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (incest and intercourse with a child by step-parent or person in position of trust), or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental responsibilities and parental rights will terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights.'.—[Mrs. Fyfe.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I take this opportunity to mention my appreciation for the help and support freely given by my hon. Friends during the Committee which was of inestimable benefit while we were dealing with a difficult and complex issue.
      76
      To put the new clause into context, it is necessary to look at what the Bill has set out. All mothers—regardless of whether they have been married or not at any time—have parental responsibilities and rights. Few dispute that where there are rights, there must be responsibilities. Indeed, the Bill has put a new emphasis on parental responsibilities.
      There is widespread agreement that rights are needed to be able to exercise responsibilities. But where there are responsibilities, there must also be safeguards. The law should come to the aid of those mothers and children who are subjected to violence, abuse and intimidation far more than it does at present.
      The Bill is clear about the protection of fathers' interests. Any father married to the mother at the time of conception has automatically gained parental responsibilities and rights. An unmarried father may acquire such rights by agreement with the mother, failing which he can take his case to court. We pointed out in vain in Committee that a mother may agree under duress, and that there is no protection in the Bill to overcome that. A man and a woman can be extricated from an unwanted marriage which has been imposed under duress, but nothing can be done to overcome duress in a shared parenting agreement. We must remember that the parents involved could be very young, as the Government's own amendment No. 116 reinforces.
      The Bill contains a process whereby an unmarried father can take his case to court if the mother refuses agreement. That is not in the least disputed by Opposition Members. It is right that where a father is unreasonably denied parental responsibilities and rights by the mother, the law should provide a remedy for that father. It is for the child's benefit that that should be so. I also sympathise with those anguished fathers who have written to me and who are at present denied access to the children they love. They are looking forward to restoring happy relations with their children under the provisions of the Bill, even if there is no hope of restoring good relations with the mother.
      The Bill contains provisions for rights for fathers who have been unreasonably denied them. But what of those cases where the mother's disagreement is entirely fair and reasonable and where we would doubt her sanity and her sense of responsibility for her children if she agreed to share rights and responsibilities with the father? The Bill does not provide for that situation. It is no answer to say that the mother can state her case in court. It is not clear whether either party would receive legal aid in such a case, and as men generally earn a lot more than women—especially women who are bringing up children—the woman would be put at an immediate disadvantage.
      The new clause seeks to provide some initial safeguards and says that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a father cannot apply to the courts any earlier than three months from the date of the baby's birth. This would safeguard the mother's interests in a similar fashion to that involved in adoption law, which allows a mother time to think and decide following the birth of her baby. It cannot seriously inconvenience the father to be made to wait for a mere three months, and many a father of a newborn baby might jocularly wish that he had no responsibility for the infant and that the mother had to carry out all of the less pleasant tasks associated with baby care.
      The second provision of the clause is that, again unless there are exceptional circumstances, a father should not be able to apply to the courts if, during a number of

      77
      years—the amount of which I am happy to let the Secretary of State lay down—he has had no active part in providing or caring for the child. While safeguarding fathers who do care for their children, this provision would safeguard mothers and children from the kind of man they could well do without. What excuse could there possibly be for a father who sends no money or items in kind to help with his child's upkeep, sends no letters or cards and makes no effort to carry out his fatherly responsibilities?
      In Committee, the Minister rather fancifully envisaged wandering sailors as such a case, but even sailors have access to modern communications and shore leave, which—as far as I know—has not yet been withdrawn. However, to allow for the rarer possibilities in life—a father who is sunk in a coma in a country where no one speaks English, perhaps—I have allowed for exceptional circumstances. It would be for the courts to decide if those circumstances were sufficiently exceptional.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause should cause no one any difficulty. It ensures that the court must satisfy itself that when it grants parental rights and responsibilities to a father, those rights will be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the mother's whereabouts if she does not wish him to have that information.
      Sadly, we learnt while the Committee was sitting of a mother who was killed by her ex-husband while their young son hid in fear. The husband had obtained her address from the reporter to the children's hearing on three separate occasions. The Minister has agreed to ensure that, in future, such information will not be disclosed during or following the children's hearing if the mother does not wish it to be disclosed. It is only logical to extend the protection of women's safety to the courts in cases such as I am discussing now.
      Finally, subsection (3) of the new clause provides further and necessary protection against violence, intimidation and abuse. If a father abuses the parental responsibilities and rights which are granted to him by the court and is convicted of an offence involving violence or abuse against children or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental rights and responsibilities will terminate pending any further application by him to the court for restoration of his responsibilities and rights.
      It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face that a father who is guilty of such offences is hardly demonstrating fitness for parenthood, and the law should take account of that without delay. As matters stand, such a father could be convicted of the most appalling crimes against children or the most extreme violence against his former partner, but retain his parental rights and responsibilities until further court actions are taken—perhaps many months later. Mothers can obtain interdicts, but the kind of man about whom we are talking will as readily break his ex-partner's neck as break an interdict.
      The Bill provides for parents who have responsibility for their children, regardless of marital status. But recognition of the rights of responsible and loving fathers who do not live with their children must not carry the price of added difficulties for parents who have demonstrated daily their commitment by living with the child and caring for his needs, day in and day out.
      78
      Domestic violence, unfortunately, is not rare in Scotland. Scottish Women's Aid received more than 25,000 requests for information, support and safe refuge in 1993–94. Yet the Bill makes no mention of domestic violence. If the welfare of the child is to be paramount—as I believe it should be and as the Bill rightly stresses—the law of the land must protect the rights of the child and the parent who cares for him or her from violence and abuse, and the fear of violence and abuse.
      If the Government refuse to accept this new clause tonight and call upon their colleagues once again to come into the Lobby and vote it down, unheard and unexamined, it will stand to their eternal shame. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. William McKelvey: I rise to support new clause 2. I do so because I have studied carefully the documentation that was despatched to me from many sources, but particularly Women's Aid and Kilmarnock and Loudoun Women's Aid, an organisation with which I am often in contact, not for abusing my wife or children but because I take an interest and to assist those women who are under severe provocation from their partners.
      The absence of a specific reference to domestic violence would substantially detract from the value of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that, if the troops are gathered simply to vote the new clause down without examining it, it will be an indictment of them.
      7 pm
      Abuse of women and children in society, and certainly Scottish society, is prevalent. It is a matter of concern to all women and all children and it should be of concern to all Members of Parliament. At present, there are almost twice as many children as women in Women's Aid refuges in Scotland. The best interests of those children must be paramount in law. That has been said throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
      The experience of Women's Aid in Scotland clearly shows that the breakdown in contact between many fathers and their children is due largely to disinterest on the part of the father or the level of fear created by his abuse of either the wife or the children or, in some cases, both. I am speaking on this occasion about those violent husbands who abuse their wives and children. I am not talking about those husbands who look after the interests of their wife and children but who, for whatever reason, have decided to separate honourably. Their rights are still protected. I think that all of us would agree with that.
      The Women's Aid network in Scotland supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill. The new clause seeks to limit the period within which a father can exercise his right to apply to a court for parental rights. That is quite proper. It seeks to maintain the confidentiality of the address at which a woman resides, if she does not wish the father to have such information. Many Members of Parliament know about the difficulties caused at women's refuges when the husband secures the address at which his wife or former wife is staying and goes to the premises to create a commotion or abuse her.
      Scottish Women's Aid supports the new clause, first because it would restrict fathers' rights to claim parental rights after an unduly long absence and, secondly, because

      79
      it would increase the safety of women and children where they have escaped domestic abuse and the father has access rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said that the new clause might help to guard against future fatalities such as that of Jacqueline McFetvich, who was killed last year by her abusive husband after her address was released on not one but three occasions by the reporter to the children's panel.
      It is vital that the connection between abuse and parental rights be enshrined in law to the effect that, where abuse occurs, evidence of which would result in a conviction or a protection order, parental rights will go into abeyance. The father will be required to reapply to the court to reinstate those rights under the conditions outlined.
      I take this opportunity to explain that I did not have the opportunity or privilege to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Due to some recorded mistake, many people have written to me under the impression that I was a member of the Committee. I have to advise them that I did not serve on the Standing Committee, although I chaired the meetings of the Special Standing Committee which took evidence on the Bill. I understand that, by protocol, that does not exclude me from speaking in the debate tonight. I wanted to put that matter on the record lest some of my constituents might think that I served on a Committee in which I never uttered a word. That, of course, would be unforgivable as well as unforgettable.
      Mr. Connarty: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) for the way in which he chaired the Special Standing Committee. It was my first experience of such a Committee. I believe that not many hon. Members who serve on Committees which consider Bills have the experience of taking evidence from the public. Many organisations wrote to us. Many could not be called, because there were too many. The sessions that we held were eased by the chairmanship of my hon. Friend. So his contribution was great, although he was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and therefore did not take part in the debates on the clauses.
      I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for bringing the clause back to the House. We missed such an opportunity in the Committee. If we did not create even this small door to be opened to the possibility of joint parenting agreements by application to the courts, we would not have a chance to restore some of the missed opportunities.
      In England and Wales, under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, only 5,000 agreements in any year are signed between the mother and the unmarried father of a child, under which the father is given responsibility for the child. That has grown from 2,500. As I said in Committee, one of the reasons for the low number of agreements is that people think that when they jointly register a child at birth, they automatically assume joint parental responsibility. The reality is that fathers have no rights and, more important, no responsibilities for the child apart from those which the Child Support Agency might eventually slap on them. Fathers think that they have rights because they have gone along with the mother to register the birth of the child. So we have a chance to introduce some joint responsibility in subsection (1) of new clause 2.
      80
      Some 30 per cent. of children in Scotland are born outside a married relationship, so there is probably a large number of children at this moment who have no father with a clear responsibility for them and whose father will have no clear responsibility or rights when the Bill becomes statute. I deeply regret that. For the good of our nation, I hope that some Government bolder than this one will take the opportunity to put it into law that when people have joint parenthood, they have joint responsibilities and rights and they are excluded from those rights only by some act of either omission or commission which makes them unfit to take those rights.
      I welcome subsection (1) of the new clause. It allows a father who is serious and sincere, and who has been excluded from parental rights perhaps because there have been tensions or acrimony between the mother and the father, to go to court and apply for those rights. The idea that it should not be done early in the life of the child is to be commended because in those months the mother is under tremendous stress. She may be in hospital; she may be in contact with the hospital and doctors for three months and more. Three months seems a reasonable period of application. Some would argue that the period should be longer, until the mother has got over any problems with post-natal depression or any problems with the child. After that, she can cope with an application to share responsibility when the couple may have broken up their relationship.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) used the word "waster" to describe the type of father who is apathetic. That is the word used by the Women's Aid organisation about fathers who go away and return on some opportunistic basis, thinking that they would like to have the ready-made family that their partner or former wife has brought up. They claim rights as if they were claiming back a possession. Those people should clearly be forbidden from coming back and demanding rights in that way. That was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill in drafting the new clause in the way that she has.
      The idea that fathers should have no knowledge of the address of the mother is important. It is the children who have rights. I have argued all along and continue to argue, and many enlightened organisations correctly argue, that the child should have the right to see both parents. No adults, because of their acrimony to another—unless the other person has been violent or abusive to them or to the children—should deny children that right. I hope that in that spirit the Government will see that we are trying to provide an open door.
      Subsection (2), which says that the father should have no knowledge of the mother's address, deals with the concern that there should be no need to contact the former parent. The parent should not be made to come into contact with a former parent whom she does not want to see. That happens in a few cases. We must think and the Government must think about how to do that better. As it is the child and the parent who have the contact, it should not be a trauma for the residential parent. The residential parent should not have to go to a place where it might be necessary to come in contact with the parent who wishes to see the child. It is a question not just of no knowledge

      81
      but of ensuring that there is no forced contact or contact by error because I think that it was an error that caused the death which we heard about in Committee.
      Dr. Godman: I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. He spoke about access. Does he agree that we frequently come across cases in which an absent parent's access to a child is supervised by a social worker or some other person in a place that is away from where the child is living with his mother?
      Mr. Connarty: That is a useful intervention because it shows the Government that there is already good practice in this area. The social work department or some other body, although in Scotland it is mainly the social work department, is responsible for uplifting the child and taking him to a mutually acceptable environment. It is important that children are not taken to cold, dank halls in which there is a physical barrier between them and the second parent who comes to see them. The environment should be such that the child and the second parent have genuine access and contact. Even if they are not supervised all the time, the responsibility for bringing the child to the place of contact should certainly lie with a third party unless the residential parent is capable and willing to meet and make contact with the father.
      Subsection (3) of the new clause is about positive parenting. The purpose of the new clause is to show the Government that if parental responsibility were automatically shared it would safeguard the residential partner, in the main the woman, from any form of contact with an unsuitable person. All the issues that are outlined in subsection (3) are reasons why a parent should be kept away from the family that he has abused, threatened or committed violence against. Such people should be prevented from re-establishing contact with the child.
      These 40 pages of amendments were stuck down on Friday for debate today. To act in that a way on a Bill of such magnitude and importance shows that the Government are half-hearted about what they are trying to do. They are tied up with bureaucratic difficulties and missing fantastic opportunities to use the UN convention on the rights of the child and enact useful and expansive legislation for children.
      The new clause puts children first because my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has obviously focused on the child. It is interesting to note that the organisation in Scotland which used to be called the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is now called Children First. It has got the message but it appears that the Government have not. However, if they at least accept this new clause there will be a slight lowering of the barriers that the Government's myopic, weak and half-hearted thinking have put in the way of the kind of legislation that we thought we would get when we set out on this journey so many months ago.
      Mr. Wallace: I support the new clause, which should automatically commend itself to the Government. It promotes responsibility because, when a father applies to the court, it is to acquire not only rights in respect of the child but responsibilities. I am sure that every hon. Member has had plenty of correspondence over the past year or more from fathers who were being pursued by the Child Support Agency, many of whom were exercising responsibility through what they were paying for their children.
      82
      But responsibility is far more than money, although I am the first to accept that resources and money can go a long way towards improving a family's life style and helping in other ways. There are other responsibilities, many of which are set out in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has struck the right balance in her new clause. It would not apply to cases in which there is agreement between the parties, and provision for such agreement is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. It would relate to a situation in which there has been some reason for blocking the father's attempts to exercise rights and responsibilities in relation to the child. Therefore, the provision to ensure that an application to the court is not made prematurely while a mother is recovering from childbirth—
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has a vast knowledge of Scottish law, and may be able to help me. When a father makes such an application to a court, presumably the estranged wife or partner would have the right to challenge it. Would she be able to have recourse to legal aid?
      Mr. Wallace: Although the clause does not refer to that, I automatically assumed that the mother would have a right of challenge and would be entitled to apply for legal aid.
      Provision is made for the address of the mother to be kept from the father when serving the action. I am not sure how that would work in practice because the father would take the initiative, and it is difficult to know how he could serve the action if he did not have knowledge of the mother's address. However, I am sure that court rules could get round that. The intention is proper, and there should be the will to try to find the legal and procedural means to put the intention into practice.
      My final point relates to subsection (3). We have had representations from Scottish Women's Aid, which says that, in many cases, an application by a father who may have been absent for some time can be made purely to try to renew abuse or perpetrate some psychological harm. Clearly that is not the intention of the new clause, and the provision in subsection (3) is important to give protection in circumstances where a father seeks to abuse legal procedures.
      7.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: I doubt whether the new clause will be accepted. I asked the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) whether the estranged partner or wife of a man making an application could challenge it. If she could, and if she had a low income, I take it that she would be able to receive legal aid. Many women constituents of mine who have had to seek refuge from violent partners or husbands have been on low incomes and faced all kinds of problems.
      I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I happily support the new clause; women have to be protected. It is essential that the address of a refuge should not be divulged to a partner who has committed violence or where the woman has a genuine fear that violence may be inflicted upon her.
      Cases in which the address of a refuge has been given to an estranged partner cause me considerable concern. Not long ago, I interviewed a young woman at my surgery

      83
      who had been subjected to the most appalling violence by her partner. I am not sure that he is psychopathic, but it is very strange that he should inflict such violence on a young woman. At the same time, he has shown only love and affection for his children, who have suffered no violence. The poor young wife has been the victim of his wild, senseless acts of violence.
      Where women need to seek refuge, it is essential that they be protected. Many refuges have no security, and once the partner has discovered the address, he can put the fear of God not only into his wife or partner but into other women in the refuge, especially if he turns up at night. I know of one refuge, the address of which was given out readily to husbands who had rightly been deserted by their wives, who were in fear not only of their own lives but of those of their children.
      Although a father should have parental responsibilities and rights, it is essential that the woman concerned has the right to seek protection against him, especially, as subsection (3) states, where he has been
      "convicted of any offence involving violence or any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply)".
      As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), it is possible to give violent fathers supervised access to their children without revealing the children's address, unless the children unwittingly give the game away and reveal the address to their parents.
      Two constituents of mine can see their children only at a place designated by the social worker responsible for the care of the children concerned. Both the mother and father can see their children only in the company of the senior social worker responsible for the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East expressed concern that such meetings should not lead to the revealing of the address where the children are staying. That is perfectly manageable, given the sensible and sympathetic intervention of, say, a social worker.
      If the Government will not accept new clause 2, they have a duty to take those concerns on board, particularly in respect of women who have had to seek refuge. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. I occasionally visit the office of the women who run Inverclyde Women's Aid in West Blackall street in Greenock. The last time that I was in that office, they were receiving calls from Lanarkshire, Grampian and Aberdeen.
      Just before I left, a call came in from Cornwall, where a woman with two children needed desperately to put as many miles as she could between herself and her children and her violent partner. So the Women's Aid offices in Inverclyde and Kilmarnock do not deal just with local women, but are often called on to protect women and their children from all points of the compass. It is therefore essential that reporters and others do not reveal the location of refuges. Those who have done so in the past are guilty of irresponsibility towards those women and their children.
      I am keen to hear what the Minister will say in rejecting the new clause. My concern is for the children and their mothers who must seek refuge in the growing number of refuges in Scotland and elsewhere.
      Mr. Chisholm: The rights and responsibilities of unmarried fathers have been one of the more contentious
      84
      aspects of the Bill, not least among organisations representing single parents. As most of those organisations have now arrived at a consensus on the new clause, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that by accepting it. I suppose that the reason for the disagreement is that the rights of fathers, mothers and children do not always coincide, and ultimately, a balance must be struck.
      The Bill advances the rights of fathers through the provision of voluntary agreements with mothers on joint rights and responsibilities. I hope that the Government will widely advertise that provision, so that the large number of couples who are not married but have a stable relationship can readily enter into such an agreement.
      Nevertheless, we cannot just accept that all fathers should automatically have those rights. A child born of rape is merely the most extreme instance of how unsatisfactory that would be. Sometimes, a father's rights can conflict with a child's rights—for example, in the case of a father who has treated his child unsatisfactorily.
      A constituent recently told me that the court had ruled that her child's father was to be allowed see her child, but that the child, who was five years old, had not seen that stranger before, and suddenly had to start going out with a strange adult every week. Such cases are sometimes not taken into account. I do not say that that father should not have the right to see his child, but the rights and feelings of the child should have been taken into account in the court order. Subsection (1)(ii), which mentions the time interval, takes that consideration into account. That is relevant to the child as well as to the mother.
      Consideration of the time interval is becoming more common. One of the side effects of the Child Support Act 1991 is that some fathers who have never taken an interest in their children are saying, "If I must provide financially, why shouldn't I see the child?" Sometimes it is not for the best of motives, but to get at the mother. The new clause takes the time interval on board.
      More commonly, a father's rights may conflict with those of the mother. The new clause seeks to protect the mother's rights, and makes three specific proposals.
      First, where there is disagreement, a father should not apply for parental rights too soon after the birth. Three months is a modest proposal. We could have proposed a longer period, but I hope that we can all agree on three months.
      I hope that the reasons are obvious to the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) had to spell out the reasons in Committee, as she was one of the few women on the Committee. In the first three months after giving birth, a mother obviously has more important things on her mind.
      The second proposal is that the mother should have the right to have her place of abode kept secret. The reasons for that are obvious.
      The third and most serious proposal, which responds to a genuine worry of many women's and single-parent organisations, is to terminate the rights of a father who is violent. The provisions of subsection (3) go at least some way to meeting that objective. Some people want the provision strengthened to cover fathers suspected of violence. As it stands, no one can say that the provision is not fair to men, because a conviction is required.

      85
      People who were worried about some of the Bill's provisions have united around the new clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept it accordingly.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a useful debate. First, I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about legal aid. Any party to an action to obtain parental responsibilities and rights can apply for legal aid, and will obtain it if he or she satisfies the usual tests.
      The most important point raised in the debate was concern over the safety of women, especially battered women, in refuges. Although I shall oppose new clause 2 on technical grounds, we shall consider an amendment to allow a mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential. However, it would be for the court to consider that in all the circumstances of the case.
      In respect of whether the woman could oppose or contest any action, the normal rules of procedure will apply, and the application will be served on the mother or would be brought to her attention so that she could oppose it.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked how an application would be served and whether the normal rules of court would apply if the address of the mother were to be withheld from the applicant. It would be necessary to provide that the rules of court could make arrangements for bringing the application to the mother's notice. As I have said, we will consider the matter further.
      Dr. Godman: I was pleased to hear of the Minister's proposed amendment in respect of a court deciding whether a woman's address should be divulged. In the time leading up to the court case, would the address of the woman involved be confidential?
      7.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall consider the issue and all its implications, and the hon. Gentleman's point is a key implication.
      The difficulty with new clause 2 is that it would place time limits on when a father can exercise his right to apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. It would also place a duty on the court to prevent the father from finding out the address of the mother, and also to require the father to reapply for parental responsibilities following any conviction.
      Although I have considerable sympathy for the objectives of hon. Members in putting forward such a new clause, I am not convinced that it is necessary. Under the terms of clause 11, any person claiming an interest in the child can apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering whether to make such an order, the court will have regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
      New clause 2(1) would restrict the circumstances in which a father who is not and has not been married to the child's mother could apply. We believe that the only cases in which a genetic father or mother should be prevented from having access to the courts for this purpose are in the circumstances described by the House of Lords in their decision in re D on 9 March 1995, and in analogous circumstances where parental rights and responsibilities have been extinguished by a court. That is achieved by Government amendment No. 127.
      86
      In other cases, we believe that it would be difficult, having regard to international obligations, to have a provision that prevents a genetic parent from applying for such an order at any time. I therefore think it would be preferable to allow the genetic parent to apply, but to leave it to the court to determine whether to make an order in all the circumstances of the case.
      I am not persuaded that subsection (2) is appropriately drafted. It is not clear whether it envisages that a court would inquire into whether the mother wishes that the father should not have knowledge of her address in every case. I think that that would go too far.
      In any event, it would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father. The court could not necessarily control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. I have said that we will look at the issue with a view to considering it further for the next stage of the Bill, although I do not think that subsection (2) is appropriately expressed in its present form.
      Finally, it seems discriminatory that new clause 2(3) should deprive the unmarried father automatically of parental rights and responsibilities in the event of a conviction as described, but to make no such provision in relation to the married father—or, indeed, the mother. Arguably, any person with parental responsibilities should be treated equally in relation to the possible risk to the child should he or she incur such a conviction.
      For those reasons, I would ask the House to reject new clause 2.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friends who made important and valuable points in the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) mentioned the direct experience disclosed to hon. Members by Scottish Women's Aid. Only that organisation has daily experience of dealing with the sort of problems that we are discussing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly pointed out that joint registration of births is not widely taken up. It is taken up by very few indeed. That is an important aspect that we should consider in terms of ensuring that both parents have responsibility for the child.
      We must allow for fathers to overcome unreasonable objections by mothers, and the Bill at least provides a safeguard for fathers in that position. But it is surely right to try to protect the interests of mothers who are being unreasonably put upon by the fathers.
      As some hon. Members have said—I have some sympathy for this argument—three months from the date of the child's birth is possibly a little on the short side. I would happily let it go longer than that. The Minister objected that any length of time is objectionable, because it would interfere with the father's rights. He said nothing about the mother's right not to be persecuted in that way. She might still be lying in a hospital maternity bed, suffering from the mental and physical after-effects of the birth—or possibly from post-natal depression. In any case, it is only reasonable that the law should take account of that, as it does in respect of adoption.

      87
      It has been pointed out that I was one of the few women on the Standing Committee. Indeed, I could point out that I was the only mother on the Committee, the only person with direct experience of what it is like in the days immediately after a child is born. It says something about our legislature that there are so few women, mothers or otherwise, able to take part in considering legislation in the discussion of which I should have thought such direct experience could play a useful part.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have come to support the debate. It is noticeable that, from the Government side, not a single Back Bencher took the opportunity to take part in the debate. Indeed, for most of it, the Government Benches have been as empty as they could be, with the bare minimum of hon. Members on them. That will be noticed by women up and down the country and by the sort of good, decent, honourable men who want the law to serve both women and men fairly and well.
      I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his support. We can take up the point about the wife's address in this way. It is very possible that a former partner looking to exercise rights and responsibilities after the passing of many years could find out the wife's address, but she might quickly remove herself from that address to avoid contact with him.
      The Minister said that it might be difficult to ensure that the husband or ex-partner never acquires the address. That is not a sensible objection, because, while the husband or ex-partner might find out by other means, the law should ensure that at least no one in court will give the information away. A simple request by the woman involved that she does not want the information to he given should be sufficient if she has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety and that of the child. Of course the information can be given away in another way, but that did not stop the Minister saying that he would provide similar safeguards in the case of children's hearings. By the same logic, he should support this proposal.
      I am glad that the Minister will further consider the matter. I am disappointed that he is nevertheless going to reject new clause 2 on the grounds that he has stated, because subsection (1) restricts the father's rights only in the most reasonable and tiny way possible. If he feels that new clause 2(3) should go further, I would agree.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke of the reality in the refuges. I wish that there were more women in the Chamber now who had that direct experience; I do not have it. I was fortunate enough to be married to a man who never dreamed of treating either me or the children violently or abusively. That is, of course, the experience of the vast majority of women.
      It would do the House and the country good if the experience of women in refuges could be described in the Chamber. Unfortunately, such experience is lacking. We who are here have to try to speak up for those who are not here to speak for themselves. We have tried to do that, and it is a shame and a disgrace that the Government are not more responsive tonight.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 258.

      Division No. 139]

      [7.39 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Allen, Graham

      Graham, Thomas

      Alton, David

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grocott, Bruce

      Austin-Walker, John

      Gunnell, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hall, Mike

      Barnes, Harry

      Hanson, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Battle, John

      Heppell, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Benton, Joe

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Berry, Roger

      Hoyle, Doug

      Betts, Clive

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

      Illsley, Eric

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jamieson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Church, Judith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd South West)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Keen, Alan

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Clelland, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Khabra, Piara S

      Coffey, Ann

      Kirkood, Archy

      Cohen, Harry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Connarty, Michael

      Lewis, Terry

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Corbett, Robin

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cox, Tom

      McAllion, John

      Cummings, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McCartney, Ian

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Macdonald, Calum

      Darling, Alistair

      McFall, John

      Davidson, Ian

      McKelvey, William

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McLeish, Henry

      Denham, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dixon, Don

      McNamara, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      MacShane, Denis

      Dowd, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mahon, Alice

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mandelson, Peter

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

      Enright, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michael, Alun

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Milburn, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Miller, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galloway, George

      Mudie, George

      Gapes, Mike

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Olner, Bill

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Neill, Martin

      89

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Simpson, Alan

      Pearson, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Pike, Peter L

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Pope, Greg

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Soley, Clive

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Spellar, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Purchase, Ken

      Stevenson, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Redmond, Martin

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Reid, Dr John

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wallace, James

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Salmond, Alex

      Wray, Jimmy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Short, Clare

      Mr. Stephen Byers.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Alexander, Richard

      Coe, Sebastian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Congdon, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ancram, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Cran, James

      Ashby, David

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Atkins, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Day, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baldry, Tony

      Devlin, Tim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan, Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dunn, Bob

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Booth, Hartley

      Elletson, Harold

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bowis, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Faber, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Butcher, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Butler, Peter

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Butterfill, John

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gale, Roger

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gallie, Phil

      Cash, William

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Chapman, Sydney

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Clappison, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Gill, Christopher

      90

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Norris, Steve

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Page, Richard

      Hague, William

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hannam, Sir John

      Pawsey, James

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Harris, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rathbone, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hendry, Charles

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Richards, Rod

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Horam, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunter, Andrew

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shersby, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sims, Roger

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Soames, Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knapman, Roger

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spink, Dr Robert

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

      Spring, Richard

      Knox, Sir David

      Sproat, Iain

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Stephen, Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Stem, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Stewart, Allan

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sumberg, David

      Lightbown, David

      Sykes, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Thomason, Roy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Madel, Sir David

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Thurnham, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Marlow, Tony

      Trend, Michael

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Trotter, Neville

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Walden, George

      Merchant, Piers

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mills, Iain

      Waller, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ward, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      91

      Whitney, Ray

      Wood, Timothy

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Dr. Liam Fox and

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. David Willetts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES
      '.—(1) Where any person, court or children's hearing makes any decision in a matter affecting a child, the welfare of the child throughout his childhood shall be their or its paramount consideration, and they shall have regard in particular to—

      (a) the views of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity, where it is practicable to ascertain such views and the child wishes to express them, and

      (b) the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, a child of 12 years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.

      (3) A court or children's hearing shall not make any order under this Act unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than that none should be made at all.

      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedures to be applied in identifying children who wish to express views to the children's hearing or court, and in facilitating that expression, and without prejudice to the generality of this section, such regulations may provide for—

      (a) a psychological assessment of a child to assess his ability to form views and his maturity;

      (b) representation of the child's interests in any proceedings by persons drawn from the panel referred to in section 87 of this Act, and

      (c) representation of the child's views by a solicitor.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 154 and 153.
      Mr. Wallace: The new clause to which this one relates was considered in Committee and concerned what were generally referred to throughout the Committee stage—including the evidence taking—as overarching principles. The idea was that the Bill should include, almost as its starting point, a set of principles that would apply to all parts of the Bill, especially those relating to decisions affecting children taken by courts, children's hearings, local authorities and so on.
      I tabled the new clause immediately after the Committee ended to ensure that the whole House could return to this important matter. Without making any commitment in Committee—he said that he would have to be sure that the Bill would be improved and strengthened by any additions—the Under-Secretary of State said that the matter would be given some consideration, adding that my aim was a fine one:
      "We will be prepared to reconsider the issue to determine whether the Bill can be improved and strengthened without imposing unnecessary rigidity … It will involve quite a lot of work as the options will have to be examined very carefully and weighed up.
      92
      We will return to the option which provides the most advantages to children."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 23 February 1995; c. 288–89.]
      One can only assume that the matter has been given serious thought, that all the difficulties have been weighed up and that the Government have concluded that it is better to do nothing. That is a matter of some regret to me, but I am at least glad that I tabled the new clause to give the House the opportunity to consider the matter further.
      The rights of the child are set out in the new clause. They were referred to at some length in Committee, and have been mentioned again this evening. They are: that bodies making decisions affecting children shall have regard to
      "the views of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity … and the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child"
      should be avoided; and further, that the interests and welfare of the child should be paramount.
      I acknowledge that it might be objected that the words "any person" should not form part of the new clause. If the Minister tells me that that is the only technical flaw preventing him from accepting the new clause, I shall not push it to a vote. But if the Government's objections are more fundamental—and they do not believe that there is a need for an overarching set of principles enshrined in the Bill—I would urge the House to come to a decision on the matter.
      In legislation relating to Northern Ireland and to England a series of overarching principles are enshrined at the very heart of the provisions. The Government have argued in the past that these overarching principles are specifically imported to certain parts of the Bill, but in many other parts the important principles are missing. Clause 3(5), relating to parental responsibilities and parental rights, includes no reference to the views of the child or the child's welfare. The same can be said of clause 4(1). Clause 5 contains no reference to children's views, and in clause 6 the very principle is abrogated, inasmuch as a failure to take into account the views of children will not constitute a barrier to certain transactions being legitimated.
      Clause 9 contains nothing about children's welfare. Clause 11(6) stipulates that
      "any order … does not adversely affect the position of a person who has, in good faith and for value, acquired any property of the child concerned".
      Where do children's views or welfare appear in that? Clause 14, entitled
      "Jurisdiction and choice of law in relation to certain matters",
      includes no reference to delays that may adversely affect children. I could go on taking samples at random. In clause 35(2), which concerns safeguarders, there is nothing about children's views or welfare, or about undue delays in making appointments.
      I could more amply illustrate the point if the House wanted to stay here half the night—we could have added a good many more examples of failures to provide for the taking into account of children's views, to ensure that their welfare is paramount, or to avoid undue delay in coming to decisions. Hence the need for a general clause to ensure that all decisions to be taken by courts, children's hearings or local authorities be taken by reference to these principles. That is why such a fundamental provision should be incorporated in the Bill.

      93
      I find Government amendment No. 154 objectionable. The Minister will well recall that there was a great deal of objection in Committee to the provision to be found in clause 17(5), which allows the Secretary of State, if he considers it necessary,
      "to give directions to a total authority as to the exercise of their powers"
      and to override the best interests of the child. That is a matter that the House should not lightly countenance. The Government must justify the extension of the provision to clause 16, which would be the effect of Government amendment No. 154. The amendment states:
      "If, for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm … (a) a children's hearing … (b) a court"
      may decide that the paramountcy of the welfare and best interests of the child can be overridden. The Minister should advise the House of the circumstances in which he thinks it would be legitimate for a children's hearing or a court to make a disposal that did not put the best interests of the child first. The proposal is a serious breach of a principle that has been the subject of common consent throughout the Bill's passage. To extend the proposal when the Minister knew that there was considerable opposition to what was already in the Bill is a serious development and one that the Government must justify, and not on the basis that it is a fall-back provision that might be needed in future.
      8 pm
      It has already been said that at the heart of the Bill is an obligation to fulfil the undertakings that were made when the Government signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12 of the convention reflect the principles that are set out in the new clause. When the Secretary of State moved the Bill's Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, he said that the measure was based on the principles contained in the convention. The White Paper states:
      "Legislation, policy and practice all need to be founded on these clear principles."
      Surely the Government have no objection to importing the principles clearly and unequivocally into the Bill.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When we discussed these matters in Committee the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not press his new clause when I undertook to examine whether the main principles that run through the Bill could be gathered into a general statement and inserted in the Bill. We examined the proposition carefully. We examined the merits in detail of adding such a general statement, applying some serious tests. For example, we considered whether such a statement would preserve rather than confuse the duties and obligations set out in the Bill, whether it would create new duties and obligations, whether it could sensitively convey the exceptions and qualifications that are applied to paramountcy, for example, and whether it could convey the policies behind the Bill that are necessary for its effective operation. Finally, and most significant, we considered whether the addition of a general statement would improve the Bill.
      Our examination led us to the conclusion that a statement of overarching principles would add to the length of the Bill—just how much would depend on the legal enforceability of the statement—without any very clear benefit in terms of substance. The Bill embodies
      94
      principles, and although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's motives I must say that his new clause well illustrates the pitfalls of constructing a general statement.
      For example, the new clause, in setting out a principle about delay, does not relate to the time scales that apply to children's cases throughout part II or to the detailed procedural requirements prescribed in the children's hearings and sheriff court rules. The new clause shows the practical problems that face us. I appreciate, however, the value of providing public information to explain both the themes and principles behind legislation, which is necessarily complex, to establish clear duties, powers and rights in relation to children.
      We think that the purpose that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has in mind could be more effectively met by an explanatory but concise document publicising the Bill between enactment and implementation, which would outline its themes and principles and explain clearly where they are applied in the Bill. Such a document would not be an alternative Bill. It would be an aid to the understanding for all those who have reason to make use of the Bill's provisions.
      Dr. Godman: Is it common practice for sheriffs and judges to seek to interview children privately where appropriate in cases involving what I might describe as warring parents? Do judges and sheriffs take it upon themselves to seek the views of children in such cases?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is not unknown for that to happen. Considerable discretion rests with the court, where there is anxiety, not to alarm or distress the child. I shall note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and make inquiries.
      I hope that, with the undertaking that I have given to consider preparation of a public information document, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be prepared not to press the new clause to a Division.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister has said that some consideration was given to the making of a general statement. What consideration was given to parallel provisions in the Children Act 1989 and in legislation relating to Northern Ireland? What was it that the Government found attractive in incorporating a clause relating to overarching principles for England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why do they find it a drawback to do so in legislation that bears on children in Scotland?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill as a whole, he will find that we are somewhat ahead of the Children Act 1989, which applies south of the border, in many respects. The Bill already incorporates the general principle that the courts, children's hearings and local authorities should regard the welfare of the child as paramount. That is set out in clauses 11, 16, 17 and 83. It provides that the views of children should be taken into account by parents on major decisions affecting their lives and should be involved in decisions taken by courts and children's hearings. That is set out in clauses 6, 11, 16 and 83. The Bill sets out that children's hearings and courts should be satisfied that making a supervision requirement or order is better than making no supervision requirement or order. That is to be found in clauses 11 and 16.

      95
      Strong general principles are incorporated in the Bill. Having examined the hon. Gentleman's proposal thoroughly, we believe that if we were to go down the path that the hon. Gentleman has suggested no clear benefit would ensue.
      I move on to Government amendments Nos. 154 and 153, which are a response to the undertaking that I gave to consider the strong criticisms made in Committee of clause 17(5)(b). The paragraph was designed very much as a long-stop power, which the Secretary of State might use in exceptional circumstances where for any reason an authority was unable or unwilling to exercise the power set out in paragraph (a) to set aside the paramountcy principle in attempting to deal effectively with a serious situation created by a difficult youngster whom it was looking after. Having weighed the strong arguments with care, we propose removal of the power for the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 153.
      Dr. Godman: Before the Minister resumes his place—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not sitting down yet.
      Amendment No. 154, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland criticised so strongly, is linked with amendment No. 153 and makes an important addition that is designed to protect members of the public from serious harm from young people who may have shown destructive or violent behaviour to others. The amendment confers on children's hearings and the courts discretion to set aside the principle of paramountcy of the child's welfare in dealing with occasional difficult cases. It complements logically the derogation from paramountcy that is available to local authorities in dealing with a child whom they are looking after. The amendment provides through children's hearings and courts a protection that the public have every right to expect. The exception is a young person who is displaying destructive and intimidating behaviour that could lead to substantial damage to another person.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister talked about the publication of a public information document and I for one would welcome such a booklet, but is he in a position to confirm that a similar booklet has been published dealing with child abduction? He will recall that in Committee I asked him precisely that question. Scots need to go to the Lord Chancellor's Department in London for such a booklet. The Minister promised me that an identical booklet would be published to give information north of the border. Has it been published?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that it has, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we shall take forward these matters as soon as possible.
      I can answer in a little more detail the hon. Gentleman's earlier question about the sheriff seeking the views of the child. Sheriffs and judges will deal with each case according to the particular circumstances. Existing procedural rules allow for the sheriff to call for reports, which would incorporate the child's views. On occasion, sheriffs seek the child's views in an informal environment. That is what the hon. Gentleman has been
      96
      appealing for in legislation for many years. Sheriffs can, in appropriate cases, also appoint a curator ad litem to the child. All those matters are well in hand.
      Mr. Wallace: I am disappointed with the Minister's response. I am sure that the matter has been considered, but I do not honestly think that he has made a persuasive case for not pushing the new clause to a vote. He said that inserting such a clause would make the Bill unduly long. It is quite a long Bill, but the clause is not so long. In fact, it is not as long as some of the Government's new clauses that we have debated this evening.
      Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that if we did not have the new clause he would be prepared to go through the Bill clause by clause in another place and fill the gaps, which I started to outline in the list from which I was reading. Indeed, if he was to give me an assurance that the Government would be prepared to do that and apply the main principles to each provision, that might be one way to make progress.
      I do not think that anyone is necessarily reassured that a glossy publication will in some way fill the gap. It would have no status in law. Glossy publications were sent out to explain the poll tax, but they did not make it function effectively or make it a good measure. I cannot accept that that is in any way a satisfactory solution for something as fundamental as trying to ensure that, in all parts, our obligations under the United Nations convention are observed. Therefore, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to support the new clause in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 232.

      Division No. 140]

      [8.12 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hanson, David

      Alton, David

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Illsley, Eric

      Barnes, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Byers, Stephen

      Khabra, Piara S

      Caborn, Richard

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      McAllion, John

      Clapham, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Comarty, Michael

      McFall, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Maclennan, Robert

      Darling, Alistair

      McMaster, Gordon

      Davidson, Ian

      Mahon, Alice

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Olner, Bill

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pike, Peter L

      Fyfe, Maria

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Reid, Dr John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Rendel, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Graham, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Salmond, Alex

      97

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Wray, Jimmy

      Spellar, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mr. James Wallace and

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mrs. Ray Michie.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evennett, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Faber, David

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ancram, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Arbuthnot, James

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Forman, Nigel

      Ashby, David

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Atkins, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      French, Douglas

      Baldry, Tony

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gallie, Phil

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Booth, Hartley

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Gorst, Sir John

      Bowis, John

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hague, William

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hicks, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cash, William

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

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

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dover, Den

      Knox, Sir David

      Duncan, Alan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Elletson, Harold

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lidington, David

      98

      Lightbown, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sproat, Iain

      Malone, Gerald

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Stem, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Stewart, Allan

      Mills, Iain

      Streeter, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sykes, John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Cer V)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Page, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Paice, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patrje, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pickles, Eric

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Whitney, Ray

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Willetts, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Sims, Roger

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 4

      EMERGENCY EXCLUSION ORDERS
      '.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 67(3) of this Act, but subject to section 67(4) thereof, where on the application of a local authority the sheriff is satisfied, in relation to a child, that—

      (a) the conditions mentioned in section 67(2) of this Act are met; and

      (b) but for this section it would be necessary for an order under section 50 of this Act to be made pending the determination of an application to the sheriff for an exclusion order under section 67,

      he may grant an order under this section (to be known as "an emergency exclusion order") excluding from the child's family home any person named in the order (in this part of this Act referred to as the "named person"), for a period not exceeding four days.

      (2) Where an emergency exclusion order is made in terms of this section, sections 68 and.69 of this Act shall apply, so far as relevant, to the granting of that order and the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation.

      99

      (3) Where an order is made under this section, the Principal Reporter shall forthwith make application to the sheriff for an exclusion order in terms of section 67 of this Act, and, unless previously withdrawn, the application shall be heard by the sheriff within two working days of the lodging of the application.

      (4) When an emergency exclusion order is made under the section, such order shall cease to have effect—

      (a) on expiry of the time specified by the sheriff in terms of subsection (1) above;

      (b) on the refusal by the sheriff to grant an exclusion order, in terms of section 67 of this Act; or

      (c) where the Principal Reporter considers that such an order is no longer necessary, having regard to the welfare of the child.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 101, in clause 67, page 52, line 45, after 'order', insert ['other than an interim order'.]
      No. 102, in clause 67, page 53, line 34, at end insert [; and where such an interim order is granted, the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation.'.]
      No. 103, in clause 67, page 53, line 34, at end insert—
      '(7A) Where—

      (a) an application under subsection (7) above has been refused; and

      (b) the sheriff considers that the conditions for making a child protection order under section 50 of this Act are satisfied,

      he shall make such an order under that section as if the application had been duly made by the local authority under that section rather than this section.'.
      No. 104, in clause 67, page 53, line 38, leave out 'subsection' and insert ['subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and'.]
      No. 105, in clause 67, page 53, line 39, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (7)'.
      Mr. Wallace: I am sure that this new clause 4 has far more practical application than any other clause 4—new or otherwise—that may have been the subject of recent discussion.
      The new clause and amendments seek to achieve the same objective in different ways—that is, to provide for emergency exclusion orders. The matter was considered fairly thoroughly in Committee, and I shall not detain the House for long. I know that the Government did not embark on the idea of exclusion orders lightly, but it has been welcomed by most—if not all—of the groups that gave evidence to the Committee, either orally or in written memoranda, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      It became clear from evidence taken by the Special Standing Committee in both Glasgow and Edinburgh that, if the main purpose of an exclusion order was to prevent children from having to be removed from their homes, it might not always be the right answer, given the time that would be required to give notice that such an order was being sought so that it could be served on an alleged abuser.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman and I have long waged a campaign to put such exclusion orders on the statute book, but would not the new clause complicate matters? Why should the person concerned be excluded
      "for a period not excluding four days"?
      100
      What purpose would that serve?
      Mr. Wallace: I am trying to achieve a balance between a number of rights. The child has a strong right not to be removed from the house, but individuals also have a right to continue to live in their main abode. I have no doubt that every effort was made to achieve that balance in the original drafting of clause 67.
      If we go a bit further and ask for an interim exclusion order—an exclusion order granted before notice has been given to the person to be excluded, who will not be given the right to appear before the sheriff when the order is sought—it is important to specify a time limit. I therefore propose that the order should lapse after four days unless a full exclusion order has been sought and granted in that time.
      Dr. Godman: Can social workers and other interested parties seek to determine within those four days whether the person concerned should be excluded for, say, several weeks, or until the likelihood of a court case materialises?
      Mr. Wallace: The order is interim in that sense—not pending a decision by social workers on how long it should last, that is, but pending a proper application to the court. In those circumstances, the person to be excluded—or by that stage, if the new clause is accepted, the excluded person—would have had an opportunity to appear before the court if the provisions of clause 67 in its present form had been used in the first place.
      I have not used the word "interim", which I believe appears elsewhere. I wanted to avoid confusion, and considered the word "emergency" a more accurate description of the circumstances that the new clause was intended to meet. The four-day period was suggested because, if an order was sought on Friday, an application to the court would be possible on the following Tuesday.
      We heard compelling evidence that the current provisions would not, in many cases, allow children to remain at home, and that if we did not establish an emergency procedure they might well have to be taken into care pending the application and granting of exclusion orders. I was impressed, as I think other Committee members were, by the children who told us that their being taken into care could have been avoided. We should try our utmost to avoid that. Although it is important to have regard to the fact that a person has the right not be removed from his or her home, children should also have such a right. They should not be removed unless it cannot be helped. I hope that a proper balance has been achieved by the new clause.
      8.30 pm
      I recall that the Minister said that he would reconsider the matter and, on that basis, he asked me not to press the amendment. He said that there was a case for emergency exclusion orders if there was perpetual child abuse and that he would consider the matter carefully in view of what had been said by members of the Committee. Again, the reason for tabling the new clause is to give the Government an opportunity to explain what consideration they have given to the matter. The absence of any provision on their part to deal with it suggests that they may have come to the conclusion that it would not be

      101
      appropriate to make such emergency provision. The House should be advised as to what sort of considerations have given rise to that decision.
      Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I quoted from an opinion of counsel that had been given to a consortium for the Bill. It suggested that the sort of provisions included in the new clause would be acceptable in European law. I remember the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) expressing considerable familiarity with the case involving the Belgian Government, which had given rise to that judgment. That is an important point. It is a good benchmark as to whether we are meeting our international obligations. If the new clause satisfies the European convention on human rights, we shall have gone a long way to striking the right balance.
      The amendments in my name relate to the issue in one important respect. They are designed to bring about a result similar to that of the new clause. Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 are on pages 814 to 815 of the amendment paper. Amendment No. 102 says that
      "where such an interim order is granted, the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation."
      That meets one of the other concerns that was raised with us. If a person is excluded, there should be no question of that person not having proper accommodation. That clarifies the position. Provision is possibly already there in general terms, but the new clause would make it explicit that the local authority, having sought an exclusion order, should then find or help a person to obtain alternative accommodation.
      I hope that I shall not stretch the relevance of this too much, but in moving amendment No. 54 in Committee, I made the point that clause 67 contained no provision for circumstances where the child was away from home. In response, the Minister accepted that the amendment was sensible and agreed that he would table a suitable Government amendment to give it effect. I do not see any amendment tonight to give that effect. A reassurance that it will be tabled in another place will be welcome.
      Mr. Connarty: I am happy to support the proposal that new clause 4 should be adopted by the Government. We would be sadly disappointed if they showed themselves to be lacking in vision, or if they did not have the honest approach to the problem that we thought they were offering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Clearly, the key to this issue is clause 67(2), which gives the conditions of an exclusion order and relates to the new clause. Clause 67(2) states that the conditions are

      "(a) that the child has suffered, is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of any conduct, or any threatened or reasonably apprehended conduct of the named person; and

      (b) that the making of an exclusion order against the named person

      (i) is necessary for the protection of the child; and

      (ii) would better safeguard the child's welfare than removing the child from the family home."

      We listened to the young people from Who Cares? Scotland, who said that they are excluded from their home when there is an abuser in the home. They asked why they were punished twice and made the victims twice. That was clearly how they saw the position. They are object of the accused abuser. They are then victimised by being removed from their home while the
      102
      accused abuser remains in the home. The trauma of that exclusion—the fact that they are torn away from the family home—which might last for quite a long time, as under a child protection order, is often the worst part of what happens.
      The new clause is excellent, as was the similar amendment in Committee. The proposal is that the emergency order would lie for four days. Under subsection (3), the emergency order would bring the person to court before a sheriff within two working days, which is already in clause 67. Applications would be heard within two days.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government intend to table amendments on this subject, but for reasons that I shall give in a moment, we have not been able to do so for tonight, as we intended? I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have not given up on the issue.
      Mr. Connarty: That is excellent information. If it had been passed on to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland he may have made a different and probably much shorter speech. I shall shorten mine by underlining the fact that I am worried that the question turns on whether the sheriff could react to the emergency exclusion order as proposed in subsection (3) within two working days. It is important that four days have been drafted correctly, that the two working days guarantees that the exclusion, particularly of an accused abuser, will not be prolonged any longer than is necessary, and that if the accusation turns out, in the sheriff's eyes, not to be valid, the family would be reunited.
      Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 102 states, among other things, that the local authority shall assist an excluded person to obtain alternative accommodation. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister talked about assisting such a person to find alternative accommodation. Did he say that thinking of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968? If so was he referring to section 12, which allows a local authority in certain circumstances to provide financial assistance to a person? If a person is to be excluded from the family home, no question exists of him going along to the Benefits Agency to seek assistance. If he is on income support, he would not be able to afford to furnish a place. Presumably, such a person would be assisted in finding lodgings. If so, would that be by way of section 12 of the 1968 Act?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I first deal with the general issue relating to exclusion orders? That was an extremely important part of the Bill. It was one of the major innovations contained within it and one of the main things sought by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It marks an important landmark in the protection of children and it has been widely welcomed.
      The detailed arrangements have been the subject of considerable debate and substantial evidence to the Special Standing Committee in Scotland from a wide range of bodies. The new clause and the associated amendments focus on the main issue that confronted us during discussions on provisions for exclusion orders. The issue is whether it should be possible to exclude a suspected abuser from a child's home by virtue of an

      103
      order or an interim order granted by a sheriff without prior intimation to the person to be excluded or an opportunity being provided for that person to be heard by or represented before the sheriff.
      As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State made clear during the evidence taking, and as I made clear in Committee, we were prepared to listen carefully to the views expressed on the proposals in the Bill. We have done so and it might be helpful to the House, in considering the new clause and the amendments, if I say that the Government are, in principle, ready to amend the Bill to provide for exclusion on that basis.
      However, I have to tell the House that the work on that is not yet complete. It has proved more complex than we had expected—in particular, in ensuring that the provisions for such an emergency exclusion provide for a proper recourse, by the excluded person, to the courts for a judicial review. We had to have regard to the requirements of the United Nations convention on human rights and to ensuring the correct entitlement of the person together with the right procedural steps in the courts, so as to ensure proper judicial review. I had hoped to get that done by Report, but it has proved extremely complex.
      On the main point of principle—that it should it possible for an interim exclusion order to be granted without intimation, subject to a proper judicial examination—we agree with the intention behind the new clause and the related amendments. However, I am bound to advise the House that, as they stand, they have certain technical problems. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not press the new clause. We undertake to bring forward amendments in the other place that will provide for an exclusion order to be available in an emergency—amendments that will stand the test of time.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister has given a welcome response to the debate. It has given us considerable encouragement and we look forward with interest to the amendments that he will table in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 7

      DUTY TO REPORT SUSPICION OF CHILD ABUSE
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of those staff in establishments who have direct concern for the care, training or education of children, or young people under 16 years of age, to report to the director or superior of the establishment without delay any reasonable suspicion that any such child or young person within the establishment has been abused whether before or subsequent to that child's or young person's admission to the establishment.

      (2) It shall be the duty of the director or superior of the establishment referred to in subsection (1) above to make enquiry into the reported suspicions and, if appropriate, to refer the matter to the relevant authority.

      (3) In this section, "relevant authority" means the education or social work department, the Principal Reporter or the police force for the area of the local authority district in which the establishment is situated.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      104
      My new clause would make it a duty to report any suspicion of child abuse. It places a duty on staff in establishments that have responsibility for the care, training or education of children or young people under 16 years of age to report to the director or superior in the establishment, without delay, any reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused, whether before or subsequent to that child's admission to the establishment.
      Under the new clause, the director or superior would be obliged to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, refer it to the relevant authority, which means the education or social work departments, the principal reporter or the police force in the local authority area in which that establishment is situated.
      The new clause arises out of personal experience and I take full responsibility for it. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and courtesy during the past few weeks relating to the information that I sent him and his reply to me. As the hon. Gentleman kindly pointed out, my original amendment would have resulted in rather harsh consequences as there was a criminal aspect to it. For example, he said that "reasonable suspicion" was a matter for individual judgment and that it would not sit easily with a criminal penalty. I had not foreseen that problem, but I have now altered my proposal, so although there is still a duty, it is an obligation rather than something that would attract a criminal penalty.
      I consulted a number of people outwith the House on this matter. One was Mrs. Mary Hartnell, the director of social work for Strathclyde. She said:
      "While there is whole hearted support for the aim of making all forms of care for children free from abuse, I would suggest that this subject would perhaps be better dealt with in rules and regulations rather than in primary legislation. This could lead to all organisations having to have procedures in place whereby on receipt of allegations of abuse, staff would be required to pass these on to the appropriate manager who would then be bound to consider whether sufficient concerns existed to warrant the involvement of the police. Staff failing to observe these procedures would then be subject to disciplinary action."
      That is why I have included the principal reporter and the education and social work departments, as well as the police.
      Mrs. Hartnell continued:
      "While our current child protection procedures require this course of action, legislation could be formulated to make it compulsory for all organisations offering some form of care to children to be bound by similar procedures."
      That highlights a gap in the existing legislation.
      8.45 pm
      I also consulted Professor Kathleen Marshall, who is doing a study for the Independent Schools Information Service, which covers an area where at present no regulations exist. She gave me good advice, as did Miss Kay Tisdall from Children in Scotland and the Children Consortia. I also contacted various individuals, advocates and Queen's counsel, and in particular, the Centre for Residential Child Care, under Meg Lindsay. That is a partnership between the university of Strathclyde, Langside college, Save the Children Fund and Who Cares? Scotland. The message from all of them is that the intention behind my previous amendment was too prescriptive, but nevertheless something needed to be done because the procedures and guidelines do not work as they should.

      105
      In December, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the issue. One asked the Secretary of State for Scotland:
      "how many a) teachers, b) social workers, c) nurses, d) doctors, e) community education workers and f) other professionals working with children have been found guilty of crimes of indecency or of lewd and libidinous behaviour against persons under 21 years of age in each of the past five years." —[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1059]
      The Minister replied that the information was not available. The fact that that information is not categorised shows a weakness in the statistical gathering for which the Minister is responsible.
      There must be a base line. If we are to err—and certainly that is possible—we must do so on the side of child protection. That is what the voluntary organisations and others conveyed to me when I consulted them. That is why they think that debate on the new clause would be useful. They feel that it will throw the spotlight on the whole issue of child abuse.
      I accept that the debate is in its embryonic form. Indeed, the CRCC has said that it would like to hold a seminar on the issue, to include all the relevant professionals, so that we can take the debate forward and learn from the experience of other countries—for example, Australia and America, where reporting is mandatory, and Canada. How do the systems work in those countries?
      As I said earlier, my interest stems from my personal experience as a school teacher, but also as a Member of Parliament. A number of constituents have contacted me directly because they were sexually abused when they were young people—one, in particular, when in a residential establishment. Those people are now adults, but the legacy of the traumatic experience lives with them 20 years after the incidents. Even today, all these years later, they regularly feel alone, vulnerable and guilty.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I fully support the intention behind my hon. Friend's new clause. Does he agree that as well as the experiences that he is relating, we have all read the appalling newspaper accounts of incidents when young people and children have been in residential care—the sort of incidents that no one could have imagined before they read those accounts? We must ensure that children are safeguarded when they are in residential establishments. As my hon. Friend says, the debate is still at an early stage, but I am glad that he has tabled his new clause.
      Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In the past, for one reason or another, a veil has been drawn over the incident; there has been a conspiracy of silence. That cannot be allowed to continue. I have tabled this new clause to push the debate forward.
      The problem is widespread, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, and it affects all areas of society. Indeed, only a few weeks ago I was reading an article written by Mr. Alan Draper, who is chairman of a newly formed team to advise the bishops' conference of Scotland on the handling of allegations of sexual abuse made against Church personnel. He said:
      "What has to be faced is that the abuse of children is widespread. It flourishes in a society which is based on competition and power and is undermined by violence towards women and their sexual
      106
      exploitation. The challenge to transform society becomes enormous when we begin to realise the terrible social cost of the toleration of child sexual abuse. Children are powerless to speak for themselves."
      That is very true. Children find themselves in an unequal relationship. Adults have the power and children are powerless. People have to speak for children and the law must be right for them. It is extremely important that we put the proper procedures into place.
      Mr. Alan Draper indicates that the abuse of children is not only a Church problem but a social problem. It highlights the fact that our society is not yet mature. Anything smacking of sex is considered distasteful and swept under the carpet. To this House, it should be the shame of the victim that matters. Victims have to go through hoops to be believed and the shame is directed and transmitted towards them rather than the perpetrator. They are placed in circumstances almost the same as those faced by the victims of rape 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when it was never the man's fault; "the woman's skirt was too short"; "too much was being revealed"; and so on. Only through persistent education of society was it realised that it was the man's fault. He did not have to give in to temptation.
      The Zero Tolerance campaign, which is well established in Scotland and exists in a substantial number of local authorities, is a good example of the product of such education. With regard to sexual and other abuse, the need for education is paramount. Education of parents is essential. If they have to be told to look for signs of drug abuse, however distasteful that may be, they have to look for signs of abuse in children. The message to children from this debate is:
      "Do not accept someone interfering with you. Do not think that you are to blame."
      Even after a successful campaign, some people will fall through the net and some children will be victimised, so we need a mechanism to deal with such cases. I suggest that we consider such areas as enhanced compensation—state-funded—but, more importantly, counselling. Counselling on a long-term basis is required. This is a victim's issue and a hidden victim at that.
      The Scottish Office has recognised the problem because it commissioned a report, "The Child Sexual Abuser", which was published last December. The report was based on four years' research conducted by teams at Edinburgh and Cardiff universities. It identified four different types of child abuser. Incest abusers proved to be most common; paedophile accounted for 30 per cent. of abusers in the survey; random abusers were considered the most dangerous; and deniers comprised 10 per cent. of the survey.
      The chairperson of the team which produced that report, Professor Lorraine Waterhouse, said:
      "The Child Sexual Abusers Report makes very depressing reading and many of the discoveries have shocked us"—
      despite having worked in that field of research for some time. Professor Waterhouse added:
      "The actual sexual behaviour towards the children did involve more aggression than I think we had concluded."
      They found that in almost half the cases studied, violence or physical coercion was used. Even among those who claimed not to have used violence, it could not be dismissed. One such man, a paedophile who claimed not to harm his victims,' stated for the report:
      "I have seen myself putting my hands over the boy's mouth and lift him up, place him in the bushes, put him on the ground, take his clothes off him. That is about it. Nae violence."

      107
      The survey also found that more abusers than was previously thought had sexual intercourse with their victims. More than half those convicted of incest had full sex with their victims. Offenders are usually known to their victims as fathers, stepfathers or family friends, and only one abuser in 10 is a stranger to the child. Abusers ranged in age from 10 to 81.
      The message from that report is that the abusers are not monsters; they can be nice people whom the victim knows. Society has to be prepared and draw up proper procedures. That is why social workers are calling for a paedophile register. David Colvin, the deputy general secretary of the British Association of Social Workers, said:
      "It is astonishing that we have not had information about the people who commit sexual abuse before now. Scotland Yard believe there are more than 4,000 practising paedophiles in Britain and the current method of approaching the problem from the child protection register is absurd; listing the children not the offenders".
      About 1,500 children go to hearings each year to complain about abuse and in only 2 to 5 per cent. of cases are adults prosecuted. That is a shocking clear-up rate for a very serious offence.
      It is very important that we take on board such comments from professionals and others and do something about them. My new clause is a new idea. It will formalise something which already happens. Local authorities have guidelines and procedures on how individuals should behave, but the new clause will put them on a statutory footing. It will place an obligation—a duty—on staff to report to their superiors any suspicion of abuse: to take action. If they breach that duty, they will not be liable in the criminal courts, but may be liable in the civil courts for damages. Obviously, that will depend on each individual case.
      The new clause would impose a similar duty on a director or superior to refer the matter to the relevant authority and "relevant authority" means either the principal reporter, the social work department or the police. The proposal is not cumulative. It is self-standing and applies to whatever agency is appropriate. If the case is clearly criminal, it will go to the police. If it is another form of abuse, it may go to the reporter or be reported to the social work department.
      I realise that the new clause is not definitive. Its main purpose is to impose a duty on individuals. It would assist in preventing people from entering into a conspiracy of silence as that creates a climate in which abuse can flourish. I hope that the new clause will aerate the debate as there is an insufficient political wind behind the issue at the moment. I hope that it will help lift the veil of secrecy and pierce the conspiracy of silence and, in the process, contribute to transparency in human relationships.
      By accepting or amending my new clause, the Government and the Opposition will assist in promoting in society a more mature, honest and direct approach so that fewer children will suffer the trauma of sexual abuse and those who do suffer that trauma will be dealt with on a compassionate and constructive basis.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister may well reject new clause 7, with which I have considerable sympathy. He may suggest that the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend
      108
      the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) can best be dealt with through regulations or guidelines. However, it seems to me that the employing authorities of the establishments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton have a responsibility. Perhaps the Minister should be focusing his attention on the sanctions that he can impose by way of regulations against employing authorities which have betrayed the interests of the children in their care.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton referred to all sorts of establishments. I want to raise one or two points in relation to the protection that should and must be given to children who have been taken into care. We sometimes seem to imagine that when a child has been rescued from a violent parent or abuser and has been placed in residential care, that is the end of the line, whereas in some instances it may well be the start of further torment for the child.
      9 pm
      What guidelines are given to local authorities in relation to those employed in residential homes for young children? There must be a very important role in that regard for the employing authorities to ensure that certain people are not employed and that they become unemployable. There is a major responsibility in that regard on the employers to be very tough gatekeepers and to refuse employment to those about whom they have well founded suspicions in regard to sexual proclivities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton referred to the need for the director or superior to make inquiries into such suspicions. Again, I think that that might well apply most appropriately through guidelines issued to employing authorities. I am concerned that children taken into care within the framework of a new small authority may be placed in a residential home in another authority's jurisdiction. How is the local authority which has care of the child able to monitor what goes on in a home outwith its district?
      In relation to the new clause, in terms of defending the interests of youngsters against those who are in loco parentis to them, does the Minister envisage that the authority with care will be able to monitor homes to which children have been sent outwith its own area? Will the local authority with care have the right to demand access to the personal files of people employed in those homes? Does the Minister envisage that? It may sound harsh to say that the authority with care in cases of children placed outwith that authority's region should have access to the personal files, but too many people seem to get through the gates and past the selectors and are given responsibility for the care of children when manifestly they are not fit individuals to take on such responsibilities.
      When the Minister argues the case against new clause 7, he should say something about the efforts of the Scottish Office, local authorities and other organisations to eliminate from such occupational roles the paedophiles and others who are not fit to come anywhere near children, especially vulnerable children who have already suffered distress and harm. Not enough is done to weed out those people during the selection process. Too often we discover the whereabouts of such people after complaints have been made. Also, is it not a good idea for such residential homes to be restricted to as few children as possible so that, first, their care can be of the

      109
      best quality and, secondly, they can be in a family environment, or close to a family environment, rather than an institutional environment?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has raised some important questions. I am not sure that his new clause will be accepted today, but such concerns have been raised with all of us, particularly in my case when children have been taken into care. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of residential social workers are very fine people—I have met many of them, and I know that they are fine people—but there is always the odd bod who seems to slip through the selection process and is placed in charge of very vulnerable young children. Somehow or other we must prevent such squalid, seedy characters from obtaining those jobs in the first place.
      Mr. Galbraith: I support the new clause. It is an important part of the jigsaw that we are trying to put together for the protection of children. I am sure that some people will be unhappy with what we have done in the Bill and will complain that we will not get it right and so on, but the new clause is an important part of the mosaic of the Bill that we are trying to establish. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that child abuse is widespread. I am not sure what he meant by "widespread", but one thing is true: child abuse is certainly a problem, and one that we must tackle.
      Two problems have hindered our dealing with establishments in the past. One is that, until recently, child abuse was not taken seriously enough. It was considered to be a lesser crime: someone had committed a wee indiscretion and if we all kept it quiet it could be overcome. Secondly, some establishments seek to protect their good name. There is nothing wrong with that; we would all wish to do that. Again, if one thinks that it is a lesser crime, one might not take appropriate action. We cannot allow either of those two problems to prevent proper management dealing with cases of child abuse or to produce what my hon. Friend described as the conspiracy of silence that occurs in all walks of life and in all establishments which seek to look after themselves. The new clause goes some way to dealing with that matter, but I do not know whether it will be perfect.
      Are there are any other practical steps to be taken? What rights do non-local authority establishments which look after children—my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the point in a slightly different way—have to examine the employment records of the individuals they employ? Do they have to take the word of the establishment or do they have access to the records of people involved in such establishments?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was a deputy head teacher at Bellarmine secondary school, which has very high standards, and I appreciate the importance of this extremely vital issue.
      Child abuse, whatever form it takes, is an obscenity which must be tackled with the utmost vigour. Staff in care establishments and teachers in educational institutions are well placed, as the hon. Gentleman was in the past, to spot indications of abuse, and a considerable number of cases brought to the attention of investigating agencies come from that source. However, it seems
      110
      somewhat heavy handed to impose a statutory duty on staff to report any reasonable suspicion that a child may have been abused.
      In response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I can say that local authorities already have in place clear arrangements in relation to care establishments and educational establishments for referring suspicions of child abuse to statutory agencies. Those are complemented by child abuse awareness-raising training, and child protection training generally can be used to underpin the procedures adopted by establishments for reporting suspicions of abuse.
      Mr. Galbraith: Child abuse awareness training is all very well, but we are talking about cases where such awareness training is not needed. These are cases where someone knows that abuse is going on, but still does not report it to the statutory agencies. That is what the new clause is aimed at. It is concerned not with getting people to recognise child abuse, but with getting people to report it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Following the Orkney inquiry and representations, guidance is being prepared which will be issued to cover that issue. Local authorities can also monitor institutions, and they have the right to have access to the files. It is important for suspicions to be reported, and to be properly investigated if they are found to have substance, but I feel that placing a statutory duty on staff to report such suspicions goes a little too far. There is a general duty to report cases to the reporter. In principle, the hon. Gentleman's point is correct that reporting must take place, but to put a compulsion to do so in statute is a little heavy handed.
      Dr. Godman: The Minister said that he believes that local authority staff have access to files in such establishments. Does that include access to files concerning employees of such establishments, because that is important? I should hate to have a social work secret police in operation, but it is important that local authorities have knowledge of the people working in the establishments.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When making appointments of people to work with children, local authorities can consult the Scottish Criminal Records Office for advice on any previous convictions, and that is absolutely right. Local authorities are aware of the need for careful selection of staff, and we regard that as extremely important. There is no question of a witch hunt, but the protection of children should be given a high priority.
      With regard to the inspection of residential establishments, I can confirm that section 67(a) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—to be replaced by paragraph 29(6) of the Bill—gives powers of inspection in relation to the records of residential establishments. That covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. Mary Hartnell, a director of social work, wrote to

      111
      me recently to say that while child protection procedures in certain areas require such a course of action, legislation could be formulated to make it compulsory for all organisations offering some form of care to children to be bound by similar procedures. That does not happen at the moment.
      Only a few months ago, there was a story in the newspapers about allegations of misconduct at the Rudolf Steiner school in Aberdeen. Lothian region had placed some children at that school, but it could do nothing about the allegations because the school was not covered by the measures. I make no comment about what happened in Aberdeen; I merely refer to the principles of the issue.
      The Minister said in his response to me dated 20 April:
      "the Scottish Council of Independent Schools has commissioned Professor Kathleen Marshall to draft child protection guidelines for independent schools, and this is being done in consultation with HMI and SWSI."
      So there are not even guidelines at present. All that I ask is that there should be a general duty. I do not intend to criminalise people, and I took seriously the Minister's comments about not wanting to be too heavy handed. My amendment states that the superior or the director has a duty to investigate, if appropriate: in other words, the doubt—if there is any doubt—would reside with the director or the superior, and it might not be taken further.
      9.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred, as did the Minister, to my background in education. In the past, teachers have come to me and said that they had suspicions but that the head teacher did not want to take the issue further because it would reflect on his stewardship of the school or the status of the school in the local community. So investigation can be cut off at a basic level. That should not happen: there should be a duty and obligation to report and it should be written into the law. In no way do we wish to criminalise, but we wish to provide the most adequate protection available for young people. I believe that Parliament could do that by accepting the new clause today.
      I ask the Minister to take on board in a constructive manner, as he has done today, the comments that Mary Hartnell has made about the procedures and the need for all organisations to be bound by similar procedures. May we have a commitment today that the Minister will consider some legislation so that when the Bill goes to another place we have some hope that something can be done?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will refer what he said to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. In the case of the Rudolf Steiner school, the inspectorate was put in immediately. That was helpful in clearing the air in that particular case. It performed an invaluable role. I will refer the points that the hon. Gentleman has made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
      Amendment made: No. 112, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'in any action arising out of any breach of'
      and insert
      ', or to defend, in any proceedings as respects' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 2

      PARENTAL RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 2, line 24, after first 'and' insert 'direct'.
      No. 114, in page 2, line 37, leave out
      'in any action arising out of an infringement of'
      and insert
      ', or to defend, in any proceedings as respects'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 3

      PROVISIONS RELATING BOTH TO PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO PARENTAL RIGHTS
      Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 44, at end insert—
      '(5A) An arrangement under subsection (5) above as to the exercise of parental responsibilities or parental rights shall be made only with the agreement of any other person who has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child; and such arrangement may be made—

      (a) in the case of a child of twelve years of age or below, only after consulting the child, or

      (b) in the case of a child of thirteen years of age or above, only with the agreement of the child.'.

      At first glance, it might appear that I am being somewhat heavy handed with this amendment, but I am concerned about the purpose of clause 3(5). Is it advisable to allow a parent to entrust parenting responsibilities to a third person unrelated or even related to the child without the permission of the other parent and without, say, the approval of a court? I believe that the potential for conflict is huge, especially in relation to the rights given to parents under clause 2.
      A child aged over 12 years should be able to give his or her consent to any proposed transfer of parental responsibilities. The agreement of a child under 12 years should also be sought in each and every case. If that is not done the child will be treated as a piece of property, which I am sure is not the Minister's objective.
      As I have said, the amendment may appear somewhat heavy handed. When looking through it I thought that the Minister might ask whether one should have to apply for a court order before sending bairns off on holiday with their granny. Despite my reservations, there is concern about the purpose of clause 3(5). I believe, and it is the Minister's conviction as well, that where appropriate a child over the age of 12 should be able to consent to any transfer of such awesome responsibilities. Even children under the age of 12 should be consulted at all times. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's response to my somewhat defensive description of the amendment as heavy handed.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have some sympathy for the intention of the amendment but it is unnecessary and in some ways impractical. For example,

      113
      I am not sure how one would consult a very young infant before asking the grandmother to look after the infant for a couple of hours. More seriously, the amendment is unnecessary because clause 6 already provides for the views of the child to be considered.
      It would also be wrong to limit the power of a parent to make arrangements for the care of the child in an emergency when it might not be practical to consult the other parent. It would also conflict with clause 2(2) which gives parents the power to exercise their parental rights independently. However, we hope to cover the consultation of the other parent when a major decision is involved in a Government amendment to clause 6.
      Dr. Godman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 115, in page 3, line 47, at end insert—
      '; and where any arrangements so made are such that the child is a foster child for the purposes of the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984, those arrangements are subject to the provisions of that Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 4

      ACQUISITION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY NATURAL FATHER
      Amendment made: No. 116, in page 4, line 3, after 'mother' insert
      ',whatever age they may be,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 4, line 35, after 'maturity' insert
      'and to those of any other person who has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child (and wishes to express those views)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 118.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mrs. Fyfe: There is a lack of clarity in the drafting of amendment No. 118 because there is some doubt about who is the "his" referred to in line 42 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would make a note of that and return to it later.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 117 was tabled in response to the concern of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) to encourage separated or divorced parents to maintain a co-operative relationship towards their children. It would be helpful to insert an amendment about reaching any major decision concerning the fulfilling of parental responsibility or right to have regard to the views of any other person with parental responsibilities.
      Amendment No. 118 was felt necessary to provide a reference to such a person as well as the existing reference to a child. As the hon. Lady has requested I shall look at the drafting. However, a person acting as the child's legal representative is not challengeable solely on the ground that the person mentioned in amendment No. 117 was not
      114
      consulted or that due regard was not given to his or her views before the transaction was entered into. This reflects the provision in relation to consulting the child.
      Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for showing that he listened to some of what I said in Committee, although perhaps some of my hon. Friends did not.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 4, line 41, after 'child' insert
      ',or a person with parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 9

      SAFEGUARDING OF CHILD'S PROPERTY
      Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 7, line 11, leave out 'by regulations'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mrs. Fyfe: I wish to ask a brief question about the intention of leaving out the words, "by regulations". May we conclude that scrutiny of the contents will be reduced if the words, "by regulations" are left out? The Minister should explain that a little further.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are small technical amendments, which remove unnecessary references to regulations. Clause 88 states that the Secretary of State's powers
      "to make rules or regulations shall he exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      The amendments make no material change but offer a useful tidying and simplification of clauses 9 and 26. I am glad to confirm that they are technical and nothing substantial or secretive is being slipped through.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      COURT ORDERS RELATING TO PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 120, in page 7, line 31, at beginning insert 'In the relevant circumstances'.
      No. 121, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'In the relevant circumstances'.
      No. 122, in page 7, line 46, after 'person' insert
      '(provided he is at least sixteen years of age or is a parent of the child)'.
      No. 123, in page 8, line 2, leave out 'with whom a child' and insert
      '—

      (i) with whom; or

      (ii) if with different persons alternately or periodically, with whom during what periods,

      a child'.
      No. 124, in page 8, line 23, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
      No. 125, in page 8, line 25, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'that subsection'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'claiming an interest' and insert—
      'who—

      (i) not having, and never having had, parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child, claims an interest;

      115

      (ii) has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child;

      (iii) has had, but for a reason other than is mentioned in subsection (3A) below no longer has, parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
      Lord James Douglás-Hamilton: In the case of "In re D and Another (Minors)", the House of Lords decided that an order freeing the child for adoption and vesting the parental rights and duties of the mother in an adoption agency had the effect of depriving the mother of being able to apply for custody.
      Section 3 of the 1986 Act is being replaced by clause 11(3) of the Bill. It is therefore thought that it would be desirable to give statutory effect to the House of Lords' judgment in relation to orders under clause 11. This was a case where the child had been adopted.
      These are altogether sensible amendments and I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 127, in page 8, line 29, at end insertߞ
      '(3A) The reasons referred to in subsection (3)(a)(iii) above are that the parental responsibilities or parental rights have been—

      (a) extinguished on the making of an adoption order;

      (b) transferred to an adoption agency on the making of an order declaring the child free for adoption;

      (c) extinguished by virtue of subsection (9) of section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (provision for enactments about adoption to have effect with modifications) on the making of a parental order under subsection (1) of that section; or

      (d) transferred to a local authority by a parental responsibilities order.'.

      No. 128, in page 8, line 32, at end insert—
      '(4A) In subsection (3A) above—
      "adoption agency" and "adoption order" have the same meanings as they are given, in section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, by section 65(1) of that Act; and
      "parental responsibilities order" has the meaning given by section 76(1) of this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 14

      JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW IN RELATION TO CERTAIN MATTERS
      Amendments made: No. 129, in page 10, line 44, after 'made' insert
      '(the date of death of the testator being taken to be the date of appointment where an appointment was made by will),'.
      No. 130, in page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 15

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I
      Amendments made: No. 131, in page 11, line 18, after '30,' insert
      'someone, of whatever age, who is'.
      No. 133, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
      116
      '(6) Where a child has legal capacity to sue, or to defend, in any civil proceedings, he may nevertheless consent to be represented in those proceedings by any person who, had the child lacked that capacity, would have had the responsibility to act as his legal representative.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 16

      WELFARE OF CHILD AND CONSIDERATION OF HIS VIEWS
      Amendment proposed: No. 154, in page 13, line 4, at end insert—
      '(5) If, for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm (whether or not physical harm)—

      (a) a children's hearing consider it necessary to make a decision under or by virtue of this Part of this Act which (but for this paragraph) would not be consistent with their affording paramountcy to the consideration mentioned in subsection (1) above, they may make that decision; or

      (b) a court considers it necessary to make a determination under or by virtue of Chapters 1 to 3 of this Part of this Act which (but for this paragraph ) would not be consistent with its affording such paramountcy, it may make that determination.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Just a brief question—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has already been debated. I have just put the Question.
      Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it has been debated but we have not voted on it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall put the question and, if hon. Members wish to vote, they may do so. We cannot debate it further.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 63.

      Division No. 141]

      [9.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Butcher, John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Butler, Peter

      Ancram, Michael

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ashby, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Atkins, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bates, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Couchman, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cran, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quent'n (Stamford)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Booth, Hartley

      Day, Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bowis, John

      Devlin, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Dicks, Terry

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brazier, Julian

      Dover, Den

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Duncan, Alan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dunn, Bob

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      Burns, Simon

      Elletson, Harold

      117

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Faber, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Page, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Forth, Eric

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Pickles, Eric

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      French, Douglas

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Richards, Rod

      Gallie, Phil

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Gorst, Sir John

      Sackville, Tom

      Grant,Sir A(SW Cambs)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Hague, William

      Sims, Roger

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Harris, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hendry, Charles

      Sproat, Iain

      Hicks, Robert

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Stem, Michael

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

      Streeter, Gary

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Sumberg, David

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

      Sykes, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jack, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Thomason, Roy

      Jessel, Toby

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Cer V)

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Thumham, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Trotter, Neville

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Knox, Sir David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Waller, Gary

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Ward, John

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Legg, Barry

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Watts, John

      Lidington, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Lightbown, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Lord, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      MacKay, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Malone, Gerald

      Wolfson, Mark

      Marlow, Tony

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Merchant, Piers

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Mills, Iain

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      118

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McAllion, John

      Barnes, Harry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Battle, John

      McFall, John

      Betts, Clive

      McKelvey, William

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Caravan, Dennis

      McMaster, Gordon

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Mahon, Alice

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Darling, Alistair

      Olner, Bill

      Davidson, Ian

      Pike, Peter L

      Dixon, Don

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Raynsford, Nick

      Dowd, Jim

      Redmond, Martin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Reid, Dr John

      Rendel, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Flynn, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Simpson, Alan

      Galbraith, Sam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Uin

      Spellar, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hanson, David

      Wallace, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hoyie, Doug

      Wray, Jimmy

      Illsley, Eric

      Ingram, Adam

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dr. Norman A. Godman and

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mr. Michael Conarty.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 17
      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CHILD LOOKED AFTER BY THEM
      Amendment made: No. 153, in page 13, line 44, leave out from 'so' to end of line 4 in page 14.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 18

      LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANS FOR SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
      Amendment proposed: No. 155, in page 14, line 29, after 'of' insert —(a)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mrs. Ewing: I shall make a brief intervention on the provision of services for children by local authorities. The Minister will be aware that I am deeply concerned about issues pertaining to children with special needs and the assessment of those needs. Does he feel that the amendment will go towards meeting many of the arguments that were propounded in Committee, especially those directed to multi-disciplinary approaches to the assessment of children with special needs? To some extent, the amendments meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. Does the Minister feel that the tabling of amendments in another place would lead to a more effective outcome? This is a matter of great concern to many people.
      Mrs. Fyfe: As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has said, clause 18, as amended, would be fine as far as it goes, but it still contains nothing about expanding the definition of children in need. The clause remains narrow. There is still nothing in it about respite care or

      119
      disabilities. The Government have undertaken to do something about carers, but carers are not mentioned in the amendment. If the Minister can assure us that these points will be taken up in another place, we shall not pursue the matter.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These matters are still being considered. I can assure the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that amendments to be considered this evening will ensure that local authority plans for services for children cover all relevant services. I shall look into the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Maryhill, which is under consideration.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 156, in page 14, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert '; or
      (b) any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B)(a) to (o) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (enactments in respect of which Secretary of State may issue directions to local authorities as to the exercise of their functions).'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 24

      AFTER-CARE
      Amendment proposed: No. 157, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
      '(2A) Assistance given under subsection (1) or (2) above may include assistance in kind or in cash.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 158.
      Mrs. Fyfe: We had a substantial debate on this part of the Bill in Committee. We argued that resources should be provided to expand provision until the age of 21 years. That was rejected on the ground that the cost would be far too high. When hon. Members and I asked the Minister what the cost would be his answer was somewhat vague, although an alarmingly large figure was mentioned. Since then I understand that Shelter has given the Scottish Office a range of costs. The Association of Directors of Social Work has also advised the Scottish Office on costs. What has happened to the information given to the Scottish Office since the Committee reported? The child care law review estimated that the cost would be £965,000 per annum. That, the Minister will recall, is far less than the sum that was guesstimated in Committee. The figures provided by the child care law review do not account for the cost of not providing care until the age of 21. If we do not cater for that, further crime will be committed, and the health statistics will worsen.
      There are numerous ways in which failing to care for the needs of young people who need care until the age of 21 bumps up the crime statistics. That failure costs the nation and creates health problems, for which there are costs to the health service, and so on. Although it is difficult to estimate such costs, they are real. Opposition Members in Committee felt that the whole proposal was rejected far too readily, without getting the reasonable statistics that could have helped
      120
      debate. Will the Minister consider it further, given that he has received good advice from helpful and respected organisations in the meantime?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Galbraith: This was the only subject on which the debate got heated in Committee, partly because Opposition Members consider the extension of provisions to cover an older age to be important. The Minister replied, in what for him was a fairly perfunctory manner, simply by reading his brief without giving consideration to the points that we had made, the main one being that it is all right for those of us with families, to whom we can return, even though we may have left home, but those who have been put out on the street and those in care have no person to whom they can turn.
      I understand that there has been some slight movement on the amendment. One of the things for which we asked was that assistance be given in cash. I understand that the amendment now mentions cash. The Minister really must consider once again all the arguments that we made in Committee. My understanding, despite the rather shallow brief that the Minister had, was that he was against it on cost. The costs are now available to him and they are not great. Surely the Government can find their way to providing that small amount of money for those who have been in care and are then thrown out on the streets.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Resources were the major stumbling block to the proposals that were made in Committee. The two amendments result from our lengthy discussions. They improve the provisions in relation to after-care. Amendment No. 157 makes it clear that the assistance that can be given
      "may include assistance in kind or in cash."
      Amendment No. 158 ensures that, where a relevant young person moves to the area of a new authority, the original authority should notify it of the proposed move only if the young person consents. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is made aware of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in relation to costings. Those representations will be looked at with great care.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 158, in page 18, line 23, at end insert
      'provided that he consents to their doing so'.—p[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 26

      REVIEW OF CASE OF CHILD LOOKED AFTER BY LOCAL AUTHORITY
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'by regulations'.
      No. 10, in page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 28
      TRANSFERS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 159, in page 19, line 27, leave out clause 28.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 37
      PRIVACY OF PROCEEDINGS AT AND RIGHT TO ATTEND CHILDREN'S HEARING
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 27, line 11, leave out 'his' and insert 'the child's'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 39
      ATTENDANCE OF CHILD AND RELEVANT PERSON AT CHILDREN'S HEARING
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 28, line 12, leave out from 'the' to 'for' in line 13 and insert 'interest of the child' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 41

      PRESUMPTION AND DETERMINATION OF AGE
      Amendment made: No. 160, in page 29, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) Where a children's hearing has been arranged in respect of any person, the hearing—

      (a) shall, at the commencement of the proceedings, make inquiry as to his age and shall proceed with the hearing only if he declares that he is a child or they so determine; and

      (b) may, at any time before the conclusion of the proceedings, accept a declaration by the child, or make a fresh determination, as to his age.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 42
      TRANSFER OF CASE TO ANOTHER CHILDREN'S HEARING
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 29, line 30, leave out first 'that' and insert 'which'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 44

      APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF CHILDREN'S HEARING OR SHERIFF
      Amendment made: No. 161, in page 31, line 42, at end insert—
      '(ia) continuing a child protection order under section 52(4) of this Act;'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 45

      CHILDREN REQUIRING COMPULSORY MEASURES OF SUPERVISION
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 32, line 9, leave out 'rights' and insert 'responsibilities'.
      No. 15, in page 32, line 45, leave out 'control' and insert 'supervision'.
      No. 16, in page 32, line 45, leave out 'in such accommodation'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mr. Gallie: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 32, line 34, at end insert—
      ' (ia) has misused alcohol or has in a public place consumed alcohol of a strength greater than 1 per cent. by volume.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 32, line 35, leave out 'alcohol or'.
      No. 8, in page 32, line 46 at end insert—
      122
      '(3)' In this section, "a public place" means any location other than a private dwelling house.'.
      Mr. Gallie: The amendments are intended to draw attention to alcohol abuse among young people. In Scotland—and, I suspect, further afield—it is currently illegal for shopkeepers, off-licences or anyone else to sell alcohol for consumption by those under 18, and for alcohol to be bought for a youngster. Strangely, it is not illegal for the youngster to consume that alcohol.
      The current position puts great pressure on shopkeepers who attempt to establish the age of youngsters, but the main problem involves people in the community who see youngsters drinking on beaches or in town centres—it commonly happens on large housing estates—and complain to the police. They know that they must not buy alcohol for young people, and cannot understand why the police are not able to stop those young people drinking in public places. The amendments seek to make it illegal for youngsters to consume alcohol in public places, "alcohol" and "alcoholic beverage" being considered to be any drink that contains more than 1 per cent. alcohol by volume.
      The advertising of alcoholic drinks is now being targeted at young people, and there are numerous containers designed to appeal to the young market. That cannot be right.
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am very interested in this subject, which has been raised repeatedly by my constituents. Although I broadly agree with what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has said, I feel some anxiety about the means of redress that he seeks through the children's hearing system and supervisory orders. I think that he should exert pressure on members of his own party, including Ministers, to implement byelaws to outlaw on-street drinking. My local authority, backed by the local police, has made strenuous representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland calling for the implementation of those byelaws, and I feel that that would be a more effective method.
      We must also bear in mind the tremendous cost to the health and general well-being of under-age drinkers. These proposals merely scratch the surface; other aspects of the sale of drinks and the drinks industry must be taken into account if we are to encourage a more responsible attitude, and ensure that alcohol is not sold to under-age people.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman about advertising that is specifically aimed at young people. However, other products are available in my constituency and throughout north Lanarkshire, made by people who should know better. There are instances of children as young as nine consuming fortified drinks in my constituency.
      I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's proposal for redress, but I think it important to draw to Ministers' attention the deep concern that is felt about this aspect of young people's lives.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I support the amendments. That will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), because in the past I have tried to move similar amendments. At that time, my hon. Friend the Minister gave assurances about local byelaws. He, too, will not be surprised to learn that I have been watching the position carefully; I am concerned, because I think that that may not be the way in which to deal with the problem.

      123
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government are aware that there is a problem and that byelaws may not be the most effective answer, because of the problems of having to designate certain places. That has been the difficulty in my constituency and others. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government are considering the matter, and may well find a way of dealing with it.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I hope that the Minister will not support amendment No. 6. I find it incredible that a serious proposal could be made that compulsory measures of supervision should apply in such cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, no doubt exists that under-age drinking, especially in public places, can be a major problem. It causes a great deal of upset and even fear to other citizens going about their business, but this amendment is not the way to tackle it. I hope that the Minister is not minded to say that it is.
      Mr. Ian Davidson: May I add my voice to those of hon. Members calling on the Minister to make it clear what action he proposes to take on the serious problem of under-age drinking in public? Substantial discussions on another Bill have taken place in the other place about the problems caused by young people—attacks, thefts and the like. Such problems are often fuelled by alcohol that has been consumed in a public place and that has been made available to and bought for young people by adults, who are often alcoholic. In return for a percentage of the carry-out, they will provide those young people with any amount of drink, provided they have the money to buy it. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem and treat it seriously.
      If the Government do not accept the solution of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), I hope that they will promise that something will be done about the matter in the near future. Undoubtedly, people in my constituency, and I am sure other constituencies throughout Scotland, want urgent action.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments, including those of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on byelaws as a possible limited way forward. I listened to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) about drinking by young people.
      Two problems exist in relation to the amendments. The first is that they embody a definition of alcoholic drink that does not accord with the definition in any other Scottish legislation. The alcohol strength is set so low that, perversely, some young people might view it as a ban to beat. Secondly, in attempting to cover public places, the proposed definition would venture into such a wide range of situations that it would be difficult to enforce. For those reasons, the amendments are unworkable.
      I recognise, however, the great strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I should mention that a considerable array of statutory and common law
      124
      offences can already be brought to bear, whatever the age of the drinker.
      The long-term answer is a positive attitude to health and healthy life styles. The Health Education Board for Scotland works closely with education authorities, health boards and the Scottish Council on Alcohol in getting that message across to young people. We all have a part to play in ensuring that young people are aware of the consequences of alcohol misuse, that they appreciate the legal position and that they are taught the importance of a sensible approach to alcohol use.
      I understand my hon. Friend's motives and the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My concerns about the problems of under-age drinking and its effect both on drinkers and others are no less than theirs. Having said that, I understand the strength of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr on the issue. Without commitment, because the problems that I have mentioned are real and genuine ones, I am willing to consider the matter further and to reflect on the debate. On that basis, having made his case, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Gallie: I should like to deal with a couple of points, if that is in order. The first is that byelaws are totally ineffective. Local authorities are reluctant, for example, to act against drinking on the beach. They will not impose byelaws because many families enjoy having a picnic and a glass of wine. Byelaws are not acceptable under those circumstances. My amendment would have been much more appropriate.
      Having said that, I recognise that penalties would be inappropriate. I wanted to highlight illegal drinking and to give the police some power to stop that practice on our streets. No difficulty would exist with enforcement. The proposal would be a boon to the police rather than a disadvantage.
      However, having heard my hon. Friend say that he will consider the matter and take the principle on board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 162, in page 32, line 46, at end insert—
      '(3) In this Part of this Act, 'supervision' in relation to compulsory measures of supervision may include measures taken for the protection, guidance, treatment or control of the child.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Children (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

    Clause 46

      PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 33, line 3, leave out
      ',having regard to section 45 of this Act,'.
      No. 18, in page 33, line 14, leave out
      ', having regard to section 45,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 47
      REFERENCE TO THE PRINICIPAL REPORTER BY COURT
      Amendment made: No. 19, in page 34, line 2, after 'divorce or' insert 'judicial'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 48

      CHILD ASSESSMENT ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 35, line 9, leave out 'at that place.' and insert
      'in any place to which has been taken or in which he is being kept under a child assessment order.'.
      No. 21, in page 35, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 22, in page 35, line 13, after 'section;' insert—
      '(aa) the persons to whom notice of an application under this section shall be given;'.
      No. 23, in page 35, line 15, leave out 'subsection (6)' and insert 'paragraph (aa)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 49

      INITIAL INVESTIGATION BY THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 35, line 30, leave out from 'Reporter' to end and insert
      'thinks, or the local authority think, fit.'.
      No. 25, in page 35, line 36, leave out
      'he may, if he considers it appropriate'.
      No. 26, in page 35, line 38, after '(a)' insert 'he shall'.
      No. 27, in page 35, line 41, after '(b)' insert
      'he may, if he considers it appropriate'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 50

      CHILD PROTECTION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 36, line 18, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 29, in page 36, line 31, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 30, in page 36, line 46, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 36, in page 37, line 12, leave out 'prevent' and insert 'authorise the prevention of'.
      No. 31, in page 37, line 15, at end insert
      'or class of person specified in the order.'.
      No. 32, in page 37, line 16, after 'given' insert
      'forthwith by the applicant to the local authority in whose area the child resides (where that authority is not the applicant) and'.
      No. 33, in page 37, line 18, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Rules'.
      No. 34, in page 37, line 22, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 35, in page 37, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).
      No. 37, in page 37, line 35, leave out subsection (9).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 51

      DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO CONTACT AND EXERCISE OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PARENTAL RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'rights' and insert 'responsibilities'.
      No. 39, in page 37, line 42, leave out 'named' and insert 'specified'.
      126
      No. 40, in page 38, line 10, after 'order' insert
      'under section 50(1) or (2) of this Act'.—[>Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 52
      INITIAL HEARING OF CASE OF CHILD SUBJECT TO CHILD PROTECTION ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 38, line 35, leave out 'granted' and insert 'made'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 53

      DURATION, RECALL OR VARIATION OF CHILD PROTECTION ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 39, line 25, leave out 'be enforceable' and insert 'have effect'.
      No. 163, in page 39, line 30, leave out from 'be' to end of line 35 and insert '—

      (a) kept in a place of safety under; or

      (b) prevented from being removed from any place by, a child protection order where the Principal Reporter, having regard to the welfare of the child, considers that, whether as a result of a change in the circumstances of the case or of further information relating to the case having been received by the Principal Reporter, the conditions for the making of a child protection order in respect of the child are no longer satisfied and notifies the person who implemented the order that he so considers.

      (3A) The Principal Reporter shall not give notice under subsection (3) above where—

      (a) proceedings before a children's hearing arranged under section 52(2) of this Act in relation to the child who is subject to the child protection order have commenced; or

      (b) the hearing of an application made under subsection (5) of this section has begun.

      (3B) Where the Principal Reporter has given notice under subsection (3) above, he shall also, in such manner as may be prescribed, notify the sheriff who made the order.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 40, line 6, at end insert '; or
      (f) any person or class of persons affected by the provisions of section 51(1)(c) above.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 57, page 43, line 39, after 'person', insert
      'or any person or class of persons who may be affected by the provisions of section 61(5)(b) below.'.
      No. 3, in clause 64, page 50, line 15, after 'person', insert
      'or any person or class of persons affected by the provisions of section 61(5)(b) above.'.
      Mr. Galbraith: These amendments have become known as my granny amendments. The Minister is aware of the arguments, so there is no need to reiterate them. I am concerned that a third party suspected of being involved in a child abuse case can have that suspicion laid against him with no provision in the legal process—children's panel, reporter or sheriff court—to entitle that person to any right to be heard or to put his case. The charge can be found against him without his ever having the right to question it. That is an infringement of our civil liberties. Although it is right that the child's interests

      127
      must be paramount, we cannot allow that to infringe the civil liberty of others. That is the reason behind my granny amendments.
      Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My amendment No. 98, which is scheduled to be debated further down the list, in fact deals with almost exactly the same point as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). It might help the House if we also dealt with my amendment now.
      Madam Speaker: That is a commonsense suggestion. Therefore, we shall also discuss amendment No. 98, in clause 59, page 45, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where one of the grounds of referral to which an application relates is a condition referred to in section 45(2)(d) or (e) or (f) or (g)—

      (a) the Principal Reporter shall, at the same time as making an application to the sheriff under section 57(6) of this Act, intimate the application to any person named in the grounds of referral, or in respect of whom the Principal Reporter intends to lead evidence before the sheriff, alleging that such person has committed an offence to which the conditions in section 45(2)(d) to (g) relate; and

      (b) any person to whom intimation is made in terms of this subsection shall be entitled to be represented at the hearing of the application, and the sheriff may permit representations to be made by the such person, or on his behalf.'.

      Mr. Wallace: I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. In the Orkney case, there were allegations involving a third party. Even if the matter had gone to proof before the sheriff, that third party would have had no locus to appear. Even if the allegations do not receive publicity, they still very much affect the individual concerned. There should be some ability for that person to be given the opportunity to clear his or her name. Under the proposals in my amendment, if an allegation relates to offences, which by their very nature are sexual offences—relating to conditions referred to in clause 45(2)(d) or (e) or (f) or (g)—and there is a dispute about the grounds of referral and they go to the sheriff for proof, that person should at least have intimation of that dispute and have the right to be represented and, subject to the sheriff's discretion, an opportunity to be heard.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are technical reasons why the amendments are flawed. What is more important is the principle, which the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) have raised in relation to third parties being unfairly accused. Hon. Members may wish to be aware that amendments Nos. 186 and 187 extend an unqualified right of attendance at a children's hearing to any person who has a parental responsibility in respect of the child and to any person who ordinarily has charge of or control over the child. Those amendments will ensure that those persons, having a legal right of contact or actual care, can be heard by the children's hearing and will have subsequent rights.
      128
      I shall look at the points that the hon. Members have raised, especially in relation to the amendments, and I shall consider them further.
      Mr. Galbraith: Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 would not include provision for grandmothers, unless they had parental rights. Is that correct?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be fair to say that if the parents were unable to look after the child, parental responsibility could transfer to the grandparents. I shall look, however, at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially in relation to the amendment.'
      Mr. Galbraith: It is clear from what the Minister has said that amendments Nos. 186 and 187 do not cover the provisions proposed in my amendment and therefore do not deal with the granny problem. It is not a question of whether parents have lost their ability to look after the child. My amendment deals with cases in which parents still have rights and responsibilities but when a third person—a granny—is involved. Having heard, however, the Minister say that he is willing to look at the subject again and—perhaps—table amendments in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Wallace: In the case that I cited, the amendments do not apply. We are talking about a third party in circumstances where there would not be any question of the person having parental rights or care and control of the child. The amendments that the Minister mentioned are helpful as far as they go, but they clearly do not cover the kind of circumstances to which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and I have referred. Nevertheless, the Minister has indicated a willingness to look at the problem so I do not think that it would be helpful to press my amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
      Madam Speaker: I have to put the Question on amendment No. 1 moved by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) because the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke afterwards. Therefore if the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland does not wish to proceed with his amendment it will have to be negatived.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 53

      DURATION, RECALL OR VARIATION OF CHILD PROTECTION ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 40, line 17, leave out '(5)(a)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 44, in page 40, line 19, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert 'rules'.
      No. 45, in page 40, line 32, after 'application' insert
      'and, if he wishes to make representations, the Principal Reporter'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 54

      EMERGENCY PROTECTION OF CHILDREN WHERE CHILD PROTECTION ORDER NOT AVAILABLE
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 41, line 6, leave out 'grant' and insert 'making'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 164, in page 41, line 8, leave out 'any such order' and insert

      129
      'it is probable that any such order, if made,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mrs. Fyfe: I would like to ask a question about amendment No. 166. Is training for justices of the peace envisaged and is it intended that an assessor will sit with a JP? The amendment was to be tabled, according to the Government in Committee, because there was supposed to be such a dearth of sheriffs. Yet we have heard since from people who are familiar with the role of sheriffs that there is clearly no need to bring in JPs at all and that sheriffs ought to be available in sufficient numbers to obviate the need for calling on JPs. When I was a councillor, I was also a justice of the peace. I knew nothing at all about such matters. I spent my time as a JP signing people's forms from pawnbrokers because they had lost their pawnbrokers' slips or signing applications for passports. That hardly seemed adequate training to take a decision on an issue like this.
      Mr. Wallace: I need to crave your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to some extent. I tabled an amendment which, because we are making such fast progress, I was unable to refer to. It related to the use of justices of the peace in areas where they do not sit in district courts. The amendment that I had tabled attempted to deal with that point and I hope that the Minister will explain how he will attempt to deal with it. In an earlier group of amendments, there was reference to justices of the peace not having training to deal with the very sensitive matters which such orders raise.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Training will be provided for justices of the peace as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) requested. In relation to making justices of the peace available rather than sheriffs where sheriffs are not available, the amendment arose from representations from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In the remoter islands of Scotland, there could be circumstances in which a sheriff might not be readily available in an emergency. The proposal relates not to circumstances in Glasgow or to centres of population, but to the remoter areas of Scotland. It is a safeguard which we think sensible to put in place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 165, in page 41, line 1, leave from 'circumstances' to end of line 11 and insert
      'for an application for such an order to be made to or for the sheriff to consider such an application'.
      No. 166, in page 41, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where on the application of a local authority a justice of the peace is satisfied—

      (a) both that the conditions laid down for the making of a child protection order in section 50(2) of this Act are satisfied and that it is probable that any such order, if made, would contain an authorisation in terms of paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (4) of that section; but

      (b) that it is not practicable in the circumstances for an application for such an order to be made to the sheriff or for the sheriff to consider such an application,

      he may grant an authorisation under this section.'.
      No. 47, in page 41, line 21, leave out
      'if not implemented by the applicant,'.
      130
      No. 48, in page 41, line 22, leave out 'granted' and insert—
      'made, if within that time—

      (i) arrangements have not been made to prevent the child's removal from any place specified in the authorisation; or

      (ii) he has not been, or is not being, taken to a place of safety'.

      No. 49, in page 41, line 23, leave out from 'where' to 'when' in line 25 and insert—
      'such arrangements have been made or he has been so taken,'.
      No. 167, in page 41, line 33, leave out from 'him' to 'and' in line 34 and insert
      'to make an application for such an order to the sheriff or for the sheriff to consider such an application;'.
      No. 50, in page 41, line 41, leave out from 'time' to end and insert
      'when the child is so removed.'.
      No. 51, in page 42, line 1, after 'be' insert '—
      (a)'
      No. 52, in page 42, line 1, after 'safety' insert '; or
      (b) prevented from being removed from any place,'.
      No. 168, in page 42, line 3, after 'Or insert 'or (1A)'.
      No. 53, in page 42, line 6, leave out subsection (8).— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 55
      REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF EMERGENCY CHILD PROTECTION MEASURES
      Amendment made: No. 54, in page 42, line 8, leave out subsection (1).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 56

      BUSINESS MEETING PREPARATORY TO CHILDREN'S HEARING
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 42, line 24, leave out from 'hearing' to the'.
      No. 56, in page 42, line 25, leave out first 'the'.
      No. 57, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'who will form' and insert 'from which'.
      No. 58, in page 42, line 26, after 'hearing' insert 'is to be'.
      No. 59, in page 42, line 30, leave out from 'whom' to 'and' in line 31 and insert
      'the proceedings are to be commenced'.
      No. 60, in page 42, line 39, after 'meeting' insert
      ', subject to subsection (4) below'.
      No. 61, in page 42, line 43, leave out
      'subject to subsection (4) below'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 57

      REFERRAL TO, AND PROCEEDINGS AT, CHILDREN'S HEARINGS
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 43, line 13, after 'that' insert —

      (a) compulsory measures of supervision are necessary, and

      (b)'

      No. 169, in page 43, line 18, leave out or' and insert 'and the order is'.
      No. 170, in page 43, line 20, leave out from 'place' to 'implemented' in line 21 and insert
      'on the eighth working day after that order was'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 58

      WARRANT TO KEEP CHILD WHERE CHILDREN'S HEARING UNABLE TO DISPOSE OF CASE
      Amendments made: No. 63, in page 44, line 16, leave out from 'hearing' to 'unable' in line 21 and insert '—

      (a) arranged to consider a child's case under—

      (i) section 57(1); or

      (ii) section 64(7),

      of this Act; and

      (b)'.

      No. 64, in page 45, line 8, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where a children's hearing grant a warrant under subsection (1) above or continues such a warrant under subsection (4) above, they may order that the place of safety at which the child is to be kept shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the order.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 59

      APPLICATION TO SHERIFF TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS OF REFERRAL
      Amendments made: No. 171, in page 45, line 31, after the word 'shall' insert
      ', subject to subsection (4A) below,'.
      No. 65, in page 45, line 32, leave out 'of their legal representation' and insert
      'of each of them to be legally represented'.
      No. 172, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
      '(4A) An application may be heard, in whole or in part, in the absence of the child where the sheriff is satisfied—

      (a) in an application in which the ground of referral to be established is a condition mentioned in section 45(2)(d), (e), (f) or (g) of this Act, that the attendance of the child is not necessary for the just hearing of that application; and

      (b) in any application, that it would be detrimental to the interests of the child for him to be present at the hearing of the application.'.

      No. 173, in page 45, line 36, after 'application' insert
      'at which his attendance has not been dispensed with under subsection (4A) above'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 60

      CONTINUATION OR DISPOSAL OF REFERRAL BY CHILDREN'S HEARING
      Amendments made: No. 66, in page 47, line 4, leave out 'child and his history' and insert 'case'.
      No. 67, in page 47, line 40, at end insert—
      '(8A) Where a child is to be kept at a place of safety under a warrant granted under this section, the children's hearing may order that such place shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the order.'.
      No. 68, in page 47, line 41, leave out from 'decide' to 'they' in line 4 and insert
      'not to make a supervision requirement under section 61 of this Act'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 61

      DISPOSAL OF REFERRAL BY CHILDREN'S HEARING: SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING RESIDENCE IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
      Amendments made: No. 69, in page 48, line 21, leave out from first 'the' to 'any' and insert
      'contact with the child of'.
      No. 70, in page 48, line 21, leave out 'named' and insert 'specified'.
      No. 71, in page 48, line 44, leave out 'a history of absconding' and insert 'previously absconded'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 62

      DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 49, line 3, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) The relevant local authority shall give effect to any supervision requirement made under section 61 of this Act.'.
      No. 73, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'in relevant accommodation' and insert—

      '(a) in relevant accommodation; or

      (b) in any other accommodation not provided by a local authority,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 64

      DURATION AND REVIEW OF SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 50, line 34, after '61(7)' insert 'or section 63(2)'.
      No. 174, in page 50, line 46, leave out 'a new condition'.
      No. 175, in page 50, line 46, after 'requirement' insert
      'any requirement which could have been imposed by them under section 61(3) of this Act'.
      No. 76, in page 50, line 48, at end insert—
      '(8A) Where a children's hearing vary or impose a requirement or condition under subsection (8) above which requires the child to reside in any specified place or places, they may order that such place or places shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the requirement.'.
      No. 77, in page 51, line 3, leave out
      '(whether with or without variation)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 7, at end insert—

      '(9A) Where a children's hearing has taken place by virtue of subsection (4)(c) above and a decision has been reached in terms of subsection (7) above, the relevant local authority—

      (a) may, within a period of 3 weeks beginning with the date of the decision of the said children's hearing appeal to the sheriff against that decision; and

      (b) where such an appeal is made, shall be heard by the sheriff as to the reasons for the appeal.

      (9B) Where the relevant local authority appeals under subsection (1) above, subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 44 of this Act, shall apply to that appeal as they apply to an appeal under that section.'.

      The amendment relates to circumstances, which we rehearsed in Committee, when there is an impasse between the children's hearing and the local authority with regard to future arrangements for the child, and specifically when the local authority believes that adoption should be considered and the children's hearing has come to a somewhat different view. At present, children's hearings are not allowed openly to discuss adoption plans, as the purpose of the hearings is more to

      133
      deal with short-term issues in the child's life and are not part of the adoption process. That makes it difficult at hearings for permanent plans for the children to be discussed.
      When the matter was debated in Committee, the Minister said that he thought that there was some merit in what was being put forward. He said that the amendment that I moved
      "would allow the local authority, in any case where it did not receive the agreement of the children's hearing to the proposal submitted … to appeal direct to the sheriff. The reason for that seems to have some merit, and we are willing to give it consideration if the hon. Member can provide details of the circumstances in which he thinks it would be appropriate."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 7 March 1995; c. 547.]
      Regrettably, the detail that I sought to pass on to the Minister came into my hands only at the beginning of last week, and I have not had a proper opportunity to look at it in detail. However, it refers to circumstances relating to, for example, a child of any age who had been subject to a supervision requirement under the 1968 Act, and there had been access by the parents but that had been reduced because the parents had not been keeping up access on a regular basis. At that point, the local authority thought that it might be appropriate to plan for adoption. At a subsequent hearing, the parents reassured the hearing that their life style had changed and access was therefore increased. At that stage there is a possible impasse between the local authority and the children's hearing.
      I appreciate that what is suggested is a novel approach. It brings the local authority into a direct relationship with the children's hearing, which is unusual. I can understand that there might be some resistance to that, but, in the interests of the child, there must be some way in which the issues can be looked at by an independent body, in this case by the sheriff.
      I hope that the Minister will continue to sympathise with that approach. If he shows that he still has an open mind on the issue, I will certainly furnish him with many more examples of circumstances which could give rise to such a dispute between the local authority and the hearing and when appeal to the sheriff using current procedures, but just adding a bit on to them to deal with such cases, might be an appropriate way of trying to take matters forward at all times in the best interests of the child.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am content to consider the matter further and, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 67
      DURATION AND REVIEW OF SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 53, line 43, after 'child' insert 'ordinarily'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
    Clause 68

      EFFECT OF, AND ORDERS ETC. ANCILLARY TO, EXCLUSION ORDER
      Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 54, line 8, after 'permission', insert
      134
      'of the other occupiers and'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to modify clause 68 (1), but if the Minister gives me one of his honest assurances that it is unnecessary, I shall happily withdraw it. Clause 68(1) states:
      "An exclusion order shall, in respect of the home to which it relates, have the effect of suspending the named person's rights of occupancy (if any) and shall prevent him from entering the home, except with the express permission of the local authority which applied for the order."
      My amendment would modify that to read,
      "with the express permission of other occupiers and the local authority".
      I supported clause 67, and I have long campaigned for the exclusion of the alleged abuser rather than the removal of the child or children from the home. But in this case express permission can be given to a named person to enter a home from which he or she has been excluded. Presumably, that requires the permission of the other parent, or the child concerned if he is old enough to have an opinion.
      It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that such a child should be able to express an opinion about the local authority's decision to prevent the excluded person from returning to the family home. The interests of the child should be made an explicit requirement. I must first ask the Minister whether that is feasible.
      The amendment would protect the child's interests—and those of the other parent—by putting them on a level with the local authority. I believe that the amendment is necessary, although the Minister may seek to convince me that it is not, to defend the interests of the child. I believe that the child and the other parent should be placed alongside the local authority in this matter.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should say at the outset that I have some sympathy with the amendment. The concept of excluding someone from the family home does carry with it the expectation that those remaining will be content with the situation. If those involved conclude that, in the light of changing circumstances, this is not possible—or if the person requires access to remove personal belongings—it would seem reasonable to allow the people remaining in the house to have a say.
      There is another side to the coin. It may be that the mother and child who remain in the house are put under serious pressure by the excluded abusing husband, and that they might reach a point where they could no longer resist. It is important to remember that, if the woman had wished, she could have sought to exclude the person through the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) Scotland Act 1981. The fact that she chose not to do so, and that an authority became involved, may reflect on the woman's inability or unwillingness to take matters forward herself.
      On balance—this was very much a balanced decision—we reached the view that the local authority should probably be left very much in the driving seat. I have little doubt that it would consult where appropriate, but the final decision should be for the authority. The mother, child or other occupants of the family home should not have to face decisions of that type at a time when they might be under considerable stress, and may have difficulty in forming

      135
      balanced views. They may also have been subject to violence. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
      Dr. Godman: The child, wife or partner must be consulted comprehensively by the local authority by way of an assessment. I accept the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 69

      POWERS OF ARREST ETC. IN RELATION TO EXCLUSION ORDER
      Amendment proposed: No. 176, in page 55, line 11, after 'may' insert 'ex proprio motu or'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Madam Speaker: With this it will convenient to take Government amendment No. 177.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I wonder whether the Minister could simply tell us what ex proprio motu means. Could he put that in plain English in the Bill? I recognise that it is Latin. I even did a few years of Latin at secondary school, but the Minister undertook in Committee to try to frame a Bill in language that could be understood not only by Members of Parliament but by the general public trying to find their way through child legislation. I am sure that it can be translated into an easily understood English phrase. I hope that the Minister will let us know tonight what it means and will undertake to do that.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When I took my law degree exams, I could certainly have given the hon. Lady the exact answer, but she will have to put up with a slightly longer one tonight. The amendment represents a useful addition to clause 69, which deals with powers of arrest in relation to exclusion orders. Amendment No. 176 simply ensures that the sheriff may, at his own hand, attach a power of arrest to an interdict and need not wait for an application by the local authority. I understand that the actual wording means "at his own hand". It is a Latin tag applicable in court proceedings. A sheriff will understand exactly what it means. I am glad that, owing to the excellence of the memories of my officials, who have not forgotten what they learnt in their law exams, I can inform the hon. Lady accordingly.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry—
      Madam Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention? Is the Minister allowing an intervention? If not, the hon. Lady must seek the leave of the House.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am content to allow the hon. Lady to intervene.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am not sure whether this is an intervention or not.
      Madam Speaker: Order. It has to be, otherwise it is not in order.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I am sure that the sheriff will understand. My point is that the general public will not. Will the Minister simply amend the Bill to make it clear?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with that sentiment.
      136
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 177, in page 55, line 44, leave out from 'of' to 'liberate' in line 46, and insert
      'that person further breaching the interdict to which the power of arrest was attached under subsection (1) above,'.
      No. 79, in page 56, line 1, leave out from 'person' to end of line 5 and insert—
      '(6A) Such a refusal to liberate an arrested person as is mentioned in subsection (6)(b) above, and the detention of that person until his appearance in court by virtue of either subsection (9) below or any provision of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, shall not subject that constable to any claim whatsoever.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 71

      PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO EXCLUSION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 80, in page 58, line 7, after 'or' insert 'of
      No. 81, in page 58, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the powers, duties and functions of local authorities in relation to exclusion orders.'.
      No. 82, in page 58, line 23, leave out from 'situated' to end of line 28.
      No. 178, in page 58, line 33, after '(1)' insert 'or ClAr.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 74

      HARBOURING
      Amendments made: No. 179, in page 60, line 8, leave out second 'and'.
      No. 180, in page 60, line 9, after '1989' insert
      'and to Article 70(5) and (6) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995'.
      No. 181, in page 60, line 10, after 'Wales' insert 'and for Northern Ireland'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 76

      PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ORDER: GENERAL
      Amendments made: No. 182, in page 61, line 6, leave out from '1976' to or' in line 7 and insert
      ', under section 18 or 49 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or under Article 17, 18 or 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (corresponding provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland).'.
      No. 83, in page 61, line 11, leave out from 'child' to end of line 13.
      No. 84, in page 61, line 16, leave out 'or'.
      No. 85, in page 61, line 18, at end insert
      'or of any other person claiming an interest'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 77

      FURTHER PROVISION AS RESPECTS PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 61, line 48, at end insert
      '; and service of such notice shall be effected either by the authority leaving it in the person's hands or by their sending it to him, at his and the child's most recent known address, by recorded delivery service'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 81

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendments made: No. 183, in page 64, line 10, at end insert—
      '(aa) a community home within the meaning of section 53 of the Children Act 1989;'.
      No. 184, in page 64, line 27, leave out 'and'.
      No. 185, in page 64, line 30, at end insert
      'and
      (c) in relation to a place in Northern Ireland, means a home provided under Part VIII of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, or a voluntary home, or a registered children's home (which have respectively the meanings given by that Order);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 65, line 14, leave out from 'where' to 'rights' in line 15.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 187.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should draw to the attention of the House errors in the printing of amendments Nos. 186 and 187. Amendment No. 186 should read:
      "line 15, leave out from 'the' to 'any'."
      Amendment No. 187 should read:
      "line 19, leave out from 'act' to 'any' and insert 'and (c)'."
      The amendments extend the right of participation in a hearing and subsequent proceedings to broadly the same category of persons who at present have such rights under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. This meets some concerns expressed in Committee. My statement corrects the incorrect amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 187, in page 65, line 17, leave out from 'or' to 'above' in line 19 and insert 'and (c)'.
      No. 87, in line 21, leave out first 'the'.
      No. 188, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where, in the course of any proceedings under Chapter 2 or 3 of this Part, a child ceases to be a child within the meaning of subsection (2) above the provisions of those Chapters of this Part and of any statutory instrument made under those provisions, shall continue to apply to him as if he had not so ceased to be a child.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 83

      WELFARE OF CHILD PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 66, line 37, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment No. 189.
      Amendment No. 109, in page 66, line 41, at end insert 'and;
      (c) shall have regard so far as practicable to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.'.
      Mr. Wallace: Amendment No. 109 would require a court or an adoption agency to have regard, as far as practicable, to a child's religious persuasion, racial origin, cultural or linguistic background. Government
      138
      amendment No. 189 not only includes that but refers to the child's views, and I am sure it is a much superior amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 189, in page 66, line 38, leave out from 'practicable' to end of line 41 and insert—

      '—(i) to his views (if he wishes to express them) taking account of his age and maturity; and

      (ii) to his religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 87
      PANEL FOR CURATORS ad litem, REPORTING OFFICERS AND SAFEGUARDERS
      Amendment made: No. 134, in page 68, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 88

      INTERPRETATION AND PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL
      Amendment made: No. 135, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3) Rules or regulations made under this Act—

      (a) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case; and

      (b) may exclude certain cases or classes of case.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 90

      EXTENT, SHORT TITLE, MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND COMMENCEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 136, in page 69, line 5, at end insert—
      '(lA) An order under subsection (1)(b) above may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force.'.
      No. 190, in page 69, line 15, at end insert—
      '( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 191, in page 69, line 16, leave out '28' and insert [Effect of orders etc. made in different parts of the United Kingdom]'.
      No. 192, in page 69, line 17, after second 'and' insert 'those sections and this section (except section 61(4)) also extend'.
      No. 193, in page 69, line 23, leave out 'and 45' and insert ',45 and 46B'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 2

      AMENDMENTS OF THE ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978
      Amendments made: No. 194, in page 71, line 37, at end insert '—(a)'.
      No. 195, in page 71, line 38, at end insert '; and
      (b) for paragraph (c) substitute—

      "(bb) counselling and assistance (but, without prejudice to sections 51 to 51B, not assistance in cash) to children who have been adopted and to persons who have adopted a child; and

      (c) counselling for other persons if they have problems relating to adoption.".'.

      139
      No. 88, in page 72, line 8, leave out 'approved adoption society's' and insert 'adoption agency's'.
      No. 197, in page 77, line 8, after 'payments)' insert—
      '—(a) in subsection (1), after the word "section" insert "and of section 51A(3)";
      (b)'.
      No. 198, in page 77, line 12, at end insert—
      '; (c) in subsection (5)—

      (i) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 51B,"; and

      (ii) at the end add "(including any such payment made by virtue of section 51B)"; and

      (d) subsections (6)(a) and (7) to (11) shall cease to have effect.'
      No. 199, in page 77, line 15, at end insert—
      '. In section 60(3) (affirmative procedure for certain orders), the words "or 51(9)" shall cease to have effect'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 137, in page 80, line 4, leave out 'the'.
      No. 138, in page 80, line 9, leave out 'the'.
      No. 139, in page 80, line 13, leave out 'the'
      No. 140, in page 80, line 16, leave out second 'the'.
      No. 141, in page 81, line 13, after 'person' insert
      '(whether or not he has himself attained the age of sixteen years)'.
      No. 142, in page 81, line 28, after 'responsibilities' insert—
      '(9B) A person may be a qualified applicant for the purposes of this section whether or not he has attained the age of sixteen years.'.
      No. 143, in page 81, line 35, at end insert—
      '12A. Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of—

      (a) sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of this Schedule, a person's mother or father, who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years, purported to apply under section 20(3)(a) of that Act to re-register the person's birth, the mother, or as the case may be the father, shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the application; or

      (b) sub-paragraph (3)(c) of that paragraph, a person who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years purported to make an application under any provision of section 43 of that Act ("making an application" including for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, without prejudice to the generality of that expression, signing and delivering a certificate in accordance with sub-section (3) of that section) the person shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the application.'.

      No. 200, in page 82, line 35, at beginning insert 'Without prejudice to section 6B(1) of this Act,'.
      No. 89, in page 83, line 35, leave out 'the' in both places where it occurs.
      No. 201, in page 85, line 17, at end insert—
      '(1A) Section 14 shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 202, in page 85, line 33, at end insert—

      '(3A) In section 168 (power of court to refer child to reporter where accused convicted of certain offences: solemn proceedings)—

      (a) in paragraph (a), the word "female" shall cease to have effect;

      140

      (b) in paragraph (ii), after the word "above" insert "or the person in respect of whom the offence so mentioned was committed"; and

      (c) for the words "Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

      (3B) In section 171(2) (regard to be had to certain provisions in presumption of age of child: solemn proceedings)—

      (a) for the words "application of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "the definition of a child for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part H of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

      (b) for the words "under Part V of that Act" substitute "by virtue of regulations made under that Act for the purpose of giving effect to orders made in different parts of the United Kingdom".

      (3C) In section 177 (directions by court in solemn proceedings as to conveyance of person to residential establishment), the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect".

      No. 203, in page 85, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
      No. 204, in page 85, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.
      No. 205, in page 85, line 44, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 45 and insert—

      '(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "care" substitute "supervision"; and

      (ii) in paragraph (b),'.

      No. 208, in page 85, line 46, for "section 52(2)" substitute "section 57".
      No. 206, in page 86, line 14, at end insert—

      '(6A) Section 323 shall cease to have effect.

      (6B) In section 364 (power of court to refer child to reporter where accused convicted of certain offences: summary proceedings)—

      (a) in paragraph (a) the word "female" shall cease to have effect;

      (b) in paragraph (ii), after the word "above" insert "or the person in respect of whom the offence so mentioned was committed"; and

      (c) for the words "Part III. of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

      (6C) In section 368(2) (regard to be had to certain provisions in presumption of age of child: summary proceedings)—

      (a) for the words "application of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "the definition of a child for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

      (b) for the words "under Part V of that Act" substitute "by virtue of regulations made under that Act for the purpose of giving effect to orders made in different parts of the United Kingdom".

      (6D) In section 378 (directions by court in summary proceedings as to conveyance of person to residential establishment), the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect.

      (6E) In section 413 (detention of children found guilty in summary proceedings)—

      (a) in subsection (1), for the words "residential care" substitute "residential accommodation provided under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

      (b) in subsection (3)—

      (i) the definitions of "care" and of "the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect; and

      (ii) after the definition of "the appropriate local authority" insert—

      "secure accommodation" has the meaning assigned to it in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

      141

      (c) after subsection (3) insert the following subsection—

      "(3A) Where a child in respect of whom an order is made under this section is detained by the appropriate local authority, that authority shall have the same powers and duties in respect of the child as they would have if he were subject to a supervision requirement.";

      (d) in subsection (4), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect;

      (e) in subsection (5), the words "(within the meaning of the 1968 Act)" shall cease to have effect;

      (f) in subsection (6), for the word "care" substitute "accommodation";

      (g) in subsection (6A), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect;

      (h) in subsection (6B)—

      (i) for the words "care of substitute "accommodation provided by"; and

      (ii) for the words "their care" substitute "that accommodation or any other such accommodation provided by that authority"; and

      (i) in subsection (6C)—

      (i) for the word "care" where it first occurs substitute "accommodation provided by the appropriate local authority";

      (ii) in paragraph (a), for the word "care" substitute "accommodation";

      (iii) in paragraph (b), for the words "residential care" where they first occur substitute "detention in residential accommodation" and for those words where they secondly occur substitute "such detention".

      (6F) In section 462 (interpretation) in the definition of—

      (a) "child", for the words "by section 30 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

      (b) "children's hearing", for the words "by section 34(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

      (c) "place of safety", for the words "section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

      (d) "residential establishment", for the words from "has" to the end substitute "means an establishment within the meaning of that expression for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or, as the case may be, of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

      (e) "supervision requirement", for the words "by section 44(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".'.

      No. 90, in page 86, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert—
      '(b) for subsection (2) substitute—
      "(2) In any case where subsection (1) applies, and the child

      (a) was being looked after by a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 before he began to have his home with the applicant, and

      (b) continues to be looked after by such a council,

      the council by whom the child is being looked after shall not remove him from the applicant's care and possession except—

      (i) with the applicant's consent;

      (ii) with the leave of the court; or

      (iii) in accordance with an order made, or authority or warrant granted, under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".

      (c) at the end add—
      "(5) In this section "looked after" and "residence order" have the meanings given respectively by section 17(7) and section 11(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and "residence order" shall have the same meaning in sections 52 and 53 of this Act.".'.
      142
      No. 91, in page 87, line 19, leave out '83,' and insert '84, 99,'.
      No. 209, in page 87, line 19, leave out 'and 102' and insert', 102 and' 103'.
      No. 210, in page 87, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 27.
      No. 144, in page 87, line 39, leave out 'the'.
      No. 92, in page 87, line 42, leave out second 'the'.
      No. 146, in page 88, line 37, leave out 'and'.
      No. 147, in page 88, line 43, at end insert 'and
      (c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 93, in page 89, line 10, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.56)
        —(1) The Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

        (2) In section 2 (exceptions to definition of "foster child")—

        (a) in subsection (1), for the words "in the care of a local authority or a voluntary organisation" substitute "being looked after by a local authority";

        (b) in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;

        (c) in subsection (5), the words "; or (b) while he is a protected child within the meaning of section 32 of the said Act of 1978" shall cease to have effect; and

        (d) after subsection (5) add—

        "(6) The reference in subsection (1) above to a child being looked after by a local authority shall be construed as if it were a reference to which section 17(7) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applies.".

        (3) In section 3(4) (saving for Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

        (4) In section 7(1) (persons disqualified from keeping foster children)—

        (a) in paragraph (b), after the word "1968" insert "or under section 61 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

        (b) after paragraph (d) insert—

        "(dd) his parental rights and parental responsibilities (within the meaning of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) have been transferred, by an order under section 76(1) of that Act, to a local authority;".

        (5) In section 12 (removal of foster children on complaint of local authority), for subsection (5) substitute—

        "(5) For the purposes of section 21 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (and for the reason mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of that section) a child removed under this section shall be regarded as requiring accommodation.".

        (6) In section 21(1) (interpretation)—

        (a) in the definition of "residential establishment", after the word "1968" insert "or of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

        (b) for the definition of "supervision requirement", substitute—

        ""supervision requirement" has the meaning given by section 61(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".'.
        No. 148, in page 90, line 37, after '1995);";' insert—
        (aa) in the definition of "guardian", paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;'.
        No. 149, in page 90, line 43, at beginning insert—
        '—(1) The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
        (2)'
        No. 150, in page 90, line 43, leave out
        'of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986'.
        No. 151, in page 90, line 47, at end insert—

        143
        '(3) In section 41 (interpretation), in the definition of "person", the existing words from "does" to the end shall be paragraph (a) and after that paragraph there shall be added—
        ; and
        (b) in connection with civil legal aid or with providing advice and assistance in connection with any civil matter (but without prejudice to any question of legal capacity arising in connection with criminal legal aid or with providing advice and assistance in connection with any criminal matter) includes a person under the age of sixteen years if he has legal capacity, by virtue of section 2(4A) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, to instruct a solicitor.".'.
        No. 211, in page 92, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
        No. 152, in page 93, line 42, leave out from first 'solicitor' to end of line 43 and insert
        ',in connection with any civil matter, where that person has a general understanding of what it means to do so; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a person twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to have such understanding.

        (4B) A person who by virtue of subsection (4A) above has legal capacity to instruct a solicitor shall also have legal capacity to sue, or to defend, in any civil proceedings.

        (4C) Subsections (4A) and (4B) above are without prejudice to any question of legal capacity arising in connection with any criminal matter.".'.

        No. 212, in page 94, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
        '"Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995".'.
        No. 213, in page 94, line 15, leave out from 'interpretation)' to end of line 28 and insert '—

        (a) in the definition of "contact order"—

        (i) after the word "meaning" insert "—

        (a) except in relation to an order made Scotland,"; and

        (ii) at the end, add "; and

        (b) in relation to an order there made, given by section 11(2)(d) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995."; and

        (b) in the definition of "parental responsibility"—

        (i) after the word "responsibility"" insert "—

        (a) except in relation to Scotland,"; and

        (ii) at the end add "; and

        (b) in relation to Scotland, shall be construed as a reference to "parental responsibilities" within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".'.

        No. 214, in page 94, line 40, at end insert—

        'Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 19951755 (N.L2))
        46B. In Article 70(7) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (enactments not to apply where child given refuge), in sub-paragraph (c), for the words "section 71 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "section 74 of theChildren (Scotland) Act 1995".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Schedule 4

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 96, line 40, at end insert—

      '1972 c.24.

      Social Work (Scotland) Act 1972.

      The whole Act.'.

      No. 215, in page 96, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—
      144

      'Section 14. In section 168(a), the word "female". In section 177, the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".

      Section 323. In section 364(a), the word "female". In section 378, the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".

      In section 413, in subsection (3), the definitions of "care" and of "the 1968 Act"; in subsection (4), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act"; in subsection (5), the words "(within the meaning of the 1968 Act)"; and in subsection (6A),the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act".'.

      No. 95, in page 96, line 52, column 3, for 'Section 103(3).' substitute 'Section 103.'.
      No. 216, in page 96, line 52, column 3, at end insert 'Section 105.'.
      No. 217, in page 97, line 29, column 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 33 and insert
      '51, subsections (6)(a) and (7) to (11).'.
      No. 218, in page 97, line 33, column 3, at end insert 'In section 60(3), the words "or 51(9)".'.
      No. 96, in page 98, line 2, column 3, leave out 'In section 2(5),' and insert—

      'In section 2, in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968"; and in subsection (5),'.

      —(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      10.32 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: I shall be brief. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] My hon. Friends are pleased to hear that.
      In all the confusion of dealing with 43 pages of amendments and new clauses at short notice, it seems that some issues which arose in Committee have not yet been dealt with. In Committee the Government agreed in principle but have not yet activated a number of points that I hope the Minister will note. One in particular on clause 19 was promised on 28 February, and it related to children in

      145
      need of services in regard to their religious persuasion. Another issue, which arose in Committee on clause 35, was whether the court or children's hearing should have to specify why a safeguarder should not be appointed.
      On clause 44, the question arose of young people or parents appealing on disposal of the children's hearing. In clause 50, the question arose of the police obtaining a wider right of entry with regard to compulsory protection orders. A number of aspects arise under children's rights, and we still have no clarification on the safeguarder's role. Crucially, clause 44(5)(c)(iii) has still not been changed, which means that the sheriff can still make his own disposal when a young person is picked to appeal at a children's hearing.
      Little change has been made to exclusion orders. I realise that the Minister undertook tonight to deal with emergency exclusion orders in another place, but he said little about the whole issue of exclusion orders as such. We still need to know his intentions on how an exclusion order would fit in with a compulsory protection order, particularly if an exclusion order were refused, and on powers of arrest.
      I could raise a number of other items, but I do not wish to detain the House. Many issues were not brought forward on Report and I trust that the Minister will raise them in another place. They are clearly important issues that were raised in Committee and it is disappointing that tonight's debate was rushed through. Had a little more time been taken, all those matters could have been dealt with, and my hon. Friends who wanted to be off with their families could have had that opportunity.
      Despite those criticisms, may I say once again that hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill? As the Minister knows, we sought it for a long time before it came to Floor of the House. We are keen for it to go through and, despite the faults that we have noted, we support it and do not intend to vote against its Third Reading.
      10.36 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I know that one is not meant to refer to what is missing from a Bill on Third Reading, but the Minister will have noted the number of points that are missing, which—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
      Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall therefore not detain the House by referring to those omissions. I am sure that the Minister will want to refer to them in another place.
      May I add to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)? The Bill commands support on both sides of the House. It is an important piece of legislation to improve the care, protection and welfare of children in Scotland. We hope that it will be improved still further in another place.
      Before concluding, it would be appropriate to pay credit to the consortium on the Children (Scotland) Bill and agencies such as British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the reporters' association and the Association of Directors of Social Work—
      Dr. Godman: And others.
      Mr. Wallace: Indeed. They have all made an important contribution and, through their lobbying and
      146
      representations, the Bill leaves this place better than when it was introduced. We only hope that it can be improved still further, as it has an important and worthwhile contribution to make to all children in Scotland.
      10.38 pm
      Mrs. Ewing: Those of us who have been involved in this subject are aware that it was a long and hard-fought campaign to introduce legislation on the protection and welfare of children in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, a great deal of credit must go to organisations, both voluntary and statutory, which worked hard in this sphere and have been of great assistance to the House of Commons all-party group for children in Scotland. I thank them very much for their briefings and assistance and even for producing amendments, which were occasionally accepted by the Government as being technically correct. The Government could therefore not reject them.
      The Bill is not yet perfect and we must further explore many spheres of the basic principles that have been laid down in the legislative process. One of the sad aspects of the Bill's proceedings is the fact that, when we have divided, either in Committee or in the House this evening, there has tended to be an Opposition versus Government line. I hoped that we would see much more cross-party co-operation. The children of Scotland are not attached to any particular political party. They are our future generations and they will take their own political decisions. The lack of cross-party co-operation has been one of the sad aspects of the Bill.
      I am disappointed by the letter that the Minister sent on Thursday on safeguarders, a subject on which we explored a variety of issues. The very short response, which was sent to us at a late stage, did not enable us to explore the matter further on Report and Third Reading.
      That said, I hope that many of the other issues will be addressed in another place. I give the Minister the assurance that whatever eventually appears on the statute book, the children of Scotland will be a subject to which many of us will return at every possible opportunity to try to ensure that the legislation is the best possible framework for them.
      10.40 pm
      Dr. Godman: I am please that at long last, I am taking part in the Third Reading debate on a Children (Scotland) Bill. For all of its shortcomings, the Bill will give much greater protection to children, especially those caught up in the terrible circumstances of violence, separation and abuse.
      Will the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in tandem with the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, lead to more installations of television network systems in sheriff courts throughout Scotland? Can the Minister confirm that as a result of these two pieces of legislation and one or two minor interventions by me, the television installation in the Greenock sheriff court will be permanent and not temporary?
      10.41 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that many

      147
      matters are still under consideration. The House will have the opportunity to consider them again at a later stage. I shall take a careful note of the hon. Lady's points.
      The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) paid tribute to the consortium and the other organisations. It is only fair to place on record the point that the evidence-taking sittings—the first held by a Scottish Standing Committee—turned out to be a complete success. They were a product of the "taking stock" exercise and of the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: a partnership for good".
      Having made that political point, I shall move on to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who mentioned the television network system. I will ensure that I ask the Law Officers about the up-to-date position and I will correspond with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
      The Bill is important; it is a major reform of the law in Scotland in relation to children. It is drawn from a whole range of reports produced in recent years and it brings private and public law on children into a coherent framework. It reflects the principles of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is based on the firm view that care of children is essentially for parents, but it recognises that pressures can arise which call for support and, on occasion, intervention by public authorities. Partnership with parents is extremely important.
      The Bill provides a sound framework for change and improvement in the interests of children. It sets a challenging agenda of implementation for the future and it provides a framework for protecting Scotland's children. It is good for Scotland's children and what is good for Scotland's children is good for Scotland's future.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

      LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
      That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
      That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
      That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]
      Question agreed to.

    HEALTH
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Robert Key be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Richard Spring be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    PETITION

      Crime (Sentencing)
      10.43 pm
      Dr. Robert Spink: I wish to present a petition collected by Mr. and Mrs. Martin, my constituents, and signed by 11,093 people, mainly in my constituency but representing the views of the vast majority of the people of Britain. They think that the House and the courts should get tough on crime and should stiffen sentences, particularly in circumstances such as the following case.
      A man was threatening people with a knife, brandishing it at men and women. He then used that same knife to ruthlessly kill a youth. The terms of the petition are:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, The humble petition of the residents of Canvey Island and the surrounding area, sheweth:
      That we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the sentence given to Andrew Osborne for the killing of Tony Martin was unduly lenient, and vigorously protest that the sentence should be increased. The jury at Chelmsford Crown Court found 31-year-old Andrew Osborne of Hertfordshire guilty of the manslaughter of Tony Martin during a fight on Canvey Island. Judge Peter Green was reported to tell Osborne that he opened that knife and plunged it into a 17-year-old boy's body. The judge is also reported to state that the sentence which he gave, of six years imprisonment, was the minimum he could pass. There is a great sense of outrage in the community at the apparent lenient sentence, and that the sentence does not provide an adequate deterrent against the carrying of knives and the use of knives, and that this lack of deterrent puts the community at an unacceptable risk.
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the right hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell QC MP, Attorney-General, to use his powers to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was too lenient.
      And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  House Building (Berkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.46 pm
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: I am glad to have this opportunity to bring before the House a matter that is causing great anxiety and concern, not only in my constituency but in other, neighbouring constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) has asked me whether, with the Chair's approval, he may join in the debate later. I have no objection at all to that.
  Nobody could say that Berkshire has not contributed substantially to housing development in the south-east. In fact, some of us feel that we have taken more than our fair share. It is now proposed that we should have at least another 37,000 houses. Again, perhaps rather uneasily, we would not object to that. What is causing the anxiety, however, is that, on top of that number of houses in the next few years, about 3,000 additional houses are to be placed in the area directly south of Reading and the M4.
  This is causing immense concern among the people living in the area, because they believe that it will be very damaging to the environment. I would agree. The problem is that the M4 makes a natural boundary, and we believe that, if it is breached by any substantial housing development, that will open the floodgates to development—not only from the M4 south of Reading down to the Hampshire border, but over that border and right the way along it. What at the moment in that part of Berkshire is an environmental asset will thereby become an environmental disaster.
  The problem is that numbers of people are said to want to live in Berkshire. It is certainly a very desirable area. We hope that whatever decision the Secretary of State makes on the structure plan that is before him at the moment will include a caveat to the effect that any further developments in our area should not take place south of the M4. That is a point I wish to put across strongly to the Minister tonight.
  It is not just the number of houses that we are worried about; it is where they go. That is what is causing dismay and outrage among our constituents. It would also, in our view, be contrary to the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there should not be substantial new housing on green-field sites when there are other development possibilities. I urge that policy strongly on my hon. Friend the Minister.
  In this instance, there are many options. All the local authorities have said that they would be able to find other options. Perhaps they would be unable to do so rapidly, but certainly they could find them. We hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will understand that to allow housing development in the area of which I am talking would be contrary to his new policy, with which we entirely agree.
  We are told that the houses are necessary because there are many people in Berkshire—living already in Berkshire or born in Berkshire, or educated in Berkshire—who wish to have houses in Berkshire. The same argument was advanced during the development at Lower Earley, which is in Berkshire. It is slightly north of the M4. In the event, the majority of people who moved into Lower Earley, which was then the largest new housing development in western Europe, did not come from Berkshire. They came
  150
  from other areas, many in the north of the country. To my surprise, many of them came from overseas. They were attracted by the prosperity in Berkshire. It was a place where they could find work.
  The new development at Lower Earley did not achieve what was intended. Instead, it attracted other people into the area. We believe that exactly the same would happen if the construction of a mini-town was agreed to the south of the M4.
  A few years ago, there was a similar inquiry about an area called Bugs Bottom, which is in the northern part of Caversham. Despite its rather curious name, it was a highly regarded area of amenity north of the river. The result of building there has been a disaster in amenity terms. Much more relevant is the fact that, at that time, I and others were assured that, if we did not object too strongly to development at Bugs Bottom, it would relieve pressure south of the motorway. It has done nothing of the sort. The proposals before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear that the pressures remain exactly the same.
  Major changes are taking place in Berkshire. Changes are also taking place in the north of Kent, where people desperately want to see more housing. Changes are taking place there as a result of the proposal to make it the area for one of the major channel tunnel rail links. That development will lead to the need for more housing.
  Now is not the moment to make long-term proposals for developing the part of the country which I represent in part.
  10.53 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) for raising the matter of house building south of the M4, and for initiating this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him also for allowing me to make a contribution to it.
  As my hon. Friend has rightly said, development in Berkshire is a big issue. There is widespread concern. Many different figures have been bandied about in discussions about proposed new houses—32,000, 37,000 and as many as 40,000. The Government must realise, as my hon. Friend has said, that there has been over-development in Berkshire. They must also realise that a great part of the county, especially to the west, is green belt, in which there are many areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  That means that there are areas that we are not allowed to develop, even if we wished to do so. That means also that development is confined very much to the centre of Berkshire. That is what puts on the pressure.
  So desperate has the county been to find various sites that there was a proposal in my constituency to develop an area called the Fobney meadows, which is a flood plain. I have pictures that show it flooded by 2 ft of water. The Holy brook, which was the fresh water supply of Reading abbey, flows through it, and at the height of winter there is flooding. Naturally, that area has to be kept for flood plain. Yet the county, under pressure from central Government and from Serplan, looked to that area for possible development.
  I believe, as does my hon. Friend, that the M4 forms a natural barrier. That is where development should stop. We should look for development in north Kent, where there is a great demand. I have the privilege of chairing the committee that is considering the channel tunnel rail link. It is expected that, as part of that new railway line, north Kent

  151
  should be an area of development. Surely the pressure should be taken off areas such as Berkshire and moved to north Kent.
  10.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have heard tonight from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)—the two key Members who represent those areas. It is important that we take note of the points that they have made. I shall add to the confusion, but try to clarify it a little, by touching on some of the figures that were mentioned.
  The regional planning guidance for the south-east, which has recently been published, made provision for an annual average of 2,667 additional dwellings in Berkshire in the period 1991 to 2006. The guidance makes it clear that that figure has been constrained by consideration of environmental factors. It takes into account the intended long-term shift in the balance of new development pressures and employment opportunities in the region, from the west to the east.
  In setting out the housing figure, the guidance makes it clear that it should not be regarded as an inflexible target, but that it should be subject to testing in the process of preparing the structure plan for the county. It was on that basis that Berkshire county council originally accepted Serplan's proposal for 40,000 additional dwellings in Berkshire. That figure then provided the basis for the level of provision in the published guidance.
  A replacement Berkshire structure plan was first submitted to the Secretary of State in November 1991. That plan made provision for 41,100 dwellings in the period 1990 to 2006, but was subsequently withdrawn. A second plan was then deposited under new legislation in November 1992. That plan made provision for 35,670 dwellings for the slightly shorter period of 1991 to 2006.
  An examination in public was held during June and July 1993. The panel examined various factors relating to housing need and demand and concluded that, in effect, the structure plan's proposed provision of 35,670 could be increased without compromising the environmental and sustainability objectives of the plan. The panel recommended to Berkshire county council that its housing figures should be amended to make provision for "about 48,000" dwellings.
  In reaching these conclusions, the examination in public panel made it clear that it had taken into account the county council's case that there were constraints to development in Berkshire. These included various factors, such as the high level of growth in recent years, the need to have regard to sustainable levels of development, the pressure on infrastructure and the strong public opposition in the county to further growth. We have heard some of that this evening.
  The panel was sympathetic to those arguments, but concluded that it was possible to accommodate a higher level of housing provision, while still having regard to the
  152
  environment. It pointed to the need for balance and clarity in the interpretation of a sustainable approach to planning, and looked at the social and economic consequences of a failure to meet the housing need seen in the county.
  It should be noted that the panel made no—I repeat, no—specific recommendation to build houses south of the M4 at Reading. Indeed, the plan dated November 1991 proposed 41,100 dwellings, but still did not identify the area south of the M4 at Reading as an area for major new housing.
  After considering the panel's recommendations, Berkshire county council published its draft modifications in April 1994, which increased the provision to 37,000 dwellings. Further modifications were published later in the year, but the housing figure remained unchanged. Although an objection was made by the Government Office for the South-east—that the housing figure should be more in line with the regional planning guidance—there was no question that the panel's figure should be imposed, or that development should be directed to any specific location, such as south of the M4
  The location of new development is primarily a matter for the county council and districts. In particular, the decision on whether to make provision for additional development south of the M4 should be made by the local planning authorities in the context of preparing structure and local plans. The plan preparation provides the appropriate opportunity to take into account the environmental issues and the question of sustainability. As hon. Members will appreciate, the issues are complex. The current position is that a "holding" direction has recently been made by the Government Office for the South-east.
  Problems of housing provision in the boundary of the green belt merit very careful consideration, and no final decisions have been made in respect of the Berkshire plan. I appreciate that that will cause a slight delay, but the delay is minor when set in the context of the length of time that Berkshire has taken to produce a replacement plan.
  I assure my hon. Friends that, although no final decisions have been made, we are convinced that the panel's recommendation for housing provision in Berkshire is too high. Furthermore, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East that, in any response to the present Berkshire structure plan, the Government do not propose to identify any specific locations south of the M4 at Reading.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: Is there a possibility that the Government will say that development south of the M4 is undesirable, and that future figures should be based on local plans produced by the various district councils? I have a model example before me, produced by Wokingham district council.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend's example, and will give it due consideration.
  I think that we have made it as clear as we can that the Government have no intention of specifying any area south of the M4.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Tacrine
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate her reasons for not licensing the drug Tacrine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; and if she will list the countries in Europe where it is licensed. [19901]

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the processing of Cognex (Tacrine) by the United Kingdom. [20319]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), has provisionally concluded that, on grounds relating to safety and efficacy, they are unable to advise the licensing authority that Tacrine should be licensed at this stage. Under the United Kingdom licensing procedures, applicants for drug licences have extensive rights of appeal against the provisional conclusions of the CSM. The company promoting Tacrine is exercising these rights and the CSM will consider its appeal at the hearing.

  The European Union's Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products has also concluded that Tacrine has not met the requirements for licensing under article 5 of directive 65/65/EEC. The majority of the European Union member states have decided to abide by this decision.

  Tacrine is licensed in France and Sweden.

  NHS Chairman
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum paid to chairmen of(a) NHS authorities and (b) NHS trusts as salaries and emoluments in each year since 1985. [20676]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Remuneration paid to NHS authorities chairmen (£000)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3,183

  3,281

  5,878

  Emoluments paid to NHS authorities chairmen (£000)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  4,851

  4,204

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional, district and the London postgraduate teaching hospitals (SHAs) and family practitioner committees and family health services authorities.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  2. Figures are NOT comparable between the tables. Before 1991–92 the sum included gross salaries and pension contributions only. From 1991–92 it includes gross salaries, monetary value of benefits
  2
  in kind,expenses allowances (where taxable), compensation for loss of office and chairman's fees.

  3. Figures for 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1991–92 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sums paid to NHS Trust Chairman

  For 1991–92 to 1993–94 this information was published in the annual accounts of each trust, but for 1991–92 and 1992–93 this information was not collected centrally. For 1993–94 I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 February at column 808. From 1994–95 onwards this information will be collected centrally and also published in the annual accounts of each trust.

  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis of her calculations that the initial annual cost of retraining doctors consequent to her proposed Medical Act will be £530,000; and on what number of doctors, whose performance is likely to be judged seriously deficient it is based. [21062]

  Mr. Malone
  The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill states that any increase in the General Medical Council retention fee—to cover the cost to the GMC of the new performance procedures—and the costs of remedial training undertaken by doctors to improve their standard of professional performance are expected to increase national health service expenditure by up to £530,000 a year. Of this, the estimated retraining costs are £280,000. The GMC estimates that 100 to 150 doctors a year might be subject to assessment under the new procedures, of whom 50 to 75 might be subject to remedial training or sanction.

  The costs of retraining would vary widely, according to individual need, and would not necessarily be borne by the NHS. The figure of £280,000 was a central estimate after considering a range of possible scenarios; it is very small in proportion to the funds already available to hospital doctors and general practitioners who maintain their professional standards through continuing education.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a person to become accepted as a patient of an NHS dentist in each health district in England. [21228]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about waiting times for patients to be accepted by dentists in the general dental service is not available centrally. Any unregistered patient who needs urgent treatment should seek the help of their family health services authority.

  Hospitality
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the Department of Health's hospitality budget in each of the last five years. [21748]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on official hospitality by her Department in 1994–95. [21207]

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on hospitality during 1994–95, including basic refreshments for meetings of expert advisory groups and working groups and for meetings with representatives of other Government
  3
  Departments, voluntary organisations and public bodies is shown in the table. For details of previous years1 expenditure I refer the right hon. Member and the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member of Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 1 November 1994 at columns 1073–74.

  1994–95£

  (a) Department

  229,779

  (b) Agencies

  32,451

  Total

  262,230

  Departmental Management
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the departmental administration costs in each year since and including 1989–90; what is the planned expenditure on departmental administration increase in 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if she will make a statement on the planned increase in spending in 1996–97 over 1995–96; [21751]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the planned change in Department of Health staff in 1996–97. [21742]

  Mr. Sackville
  Departmental administration costs from 1989–90 to 1994–95, and the planned expenditure for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are shown in the table. The figures for 1994–95 are an estimate. In the three years to 31 March 1997, the staff costs and numbers of the Department as it stood on 1 April 1994 are planned to decrease by 21 per cent. Separately, in 1996–97, staff numbers will increase as a result of the replacement, subject to legislation, of regional health authorities with regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, in respect of which there will be a transfer of £63 million from hospital, community health and related services current expenditure to departmental administration.

  Year

  Costs(£000s)

  1989–90

  174,681

  1990–91

  216,785

  1991–92

  240,267

  1992–93

  276,280

  1993–94

  250,775

  1994–95

  260,264

  1995–96

  238,145

  1996–97

  291,222

  Doctors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the proportion of doctors in the United Kingdom who speak(a) Urdu and (b) Punjabi; and if she will make a statement. [20923]

  Mr. Malone
  No such estimate has been made as this information is not available centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the proportion of nurses working in the United Kingdom who speak(a) Urdu and (b) Punjabi; and if she will make a statement. [20924]
  4
  Mr. Sackville
  No such estimate has been made as this information is not available centrally.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in her Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21386]

  Mr. Sackville
  For the Department and agencies of which we are responsible any conflict of interest involving a civil servant would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally. In the last five years, no special advisers have declared a conflict of interest.

  NHS Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish an up-to-date list by region of all the chairs and non-executive members of each health authority, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21358]

  Mr. Malone
  The appointment of non-executive members to district health authorities and family health services authorities is a matter for the regional health authority. Information on chairmen and non-executive members of regional health authorities and chairmen of district health authorities and family health services authorities will be placed in the Library.

  Long-term Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to ensure that health authorities abide by the requirements of HSG(95)8, NHS responsibilities for long-term care. [21273]

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the implementation of HSG(95)8 all health authorities are required to draw up and publish local policies and eligibility criteria. The National Health Service Executive will monitor these closely to ensure that they meet the national framework of requirements set out in HSG(95)8.

  NHS Provider Units
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total annual cost improvement programme in the national health service provider units in each of the last four years. [21330]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much income has been received from treating private patients in each national health service hospital in the last year(a) as a cost figure and (b) as a proportion of that hospital's income. [21334]

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of the private income of national health service trusts for 1993–94 and the percentage of total income that private patient income represents will be placed in the Library.

  Consultancy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes in which her Department has been engaged since their inception. [21369]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since publication of the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", in November 1991, until 31 March 1995, the latest date for which figures are held, the total cost of consultants employed in connection with the market testing programmes of the Department and its agencies is £1,488,000.

  Continuing Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary for Health what action she proposes to take to ensure that New River health authority complies with the requirements of HSG(95)8 in relation to its decision to reduce its 1995–96 continuing care contract with Hornsey Central hospital in respect of the number of occupied bed days. [21272]

  Mr. Bowis
  HSG(95)8 states that until policies and eligibility criteria for continuing care have been agreed health authorities should not proceed with any plans to reduce continuing care services unless those plans are covered by existing agreements with local authorities. New River health authority has reduced its contract for continuing care beds at Hornsey Central hospital in line with bed usage in 1994–95. They are discussing with the local social services department how the savings can be re-invested in other continuing care services. I have asked the chairman of New River health authority to let me have details of their reinvestment plans once they have been agreed with the local authority.

  Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in her Department and the agencies for which she is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21767]

  Mr. Sackville
  The following civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in my Department and its agencies.

  Quarter

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  September-

  December 1993

  2

  1

  January-March 1994

  2

  —

  April-June 1994

  —

  —

  July-September 1994

  1

  2

  October-December 1994

  2

  —

  January-March 1995

  2

  2

  All appointments were on fixed term contracts except for I AO and 2AAs.

  Mr. Rushton
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what details her Department has received about the 6
  severance payment made to Mr. Rushton, the former chief executive of the Avon ambulance trust. [21674]

  Mr. Malone
  None. National health service trusts can authorise severance payments without reference to the Department of Health. They are required to report termination settlements to the NHS Executive quarterly. The payment to Mr. Rushton was made in April 1995 and will be reported in the return for the quarter to 30 June 1995.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to encourage the extension of infertility treatment on the NHS; and if she will institute an assessment of the effectiveness of the various forms of infertility treatment present funded by the NHS. [21841]

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions about the resources to be made available for infertility services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  An assessment of the effectiveness of infertility treatments is already available in:
  The Effective Health Care Bulletin on "The Management of Subfertility" (August 1992), published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list special hospitals currently operating in shadow trust form which are applying internal market principles; and if she will make a statement. [22041]

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Efficiency Ratings
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the efficiency rating of the English hospital and community service and those of each EEC country in each available year between 1978–79 and 1992–93. [19797]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Improvements in hospital and community health services efficiency are estimated by comparing the rate of increase in activity with the increase in expenditure. Between 1978–79 and 1992–93, HCHS cost weighted activity in England increased by 39.8 per cent. and HCHC expenditure, adjusted for movements in HCHS pay and prices, by 15.3 per cent. This implies an increase in efficiency of some 21 per cent. over the period. Data on the annual changes in activity and expenditure are in the table. Estimates from these data of efficiency gains for individual years over this period are not regarded as reliable.

  Directly comparable data are not available for health services in other European Union countries. However such evidence as is available indicates that unit costs have

  7
  generally risen over the last decade. Information on these health services is available in "OECD Health Systems",

  HCHS cost weighted activity index

  HCHS cost weighted activity index percentage increase over previous year 1978–79 = 100

  Expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit cost percentage increase over previous year 1978–79 = 100

  1978–79

  100.0

  —

  100.0

  —

  1979–80

  100.2

  0.2

  100.0

  0.0

  1980–81

  105.9

  5.8

  100.8

  0.8

  1981–82

  107.8

  1.8

  103.1

  2.3

  1982–83

  107.2

  -0.5

  103.2

  0.1

  1983–84

  113.2

  5.5

  104.0

  0.8

  1984–85

  116.5

  3.0

  104.1

  0.1

  1985–86

  119.7

  2.7

  104.3

  0.2

  1986–87

  121.4

  1.5

  104.6

  0.3

  1987–88

  123.4

  1.6

  105.4

  0.8

  1988–89

  124.5

  0.9

  106.2

  0.7

  1989–90

  127.2

  2.2

  108.0

  1.7

  1990–91

  128.9

  1.3

  109.0

  1.0

  1991–92

  135.6

  5.2

  111.9

  2.6

  1992–93

  139.8

  3.1

  115.3

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. The cost weighted activity index provides a broad measure of the overall growth in HCHS activity, in which the contribution of the individual components are weighted by their costs.

  2. Estimates of efficiency derived from these figures do not take account of the changing cost of a unit of output over time—for example due to demographic changes in case mix and the costs and benefits of medical advance. It is not possible to measure the effect of the last two components. However, demographic change has meant that the average cost per person treated has increased, particularly because of the growing number of very elderly people, who tend to require more expensive care.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interests; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21388]

  The Attorney-General
  Comprehensive records are not held centrally for civil servants in the departments and agency for which I am responsible. The requirement to declare conflicts of interest is contained in the "Staff Handbook" of each department and agency. There have been no special advisers in those departments or agency during the last five years.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection

  LSLO1

  CPS

  T.SOL

  SFO2

  GPL

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  1 October—31 December 1993

  —

  —

  43

  85

  4

  0

  5

  —

  3

  0

  1 January—31 March 1994

  —

  —

  71

  151

  6

  0

  12

  —

  3

  0

  1 April—30 June 1994

  —

  —

  42

  123

  1

  0

  4

  —

  3

  0

  1 July30 September 1994

  —

  —

  38

  144

  1

  1

  7

  —

  1

  0

  1 October—31 December 1994

  —

  —

  30

  101

  3

  0

  3

  —

  1

  0

  1 January—31 March 1995

  —

  —

  33

  80

  1

  0

  2

  —

  1

  0

  1Administrative grade staff in LSLO are on loan from other departments.

  2SFO do not employ administrative assistants.

  8
  Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development 1993.

  with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21371]

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of employing such consultants in the departments for which I am responsible is £104,815.

  Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21765]

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the departments for which I am responsible—the legal secretariat to the Law Offices, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office and the Government Property Lawyers' agency—is given in the table. The figures cover permanent and casual staff but not inter-departmental transfers.

SCOTLAND

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number and location of Historic Scotland, Registers of Scotland, the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, the Scottish Office Pensions Agency, the Scottish Prisons Service, the Scottish Record Office and the Student Awards Agency for Scotland offices closed and the numbers of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20167]

  Mr. Lang
  I have asked the chief executives of the agencies for which my Department is responsible, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your recent question about changes in jobs and offices resulting from cross-border transfers of agency work over the past five years.
  As you will appreciate Historic Scotland has always been concerned only with the built heritage in Scotland since its establishment as an executive agency in 1991. It maintains no offices or posts outwith Scotland.
  The only addition to our functions since 1991 was the transfer of responsibility for marine archaeology in Scotland from the Department of Transport in 1992. This did not involve transfer of posts or offices and the extra responsibility has been absorbed as enhanced productivity by existing staff in Historic Scotland.
  I hope this information is helpful to you.

  Letter from Andrew MacLeod to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  I have been asked to respond for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on agency work transferred between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Agency has not closed any offices or made any reduction in the number of jobs as a result of transfers of work over the past 5 years. No offices or jobs have been transferred from the rest of the United Kingdom to Scotland in this period.

  Letter from Norman MacLeod to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about offices closed or opened and jobs lost or gained as a result of transfers of work from or to Scotland, so far as the Scottish Office Pensions Agency is concerned.
  All of the Agency's operations are carried out from the above address and no work has transferred from it to other locations in the UK over the past 5 years. Equally, no work has transferred to it from locations elsewhere in the UK.
  No offices or jobs have therefore been lost or gained.

  Letter from Alan W. Ramase to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  I have been asked to reply, in relation to Registers of Scotland Executive Agency, to your question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about jobs lost/gained and offices closed/opened through transfers of Agency work between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  No Agency work has been transferred to or transferred from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Agency has therefore not gained or lost any jobs nor opened or closed any offices for this reason.
  10
  Letter from Patrick Cadell to Ms. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  I am writing in response to your question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the number and location of offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past 5 years.
  The Scottish Record Office (SRO), which became an executive agency from 1 April 1993, maintains the national archives of Scotland and it would be entirely inappropriate for Scotland's written heritage to be housed anywhere other than Scotland. None of our repositories has been closed nor have any jobs been lost or transferred as a result of any of the SRO's work being transferred outwith Scotland.
  Although a few jobs have had to be created as a result of a general increase in workload, none of that increase can be attributed to work being transferred to Scotland from other parts of the United Kingdom.
  I hope that this information is of use to you.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  I refer to your Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about changes in Agencies caused by transfers of work to or from Scotland. I am replying so far as the Scottish Prison Service is concerned.
  No offices have been opened or closed or jobs lost or gained in the Scottish Prison Service as a result of transfer of work within the United Kingdom.

  Letter from K. MacRea to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  I refer to the Parliamentary Question which you tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland seeking information on transfers of work between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to various Executive Agencies.
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. There have been no transfers of work, or related changes in staff or offices, since the Agency was established in April 1994.
  I trust this is the information you were seeking.

  Letter from Dr. R. K. M. Hay to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply on behalf of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (SASA) to your recent questions regarding the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years and the number of jobs gained in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period.
  These questions are not applicable to SASA.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 757, if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European regional development funding since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [20576]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the executive non-departmental public
  11
  bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject (a) to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e)performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20663]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]. The information requested is as follows: (a) Crofters Commission, new town development corporations, Red Deer Commission, Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Homes, Scottish Legal Aid board, Scottish Medical Practices committee, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Sports Council, Scottish tourist board:

  (b) None, as the Audit Commission does not operate in Scotland. Its Scottish equivalent is the Accounts Commission for Scotland, which scrutinises the accounts of the seven Scottish river purification boards;

  (c) this information is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994"; a copy of which is available in the Library of the House;

  (d) none, although following publication last year of the "Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies", the Scottish version of which was published in September 1994 and a copy of which is in the Library of the House, all executive NDPBs have been asked to comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, users of services and individual citizens.

  (e) Performance indicators are part of the management statement or corporate plan for each NDPB;

  (f) the citizens charter applies to all public services, including NDPBs. NDPBs serving the public, including those sponsored by my Department, are therefore expected to meet the charter standards.

  Dr Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have(a) a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public. [20881]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: The information requested is as follows: (a) none; (b) none.

  Falconry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many permits have been issued to falconers to take protected species of birds as quarry in each year since 1988; what were the species in respect of which such permits were issued; and what were the number of each species taken. [21247]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Details of licences issued to take protected species in the course of falconry in Scotland for the period 1988–1993 are listed in the table. Figures are not yet available for 1994.

  Species

  Number of Licences1

  Birds killed

  Year

  Alauda arvensis

  2

  0

  1988

  Corvus frugilegus

  1

  Gallinula chloropus

  1

  Lagopus lagopus

  0

  Larus ridibundus

  0

  Perdix perdix

  0

  Phasianus colchicus

  2

  12

  Species

  Number of Licences1

  Birds killed

  Year

  Turdus merula

  0

  Anas crecca

  1

  0

  1989

  Anas platyrhnchos

  0

  Gallinula chloropus

  0

  Lagopus lagopus

  0

  Larus ridibundus

  0

  Perdix perdix

  0

  Phasianus colchicus

  2

  Turdus merula

  0

  Alauda arvensis

  3

  3

  1990

  Anthus pratensis

  27

  Gallinula chloropus

  0

  Lagopus lagopus

  0

  Larus ridibundus

  0

  Perdix perdix

  0

  Phasianus colchicus

  0

  Turdus merula

  1

  Turdus philomelos

  1

  Alauda arvensis

  2

  3

  1991

  Anthus pratensis

  8

  Alauda arvensis

  2

  10

  1992

  Anthus pratensis

  10

  Alauda arvensis

  2

  0

  1993

  Anthus pratensis

  0

  Turdus merula

  2

  Turdus philomelos

  0

  1Licences covered all or some of the named species.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences have been issued in each year since 1988 to possess birds of prey; and what were the numbers of birds of each species held under such licences. [21251]

  Sir Hector Monro
  None.

  Education Research
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been devoted to funding education research projects by his Department in each of the last five years; and what percentage of education spending this represents. [21558]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The expenditure on educational research projects by the Scottish Office education department for the last five years is as set out in the table together with the percentage of overall education expenditure. The education expenditure represents direct funding by central Government which from 1 April 1993 included the funding of all higher education in Scotland, and from the same date the funding of further education colleges. The arts and local authority funding are not included.

  Research Expenditure £000's

  Education Expenditure £000's

  percentage

  1990–91

  1,301

  364,067

  0.36

  1991–92

  1,401

  473,095

  0.30

  1992–93

  1,406

  570,517

  0.25

  1993–94

  1,417

  1,113.835

  0.13

  1994–95

  1,334

  1,236,635

  0.11

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account the Governments' review of the Post Office will take of the proposed efficiency audit. [21184]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Post Office performance review will inform Government thinking on matters of operational effectiveness.

  Road Fuels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate for the price elasticity of demand for road fuels in the United Kingdom in(a) 1996, (b) 2000 and (c) 2005; and if he will make a statement. [20925]

  Mr. Page
  Annex H of Energy Paper No. 65 contains estimates of the price elasticities in the DTI energy model. The long run price elasticity of demand used in the road transport sector is—0.41.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many individuals were head hunted by British Coal Enterprise for jobs as retraining consultants; how many retraining consultants employed in 1993 had been thus recruited; what proportion of the total number of retraining consultants employed this represents; and if he will make a statement; [20926]

  (2) in what capacity Mr. Richard Lewis was employed by British Coal Enterprise during 1993; and if he will make a statement; [20927]

  (3) what criteria were used when assessing the suitability of candidates for jobs as retraining consultants

  Headquarters

  QA 1993

  Q1 1994

  Q2 1994

  Q3 1994

  Q4 1994

  Q1 1995

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  Total

  7

  1

  2

  4

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Agencies

  QA 1993

  Q1 1994

  Q2 1994

  Q3 1994

  Q4 1994

  Q1 1995

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  Total

  Accounts Service Agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Companies House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  46

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Insolvency Service

  —

  2

  7

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  National Engineering Laboratory

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  National Physical Laboratory

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Patent Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Radiocommunications

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Totals

  3

  2

  8

  4

  2

  0

  1

  1

  47

  0

  2

  0

  70

  14
  with British Coal Enterprise in 1993; and if he will make a statement. [20928]

  Mr. Page
  These are operational matters for British Coal Enterprise.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, columns 257–59, if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European regional development funding since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [20579]

  Mr. Page
  The available information for England, Scotland and Wales up to 21 April 1995 has been placed in the Library of the House. Figures for Northern Ireland were included in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland on 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 692–94. All the grants concerned have been approved, for the general economic benefit of the areas concerned, in conformity with criteria on grants to privatised utilities drawn up by the European Commission.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21774]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The number of administrative assistants and administrative officers appointed in the Department and its agencies from September 1993 to April 1995 is shown in the tables.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21200]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The provisional unaudited outturn figures for 1994–95 are as follows:

  Area of department

  £

  1. Centre DTI (excluding net controlled agencies and trading funds)

  508,519

  2. Net controlled agencies and trading funds Accounts Services Agency

  300

  Companies House

  18,289

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  28,000

  National Engineering Laboratory

  13,500

  National Physical Laboratory

  83,799

  Patent Office

  15,000

  Radiocommunications Agency

  35,842

  Total

  703,249

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21532]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Cabinet Office regularly publishes information on progress on equal opportunities matters in the civil service, including in the DTI. I refer the hon. Member to the following reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House:"Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service for people of Ethnic Minority Origin: Third Progress Report 1992–93"
  "Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service: 10 Year Progress Report 1984–1994"
  "Civil Service Data Summary 1994: Women, Race, Disability".

  In 1993 the DTI published a summary of progress on equal opportunities for female staff in the Department since 1984. I am placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the 4th UN conference on women; and if he will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21534]

  Mr. Page
  The Government is committed to the principles set out in the Regional Platform for Action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the Fourth UN world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so. We have also committed ourselves to publishing actions and progress on equal opportunities in annual reports from 1995–96 onwards.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21533]

  Mr. Page
  This Department's policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people 16
  with disabilities, older people or ex-offenders. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21531]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am responsible for personnel issues within DTI including equal opportunities. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy sits on the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for compensating Scottish consumers following the Government's intentions to end the nuclear levy in England and Wales by 1996. [22028]

  Mr. Eggar
  The future of the market support arrangements in respect of nuclear power in the United Kingdom are under active consideration in the nuclear review. An announcement about the review's conclusions will be made shortly.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21377]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The estimated costs are £3 million for employing consultants in connection with market testing and contracting out, for programmes completed in my Department during the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of British manufacturers by their foreign competitors on the number of sales outlets for British goods overseas; and if he will make a statement about the number of those outlets that are now selling foreign in preference to British goods. [21416]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. United Kingdom export performance does not appear to be hampered by foreign takeovers, nor by a shortage of sales outlets: the value of UK exports grew by 46 per cent. between 1989 and 1994, to reach record levels.

  Trading Practices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made of the means by which other nations give preference to their own products and discriminate against those of the United Kingdom; and what lessons he considers can be learnt from other nations' trading practices. [21424]

  Mr. Needham
  Following the successful conclusion of the GATT round, my Department has carried out consultations with the trade associations representing our leading export sectors to establish which remaining barriers to trade most frustrated their members' efforts. This was the first step in a continuing dialogue with industry. The results of the consultations, and the
  17
  Government's strategy to deal with priority barriers will be announced shortly.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions on which he and his Ministerial colleagues have been on overseas trade missions in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; how many such visits are programmed for 1995–96; and if he will give the out-turn, estimated or anticipated cost for each year. [19217]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Details of overseas trade missions undertaken by me and my Department of Trade and Industry ministerial colleagues for the years requested, are as follows. The programme for 1995–96 is still subject to review and final details are not yet available.

  Year

  Dates

  1992–93

  United States

  26 March–9 April

  United States

  3–6 May

  Germany

  7–9 May

  France

  18 May

  Portugal

  1 June

  Hong Kong, China

  21–20 July

  India

  11–18 September

  Argentina and Paraguay

  25 September-2 October

  Russia

  27–30 September

  Hong Kong, China

  23–28 October

  Japan, China

  10–16 November

  Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia,

  26 December-9 January

  China

  Saudi Arabia

  8–11 January

  Slovenia

  3–6 February

  Japan

  4–10 March

  Total estimated cost: (for Ministers and Private Secretaries)

  £66,026.70

  1993–94

  Dubai, Qatar

  12–14 April

  Hong Kong, Korea

  23–28 April

  Japan

  24–27 April

  United States

  29 April-5 May

  Qatar, United Arab Emirates,

  14–19 May

  Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain

  Denmark

  15 May

  Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore

  29 May-5 June

  Mexico, Argentina

  31 May-7 June

  Luxembourg

  14 June

  Republic of Ireland

  4–6 July

  Turkey

  16–22 July

  Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand

  10–18 September

  Singapore

  11–16 September

  Czech and Slovak Republics

  12–16 September

  Brazil

  13–20 September

  Japan, Malaysia

  17–23 September

  Tanzania and Zimbabwe

  24 September-1 October

  Kazahkstan

  28 September-2 October

  Algeria

  11–12 October

  China, Hong Kong, Taiwan

  17–24 October

  China

  24–29 October

  India

  16–18 November

  Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore

  30 November-3 December

  Portugal

  17 February

  India, Sri Lanka

  21–28 February

  18

  Year

  Dates

  Foreign Affairs Council-Brussels

  7 March

  Morocco, Tunisia

  27–31 March

  Total estimated cost: (for Ministers and Private Secretaries)

  £142,473.28

  1994–95

  Oman, Saudi Arabia

  24–28 April

  United States

  1–6 May

  Ghana

  4–6 May

  Oman

  13–15 May

  Malaysia

  22–24 May

  Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan

  22–27 May

  Japan, Taiwan, Thailand,

  29 May-14 June

  Malaysia, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia

  Saudi Arabia

  27–28 June

  South Africa

  9–15 July

  Brussels

  17–19 July

  Argentina, Brazil

  23–29 July

  Brazil, Chile, Argentina

  7–17 September

  Puerto Rica and Cuba

  7–9 September

  Singapore, Australia,

  10–24 September

  New Zealand

  Singapore, Hong Kong,

  13–26 October

  Indonesia, Philippines

  United States, Colombia,

  14–23 September

  Venezuela

  South Korea, Malaysia

  15–21 October

  Japan

  13–17 November

  India

  13–19 November

  Egypt

  13–15 November

  Austria

  27–29 November

  Malta

  25–27 January

  Japan

  27 January-1 February

  United States

  6–7 February

  Turkmenistan

  6–9 February

  India

  14–16 February

  Sri Lanka, India

  20–25 February

  Saudi Arabia

  25–28 March

  Total estimated cost: (for Ministers and Private Secretaries)

  £175,480.90

  Local Enterprise Initiatives
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet the Institute of Directors to discuss new ways of encouraging its members to participate more closely with local enterprise initiatives. [21823]

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, regularly meets representatives of the Institute of Directors to discuss a wide range of competitiveness issues.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates his Department has made of loss of revenue arising from car boot sales. [19960]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Traders at car boot sales are liable for income tax and VAT in the same way as everybody else. The tax authorities have powers to investigate tax evasion, and use them, but it is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of any revenue lost.

  Fiches d'impact
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fiches d'impact have been issued in each year since 1986 by Directorate-General 23 of the European Commission; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of directives issued each year. [18680]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Commission archives indicate that between 1986 and 1990, all proposed legislation had a fiche d' impact. In 1991 a new system came into operation whereby fiches were targeted at those proposals for legislation which were likely to have substantial effect on enterprises, particularly small and medium sized firms.

  The Commission does not hold central records which would enable the other statistics requested to be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission; (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20665]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Design Council

  (b) None

  (c) Design Council

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  National Consumer Council

  Post Office Users' National Council

  Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland

  Post Office Users' Council for Wales

  Post Office Users' Council for Scotland

  Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Gas Consumer's Council

  (d) None

  (e) Design Council

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  National Consumer Council

  (f) Design Council

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Post Office Users' National Council

  Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland

  Post Office Users' Council for Wales

  Post Office Users' Council for Scotland

  Gas Consumers' Council

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have(a) a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board
  20
  or committee meetings and (b) a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public. [20879]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: None.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what share of the market for manufactures he expects imports to take(a) in the current year and (b) next year. [21417]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Forecasts for total imports of goods and services can be found in the November "Financial Statement and Budget Report", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Neither the Treasury nor the Department of Trade and Industry publishes forecasts for manufactured imports.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 11, if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European regional development funding since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [20563]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy earlier today.

  Manual Workers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average increase in real terms in the wages of local authority manual workers since 1979. [21060]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information from the "New Earnings Survey", adjusted by the retail prices index, indicates that the average increase in real terms from April 1979 to April 1994, the latest date for which information is available, in the wages of local authority manual workers in England and Wales was 24.5 per cent.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage grant available to English housing associations for new and existing properties in each year since 1979. [21082]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: Prior to 1 April 1989, there were no published grant rates and the available grant was determined on a scheme-by-scheme basis. Since 1 April 1989, the average grant rates available to English housing associations for the development and rehabilitation of property have been:

  1989–90: 75 per cent.

  1990–91: 80 per cent.

  1991–92: 77 per cent.

  1992–93: 72 per cent.

  1993–94: 67 per cent.

  1994–95: 62 per cent.

  1995–96: 58 per cent.

  Approved Development Programme
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the ADP programme as between social housing and owner occupation. [21308]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Housing Corporation approved development programme is split into housing for rent programmes—mixed and public funded, short-life housing and miscellaneous works including major repair—and home ownership incentives and housing for sale programmes—tenants incentive scheme do-it-yourself shared ownership and construction and rehabilitation of property for shared ownership. TIS and DIYSO encourage home ownership and release existing lettings for others in housing need.

  The ADP for 1995–96 is as follows:

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Forecast lettings produced

  Housing for rent

  Mixed and public funded

  784.7

  32,700

  Short life housing

  23.0

  3,300

  Miscellaneous works

  65.0

  —

  Total rent

  872.7

  36,000

  Incentives and housing for sale

  Tenants Incentive Scheme

  85.8

  7,200

  DIYSO

  121.9

  4,700

  Shared ownership

  74.7

  4,600

  Total incentive sale

  282.4

  16,500

  Other expenditure

  26.0

  —

  Total gross expenditure

  1,181.1

  —

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are employed by each local authority in the north-east region of England, including police forces, by broad service area. [21306]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Numbers employed in June 1994 by each local authority in England, including police forces, were published in the joint staffing watch press release. A copy of the press release and the available service area information for metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan districts in the north-east have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bridlepath, Ribble Valley
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about his decision to delete from the definitive maps the path and bridleway from Sawley lodge towards Gisburn in Ribble valley; [21232]

  (2) what was the nature of the representations made to his Department by Mrs. Patricia Lord concerning the footpath and bridleway running through her land at Sawley lodge, Ribble valley; [21233]

  (3) why he has directed Lancashire county council to delete from the definitive map the path and bridleway from Sawley lodge towards Gisburn in Ribble valley. [21231]
  22
  Mr. Atkins
  The nature of representations made by Mrs. Lord and the reasons for the Secretary of State's decision were set out in the letter issued by the Government office for the north west on 21 December. I am sending the hon. Member for Pendle a copy of that letter and placing a copy in the House Library.

  The Secretary of State has received one representation about his decision from Lancaster Association of Parish and Town Councils.

  Avian Pest Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the control of avian pest species. [21181]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Annual general licences issued by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food permit the year-round control by authorised persons of 13 species of pest birds. Populations of the 13 species concerned are monitored to assess their conservation status. There is no evidence to suggest that current levels of pest control are threatening the status of any of these species.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has granted full authorisation to Castle Cement to allow the burning of cemfuel at Ribblesdale. [21234]

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my written reply of 24 February,Official Report, column 350. HMIP is now considering carefully all comments received as a result of the public consultation exercise, together with the results from the monitoring and the environmental impact assessment undertaken by Castle Cement. A decision on whether to allow the burning of cemfuel as currently authorised will be made by HMIP following this review.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his Department's consultation paper on possible legislation for construction industry contracts in accordance with the recommendations of the Latham report; and if he will make a statement. [21196]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 21 April,Official Report, column 286.

  River Tees
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place between the National Rivers Authority and the Teesside development corporation about the level of the River Tees above the Tees barrage; and what conclusions have been reached. [21305]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Teesside development corporation has discussed with the National Rivers Authority whether or not the Tees Barrage has any material impact on the flood levels of the River Tees, during heavy winter flows in January and February 1995.

  The TDC and NRA are now awaiting the results of studies by consultants relating to these issues.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21597]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department is committed to equality of opportunity for all employees. There are departmental action plans to achieve equality of opportunities for ethnic minorities and women based on the programmes for action in the civil service. Consultation within the Department is currently taking place on a draft departmental action plan in response to the programme for action for disabled people. Progress is reported to staff by means of an annual report which is published by the equal opportunities unit.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21496]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for all issues within the Department although the Viscount Ullswater has particular responsibility for women's issues.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21498]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department's policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on womens' issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people with disabilities, older people or ex-offenders. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he hopes to make in the next three months to push forwards the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the 4th UN conference on women; and if he will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21499]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the 4th UN world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  The following paragraph on equal opportunities was published in the Department's annual report for 1995:
  "The Department of the Environment is an equal opportunities employer. This means that all staff (whether full—or part-time), applicants for posts, and members of the public are treated on the same fair basis irrespective of sex, sexual orientation or marital status, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, or disability."

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European social fund support since privatisation indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received; [21289]

  (2) if he will list those public projects which received European social fund support and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21288]
  24
  Sir Paul Beresford
  None of the privatised companies for which my Department has responsibility has applied directly and received European social fund support since 1990. Information for the years before 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21384]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For the Department and agencies for which I am responsible any conflict of interest involving a civil servant would have been dealt with in accordance with established guidance. Records on the number of cases are not held centrally. In the last five years, five special advisors have declared 11 possible conflicts of interest.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21367]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  From the inception of the market testing programme in April 1992 to 31 March 1995, departmental and agency expenditure on consultancies to support the "Competing and Quality" initiative has been almost £1.6 million. As reported in the "Market Testing Bulletin Special Report," dated January 1995, total results to the end of September 1994 have achieved annual savings of £14.6 million. In addition to the cash savings, there have been a number of improvements in the quality of services delivered.

  Barn Owls
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide estimates to show the change in the numbers of barn owls in England and Wales over the last 20 years. [21115]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's statutory scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, advise that the estimated population of barn owls in Great Britain and Ireland, when surveyed during 1968–72, was between 4,600 and 9,000 pairs. A survey carried out during 1982–85 estimated the population to be between 5,000 and 5,300 pairs. It is impossible to compare directly the results of different surveys, as different survey techniques may have been used.

  Falconry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many permits have been issued to falconers to take protected species of birds as quarry in each year since 1988; what were the species in respect of which such permits were issued; and what were the numbers of each species taken. [21245]
  25
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of licences issued to take protected species in the course of falconry in England for available for

  Species

  Number of licences1

  Birds killed

  Year

  Aluda arvensis

  46

  1773 (Total number of all species killed)

  1988

  Turdus merula

  Turdus philomelos

  Turdus pilaris

  Turdus iliacus

  Turdus viscivorous

  Anthus pratensis

  Larus ridibundas

  Aluda arvensis

  60

  No figures on the numbers of birds killed available

  1989

  Turdus merula

  Turdus philomelos

  Turdus pilaris

  Anthus pratensis

  Turdus iliacus

  Larus ridibundas

  Lagopus lagopus

  Perdix perdix

  Gallinula chlorpus

  Anas crecca

  Anas platyrhynchos

  Aluda arvensis

  61

  236

  1990

  Turdus merula

  132

  Turdus philomelos

  20

  Anthus pratensis

  27

  Larus ridibundas

  2

  Aluda arvensis

  59

  259

  1991

  Turdus merula

  132

  Turdus philomelos

  20

  Anthus pratensis

  35

  Larus ridibundas

  2

  Aluda arvensis

  59

  137

  1992

  Turdus merula

  158

  Turdus philomelos

  25

  Anthus pratensis

  42

  Larus ridibundas

  0

  Aluda arvensis

  72

  171

  1993

  Turdus merula

  51

  Turdus philomelos

  9

  Anthus pratensis

  18

  Larus ridibundas

  10

  1Licences covered all or some of the named species.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences have been issued in each year since 1988 to possess birds of prey, and what were the numbers of birds in each species held under such licences. [21249]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 permits a series of licences to be issued to take wild birds for a variety of purposes. Since 1988 my Department has not issued any licenses to take birds of prey from the wild.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the 26
  the period 1998–1993.are as listed. Figures are not yet available for 1994.

  adequate protection of migrating birds of protected species. [21116]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Wild birds in the United Kingdom are protected by the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act which enacts our obligations under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. The Act does not permit migratory species to be hunted during their breeding or migration seasons.

  The birds directive requires member states to take special conservation measures for certain vulnerable species, including the establishment of a network of special protection areas. To date 104 SPAs have been designated and more are planned.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to his counterpart Ministers in the EEC concerning the shooting and trapping of protected species during migration and if he
  27
  will seek to persuade them to enforce in full the provisions of the appropriate European legislation. [21117]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The European Commission has proposed an amendment to the birds directive to give guidance on the hunting of migratory birds. The proposal has been considered by the Council of Ministers and has been referred to the European Parliament for an opinion. When that opinion is received, the Council of Ministers will consider its implications for the hunting of migratory birds.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of sites which meet the criteria for designation and protection under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds, the number of sites so designated, the name of the site next to be designated and the date he expects to designate it; [21118]

  (2) when he last designated an area under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance, which area is

  UK sites classified as special protection areas under EC birds directive and wetlands of International importance under the Ramsar Convention

  Name

  County/region

  Date designated

  Area (ha)

  1. Loch Druidibeg, A'Machair

  Western Isles

  31 August 1982

  1,043.0

  2. Ribble Estuary

  Lancashire

  31 August 1982

  2,182.0

  3. The Swale

  Kent

  31 August 1982

  113.0

  extended

  17 July 1985

  5,722.0

  further extended

  15 December 1993

  421.7

  4. Chesil Beach and The Fleet

  Dorset

  17 July 1985

  763.0

  5. The Dee Estuary

  Merseyside, Cheshire and Clwyd

  17 July 1985

  13,055.0

  6. Derwent Ings (part of Lower Derwent Valley)

  North Yorkshire

  17 July 1985

  783.0

  7. Holburn Moss

  Northumberland

  17 July 1985

  22.0

  8. Alt Estuary

  Merseyside

  28 November 1985

  1,160.0

  9. Leighton Moss

  Lancashire

  28 November 1985

  124.0

  10. Martin Mere

  Lancashire

  28 November 1985

  119.0

  11. Loch Eye

  Highland

  23 September 1986

  195.0

  12. Loch of Skene

  Grampian

  23 September 1986

  125.0

  13. Rockliffe Marshes (Pt Upper Solway Flats and Marshes)

  Cumbria

  23 September 1986

  1,897.0

  14. Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  Hampshire/Sussex

  28 October 1987

  5,764.0

  15. Upper Severn Estuary

  Gloucestershire

  5 February 1988

  1,357.0

  16. The Wash

  Lines/Norfolk

  30 March 1988

  63,124.0

  17. Pagham Harbour

  West Sussex

  30 March 1988

  615.0

  18. Din Moss—Hoselaw Loch

  Borders

  14 July 1988

  45.7

  19. Gladhouse Reservoir

  Lothian

  14 July 1988

  186.5

  20. Bridgend Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  331.0

  21. Duich Moss, Islay

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  574.0

  22. Gruinart Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  3,170.0

  23. North Norfolk Coast

  Norfolk

  20 January 1989

  7,700.0

  24. Fala Flow

  Midlothian

  25 April 1990

  323.0

  25. Glac-na-Criche

  Islay

  25 April 1990

  265.0

  26. Feur Lochain

  Islay

  25 April 1990

  384.1

  27. Rutland Water

  Leics

  4 October 1991

  1,540.0

  28. Abberton Reservoir

  Essex

  5 December 1991

  716.3

  29. Walmore Common

  Gloucs

  5 December 1991

  51.4

  30. Exe Estuary

  Devon

  11 March 1992

  2,388.6

  31. Lindisfarne

  Northumberland

  11 March 1992

  3,625.2

  32. Old Hall Marshes

  Essex

  11 March 1992

  627.1

  33. Minsmere-Walberswick

  Suffolk

  19 May 1992

  2,000.3

  34. Burry Inlet

  Dyfed/W Glam

  14 July 1992

  6,660.0

  35. Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31 August 1992

  773.4

  36. Loch Spynie

  Grampian

  31 August 1992

  93.0

  37. Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway

  30 November 1992

  28,053.0

  38. Nene Washes

  Cambs

  5 March 1993

  1,310.0

  39. Ouse Washes

  Cambs/Norfolk

  5 March 1993

  2,372.0

  40. Gibraltar Point (Wash Phase II)

  Lincolnshire

  5 March 1993

  414.0

  41. South Tayside Goose Roosts

  Tayside

  22 April 1993

  408.7

  28
  next to be designated and when he expects to designate it; [21119]

  (3) if he will list those special protection areas, under the EC birds directive, as well as those Ramsar sites and areas with dual designation for the protection of birds. [21120/95]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The list of those areas identified on the basis of scientific evidence as potentially qualifying for classification as special protection areas is currently under review. The list will be published in due course and a copy will be placed in the Library. The next English site to be designated is expected to be placed in the Blackwater estuary in Essex. It is a SPA and Ramsar site. An announcement will be made shortly.

  We announced the listing of two Ramsar sites at the end of March 1995: River Crouch marshes, Essex, was listed on 24 March and Coll, Strathclyde, was listed on 31 March.

  The United Kingdom has designated 104 special protection areas and listed 88 Ramsar sites. The following 62 sites have dual SPA/Ramsar designation:
  29

  UK sites classified as special protection areas under EC birds directive and wetlands of International importance under the Ramsar Convention

  Name

  County/region

  Date designated

  Area (ha)

  42. Hamford Water

  Essex

  8 June 1993

  2,179.3

  43. Lower Derwent Valley

  N Yorks and Humberside

  8 June 1993

  306.4

  44. New Forest

  Hampshire

  22 September 1993

  28,001.2

  45. Medway Estuary

  Kent

  15 December 1993

  4,681.8

  46. Stodmarsh

  Kent

  16 December 1993

  481.3

  47. Benfleet and Southend Marshes

  Essex

  14 February 1994

  2,251.3

  48. Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons (Wealden Heaths Phase I)

  Surrey/Hants

  14 February 1994

  1,869.9

  49. Cameron Reservoir

  Fife

  14 March 1994

  64.4

  50. Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase I)

  Essex

  24 March 1994

  3,127.2

  51. Loch of Kinnordy

  Tayside

  29 March 1994

  86.0

  52. Stour and Orwell

  Essex/Suffolk

  13 July 1994

  3,334.1

  53. Humber Flats and Marshes

  Humberside and Lincs

  28 July 1994

  15,230.3

  54. Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay

  Kent

  28 July 1994

  1,877.0

  55. Colne (Mid-Essex Coast Phase II)

  Essex

  28 July 1994

  2,701.4

  56. Loch Maree

  Highland

  19 September 1994

  3,100.0

  57. Broadland

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  21 September 1994

  4,645.9

  58. Montrose Basin

  Tayside

  3 February 1995

  987.0

  59. Ribble and Alt Estuaries Phase II

  Lancashire/Merseyside

  16 February 1995

  8,768.4

  60. Portsmouth Harbour

  Hampshire

  28 February 1995

  1,248.4

  61. River Crouch Marshes

  Essex

  24 March 1995

  905.7

  62. Coll

  Strathclyde

  31 March 1995

  2,291.9

  Total

  250,735.0

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21212]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Expenditure on official hospitality by my Department, including Property Holdings and the Department's agencies, was approximately £121,000 in 1994–95.

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21769]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers permanent administrative staff in my Department, excluding Ordnance Survey and PSA Services.

  Q4-1993: 6

  Q1-1994: 1

  Q2-1994: 5

  Q3-1994: 2

  Q4-1994: 8

  Q1-1995: 4

EMPLOYMENT

  Female Work Force
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of women in the United Kingdom have jobs; and what are the figures for other major European countries. [16521]
  30
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: The most recent comparable estimates between the United Kingdom and other major European countries are for 1992 and are given in the following table.

  The most recent information for the United Kingdom is for spring 1994, when the rate was 65 per cent.

  Total female employment as a percentage of the female population ages 15–59

  Country

  1992

  Sweden*

  76

  Denmark

  74

  United Kingdom

  64

  Finland*

  63

  Germany

  60

  Portugal

  58

  Austria*

  56

  France

  55

  Netherlands

  54

  Luxembourg

  50

  Belgium

  49

  Italy

  39

  Greece

  38

  Ireland

  38

  Spain

  33

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  *ages 15–64.

  Redundancies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those companies reporting redundancies where the number of redundancies was fewer than 20; and what was the total number of redundancies reported by those firms where the number of redundancies was fewer than 20, in each case breaking the data down by industrial sector, gender and region. [21047]
  31
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: Information supplied by individual employers under the statutory redundancy notification arrangements is given in

  Redundancies of <20 employees notified under s193 trade union and labour relations (consolidation) act 1992:1994

  Sector

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands and Eastern

  North

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Agriculture, forestry, fishing

  40

  28

  50

  13

  27

  —

  —

  10

  —

  168

  Energy and water supply

  243

  75

  30

  314

  77

  —

  —

  12

  —

  751

  Minerals, ores, metals, chemicals

  104

  39

  167

  200

  102

  43

  177

  86

  222

  1,140

  Metal goods, engineering, vehicles

  1,377

  430

  557

  580

  164

  674

  486

  227

  572

  5,067

  Other manufacturing industries

  689

  283

  814

  827

  320

  845

  490

  183

  587

  5,038

  Construction

  483

  150

  288

  380

  345

  626

  288

  106

  1,041

  3,707

  Distribution, hotels and catering, repairs

  1,548

  673

  704

  854

  199

  968

  384

  276

  403

  6,009

  Transport and communication

  589

  182

  129

  250

  81

  240

  213

  34

  260

  1,978

  Banking, finance, business services, leasing

  1,991

  418

  288

  350

  105

  589

  225

  39

  333

  4,338

  Other services

  1,622

  490

  530

  371

  318

  607

  393

  74

  314

  4,719

  Total

  8,686

  2,768

  3,557

  4,139

  1,738

  4,592

  2,656

  1,047

  3,732

  32,915

  Note:

  Under s193 of the TULR(C) Act 1992, an employer is required to notify the Secretary of State for Employment of 10 or more proposed redundancies occurring at one establishment within a period of 30 days or less.

  Stockport Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the directors of Stockport TEC have received payments from TEC funds for services provided to the TEC; what these were and when; and if such payments will continue in 1995–96. [21176]

  Mr. Paice
  I understand from Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council that none of the TEC's directors has ever received payment from TEC funds for services provided to the TEC. TEC directors receive no payment from the TEC for their services.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions the hotel owned by a Stockport TEC director has been used by the Stockport TEC for training or other purposes, for which that director's hotel has received payment; how much was paid; and when and how many of these hotel bookings were the subject of competitive tenders. [21175]

  Mr. Paice
  I understand from Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council that one of their directors owns a hotel which has been used by the TEC. The occasions on which the hotel has been used by the TEC since its inception in 1991 are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Occasions

  £

  1991

  Three

  3,537.14

  1992

  Three

  2,098.47

  1993

  Four

  1,764.27

  1994

  One

  63.83

  1995

  One

  126.74

  The TEC uses a wide range of venues throughout its area and does not normally use competitive tendering for these bookings. However, in cases of significant
  32
  confidence. No analysis is kept by gender. The remaining information requested is in the following table, which relates 1994.

  expenditure the TEC will seek out comparative prices. TECs are required to comply with published guidelines on the business interest of directors.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to consult on the Vienna declaration prior to the UN conference on women in Beijing; to which interested groups the Vienna declaration has been circulated for comment; and what steps he has taken to progress the implementation of the Vienna declaration signed in October 1994. [21309]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Throughout the preparatory phase for the fourth world conference on women, the Government have been in continuous dialogue with women's non-governmental organisations and other interested groups. More than 500 copies of the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna have been circulated to NGOs, local authorities, academic institutions, trade unions, businesses and all members and associate members of the Women's National Commission. The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action and are taking these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna Conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21463]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the
  33
  fourth UN conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  In line with the Government White Paper, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", the Department will publish actions and progress on equal opportunities in its annual report from 1995–96.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21461]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Good progress is being made towards the numerical benchmarks for the employment of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the Employment Department Group for the year 2000, and towards implementing the agreed recommendations of a report which investigated the causes of the under-representation of women at senior levels in the group. A number of initiatives to help staff combine work and domestic responsibilities have been introduced, including part-time and alternative working arrangements; homeworking; career breaks and special leave arrangements. There is support for child care through six workplace nurseries and 35 holiday play schemes. A programme has recently been introduced for staff from ethnic minorities to enable them to compete more effectively for jobs in areas where they are under-represented. An advisory group on women has been set up to advise on how policies and practices in the ED group impact on women.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21460]

  Miss Widdecombe
  This Department's policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people with disabilities, older people or ex-offenders. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total amount of spending on training for the last available year, indicating the proportion of spending accounted for by finance from the European Union for the United Kingdom as a whole and for each standard region. [20375]

  Mr. Paice
  It is estimated that British employers currently spend over £20,000 million a year on training and developing their employees. The total amount of European social fund spent on training in Great Britain in the 1993 calendar year was £580 million. Responsibility for training matters in Northern Ireland lies with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in constant prices the average annual earnings of apprentices, and average length of 34
  apprenticeships, for the United Kingdom and for each standard employment region for (a) 1975, (b) 1979, (c) 1985, (d) 1990 and (e) the last three available years. [20378]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21366]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of employing consultants to give support to the Employment Department Group's "Competing for Quality" programme for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995 was around £3.1 million.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21383]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested in the first part of the question is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Instructions on declaring conflicts of interest are contained in the Department's group personnel handbook. All members of staff must comply with these instructions and any subsequent instructions about the retention, disposal or management of such interests.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21770]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Part of ED Group

  ED

  HSE

  ACAS

  Total

  Es Agency

  Quarter

  1 October 1993 to

  AA

  0

  6

  0

  6

  45

  31 December 1993

  AO

  3

  2

  0

  5

  441

  1 January 1994 to

  AA

  3

  2

  0

  5

  92

  31 March 1994

  AO

  4

  1

  0

  5

  527

  1 April 1994 to

  AA

  5

  10

  1

  16

  26

  30 June 1994

  AO

  5

  8

  1

  14

  129

  1 July 1994 to

  AA

  1

  12

  1

  14

  18

  30 September 1994

  AO

  4

  4

  0

  8

  193

  1 October 1994 to

  AA

  1

  9

  0

  10

  5

  31 December 1994

  AO

  7

  6

  0

  13

  71

  1 January 1995 to

  AA

  6

  9

  0

  15

  0

  31 March 1995

  AO

  5

  2

  0

  7

  2

  AA = Administrative assistant AO = Administrative officer.

  Training, Teesside
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which travel-to-work areas are served by(a) the East Cleveland training and employment group and (b) the Teesside TEC. [21432]

  Mr. Paice
  Teesside training and enterprise council serves three travel-to-work areas: Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool. East Cleveland training and employment group operates in the Middlesbrough travel-to-work area.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the expenditure of the Teesside training and enterprise council in each of the last 10 years. [21434]

  Mr. Paice
  Teesside training and enterprise council was established in 1990. The TEC's expenditure is shown in the following table:

  Teesside TEC training by occupational area

  Numbers trained (young persons and adults)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Occupational Areas

  Managerial and Professional

  0

  452

  439

  426

  406

  390

  1

  66

  64

  62

  59

  57

  2

  98

  96

  93

  88

  85

  3

  111

  107

  105

  100

  96

  4

  556

  540

  524

  499

  480

  5

  17

  17

  16

  16

  15

  6

  251

  244

  237

  226

  217

  7

  203

  197

  191

  182

  175

  8

  1,263

  1,226

  1,190

  1,134

  1,090

  Clerical

  9

  554

  538

  522

  497

  478

  Construction

  10

  1,033

  1,003

  974

  928

  892

  Engineering and electrical making and repairing occupations

  11

  802

  778

  756

  720

  692

  12

  206

  200

  194

  185

  178

  13

  534

  518

  503

  479

  461

  14

  159

  154

  150

  142

  137

  15

  950

  922

  895

  853

  820

  6

  70

  67

  66

  62

  60

  Catering

  17

  239

  232

  225

  214

  206

  Healthcare

  18

  848

  823

  799

  761

  732

  19

  278

  270

  262

  250

  240

  Sales

  20

  15

  15

  14

  14

  13

  Occupations

  21

  1,100

  1,069

  1,037

  988

  950

  Miscellaneous Assembly

  22

  474

  460

  447

  425

  409

  Driving

  23

  101

  98

  95

  91

  87

  Agriculture

  24

  127

  124

  121

  114

  110

  Others

  25

  2,092

  2,031

  1,972

  1,878

  1,806

  Totals

  12,599

  12,232

  11,876

  11,311

  10,876

  Low Pay
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in real take-home pay among those men in the lowest decile of earnings since 1979. [21571]

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  36

  Year

  Expenditure (£ millions)

  1989–90

  0.133 (Development funding)

  1990–91

  27.5

  1991–92

  27.7

  1992–93

  28.4

  1993–94

  30.9

  1994–951

  1Audited accounts not available yet.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people for whose training the Teesside TEC has been responsible in each of the last 10 years(a) in each skill area and (b) in total. [21435]

  Mr. Paice
  The following table provides an occupational breakdown of the numbers of people trained by Teesside training and enterprise council since it was established in 1990.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide, on the same basis as in table, 2.7, "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994", estimates for income tax liabilities for 1995–96 in an income range form £3,525 to £100,000, supplying data at intervals of not more than 10,000. [21005]
  37
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Available estimates based on a projection of the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes are given in the following table.

  Income tax liabilities, by income range, 1995–961

  Range of total income (lower limit)

  Tax liability at lower rate

  Tax liability at basic rate

  Tax liability at excess over basic rate

  £

  Number of taxpayers

  Amount taxpayers

  Number of taxpayers

  Amount

  Number of taxpayers

  Amount

  3,525

  1.9

  260

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  4.1

  1,920

  0.8

  70

  —

  —

  7,500

  3.8

  2,440

  3.7

  1,510

  —

  —

  10,000

  6.1

  3,890

  6.1

  7,710

  —

  —

  15,000

  4.1

  2,620

  4.1

  10,100

  —

  —

  20,000

  3.9

  2,490

  3.9

  15,800

  0.2

  30

  30,000

  1.2

  770

  1.2

  7,740

  1.2

  870

  40,000

  1.0

  670

  1.0

  15,500

  1.0

  6,010

  All ranges

  26.2

  15,100

  20.8

  58,500

  2.4

  6,910

  Numbers: millions; amounts: £ million

  Range of total income (lower limit) £

  Total tax liability before tax credit

  Total tax liability after tax credit

  Average rate of tax Percentage

  Average amount of tax £

  3,525

  260

  250

  3

  130

  5,000

  2,000

  1,720

  7

  420

  7,500

  3,940

  3,460

  10

  910

  10,000

  11,600

  10,300

  14

  1,670

  15,000

  12,700

  11,500

  16

  2,800

  20,000

  18,400

  16,900

  18

  4,340

  30,000

  9,380

  8,850

  22

  7,380

  40,000

  22,200

  21,700

  30

  20,730

  All ranges

  80,500

  74,600

  18

  2,850

  1Provisional

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 2.9, "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994", providing estimates for 1995–96. [21006]

  Income tax liabilities of lower, basic and higher rate taxpayers by range of total income by source, 1995–961

  Range of total income (lower limit)

  Main source Schedule E pay or occupational pension

  Main source Schedule D case I or II profits

  Other main sources

  £

  Number of taxpayers

  Total amount of tax

  Number of taxpayers2

  Total amount of tax3

  Number of taxpayers

  Total amount

  Taxpayers liable only at the lower rate

  3,525

  4,490

  1,270

  550

  150

  320

  80

  20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  4,490

  1,270

  550

  150

  320

  80

  Taxpayers liable at the basic rate (excluding higher rate taxpayers

  3,525

  12,800

  22,800

  1,570

  2,450

  280

  420

  20,000

  3,320

  14,200

  330

  1,350

  40

  170

  30,000

  20

  90

  10

  50

  —

  —

  Total

  16,200

  37,100

  1,900

  3,850

  320

  590

  38
  The main reason for higher numbers of taxpayers is increasing prosperity—real incomes have increased by 40 per cent. Since 1979—and the number of people in employment increased by 174,000 during 1994.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Provisional incomes are given in the table:
  39

  Income tax liabilities of lower, basic and higher rate taxpayers by range of total income by source, 1995–961

  Range of total income (lower limit)

  Main source Schedule E pay or occupational pension

  Main source Schedule D case I or II profits

  Other main sources

  £

  Number of taxpayers

  Total amount of tax

  Number of taxpayers2

  Total amount of tax3

  Number of taxpayers

  Total amount

  Taxpayers liable at the higher rate

  3,525

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  180

  1,040

  30

  170

  10

  40

  30,000

  1,360

  11,500

  230

  1,990

  30

  310

  50,000

  350

  6,600

  110

  2,070

  10

  220

  100,000

  80

  4,830

  40

  2,530

  10

  350

  Total

  1,970

  24,000

  400

  6,760

  60

  930

  1Provisional.

  2Numbers=thousands.

  3Amounts=£ million.

  The main reason for higher numbers of taxpayers is increasing prosperity—real incomes have increased by 40 per cent. since 1979—and the number of people in employment increased by 174,000 during 1994.

  Mr. Stephen Crouch
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch. [21689]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: There is no such relationship.

  Mr. Edmund Sykes
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes. [21690]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: There is no such relationship.

  Leeds-Halifax Building Society
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on(a) consumer expenditure and (b) the growth of gross domestic product, of the planned share distribution by the planned Leeds-Halifax building society merger and conversion, on the basis of current plans and current market capitalisation. [21431]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: The societies have not published details of the share distribution which will form part of their proposed conversion. So it has not been possible to make an estimate of any wider economic effects of the conversion. Any estimate would, in any case, be subject to a great deal of uncertainty, because of the assumptions which would have to be made about the behaviour of those investors receiving a share distribution.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the quantitative impact on inward investment into the United Kingdom of an increase of(a) 1p, (b) 2p and (c) Sp on corporation tax; and if he will make a statement. [20919]

  Sir George Young
  Taxation is one of a number of factors which businesses take into account when deciding the location for investment. The United Kingdom has the lowest main rate of corporation tax among the major
  40
  industrial countries. The UK's low corporation tax rates have contributed, along with the openness of the UK economy, low labour costs, a well educated and flexible workforce and good communications, to the UK becoming the second largest recipient of foreign direct investment worldwide.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines govern public sector salary increases in areas where the state enjoys monopoly power; and if he will make a statement. [20931]

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government expect pay in the public sector to be considered in accordance with the approach that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced on 14 September 1994. The running costs of central Government Departments and provision for the rest of the public sector have been set on the basis that pay and price increases should be offset, or more than offset, by efficiencies and other economies. Generally, pay in all parts of the public sector should be set at levels necessary to recruit, retain and motivate staff within the available cash levels.

  Chief Secretary
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution has been made or is planned to be made to the legal costs incurred by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his action for libel against the Guardian newspaper. [21842]

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press notices or statements have been made by his Department concerning the private business activities and associated allegations relating to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since his appointment; and what is the estimated cost involved. [21843]

  Mr. Aitken
  None. Treasury officials have passed on a number of inquiries from the press to me and on a number of occasions have passed my replies back. Very little of their time has been involved.

  Regulators
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual total cost of each of the regulators of the privatised utilities. [21838]
  41
  Sir George Young
  The provision for 1994–95 and 1995–96 for the offices of the privatised utilities are as follows:

  £ thousands

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Office of Telecommunications

  9,358

  9,464

  Office of Gas Supply

  4,524

  5,352

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  10,871

  10,567

  Office of Water Services

  9,544

  8,146

  Source:

  Supply Estimates 1995–96, HM Treasury, March 1995.

  The cost of funding the offices of the regulators is fully recovered by licence fees paid by the regulated companies. Income from fees is surrendered to the consolidated fund. There is no net cost to the taxpayer.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates will pay tax on incapacity benefit in each of the next three financial years; and what will be the average increase in tax payable as a result of the extension of tax to invalidity in each of these years and the total yield to the Treasury. [17348]

  Sir George Young
  Estimates for new claimants of incapacity benefit and the total tax yield are given in the table. No-one already receiving invalidity benefit will pay tax on their incapacity benefit so long as they remain incapable of work.

  New claimants of incapacity benefit

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Number of new claimants

  300,000

  550,000

  700,000

  of which taxpayers

  200,000

  300,000

  350,000

  Yield (£ million)

  35

  70

  95

  Estimates are based on survey data and are subject to some uncertainty. Claimant figures have been rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  Washington Visit
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the extent of the briefing by Her Majesty's Government's Treasury officials and Ministers to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for his trip to Washington in 1986. [20608]

  Sir George Young
  No briefing was asked for and none was given. The views of the Government on unitary tax were well known, and were stated by the then Financial Secretary in the House on 9 July,Official Report, column 1031.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial contribution Her Majesty's Treasury made towards the flight of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Concorde to Washington in 1986. [20607]

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Unitary Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice the Government gave to the 42
  unitary tax campaign on what class of aircraft travel hon. Members travelling in support of the campaign should use. [20580]

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask The Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government financially supported the unitary tax campaign. [20609]

  Sir George Young
  No.

  Unpaid Taxation
  Mr. John Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 April to the hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce)Official Report, column 37, which part of the contract comprised the £3 million that was let to overseas contractors. [21034]

  Sir George Young
  Some £3.5 million worth of work, excluding VAT, was let to two overseas contractors as part of the construction cost of the new Inland Revenue centre in Nottingham. Grill and Grossman of Austria undertook cladding and glazing work on the centre's amenity building. Koit High Tex of Germany provided the fabric roof and support steel for this building.

  The previous figure of £3 million did not include the cost of an outstanding claim by one of the firms, which has now been settled. The £3.5 million is the final outturn figure in respect of these two firms.

  Self Assessment
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the implementation of tax self assessment by the Inland Revenue. [21135]

  Sir George Young
  Self assessment will apply to those people who receive tax returns. The main legislative changes required have now been enacted, partly in the Finance Act 1994 and partly in this year's Finance Act. Self assessment is a more modern and straightforward system that will give taxpayers greater clarity about their tax affairs.

  The Inland Revenue has been consulting with interested parties on the introduction of self assessment since 1990, and that consultation is continuing. The intention is to explore ways to make the new system as practical and simple as possible to operate, and particularly to keep any compliance costs to a minimum.

  Self assessment will first apply to the tax year 1996–97 and the first new tax returns will be issued in April 1997. The Inland Revenue recognises the importance of ensuring taxpayers, employers, tax practitioners and its own staff are well prepared for the new system. It has developed a comprehensive programme to achieve this. It includes:
  extensive training of its staff on the new system and procedures, and to help them provide guidance to taxpayers about self assessment;
  a comprehensive customer service programme to inform and assist taxpayers so that they can understand the new system and comply with their obligations;
  extensive and continuing testing of the new tax return form, and consulting on its design, to make it as simple as possible for taxpayers to complete;
  a full trial of self assessment, involving some 5,000 taxpayers, which recently started in Leicester; and

  43
  a major public information campaign, using television and press advertising, directed mainly at the 9 million or so taxpayers who receive tax returns each year. This will start in June. An education programme for employers and accountants will also start in the summer.

  I am also arranging for presentations to hon. Members.

  Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of capacity working in manufacturing industry he and the Governor of the Bank of England assess as likely to be inflationary. [21312]

  Mr. Nelson
  The level of spare capacity in the economy is one of the many factors that are taken into account in setting monetary policy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is Government policy to hold down the rate of inflation by raising interest rates and the exchange rate to prevent United Kingdom manufacturers from passing on increases in the cost of imported materials and components. [21590]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are committed to delivering permanently low inflation and has an explicit inflation objective. The aim is to keep underlying inflation as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. Interest rates have been, and will continue to be, set to deliver this objective.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to raise the profitability of United Kingdom manufacturing. [21586]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are committed to helping British manufacturing compete, at home and in the world markets. The Government's role is to set a framework in which business can flourish, from low inflation and sound finances to supply-side reform. Latest figures available show profitability for United Kingdom manufacturing companies, net rate of return, was up from 4.5 per cent. in 1992 to 5.8 per cent. in 1993.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's objective to promote export-led growth by raising the rate of return for manufacturing above the rate of other non-North sea industrial and commercial companies. [21589]

  Mr. Nelson
  The key to maintaining good export performance is for the Government to deliver permanently low inflation and companies to keep costs under control, thereby ensuring that British industry remains competitive.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the standard of living of manual workers in manufacturing relative to the white collar workers in the private sector. [21588]
  44
  Mr. Aitken
  The Government's policy is to create the economic conditions that will permit improvements in living standards for all groups in society.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21522]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO, including ODA, is committed to equal opportunities. We have a number of programmes for action on women and race and are finalising programmes for the disabled. We are active members of Opportunity 2000.

  A number of initiatives to increase the recruitment of women and to help them fulfil their potential are set out in the 1995 departmental report, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries. The number of female ambassadors has risen to six since the report was issued.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21524]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  Equal Opportunities issues are included in the 1995 departmental report.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21523]

  Mr. Goodlad
  FCO policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people with disabilities, older people or ex-offenders. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21521]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and I have responsibility for equal opportunities issues in the Overseas Development Administration and the diplomatic wing of the FCO respectively.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the leader and members of the United Kingdom delegation to the UN international conference on women in Beijing. [21602]
  45
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, on 16 March 1995,Official Report, column 648.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom post in Delhi has been informed by appellate authorities in London if the appeal by Mrs. Kuldip Kaur against refusal to allow her to enter the United Kingdom to join her husband may proceed; if the post has prepared an explanatory statement concerning Mrs. Kaur's application (REF: IMM/ECR/0152/94); and if he will make a statement. [21731]

  Mr. Baldry
  The entry clearance officer has asked the immigration appellate authority for directions as to whether or not the appeal should proceed. As at 27 April these had not been received. As and when they are, an explanatory statement will be drawn up and sent to the IAA.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation for the international community to agree by the year 2000 on a target date for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. [21349]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that progress in nuclear disarmament is best achieved through international negotiations. We do not think that it is useful or sensible to impose deadlines on these efforts.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government has had with the Government of the Russian Federation concerning the proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation for the five nuclear weapon states to negotiate a treaty on nuclear stability and security; and if he will make a statement on the Government's understanding and assessment of this proposal. [21348]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have not had substantive discussions with the Government of the Russian Federation on this subject. So far as we know, the Russian ideas are still at an early stage of development.

  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the entitlement of non-governmental organisations to act as observers to the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference(a) during its plenary sessions and (b) during the deliberations of its main committee. [21346]

  Mr. David Davis
  We welcome the decision taken by the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference that non-governmental organisations should be given access to the plenary sessions of the conference and to debates in the main committees of the conference.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom ceased production of fissile materials for nuclear explosive purposes. [21354]

  Mr. David 'Davis
  During his address to the non-proliferation review and extension conference on 18 46
  April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced that the United Kingdom had ceased the production of fissile materials for explosive purposes. It is not our practice to disclose details of past production.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the response to Her Majesty's Government to the proposal made by the Government of South Africa at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference on 19 April for the adoption by states parties of a set of principles for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. [21342]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have told the South African Government that we wish to give careful consideration to their proposal for a set of principles for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the adoption by states parties to the non-proliferation treaty, during the treaty's review and extension conference, of a time-bound framework for achieving all the objectives of the non-proliferation treaty. [21350]

  Mr. David Davis
  The many and diverse objectives of the treaty cannot be achieved simply by imposing a time limit on them.

  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have put forward at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference for strengthening the treaty's review procedure. [21338]

  Mr. David Davis
  Discussion of possible improvements to the treaty's review procedures are only now beginning in New York. We will participate fully in these. We believe that regular review conferences should continue to be held at five yearly intervals in accordance with the relevant article of the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government supports the creation of a grievance procedure for the non-proliferation treaty; if the Government have responded to such proposals at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference; and if he will make a statement. [21344]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that the treaty's review procedures provide ample opportunity for states parties to voice their concerns about the implementation of the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on an adoption of states parties to the non-proliferation treaty, during the treaty's review and extension conference, of a time-bound framework for achieving complete nuclear disarmament. [21352]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that progress in nuclear disarmament is best achieved through international negotiations. We do not think that it is useful or sensible to impose deadlines on these efforts.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have put forward at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference(a) for furthering the objectives of article VI of the treaty and (b) for monitoring and reviewing progress made under article VI of the treaty. [21340]
  47
  Mr. David Davis
  We have, either before the non-proliferation treaty conference or at the conference itself:—issued revised positive and negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the treaty;
  —announced that the UK has ceased production of fissile material for explosive purposes; we have also contributed to efforts to achieve early negotiations on a multilateral treaty ending the production of such material;
  —announced further reductions in British nuclear weapon systems;
  —indicated the circumstances in which the UK would be willing to enter multilateral negotiations on the global reduction of nuclear weapons.

  We believe that five-yearly review conferences, held in accordance with the relevant article of the treaty, provide the appropriate means for monitoring progress under article VI of the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the response of her Majesty's Government to proposals made at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference for the decision on extending the treaty to be made by secret ballot. [21347]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have opposed such proposals. The NPT is a major international security treaty. Its extension is of great importance. We believe it is appropriate, therefore, that the position taken by individual states parties on that decision should be known to all. Accordingly, we believe the decision should be taken by an open rather than a secret ballot.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government support the creation of a standing consultative committee for the non-proliferation treaty; if the Government have responded to such proposals at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference; and if he will make a statement. [21343]

  Mr. David Davis
  We see no need for a standing consultative committee. We believe that the existing review procedures provide ample opportunity for states parties to voice their concerns about the implementation of the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the adoption by states parties to the non-proliferation treaty, during the treaty's review and extension conference, of a programme of action for achieving all the objectives of the non-proliferation treaty. [21351]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference the states parties to the treaty should reaffirm their commitment to the achievement of the objectives of the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have put forward at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference(a) for furthering the objectives of article IV of the treaty and (b) for monitoring and reviewing progress made under article IV of the treaty. [21339]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK supports article IV of the non-proliferation' treaty. The British delegation to the NPT review and extension conference is currently taking an 48
  active part in the review of article IV in the main committee dealing with peaceful uses.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the response of Her Majesty's Government to the proposal made by the Government of Germany at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference on 18 April for a ban on re-using nuclear weapons materials in the production of other nuclear weapons. [21345]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that re-cycling fissile material allows us to keep our stockpile of fissile material at the minimum level necessary to meet our operational requirements.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the response of Her Majesty's Government to proposals made by the Government of South Africa at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference on 19 April for strengthening the treaty's review procedure. [21341]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that the treaty's review procedures provide ample opportunity for states parties to voice their concerns about the implementation of the treaty. But we are prepared to give consideration to the South African proposals.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21368]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Between 1 January 1992 and 31 March 1995, the cost to the FCO, including the Overseas Development Administration, of consultancy related to market testing was £742,700.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21214]

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of £7,680,934 was spent on official hospitality by the FCO and ODA in the financial year 1994–95. The Natural Resources Institute, an agency of the ODA, spent £3,386 and Wilton Park, an agency of the FCO, spent £455.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has for establishment of a regional peacekeeping training centre in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [21335]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that the Government of Zimbabwe may make facilities at its staff college available to the UN as a regional centre for the development of peacekeeping skills. This proposal fits into the framework of the British initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa, launched at the UN General Assembly in September 1994, and was developed
  49
  at a workshop co-hosted by ourselves and Zimbabwe in Harare in January this year. We would welcome such an offer being made to the UN and would be happy to consider a possible training contribution.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21768]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My Department and its agencies have made the following number of permanent and pensionable administrative assistant and administrative officer appointments during the period September 1993 to April 1995:

  Department

  Agencies

  Administrative Assistant

  September—December 1993

  0

  0

  January—March 1994

  0

  0

  April—June 1994

  6

  0

  July—September 1994

  8

  0

  October—December 1994

  4

  0

  January—April 1995

  15

  0

  Administrative Officer

  September—December 1993

  7

  0

  January—March 1994

  3

  1

  April—June 1994

  43

  0

  July—September 1994

  28

  0

  October—December 1994

  10

  1

  January—April 1995

  28

  0

  Anzac Day
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whom he was represented at the Anzac day commemoration at the Cenotaph, London, on 25 April. [21799]

  Mr. Baldry
  In keeping with tradition, wreaths were laid at the Cenotaph on 25 April to commemorate Anzac day on behalf of the British Government and people by representatives of the British armed forces.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Inward Investment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new companies from outside Northern Ireland have invested in Northern Ireland since 1989; and if he will list them. [19862]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Industrial Development Board is aware of 35 new manufacturing and tradeable services companies from outside Northern Ireland which, between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1994, confirmed their intention to make first-time investments there. These are listed as follows:
  50

  Inward investment by manufacturing and tradeable services companies new to Northern Ireland 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1994

  Country of origin

  Company

  France

  Delwyn Enterprises Ltd

  Germany

  Hueco Lightronic NI Ltd

  MPK (United Kingdom) Ltd

  Great Britain

  MSS International Ltd

  Avery Dennison Ltd

  Audio Processing Technology Ltd

  Fugitsi Fulcrum (Ireland) Ltd

  McKechnie (UK) Ltd

  CFM Group Ltd

  AVM Telecom Ltd

  Transtec Foundries Ltd

  Allen Industrial Ltd

  Training and Business Group (Overseas) Ltd

  Hong Kong

  Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd

  Indonesia

  Norfil

  Pan European Textiles Ltd

  Japan

  Ryobi Aluminium Casting (UK) Ltd

  Republic of Ireland

  GC McKeown & Co (NI) Ltd

  Webtech (NI) Ltd

  Polystar (Ireland) Ltd

  Charles Bell (1963) Ltd

  Vision Information Consulting Ltd

  South Korea

  Deasung Circuits Ltd

  CCA Electronic Ltd

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd

  Daewha Metal (UK) Ltd

  Taiwan

  CIS Data Ltd

  Textonnia Ltd

  USA

  DDL Electronics Ltd

  Fruit of the Loom

  Manufacturing Co Ltd

  Harris Laboratories Ltd

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd

  Valence Technology BV10

  ABC Laboratories (Europe) Ltd

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what firms have failed to submit annual monitoring returns with the Fair Employment Commission; and what fines were issued as a result of such breaches since the implementation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [19857]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 95 concerns have been prosecuted for failure to submit annual monitoring returns to the Fair Employment Commission. These concerns, and the penalties imposed on them by magistrates courts are as follows:
  51

  Company

  Penalty

  Otis Elevators

  Absolute Discharge

  Norman Gordon

  Absolute Discharge

  P and M Kernan

  Absolute Discharge

  Alex Hamilton

  Absolute Discharge

  Anglo Beef Processors

  Absolute Discharge

  Allingham Transport

  Absolute Discharge

  Universal Cleaning Supplies

  Absolute Discharge

  R. Hogg

  Absolute Discharge

  Lowell and Christmas

  Absolute Discharge

  Terra Travel

  Absolute Discharge

  Ronald James Ross T/A Ross Motors

  Absolute Discharge

  Ivan Lapsely T/A Limavady Autopoint

  Absolute Discharge

  C and R Furniture Ltd.

  Absolute Discharge

  Thomas Carville Ltd. T/A Eagle Fish Co.

  Absolute Discharge

  Eagle Seafoods Ltd.

  Absolute Discharge

  Joseph Leonard

  Absolute Discharge

  Maloneys Restaurant

  Absolute Discharge

  Hugh Neill

  Absolute Discharge

  Outlet Recording Co. Ltd.

  Absolute Discharge

  S and E Quality Wood Products Ltd.

  Absolute Discharge

  Paul Thompson

  Absolute Discharge

  Woodburn Engineering

  Absolute Discharge

  Salmon Leap

  £10

  Galeton Ltd. T/A The Craig Clinic

  £10

  Knockdene Garages Ltd.

  £10

  Garmoyle Enterprises Ltd. T/A The Body Shop

  £10

  A Van Laere T/A Comber Catering

  £20

  David Wilson

  £25

  Tracey Kitchens

  £25

  Charles Corr

  £25

  Denninson Storage.

  £25

  Dromore Properties

  £25

  Raymond Turkington Decorators

  £25

  Lochside Garages

  £25

  Logans Coach Hire

  £25

  Ronald Conway T/A Conway Flood and Todd

  £25

  JCP Securite (UK) Ltd.

  £25

  Railway Hotel (Enniskillen) Ltd.

  £25

  Ulster Travel Ltd.

  £25

  Stanley Armstrong T/A Causeway Hotel

  £25

  Armourguard Security Ltd.

  £25

  WP Trussworld Ltd.

  £25

  McGrath Bros Engineering

  £25

  T. Girvan

  £25

  Terence Kennedy T/A W. R. Knedy and Co.

  £25

  Jean McCann T/A Hair Traffic

  £25

  Cootes Concrete

  £50

  Brian Jardine

  £50

  Seaforde Transport

  £50

  Square One Fashions

  £50

  Adamsez Ltd.

  £50

  Liam Wilson

  £50

  Moyala Glazing

  £50

  Business and Scientific Services

  £50

  Strings Restaurant

  £50

  B. Devine

  £50

  Joseph Hughes

  £50

  Francis McMillen T/A Connor Freight

  £50

  Wilsons of Rathkenny

  £50

  Allgo Engineering Ltd.

  £50

  Waveline Ltd.

  £50

  Trasna Investments Ltd. T/A Devenish Arms

  £50

  Gibson Brothers Ltd

  £50

  Universal Meat Co.

  £50

  Wellington Park Hotel

  £50

  Greenan Inns Ltd.

  £50

  Crawsfordsburn Inn Ltd.

  £50

  David Hall

  £450

  Limavady Autopoint

  £75

  Acheson and Son (Derry) Ltd.

  £75

  52

  Company

  Penalty

  Paul Lightbody T/A Glenville Nursing Home

  £75

  Diana Gass

  £75

  James Derry

  £75

  Joseph Leonard

  £100

  S. J. Williamson

  £100

  Waveline Ltd.

  £100

  R.R. Tohani

  £100

  Audio Times

  £100

  Tensator Ltd.

  £100

  Knockna Moe Hotel

  £100

  Aircraft Furnishings Ltd.

  £100

  Fortfield Motors Ltd.

  £100

  Cootes Concrete Products

  £100

  Barrett Electrical Contracts Ltd.

  £100

  Roulston and McLoughlin

  £100

  ATS (Northern Ireland) Ltd.

  £100

  Sands and Toner Newry Ltd.

  £100

  Motorway Tyres and Accessories Ltd.

  £100

  Prestige Pubs Ltd.

  £100

  Laser Electrical Ltd.

  £100

  Robert Wilson

  £100

  Dunellen Ltd.

  £125

  Turven Construction Ltd.

  £150

  McParland and Gordon Ltd.

  £150

  United Wine Merchants Ltd.

  £400

  Housing Policy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present stage of the housing policy review process; when the consultation White Paper will be published; and what will be the duration of the consultation process. [20648]

  Mr. Moss
  The housing policy review is in its final stages and a consultation paper is expected to be published by the end of June. Following publication, a consultation period of some three months is envisaged.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of child prostitution have been reported during the last year; and what were the comparable figures for each of the previous four years. [20707]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The figures requested are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current prison population; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20711]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the current prison population in Northern Ireland and the figures for each of the previous four years.
  53
  Current Population
  There are currently 1761 people in prison in Northern Ireland.

  Population over previous four years.

  1991: 1788

  1992: 1810

  1993: 1934

  1994: 1921 [subject to validation]

  The figures for previous years are the Average Daily Population as published in the Northern Ireland Prison Service Annual Report.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current reported rate of illiteracy and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20709]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not routinely collected on illiteracy rates in Northern Ireland. However, the position is considered to be similar to England and Wales where the Basic Skills Agency estimates that one in six adults is unable to read, write and/or speak in English at a level necessary to function and progress at work and in society in general. There is no evidence that this proportion has changed significantly in recent years.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Teschen disease occurred in each year since 1975. [21096]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of African Swine Fever there have been each year since 1985. [21065]

  Mr. Ancram
  None

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21374]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information sought was published in table 4 of the market testing bulletin special report published on 9 January 1995. This covered the competing for quality programme for the period April 1992 to September 1994. The figures for the Northern Ireland Civil Service (including the Northern Ireland Office) are:

  £000

  External consultancy support to in-house bids

  137.2

  External consultancy support to Departments

  554.8

  An up-date of the costs incurred in the period 1 October 1994 to 31 March 1995 is currently being compiled and this will be included in the overall figures in the citizens charter 1995 report.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of licensed mink farms in each year since 1989. [21191]

  Mr. Ancram
  There has only ever been one licensed mink farm in Northern Ireland which operated from 1976 to 1991. There are no licensed mink farms in Northern Ireland at present.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the chairs and non-executive directors of each NHS trust board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21355]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested in respect of the 14 health and social services trusts in operation in Northern Ireland is available in the Library.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish an up-to-date list by region of all the chairs and non-executive member of each health authority, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21361]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Gender

  Occupation

  Eastern health and social services board

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Daniel Thompson

  Solicitor

  Non-executive members:

  Mr. Daniel J. McGuinness

  Solicitor

  Mr. James C. Morton

  Accountant

  Mrs. Gwen Savage

  Managing Director

  Professor Robert J. Stout

  Medical Consultant

  Northern health and social services board

  Chairman:

  Mr. Robert J. Hanna

  Farmer

  Non-executive members:

  Mr. Michael A. O'Connor

  Director

  Mrs. Nuala P. O'Logan

  Lecturer

  Mrs. Ailna V. Smyth

  Housewife

  Southern health and social services board

  Chairman:

  Mr. William F. Gillespie

  Managing Director

  Non-executive members:

  Mrs. Geraldine Donaghy

  Director

  Mrs. M. K. Philomena Hagan

  Manager

  Mrs. Jennifer Power

  Voluntary Worker

  Mr. C. A. J. Quinn

  Accountant

  Mr. D. J. Ryan

  Small business proprietor

  Western health and social services board

  Chairman:

  Mr. Robert G. Toland

  Director

  Non-executive members:

  Mrs. Margaret R. Cooper

  Solicitor

  Mr. Anthony Jackson

  Accountant

  Mr. Patrick J. Kelly

  Farmer

  Mrs. Anne F. Mark

  Housewife

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many permits have been issued to falconers to take protected species of birds as quarry in each year since 1988; what were the species in respect of which such permits were issued; and what were the number of each species taken. [21248]

  Mr. Moss
  No permits have been either applied for or issued to falconers to take protected species of birds as quarry in any year since 1988.

  Numbers and species held

  Year

  Number of Licences issued

  Peregrine

  Sparrowhawk

  Kestrel

  Buzzard

  Others

  1988

  9

  2

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1989

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 Goshawk

  1990

  6

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1991

  7

  5

  —

  2

  3

  1 Merlin

  1992

  12

  5

  —

  —

  4

  3 Barn Owls

  1993

  13

  5

  —

  8

  —

  —

  1994

  22

  4

  3

  7

  3

  5 Goshawk

  NHS Cost Improvement Programme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total annual cost improvement programme in the national health service provider units in each of the last four years. [21333]

  Mr. Moss
  The total annual cash releasing cost improvement programme for the health and personal social services for each of the last four years is as follows:

  Outturn £ million

  1991–92

  10.8

  1992–93

  15.8

  1993–94

  16.7

  1994–95

  18.0

  Education Research Projects
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been devoted to funding education research projects by his Department in each of the last five years; and what percentage of education spending this represents. [21557]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Amount

  Percentage of total Deni expenditure

  1990–91

  214,000

  0.023

  1991–92

  158,000

  0.014

  1992–93

  185,000

  0.015

  1993–94

  250,000

  0.020

  1994–95

  283,000

  0.022

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland' how many(a) republican and (b) loyalists in Northern Ireland have been (i) arrested, (ii) questioned,

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences have been issued in each year since 1988 to possess birds of prey; and what were the numbers of birds of each species held under such licences. [21250]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of licences issued in each year since 1988 to possess birds of prey and the number and species held under such licences are set out in the table.

  (iii) charged and (iv) convicted in each of the past eight months. [21560]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of persons arrested and charged in connection with terrorist-related offences from 1 August 1994 to 31 March 1995 is as follows:

  Month

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Arrested

  August

  82

  71

  September

  23

  38

  October

  22

  43

  November

  20

  52

  December

  20

  27

  January

  9

  26

  February

  36

  16

  March

  12

  38

  Totals

  224

  311

  Charged

  August

  15

  15

  September

  1

  15

  October

  4

  14

  November

  6

  8

  December

  4

  6

  January

  0

  8

  February

  16

  4

  March

  1

  3

  Totals

  47

  73

  There are no figures available regarding the number of people questioned during this period.

  The number of persons convicted of scheduled offences from 1 August 1994 to 31 March 1995 was:

  Month

  No of persons convicted1

  August

  13

  September

  10

  October

  29

  November

  18

  57

  Month

  No of persons convicted1

  December

  64

  January

  49

  February

  66

  March

  51

  1A republican/loyalist breakdown is not available for persons convicted.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21762]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of civil service appointments made to permanent administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in the Northern Ireland Department and the Northern Ireland Office in each quarter from September 1993 to April 1995 were as follows:

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  September to December 1993 (4 months)

  25

  46

  January to March 1994

  18

  30

  April to June 1994

  34

  35

  July to September 1994

  34

  54

  October to December 1994

  27

  27

  January to March 1995

  27

  39

  Divorce Cases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of divorce have been reported during the last year; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20710]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of decrees nisi granted in respect of divorces in Northern Ireland were as follows:

  1990: 2,015

  1991: 2,367

  1992: 2,411

  1993: 2,392

  1994: 2,538

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Namibia University
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Overseas Development Administration will provide sponsorship to the University of Namibia Foundation. [21125]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to provide sponsorship to the University of Namibia Foundation. We are currently providing assistance direct to the university through the provision of books, and support for the post of pro-vice chancellor.

TRANSPORT

  Livestock Hauliers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support the Government are giving to livestock hauliers to ensure that they can continue their trade. [20917]

  Mr. Norris
  Generally my Department's support for livestock hauliers in the United Kingdom and abroad is the same as it is for other hauliers, and covers a wide range of matters. My Department has been in touch with ports involved in recent action on the export of live animals, and will remain so, but intervention is for the police and the courts.

  Road Fuels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the volume of road fuels consumed in the year 2000; what he expects this figure to be if the duties on road fuels were adjusted solely in line with the retail prices index; and if he will make a statement. [20918]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's latest projections of future energy demand for the whole economy to the year 2020 were recently published in energy paper 65 "Energy Projections for the UK", as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on 8 March 1995. From this, the demand for road fuels is expected to be in the range of 39 to 41 million tonnes in 2000, which takes account of the effect of the Government's strategy of increases in the duties on road fuels of at least 5 per cent, a year on average above the rate of inflation. If fuel duty increases were kept in line with the rate of inflation, demand in 2000 would be between 42 and 44 million tonnes.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21378]

  Mr. Norris
  Payments to consultants for work on the Department's "Competing for Quality" programme since its inception total £2.197 million.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21201]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's expenditure on official hospitality during 1994–95 was as follows:

  £

  Central Transport Group (CTG)

  127,062

  Agencies

  90,788

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those public projects which received European social fund support and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21290]

  (2) if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European social fund support since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21291]

  Mr. Norris
  None of the privatised transport companies has applied directly and received European social fund support since 1990. Information for the years before 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those British Rail projects which received European social fund support over the last 10 years, indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21300]

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1990 no British Rail projects have received European social fund support. Data for the years before 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21775]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's personal information system records the permanent appointments to administrative assistant and administrative officer as shown in the following table:

  Starting period

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  September 1993—November 1993

  19

  29

  December 1994—February 1994

  29

  21

  March 1994—May 1994

  18

  19

  June 1994—August 1994

  30

  10

  September 1994—November 1994

  19

  10

  December 1994—February 1994

  7

  9

  March 1995—April 1995

  9

  9

  Totals for September 1993— April 1995

  131

  107

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what motor vehicle companies have changed their advertising and promotion of bull bars following his advice that bull bars should not be illustrated in promotions. [22046]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Railways
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what' was the closing date for companies wishing to pre-qualify for bidding to buy British 60
  Railway's ROSCOs; how many companies have sought to pre-qualify for each of the three ROSCOs; and which companies these are. [21935]

  Mr. Watts
  Midnight on 21 April 1995, by which time strong interest had been shown by financial institutions, leasing companies and manufacturers in the United Kingdom and in eight other countries. Prospective purchasers will not be asked to identify their preferences for each of the three ROSCOs until later in the sale process. The identity of bidders is commercially sensitive.

  Port of Liverpool
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support the Port of Liverpool and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has received from(a) the European Community and (b) his Department in each financial year since 1990; and what he estimates the company will receive from the European Community and his Department in the next financial year. [21199]

  Mr. Norris
  The Port of Liverpool and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company have received no direct financial support from my Department since 1990 and there are no plans for any such support in the next financial year.

  Support from the European Community in the form of European regional development fund has been as follows:

  £(000)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Port of Liverpool

  nil

  143

  12

  18

  1

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  nil

  240

  1,229

  736

  960

  Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what powers he has to control the level or speed of road traffic on occasions when pollution levels exceed proposed air quality standards; [21227]

  (2) what studies he has carried out of the potential for reducing traffic levels in the event that (a) NO2 levels in London exceed the World Health Organisation's 24 hour NO2 health guideline and (b)3 levels in southern England exceed the World Health Organisation's 8 hour 03 health guideline; [21236]

  (3) what contingency plans he has drawn up to reduce traffic levels in the event that (a) NO2 levels in London exceed the World Health Organisation's 24 hour NO2 health guideline and (b)3 levels in Southern England exceed the World Health Organisation's 8 hour 03 health guidelines; [21237]

  (4) what consideration he has given to using his powers under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to reduced speed limits on trunk roads to reduce emissions in the event that pollution levels exceed proposed air quality standards; and if he will make a statement. [21235]

  Mr. Norris
  A reduction in vehicle speed has differing effects on emissions of different pollutants. Any decision to impose speed limits would have to take into account levels of the pollutants of most concern.

  Studies have indicated that traffic reduction may have the positive effect of reducing nitrogen dioxide

  61
  concentrations during winter smog episodes. However, this may have to be balanced against possible negative effects on emissions caused by congestion if traffic reduction measures involve road closures.

  The Secretary of State has powers to regulate traffic only on trunk roads and motorways; traffic regulation on local roads, which comprise the vast majority of all roads, is the responsibility of local traffic authorities.

  Any traffic restrictions to reduce air pollution must be developed at a local level so that all the implications can be considered—centralised contingency plans are impracticable. However, the complexity of the issue does merit further research and the Department is currently carrying out a review of existing research on how traffic management can influence air quality, with a view to undertaking a research project of our own later this year.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total expenditure on transport as a percentage of GNP for(a) each EU country, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan and (d) each Scandinavian country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available.

  Pedestrian Casualty Report
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make available to hon. Members the report of the Transport research laboratory on pedestrian casualty rates. [21663]

  Mr Norris
  Pedestrian casualty rates are published annually in "Road Accidents Great Britain" and updated quarterly in each current year. In addition TRL reports have been published on studies of particular aspects of risk including risk at pedestrian crossings. Copies are in the Library.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21399]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) In accordance with standard service wide rules the Department's "Staff Handbook" requires staff to declare any business or financial interests which they or immediate members of their families hold, which they would be able to further as a result of their official position. In the majority of cases conflicts of interest are reported to and resolved immediately by line management as the Department does not maintain a central record of all cases.

  (b) One case of conflict of interests has been declared by a special adviser during the last five years.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to undertake the next general review of the trunk road network. [21828]

  Mr. Watts
  There are no current plans for a review.

EDUCATION

  Academic Labour Market
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effects of United Kingdom academics moving abroad to attain higher salary levels on United Kingdom higher education salary levels. [20930]

  Mr. Boswell
  None. Data from the universities' statistical record show that the overall flows of academics to and from abroad are very small. In Great Britain in 1993, there was a net inflow of 220 full-time non-clinical university staff in former Universities Funding Council-funded institutions, the equivalent of 0.8 per cent. of staff in post. Such relatively small movements in the academic labour market would be unlikely to have an appreciable effect on higher education salary levels in the United Kingdom.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which her Department has been engaged since their inception. [21365]

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated cost of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes since their inception, September 1992, is £375,000.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in her Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21395]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's terms and conditions handbook requires staff to declare any potential conflicts of interest to their senior management so that appropriate action can be considered. The handbook is made available to all staff. Records of declarations of potential conflicts are not held centrally on civil servants. No cases involving special advisers have arisen in the last five years.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent on official hospitality by her Department in 1994–95. [21206]

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional outturn expenditure for 1994–95 on official hospitality is £75,000 for the Department and £1,000 for the Teachers' Pension Agency, giving a total of £76,000.

  The cost of official hospitality is included in the running cost expenditure for the Department which is published every year in the departmental report. Official hospitality includes the costs of teas and coffees, buffet lunches and dinners.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil service appointments were
  63
  made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in her Department and the agencies for which she is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21771]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department for Education and the Teachers Pensions Agency have made the following appointments to the administrative assistant—AA—and administrative officer—AO—grades since September 1993:

  AA

  AO

  September 1993—November 1993

  13

  3

  December 1993—February 1994

  5

  5

  March 1994—May 1994

  15

  5

  June 1994—August 1994

  11

  7

  September 1994—November 1994

  4

  1

  December 1994—February 1995

  22

  1

  March 1995—April 1995

  13

  1

  Research Projects
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much has been spent on funding educational research projects by her Department in each of the last five years; and what percentage of education spending this represents. [21559]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's expenditure from the research budget over the last five years is given in the table, and is also shown as a percentage of total departmental expenditure.

  Expenditure from research budget (£ million)

  As percentage of the department's total expenditure

  1990–91

  2.38

  0.04

  1991–92

  1.80

  0.03

  1992–93

  1.74

  0.02

  1993–94

  0.96

  0.01

  1994–95

  10.67

  0.01

  1this includes the Department's contribution of £0.10 million to the Learning Credits consultancy and a grant of £0.04 million paid to the University of London Institute of Education.

  Total departmental expenditure covers central Government expenditure and grants to local authorities within the Department of Education's programme.

  Sponsor Governors
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which schools have appointed sponsor governors; and if she will state for each school which companies they represent and how much each company has donated to each school. [22066]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All grant-maintained and voluntary aided schools which have been designated as technology colleges are required to amend their instrument of government so as to appoint between one and four sponsor governors to represent their sponsors. Some 67 technology colleges have been designated, 52 of which have so far requested the necessary amendments to their instrument. The table names the schools and the sponsors whom their sponsor governors represent. While all technology colleges are required to raise around £100,000 64
  of sponsorship as a condition of designation, it would not be appropriate to publish the value of the sponsors may consider that to be confidential.

  Name of school

  Company represented by sponsor governor

  Aldersley High School Wolverhampton

  Database/Apricot Computers, Summit Catering Services (Midlands) Ltd., Trustee Savings Bank Ltd.

  All Hallows RC High School, Lancashire

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd.

  All Saints Catholic School, Dagenham

  Exide Batteries, Devon House Interiors

  Applemore Technology School, Hampshire

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd., International Speciality Chemicals Ltd., 2GL Computer Systems Ltd., Clifton Reed Consultants Ltd.

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, Lancashire

  Greenwood and Coope Ltd., Dixons plc, Systems Integrated Research

  Baines School, Lancashire

  Grantham Graphic Technologies, GTi educational Systems Ltd.

  Belper School, Derbyshire

  Thorntons plc

  Bexley—Erith Technical High School, Bexley

  BETHS Parents Association

  Bishop Stopford School, Northamptonshire

  Research Machines

  Central Technology College, Gloucestershire

  Systems Integrated Research, Chartwells

  Chalvedon School, Essex

  Roy Millard Associates (Architects) Ltd., PMD Associates

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls, Kent

  Clifton Reed Consultants Ltd., GEC Avionics Ltd.

  Collingwood College, Surrey

  GTi Educational Systems Ltd., ORACLE Corporation UK Ltd., MOTOROLA Communications International Group

  The Cornwallis School, Kent

  ICL United Kingdom, Knauf UK Gmbh

  Deacon's School, Cambridgeshire

  Perkins Group, Apricot Computers, Greater Peterborough TEC, Thomas Cook Group

  Deanery CE High School, Wigan

  Latham Jenkins Ltd., Milliken Industrials Ltd., Metcom Integrated Services Ltd., Education Business Partnership

  Denefield School, Berkshire

  DHL International (UK) Ltd., Thames Water Utilities, The Database Ltd/Apricot Computers

  65

  Name of school

  Company represented by sponsor governor

  George Spencer School, Nottinghamshire

  The Database (Nottingham) Ltd., Sir Harry Djanogly CBE

  Glyn ADT Technology School, Surrey

  ADT Group plc

  Herschel Grammar School, Berkshire

  Slough Estates plc, The Database Ltd.

  Highbury GM School, Wiltshire

  GTi Educational Systems Ltd., Lascar Electronics Ltd., Woven Electronics, Aircraft and Armament Evaluation Establishment

  Hugh Christie School, Kent

  ICL United Kingdom

  John Kelly Boys Technology College, Brent

  Bestway Cash and Carry Company, Avanti Consultancy, Unisys

  John Kelly Girls Technology College, Brent

  Bestway Cash and Carry Company, Avanti Consultancy, Unisys

  Kemnal Technology College, Bromley

  Sir Philip and Lady Harris Charitable Trust, Ballast Nedam Construction Ltd., Architects Joint Partnership Ltd.

  The Kings School, Lincolnshire

  The Database (Nottingham) Ltd.

  The Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Lancashire

  Alan Dick Engineering, Nuclear Electric plc

  Lincoln School of Science and Technology, Lincolnshire

  Jackson Shipley Ltd., Simons Construction Group

  Lodge Park School, Northamptonshire

  The DUBOIS plc, The Database (Nottingham) Ltd., Gotch, Saunders and Surridge Selectronics

  Lynn Grove GM High School, Norfolk

  Miller Mitchell Partnership, Syfer Technology Ltd,

  Merrill Community School (GM), Derbyshire

  British Rail Research, Derby Evening Telegraph

  Mill Hill County High School, Barnet

  Chartwells

  New Wellington School, Trafford

  The Wolfson Foundation, Playlight Hire Ltd., Hopewiser Ltd., Research Machines

  North Cumbria Technology College, Cumbria

  Cavaghan Grey., Carnaud Metal Box, Marks and Spencer

  Northampton School for Boys, Northamptonshire

  Northampton Old Grammar School Foundation

  66

  Name of school

  Company represented by sponsor governor

  Philip Morant School, Essex

  The Midland Bank plc, J Sainsbury plc. Woods of Colchester Ltd.

  Rastrick High School, Calderdale

  Denford Machine Tools Ltd., Dixon Stores Group

  Ravens Wood School for Boys, Bromley

  ICL, Nynex plc, The Wellcome Foundation

  Saffron Walden County High School, Essex

  The Saffron Walden Herts and Essex Building Society

  Sale Moor School, Trafford

  Alliance Family Foundation

  Sawtry Community College, Cambridgeshire

  Crossfield Electronics Ltd., The Database (Nottingham) Ltd.

  Senacre Technology College, Kent

  Russell and Brand Ltd.

  Small Heath School, Birmingham

  GTi Electronics Group plc,

  Leyland Daf Vans, Mercury Communications Ltd.,

  Soham Village College, Cambridgeshire

  Marshall Motor Group Ltd.

  St. Aidan's Church of England School, Lancashire

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd., Canatxx Energy Ventures

  St. Alban's Catholic High School, Suffolk

  Clifton Reed Consultants Ltd.

  St. Angela's Ursuline Convent School, Newham

  Acatos and Hutchenson plc

  St. George's College of Technology, Lincolnshire

  The Database (Nottingham) Ltd., Tandberg UK, Mr. Brealey

  St. John's RC Comprehensive School, Durham

  Ebac Ltd.

  St. Peter's Collegiate School, Wolverhampton

  Lucas Aerospace Ltd., Research Machines Ltd.

  St. Thomas More School, Gateshead

  Komatsu UK

  Uppingham Community College, Leicestershire

  The Database (Nottingham) Ltd., Central Engineering Supplies Ltd.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State which grant-maintained schools have applied to amend their admissions policy so as to introduce selection on the ground of ability; in each case what proportion are to be selected and in which schools; and when permission to amend the admissions policy was granted. [22067]
  67
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives details of section 89/96 proposals and other applications which have been

  LEAs

  Schools

  Nature of change

  Decision date

  Approved proposals to introduce selection under section 89/96

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth Boys School

  100 per cent, selection including 10 per cent, aptitude for music

  18 August 1994

  Berkshire

  Reading Girls School

  18 per cent, selective form of entry

  12 February 1993

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  100 per cent, selection and change of age range from 13–18 to 11–18

  31 March 1993

  Dorset

  Budmouth GM School

  10 per cent, selection by ability

  8 August 1994

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar (Girls) School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  28 July 1994

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar (Boys) School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  18 August 1994

  Hertfordshire

  Parimter's School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  26 July 1994

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  22 July 1994

  Kent

  Chaucer Technology College

  100 per cent, selection by aptitude for technology

  11 May 1995

  Kent

  Homewood School

  20 per cent, selection by ability

  28 June 1994

  Kingston

  Holy Cross School

  13 per cent, selective stream (20) and significant enlargement

  25 April 1995

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison's GM School

  Introduce banding based on NFER tests

  30 March 1995

  Lambeth

  St Martins in the Fields High School

  Introduce banding based on NFER tests

  30 March 1995

  Wandsworth

  Graveney GM School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  28 November 1994

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood School

  30 per cent, selection by ability

  9 January 1995

  Proposals published under section 96 under consideration

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Oratory School

  Selection of 20 boys each year aged 7 on musical and general ability

  Hertfordshire

  Bishops Stortford High School

  50 per cent, selection by ability

  Kent

  The Westlands School

  11 per cent, from comprehensive to bi-lateral

  GM schools which were approved for 10 per cent, selection by Music, Sporting Ability, Art, Drama or Technology

  LEAs

  Schools

  Nature of change

  decision date

  Barnet

  Mill Hill School

  Music

  October 1993

  Bromley

  Beaverwood Girls School

  Ability in performing Arts

  August 1994

  Bromley

  Cooper's School

  Music Drama, Dance, Sport

  June 1993

  Cambridge

  Deacons School

  Technology

  August 1994

  Essex

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  Singing (Choristers)

  June 1993

  Essex

  Rainsford High School

  Music and Drama

  March 1994

  Hampshire

  Crofton School

  Music 5 Children only

  October 1994

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  Music

  June 1993

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Ability in Music

  August 1994

  Kent

  Canterbury High School

  Music

  April 1993

  Kent

  Chaucer Technology School

  Technology

  December 1993

  Kent

  Langley Park for Boys

  Music, Sport

  September 1993

  Kingston

  Beverley School

  Art and/or Music

  October 1994

  Lambeth

  Dunraven School

  Music

  October 1993

  Lambeth

  La Reitrate

  10 per cent. Music

  September 1993

  Lincoln

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  Music (10 per cent, selection on basis of aptitude

  October 1994

  Norfolk

  Cliff Park High School

  10 per cent, music on basis of talent, skill and interest

  October 1994

  Surrey

  Heathside School

  Music, Sport

  July 1993

  Surrey

  Thamesmead School

  Music

  October 1994

  Applications still under consideration

  Hertfordshire

  Dame Alice Owen

  10 per cent, selection in Music

  Norfolk

  Wymondham College

  10 per cent, selection in music and sport for both

  68
  approved or are under consideration to introduce an element of selection.
  69

  GM schools which were approved for 10 per cent. selection by Music, Sporting Ability, Art, Drama or Technology on implementation of GM status

  LEAs

  Schools

  Nature of change

  Decision date

  Bromley

  Kemnal Manor

  Technology

  February 1994

  Cambridgeshire

  Kings' School, Peterborough

  Music

  October 1993

  Enfield

  Enfield Grammar School

  Music, Sport

  December 1993

  Essex

  Ursuline Convent

  Music

  December 1993

  Hertfordshire

  Bishop's Stortford

  Music, Sport and Drama

  October 1993

  Hertfordshire

  Chancellors School

  Drama, Music and Sport

  December 1993

  Hertfordshire

  Dame Alice Owen School

  Music, Sport

  April 1993

  Hertfordshire

  Queen's School, Bushey

  Music, Art, Sport

  March 1993

  Kent

  Charles Dickens High School

  Music

  February 1993

  Kent

  Dane Court Grammar School

  Music, Sport, Drama or any unusual talent

  March 1994

  Kent

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  Music, Sport, Drama or any unusual talent

  February 1992

  Kent

  Robert Naiper School

  Music, Sport, Drama or any unusual talent

  February 1992

  Kent

  Westland High School

  Music

  January 1993

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the reasons behind grant-maintained schools being classified as private sector bodies. [22068]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Like universities and colleges, grant-maintained schools are classified as private sector institutions by the Central Statistical Office for the purpose of national income accounting. For further details, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 27 February 1995,Official Report, column 397.

  Grant-maintained schools are classified in this way mainly because their governors—representing parents, teachers and the local community—are not appointed by central or local government.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary Education what is the current grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are grant-maintained schools in England.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people are currently employed by the Funding Agency for Schools on(a) a part-time basis, (b) a full-time basis and (c) a consultancy capacity. [21662]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Local Education Authority Staff
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the ratio of local education authority administrators to teachers in schools. [21569]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on staff employed by local authorities is collected by the local government management board.

  Figures show that in June 1994, local authorities in England employed 376,665 full-time equivalent teachers and lecturers and 316,244 full-time equivalent other manual and non-manual staff involved in education, making a ratio of around 2.5 non-teaching staff to every three teachers.
  70
  The survey does not enable staff employed in schools to be separated from those employed elsewhere or administrative staff to be separated from other non-teaching staff.

  Computer Pornography
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the departmental guidelines for schools and parents on computer pornography will be published; and how many leaflets will be available. [21189]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 28 March 1995 Official Report, column 570.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the number and percentage of pupils in primary schools in(a) January 1980, (b) January 1991, (c) January 1992, (d) January 1993, (e) January 1994 and (f) January 1995 being taught in classes of 40 or more in maintained schools in each local education authority and in total; [21197]

  (2) what was the number and percentage of pupils in secondary schools in (a) January 1980, (b) January 1991, (c) January 1992, (d) January 1993, (e) January 1994 and (f) January 1995 being taught in classes of 40 or more in maintained schools in each local education authority and in total. [21198]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils in classes of size 40 and over in maintained primary and secondary schools for years 1980, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 has been placed in the Library. Information for January 1995 will not be available until the autumn.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will now commission research to assess the effect of class size on pupil performance. [21313]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department will continue to monitor research in this area, but has at present no plans to commission such research. There is no conclusive evidence from a large volume of accumulated research that marginal reductions in class size affect pupil performance. What matters most is the quality of teaching.

  City of Liverpool Community College
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representation she has received about the City of Liverpool community college; and if she will establish an independent inquiry into the governance and management of the City of Liverpool community college. [21142]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 3 March 1995 Official Report, column 774. Since then, the Department has received one letter about the college, from a member of its staff.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Mohd Ashfaq
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department it leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has been granted to the Home Office in the case of Mr. Mohd Ashfaq: ref: TH/1740/94; IMM/C2021. [20669]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Leave to appeal to the tribunal was refused on 6 April 1995.

  Divorce Cases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of divorce have been reported during the last year; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous four years. [20694]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the number of divorces reported during the past five years.
  The following statistics refer to the number of divorce cases in which a final decree has been made, to end the marriage:

  1990: 147080

  1991: 147385

  1992: 148046

  1993: 154062

  1994: 1469321

  The statistics cover England only. I understand that you have asked separately for information from the Welsh Office. You may like to know that all judicial statistics for England and Wales are provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The figures for Wales are as follows:

  1990: 8159

  1991: 8542

  1992: 8633

  1993: 8517

  1994: 79411

  The Welsh Office have been provided with this information and will reply separately to your Question.

  1These figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision to take account of late amendments.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21372]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The estimated cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes from April 1992 to date is £510,800.

  Queen's Counsel (Applications)
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for Queen's Counsel his office has received in each year from 1992 to 1995; what proportion of these applications were from(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities, and what proportion of applicants from each category were successful. [21840]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is set out in the table. Applications for appointment as Queen's Counsel are invited in September each year and no applications have therefore yet been received in 1995. The figures exclude those cases where the applicant subsequently withdrew his application.

  Year applications received

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total applicants

  472

  539

  492

  Total successful

  70

  77

  71

  Women

  Applicants

  37

  43

  42

  Percentage of total applications

  8

  8

  9

  Successful

  6

  9

  8

  Percentage of women's applications

  16

  21

  19

  Applicants who have declared a non-white ethnic background

  Applicants

  14

  11

  12

  Percentage of total applications

  3

  2

  2

  Successful

  1

  1

  1

  Percentage of applications from those declaring a non-white ethnic background

  7

  9

  8

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistants and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21764]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has recruited administrative assistants and administrative officers as shown in the table.

  The Lord Chancellor had responsibility for three agencies in the period covered by the question: Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, and the Public Trust Office. Figures for the Public Trust Office, which became an agency in July 1994, are included in the table. I have asked the chief executives of Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office to reply direct.
  73

  Quarterly recruitment of administrative assistants and administrative officers in the lord chancellors department

  Quarter

  Administrative assistants

  Administrative officers

  Total

  01 October 1993 to 31 December 1994

  54

  222

  276

  01 January 1994 to 31 March 1994

  52

  217

  269

  01 April 1994 to 30 June 1994

  70

  250

  320

  01 July 1994 to 30 September 1994

  85

  269

  354

  01 October 1994 to 30 December 1994

  84

  265

  349

  01 January 1995 to 31 March 1995

  52

  216

  268

  Note:

  The figures shown include the recruitment of administrative assistants and administrative officers to the Public Trust Office. The Public Trust Office became an agency in July 1994.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 1 May 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning Civil Service appointments to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in each quarter from September 1993 to April 1995. During that period, the Land Registry made no such appointments.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 1 May 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question relating to appointments made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in the Public Record Office in each quarter from September 1993 to April 1995.
  The following appointments were made:

  Administrative Assistant

  Administrative Officer

  September 1993– December 1993

  0

  0

  January 1994–March 1994

  0

  0

  April 1994–June 1994

  0

  0

  July 1994–September 1994

  0

  1

  October 1994–December 1994

  0

  0

  January 1995–April 1995

  0

  1

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 10 solicitors firms who have received the largest sums of money from the legal aid scheme, and name the 10 barristers who have received the largest sum of money from the legal aid scheme for the most recent year for which information is available. [21884]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers
  74
  in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21389]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the Department and agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible any conflicts of interest involving civil servants would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally. Neither the Department nor its agencies have employed special advisers during the last five years.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to the Government of applications for information under the code of practice in open government in the last financial year for which figures are available. [20155]

  Mr. Horam
  Code requests have been dealt with as part of larger information flows, and costs have not been recorded separately.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to increase open government. [20149]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government remain committed to the proposals contained in the 1993 White Paper.

  Citizens Charter
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what inquiries he has received from overseas with regard to the citizens charter in the last year. [20156]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Many, from countries throughout the world. We are an acknowledged world leader in this area of public sector reform.

  Government Agencies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people are employed in relation to press and public relations works in Government agencies. [20157]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Of the 885 staff with an information officer discipline, 317 are employed in next steps agencies.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about the work of the magistrates in the Duchy; and if he will make a statement. [20158]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for training and administering magistrates. I have discussions with magistrates during my visits to courthouses in the Duchy area.

  I pay tribute to the Duchy's magistrates, as I do to those in the remainder of England and Wales. As hon. Members know, they are drawn from all walks of life, give their

  75
  time freely, often at some sacrifice, to do this important work.

  The office of magistrate calls for wisdom, maturity and experience of life. Persons over the age of 60 are appointed only in exceptional circumstances.

  We try to achieve a balanced age structure and aim to find candidates under the age of 55, especially those in their 30s and 40s. Where the age structure of the bench allows or a candidate is particularly well qualified, I will consider older candidates. It is rare for someone below the age of 27 to be appointed.

  In accordance with the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, justices' names are placed on the supplement list when they reach the age of 70 and no longer undertake active bench duties.

  Reorganisation of magistrates courts committees in Greater Manchester is a matter for local consultation and discussion with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Any question on this subject should therefore be referred to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Penalties available to the courts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, the Government keep under review the scope for decriminalising offences currently dealt with under the criminal law.

  National Science Week
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support his Department is giving to National Science Week in schools for future years. [20159]

  October-December 1993

  January-March 1994

  April-June l994

  July-September 1994

  October-December 1994

  January-March 1995

  Central Department

  AA

  6

  7

  2

  4

  8

  5

  AO

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Chessington

  AA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  CS College

  AA

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  AO

  6

  6

  2

  6

  4

  1

  OHAS

  AA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  RAS

  AA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  COI

  AA

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  AO

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Administrative appointments to HMSO are at paybands 1 to 5. The number of appointments were as follows:

  October-December 1993

  January-March 1994

  April-June 1994

  July-September 1994

  October-December 1994

  January-March 1995

  HMSO

  6

  80

  113

  16

  9

  30

  76
  Mr. Horam
  Preparations for next year's week are at a very early stage and include consideration of ways to encourage greater participation by schools. The Office of Science and Technology will be making £200,000 available for the Week. This will come from the budget for promoting the public understanding of science, engineering and technology which the Government have increased by 25 per cent. to £1.25 million in 1995–96.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21363]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost to the Cabinet Office, including OPSS and its agencies, HMSO and COI of employing consultants in connection with market-testing programmes from their inception to 31 March 1995 is some £1,088,000.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995.

  Mr. Horam
  I am also answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.

  The number of permanent appointments to the administrative assistant and administrative officer grades are detailed in the following table. The figures include new recruits, reinstatements and transfers from other Government Departments.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95.

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure in 1994–95 on official hospitality by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science, and executive agencies was as follows:

  £

  1994–95

  Cabinet Office (including OPSS)1

  17,550

  OPSS agencies

  650

  COI

  9,200

  HMSO(2)

  31,60

  Notes

  1 The figure for the Cabinet Office excludes expenditure by the Office of the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a separate Answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  2 HMSO's figure is based on their accounting year 1 January-31 December.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention; disposal or management. [21393]

  Mr. David Hunt
  For the Departments and agencies for which I am responsible, and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office votes, any conflicts of interest involving civil servants and special advisers would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Relocation Costs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19667]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Because relocation expenses in my Department are met from a centrally administered budget, it is not possible to provide information separately for the core Department and agencies except at disproportionate cost. However, total relocation costs paid in the last three financial years, including payment made to a relocation company which acts on behalf of the Department, amounted to £10,907,201. A significant part of this 78
  expenditure was incurred in order to relocate staff working in the London area to a new headquarters building in York and to achieve other organisational and structural changes in the Department and agencies. These projects will realise offsetting savings elsewhere in the Departmental running costs.

  The three most expensive individual home moves, again including relocation company payments, cost £62,982, £66,204 and £71,873 respectively.

  During the same period, the average cost of a home move is estimated as follows:-

  1992–93: £20,500

  1993–94: £22,500

  1994–95: £22,500 (provisional)

  Fishing
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 April, if he will give further details of the satellite surveillance system which will be used to monitor fishing in international waters off Newfoundland under the terms of the negotiated settlement between the European Community and the Government of Canada. [20505]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Under the control and enforcement provisions of the negotiated settlement between the European Union and Canada, it is envisaged that the North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation contracting parties will install satellite-tracking devices on 35 per cent. of their vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area where the combined fishing effort of their vessels is 300 days or more. The installation is intended to take place, as rapidly as is realistically possible, when the vessels make a port call or depart for the NRA. The system installed must be able to transmit satellite signals automatically to a land-based system, to allow the continuous tracking by the contracting party of its fishing vessel. The contracting party must then transmit, on a real-time basis, entry and exit messages from satellite-equipped vessels to the NAFO secretariat, which in turn will transmit the information to contracting parties with an inspection vessel in the NAFO convention area.

  Contracting parties will also be required to co-operate with those contracting parties which have a NAFO inspection vessel or aircraft in the convention area, in order to exchange information on the location of fishing vessels equipped with satellite devices and, if requested, to provide information relating to the identification of a vessel.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have(a) a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public. [20870]
  79
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: None of the executive non-departmental public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible has a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to board or committee meetings, or to hold open meetings for the public.

  Livestock Hauliers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support the Government are giving to livestock hauliers to ensure that they can continue their trade. [20916]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sets statutory requirements to protect the welfare of animals in transit, which provide a framework within which livestock hauliers may lawfully carry on their trade; provides advice on best practice and on legal requirements; and, in relation to exports, promptly carries out its responsibilities with regard to the issue of documentation and the checking of proposed new routes for compliance with welfare requirements.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 22, what proposals he has for more international work on the breeding and oceanic habits of turbot, bream and halibut; and what study he is making of the effects on conservation of deeper sea fishing technology and of happenings under the ocean's surface in relation to the establishment of fishing quota for turbot, bream and halibut. [21317]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: Scientific studies on the breeding and behaviour of Greenland halibut and other species in the north-west Atlantic is carried out by the Scientific Council of the North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, which also carries out work on the impact of fishing technology and of the marine environment. I look forward to receiving further advice at the next annual meeting of the organisation in September.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of employing consultations in connection with market-testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21362]

  Mr. Jack
  For the period November 1991 to date the total cost to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with its executive agencies, of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes is estimated to be £1,394,456.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he(a) has held in the last year and (b) proposes to hold on the effect of the European single market on the British brewing industry. [21865]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with representatives of the brewing industry at which issues relating to the single market are discussed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Business Consultants
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes; [21706]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch. [21705]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: I am unaware of any such relationships.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Prime Minster how many civil service appointments were made to the administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21761]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 675, concerning the ratio of administrators to teachers, if he will give the relevant reference in Social Trends; [21711]

  (2), pursuant to his oral answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 140, if he will publish evidence showing that there are two administrators for every three teachers across the country. [21710]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 27 April,Official Report, column 613.

  Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) when Minister for Defence Procurement under the "Question of Procedure for Ministers" referred to the Prime Minister for his advice on the approach he had received for Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi concerning the sale of arms to Lebanon. [21562]

  The Prime Minister
  Discussions between myself and Ministers are private.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the reasons for which the Rhein-Main routine airport film of the loading of luggage on to the Boeing 727 feeder aircraft for Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988 was confiscated; and whether this information was conveyed to the Dumfries and Galloway police investigating the Lockerbie crime. [21798]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to discuss the Lockerbie case with Chancellor Kohl. It would not be appropriate to disclose what communications have passed
  81
  between foreign authorities and the investigating authorities in this country while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minster, pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 20, if he will list all the investigations carried out in relation to Lockerbie, referred to in Government document JRE 10119.045 attached to the letter of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) of 21 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow; and what evidence he has for the belief adduced in that document that no further inquiry is warranted. [21429]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not write to the hon. Member on 21 April referring to investigations carried out in relation to Lockerbie or in respect of the document referred to. The document to which the hon. Member appears to be referring was produced for internal use and I am not therefore prepared to comment further on it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 545–46, and to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 10 April, what response he has had from the United States authorities as to the authenticity of a signal, a copy of which was sent to him and to the US embassy in London, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, purporting to be a threat to the life of Major Charles McKee, who died over Lockerbie, by the agencies of the US Government. [21407]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: As the hon. Member has been advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and by the US authorities, the investigation has concluded that the document is a fabrication.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist for hon. Members to visit the headquarters of the security services. [21889]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not normal practice for the security and intelligence agencies to host visits to their headquarters by hon. Members.

  Acceptance of Gifts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 344, if he will give the reasons for his policy of regarding the number of occasions on which the Government has been approached for advice on the suitability of accepting a financial gift, payment or commission by a Government Minister or an hon. Member or their relatives as confidential. [21428]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: As I said in my previous answer, advice on specific cases is private. No central record is kept of the occasions on which such advice is sought.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many hours per child per week of nursery education he intends in his commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds; [22032]
  82
  (2) whether his commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds is a commitment to education with qualified teachers for all children from the day of their fourth birthday. [22033]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is looking at a range of options for implementing my commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish them to take it up. How many hours per week each place should provide, when the provision should start for each child, and appropriate staff qualifications and adult to child ratios are among the issues under consideration.

  Ministers (Car Hire)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1131, if he will place in the Library a list of the Ministers' hired cars, giving the purpose of the hire, on how many occasions cars have been hired, the cost of private care hire facilities through the Government car service and the purposes for which cars were supplied (a) to members of the Government, (b) to civil servants and (c) to others for each year since 1987; [21666]

  (2) if he will publish information on (a) the cost and (b) the numbers of cars hired from the private sector for the transport of members of the Government for each year since 1987 where it is available. [21665]

  The Prime Minister
  The information as requested is not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1131, in what circumstances private hire facilities for members of the Government may be provided for non-government business; and if he will publish the relevant guidance issued. [21664]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the replies given to the hon. Member of 5 April,Official Report, column 1131 and 24 April, Official Report, column 344.

DEFENCE

  Entertainment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet received Sir Peter Cazalet's report on representational entertainment in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [22342]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence received Sir Peter Cazalet's report on 25 April. I have today placed a copy in the Library of the House, and the report is available on request from my Department.

  In accordance with his terms of reference Sir Peter studies the official entertainment conducted by commanders at all levels including the occupants of official service residences—properties furnished and equipped to a superior standard reflecting the entertainment responsibilities of the occupant. He has concluded that there is a legitimate requirement for the armed forces to entertain and has endorsed the concept of entertainment in officers' own homes. He draws attention

  83
  to the high professional standards of house staff, chefs and stewards employed in support of official entertainment. He has made a number of recommendations about the way that entertainment is funded and the support that senior officers receive for this purpose. Additionally he has recommended that the concept of official service residences should be retained, but that the criteria for entitlement to such properties should be reviewed which should lead to a reduction in their number.

  My right hon. and learned Friend and I endorse Sir Peter's conclusions, including that service personnel have a need to entertain to an appropriate standard in support of their responsibilities. We accept his recommendations and shall now be undertaking further work in order to take them forward.

  I would like to express our thanks to Sir Peter for undertaking this study.

  Ordnance
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of(a) chemical and (b) conventional weapons, originally dumped in the waters surrounding Britain, was identified as having leaked onto British shores by the Royal Navy (Plymouth Command) bomb and mine disposal unit in each of the last 30 years. [21938]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to determine the precise origin of all ordnance washed up onto British shores. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that any of the ordnance recovered in United Kingdom waters and disposed of by the Royal Navy's Plymouth clearance diving unit had originally been dumped.

  David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with Mr. David Hart concerning plans to privatise his Department's housing stock; what role Mr. Hart had in the preparation of these plans; and if he will make a statement. [21885]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 218.

  Procurement
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning industrial participation in procurement purchases from abroad; when industrial participation is to be sought; what assessment he has made of his Department's industrial participation policy; and if he will make a statement. [21886]

  Mr. Freeman
  Until international defence procurement can occur on a fully open reciprocal basis, the Government pursue a policy of asking foreign companies bidding for United Kingdom orders generally to offset the cost of such orders with work placed in the UK. Consequently my Department takes care to ensure that industrial participation proposals by foreign companies are carried through and involve high quality work being placed with UK companies. Our policy is currently to seek industrial participation proposals on procurement purchases from abroad on purchases over £10 million—£50 million in the case of France—while seeking to negotiate bilateral mutual 84
  waivers of IP requirements with members of the western European armaments group.

  Franco-German Bilateral Armament Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the Franco-German bilateral armaments agency; what consideration he has given to British membership of this body; what discussions he has had with his German and French counterparts to discuss British participation; and if he will make a statement. [21888]

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom has expressed the wish to be involved from the outset in discussions on the structure and operating principles for the planned armaments co-operation structure. I have discussed with my French and German counterparts the UK's interest in participation and consideration is presently being given to the practicalities involved. We will be discussing the issues further with French and German colleagues at official level.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning article 223 of the treaty of Rome; and if he will be seeking the abolition of the article at the intergovernmental conference. [21887]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are currently reviewing article 223 in preparation for the intergovernmental conference in 1996.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the dates of employment of his special advisers since his appointment. [21934]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Joined the Department

  Left the Department

  Perry Miller

  April 1992

  February 1993

  Crispin Blunt

  February 1993

  Employment continuing.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions his special adviser has given to his Department's civil servants to make inquiries of a political nature concerning the policies of the Labour party; and on what authority. [21933]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The special adviser has not given any instructions to my Department to make inquiries about the policies of the Labour party. Following the hon. Member for South Shield's lecture to the Royal United Services Institute, on 1 March, the special adviser asked a member of the parliamentary office to ask the hon. Member's office the exact date of his resignation from the Opposition Front Bench.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the cost of employing(a) external surveyors and (b) consultants in relation to the sale of Portland naval base. [21302]
  85
  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to disclose information relating to the cost of employing external surveyors and consultants as the information is commercial in confidence.

  NATO Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the organisation of the NATO rapid reaction corps; what forces have been assigned to its command; which NATO nations have contributed such forces; and what is its relationship to the corps formed by Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain. [21080]

  Mr. Soames
  The ACE rapid reaction corps consists of a multinational corps headquarters, 10 divisions and corps troops. Of the 10 divisions under its command the HQ plans to deploy with up to four for any one operation. The United Kingdom has contributed two divisions—one includes an attached Italian brigade and the other an attached Danish brigade. Further divisions are contributed by Italy, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, the US and Spain. The remaining two divisions are multinational and include brigade contributions from Belgium and the Netherlands. In addition to the nations listed above, Canada, France, and Norway are represented by staff in HQ ARRC.

  HQ ARRC and HQ Eurocorps are separate organisations which maintain a liaison and co-operation link.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the NATO rapid reaction corps is now fully operational. [21079]

  Mr. Soames
  The headquarters of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps was declared fully operational on 25 April 1995.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21364]

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost of employing commercial consultants in support of the MOD's "Competing for Quality" programme during the period from April 1992 to March 1995 was just over £6 million.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21394]

  Mr. Freeman
  Although all staff, including special advisers, are required to declare conflicts of interest to line management, no records of this information is maintained centrally.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil service appointments were made to 86
  administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21772]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested, which includes full and part time staff up to the end of February 1995, is as follows:

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  1993

  October to December

  121

  246

  1994

  January to March

  145

  260

  April to June

  70

  206

  July to September

  83

  190

  October to December

  82

  151

  1995

  January to February

  92

  109

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 20 April,Official Report, column 228, what grade civil servant is Mr. Miles Faulkner; and what is his annual salary. [21171]

  Mr. Freeman
  Mr. Faulkner is serving on a fixed term appointment in a grade 6 post. It is not the practice to comment on the pay of individual officers.

  In my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 20 April 1995, Official Report, column 228, I said that the duration of Mr. Faulkner's contract was
  "Two years extended by one year to March 1996".

  This should have been
  "Two years extended by one year to March 1995 and then further extended to March 1996".

  I apologise for this error.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21213]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department spent £5,103,000 on official hospitality in the financial year 1994–95. This figure includes expenditure incurred by 'he Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British forces will form part of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's peacekeeping mission to Nagorno-Karabakh. [21336]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North East (Mr. Campbell) on 22 February 1995,Official Report, column 256.

  Riot Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions the chemical weapons convention will impose on the use of riot control agents or other law enforcement chemicals in operations by United Kingdom armed forces, including those involved in peacekeeping operations. [21337]

  Mr. Soames
  The chemical weapons convention, when it enters into force, will ban the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare, but allow their use for law enforcement. My Department's policy on the use of riot control agents is in accordance with the provisions of the convention.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice the former Minister for Defence Procurement received before meeting Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi to discuss arms sales to Lebanon. [21561]

  Mr. Freeman
  No legal advice was necessary.

  Defence Equipment (Lebanon)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since April 1992 second hand arms have been given free of charge to other Governments for their use; on what date the decision was taken to provide 1,000 second hand self-loading rifles free of charge to the Government of Lebanon; which Minister was responsible for the decision; and what was the estimated value of the rifles. [21563]

  Mr. Freeman
  -Since April 1992 my Department has approved gifts of defence equipment to eight overseas Governments. On 8 October 1993 formal financial approval was given at official level in accordance with internal departmental instructions for a gift to the Lebanese Government of surplus defence equipment to the value of £40,000. After discussion with the Lebanese authorities, it was agreed to make a gift of 500 surplus self-loading rifles to this value.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 395, on what date the former Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Thanet, South, was first approached by Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi about the prospects for the sale of defence equipment to Lebanon; which of the meetings held with Mr. Makhzoumi were attended by officials from the Defence Export Services Organisation; and on what date the decision was taken to sell former British vessels and arms to the Lebanon. [21609]

  Mr. Freeman
  The right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) advised officials in the Defence Export Services Organisation that he had been approached, on 6 July 1992, by Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi about the prospects for the sale of defence equipment to Lebanon. DESO officials were present at the meeting with Mr. Makhzoumi on 20 October 1993 and at the dinner in honour of the Lebanese chief of the naval staff on 17 November 1993 referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, (Mr. Wilson) on 24 April 1995,Official Report, column 395. FCO officials were present at the dinner for the Lebanese Information Minister on 25 February 1993.
  88
  Details of decisions by commercial companies to sell arms and defence equipment are a matter for the commercial suppliers and the customer. In the case of Government-to-Government sales, the decision to supply the former RN patrol craft to Lebanon was taken in March 1992.

  Sapper Jason Whitton
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Clydesdale of 8 December 1994, concerning Sapper Jason Whitton. [21892]

  Mr. Soames
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for sending a further copy of his letter. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Weapons Theft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds in respect of the quantity of missiles and other weapons stolen from a NATO base near Cologne in 1973; what security they are currently held under; and if he will make a statement. [20724]

  Mr. Soames
  Extensive inquiries by my Department have failed to trace any such incident.

  Anzac Day
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by whom his Department was represented at the Anzac Day commemoration at the Cenotaph, London, on 25 April. [21800]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department was represented by Rear Admiral R. 0. Irwin, Air Vice Marshal J. D. K. Feesley AFC and Major General S.W. St. John Lytle.

  HMS Daedalus
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of HMS Daedalus. [21837]

  Mr. Soames
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence on 16 July 1991,Official Report, columns 148–49. HMS Daedalus will close in April 1996. Should no further defence use be identified for the establishment, we expect the site to be offered for sale following the formal decommissioning of the air station.

  Psychological Coercion
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments his Department has carried out on psychological coercion in the last 30 years; if he will list the names of the experiments carried out; if he will give the dates when these experiments occurred; how many people were tested; and if he will make a statement. [20851]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: An examination of papers held centrally has found no reference to experiments carried out on psychological coercion.

  Radiological Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radiological, biological or chemical experiments his Department has carried out in the last 30 years,(a) on volunteers without their knowledge and (b) in public areas; and if he will make a statement. [20847]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: We know of no radiological experiments which have been carried out on volunteers by MOD without their knowledge. The same position applies with respect to volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, where no studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed, and approved, by an independent ethics committee in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians. Prior to participating in a study, the volunteers have the procedures, potential effects and possible risks explained to them in lay terms by an officer. They can withdraw from the study at any time without having to give a reason.

  No experiments involving the use of radioactive substances or chemical or biological warfare agents have been carried out in public areas in the last 30 years. However, stimulants of such agents were used in some 100 experiments in the period of 1964 to 1977. The possible effect on the health and safety of personnel in public areas was fully considered prior to conducting the studies. Accordingly, the stimulants used were judged to present no risk to public health. The majority of these experiments involved releasing the stimulants at sea. There have been no experiments in public areas in the last 16 years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Foot Patrols)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of officers on foot patrol in Sussex in each month since January 1994. [20603]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that this information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Livestock Hauliers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support the Government are giving to livestock hauliers to ensure that they can continue their trade. [20915]

  Mr. Maclean
  The enforcement of the law in relation to demonstrations against live animal exports is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether under(a) the Schengen agreement or (b) other agreements in respect of movements within the European Union, non-EU passport holders carrying valid visas for the United Kingdom may travel from the United Kingdom to other EU states
  90
  without separate visas being required; and if he will make a statement. [21240]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 27 April 1995]: As the United Kingdom is not a party to the Schengen agreement, a visa issued by the United Kingdom would not be valid for travel to a Schengen country. The draft external frontiers convention would, if implemented provide for, among other things, a form of mutual recognition of visas for a short stay, which would exempt the holder from the requirement to obtain a separate national visa for entry to any of the member states of the European Union. The text of the draft convention, agreement to which is subject to unanimity in the Council, remains under discussion.

  Police Cells
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officer hours were used to police the imprisonment of prisoners in police cells in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available. [21269]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about police officer hours used to police the imprisonment of prisoners in police cells in (a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available.
  The information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the public purse of keeping prisoners in police cells(a) in London and (b) elsewhere in England and Wales for each of the last 15 years. [21606]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells in London and elsewhere in England and Wales for each of the last 15 years.
  No expenditure on the use of police cells was incurred before 1981–82. Separate figures for costs incurred in holding prisoners in police cells in the Metropolitan Police District are not available. The information for England and Wales, including London, is contained in the attached table.

  Total annual expenditure on use of police cells (England and Wales) from 1981–82 to 1994–95

  Years

  £ millions

  1981–82

  0.002

  1982–83

  3.4

  1983–84

  10.08

  1984–85

  3.4

  1985–86

  2.2

  1986–87

  6.2

  1987–88

  24.9

  1988–89

  64.9

  1989–90

  12.4

  91

  Total annual expenditure on use of police cells (England and Wales) from 1981–82 to 1994–95

  Years

  £ millions

  1990–91

  53.1

  1991–92

  94

  1992–93

  98.5

  1993–94

  11

  1994–95'

  16

  1 provisional

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police stations in London have accommodated prisoners in their cells in the last year; how many prisoners each has accommodated; and what proportion of officers' time in each police station was devoted to prisoners. [21603]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about which police stations in London have accommodated prisoners in their cells in the last year; how many prisoners each has accommodated and what proportion of officers' time in each police station was devoted to prisoners.
  No Prison Service prisoners have been accommodated in police cells in the Metropolitan Police District in the last year.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the maximum length of days spent by a prisoner in police cells during the last year for which figures are available(a) in London and (b) elsewhere. [21604]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the maximum length of days spent by a prisoner in police cells during the last year for which figures are available (a) in London and (b) elsewhere.
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. No Prison Service prisoners were held in police cells in the Metropolitan Police District in 1994.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoner nights have been spent in police cells(a) in London and (b) elsewhere in England and Wales for each of the last 15 years. [21605]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what proportion of prisoner nights have been spent in police cells in London and elsewhere In England and Wales for each of the last 15 years.
  92
  Figures for the average number of prisoners held in police cells, including London, for each year since 1989 to date are given in the attached table. Separate figures for the Metropolitan Police District are not available.

  Average Number of Prisoners Held in Police Cells in England and Wales: 1980–1995 (26 April 1995)

  Year

  Number

  1980

  645

  1981

  125

  1982

  47

  1983

  310

  1984

  54

  1985

  45

  1986

  119

  1987

  537

  1988

  978

  1989

  111

  1990

  661

  1991

  1,088

  1992

  1,095

  1993

  14

  1994

  173

  19951

  227

  1 To 26 April 1995

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of consecutive nights spent by a prisoner in a police cell in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available. [21708]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated I May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average number of consecutive nights spent by a prisoner in a police cell in (a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available.
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tariff Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in re-assessing compensation for criminal injuries how long he expects average delays to be for people who were made awards under the tariff scheme. [21271]

  Mr. Maclean
  Victims who received an award under the tariff scheme will keep that award. Where any reassessed award is higher than the tariff award they will be paid the balance. If the reassessed award is lower, they will not be required to refund the difference.

  I understand the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is giving urgent attention to the reassessment of awards made under the tariff scheme. Since, in many cases, additional inquiries will need to be made into such matters as loss of earnings and receipt of social security benefits, it is likely to take several months for this process to be completed.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions during the last
  93
  five years (a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department, or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21387]

  Mr. Howard
  No central comprehensive record is kept of interests or holdings which are declared by civil servants in accordance with the rules on conduct and no special adviser has declared a conflict of interest in the past five years. There is a requirement on all staff, including special advisers, to report any holdings of shares or securities, or any other business interests, where a conflict of interest might arise. General advice about this is given in standing staff instructions and is updated from time to time. This is supplemented by local advice as necessary.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21204]

  Details of appointments made at administrative assistant and administrative officer level between 1 September 1993 and 30 April 1995

  1/9/93–30/11/93

  1/12/93–28/2/94

  1/3/94–31/5/94

  1/6/94–31/8/94

  1/9/94–30/11/94

  1/12/94–28/2/95

  1/3/95–30/4/95

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  AA

  AO

  Total number

  Home Office excluding Prison Service

  63

  13

  67

  14

  28

  12

  52

  11

  51

  6

  1373

  5

  1103

  8

  806

  Prison Service

  52

  31

  31

  16

  25

  15

  29

  8

  25

  23

  19

  17

  23

  10

  324

  Total

  115

  44

  98

  30

  53

  27

  81

  19

  76

  29

  392

  22

  126

  18

  1,130

  1The significant increase in staff recruited at AA level during these periods is due to a large number of part-year appointments made by the UK Passport Agency to cover seasonal demands for passports. The majority of these appointments have been made at regional passport offices.

  Police (Languages)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of police men and police women currently serving in Wales who speak(a) Welsh, (b) Urdu and (c) Punjabi; and if he will make a statement. [20922]

  Mr. Maclean
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal
  Mr. David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received over the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal; how many replies have been sent to those writing to him; and how many officials in his Department are involved in writing or drafting replies(a) to members of the general public and (b) to hon. Members. [21890]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Eighteen letters have been received from hon. Members and over 1,000 from members of the public. A proportion of the time of four officials of the Immigration and Nationality Department is devoted to the preparation of replies.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 309, what assessment he has made of the reasons why the quantity of the drug temazepam exported in the 1994 calendar year exceeds the amount produced domestically in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [22042]
  94
  Mr. Howard
  The provisional figure for expenditure on official hospitality by my Department, including its executive agencies, in 1994–95 is £48,293.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his Bill to cut criminal injuries compensation. [21270]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 26 April,Official Report, column 561.

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until 1995. [21766]

  Mr. Howard
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total figures for the amount of temazepam manufactured and exported during 1994 are not yet available. During 1993, however, exports did exceed the amount produced domestically. Temazepam is not only manufactured in the United Kingdom but is also imported in significant quantities to meet with legitimate demands, including export 'orders.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 309, what is his latest estimate of the amount of temazepam retained each year for the last five years as manufacturers' stocks, in kilograms and prescription units, ending at the close of the 1994 calendar year; and if he will make a statement. [22043]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total figures for the amount of temazepam held as manufacturers' stocks in 1994 are not yet available. The amounts for the previous five years were as follows:

  Year

  Amount (kg)

  1989

  2,284

  1990

  2,226

  1991

  3,006

  1992

  3,978

  1993

  923

  As the drug is prescribed in varying quantities and formulations it is not possible to convert the amount of base material available in a meaningful number of prescription units.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government submitted to the United Nations its latest periodic report under the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. [22374]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom's thirteenth report under the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination was submitted to the United Nations on 21 April 1995. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to announce his conclusions regarding the Boundary Commission for England in respect of changes to English parliamentary constituencies. [21811]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend received the fourth periodical report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England on 12 April. He is required by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1983 to lay the report before Parliament as soon as may be, together with a draft Order in Council for giving effect to the Commission's recommendations, with or without modification. He will do so as soon as he has completed his consideration of the report and its recommendations.

  National Lottery
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust or the Northern Ireland Rural Community Network will have for the assessment of applications for grants from the National Lottery Charities Board. [21734]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Decisions on grant applications are matters for the National Lottery Charities Board. It is for the board to decide what advice to seek on the assessment of applications.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) burglaries, (b) drug-related offences and (c) drug addicts for each year from 1965 to 1980. [21144]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of burglaries, the number of persons convicted of drugs offences and the number of drug addicts being treated for their addiction is given in the table.

  Year

  Burglaries

  Drug offenders (under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or earlier legislation)

  1Drug addicts notified to the Home Office

  1965

  251,306

  —3

  927

  1966

  274,278

  —3

  1,349

  1967

  264,518

  4,498

  1,683

  1968

  285,287

  5,470

  1,746

  19692

  414,8942

  6,158

  1,466

  1970

  423,795

  8,378

  1,430

  1971

  442,275

  10,814

  1,549

  1972

  428,083

  13,998

  1,617

  19734

  384,035

  14,9774

  1,8164

  96

  Year

  Burglaries

  Drug offenders (under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or earlier legislation)

  1Drug addicts notified to the Home Office

  1974

  473,407

  12,532

  1,967

  1975

  515,429

  11,846

  1,949

  1976

  510,048

  12,754

  1,876

  1977

  598,421

  12,907

  2,016

  1978

  560,109

  13,604

  2,402

  1979

  544,037

  14,339

  2,666

  1980

  618,390

  17,158

  2,846

  1 Number of addicts receiving notifiable drugs as part of treatment.

  2 Theft Act 1968 came into force.

  3 Not separately identified.

  4 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 came into force.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report column 382 what was the recovery rate for stolen vehicles in 1994 (a) in total and (b) by constabulary. [21143]

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisional figures for 1994 are given in the table. Finalised data will be published in the command paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994" later this year.

  Notifiable offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the Police, 1994 percentage of vehicles recovered by police forces area1

  Police Force Area

  Percentage Recovered

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  Bedfordshire

  62

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  Cheshire

  89

  Cleveland

  55

  Cumbria

  28

  Derbyshire

  62

  Devon and Cornwall

  85

  Dorset

  63

  Durham

  49

  Essex

  73

  Gloucestershire

  67

  Greater Manchester

  64

  Hampshire

  51

  Hertforshire

  68

  Humberside

  85

  Kent

  53

  Lancashire

  81

  Leicestershire

  72

  Lincolnshire

  82

  City of London

  2124

  Merseyside

  73

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  Norfolk

  50

  Northamptonshire

  53

  Northumbria

  71

  North Yorkshire

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  61

  South Yorkshire

  57

  Staffordshire

  57

  Suffolk

  66

  Surrey

  47

  Susex

  50

  Thames Valley

  62

  Warwickshire

  73

  West Mercia

  75

  West Midlands

  70

  97

  Notifiable offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the Police, 1994 percentage of vehicles recovered by police forces area1

  Police Force Area

  Percentage Recovered

  West Yorkshire

  60

  Wiltshire

  46

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  Gwent

  61

  North Wales

  75

  South Wales

  65

  England and Wales

  355

  1 Provisional.2 Vehicles recovered in 1994 may have been recorded as stolen in earlier years.

  3 Excluding the Metropolitan Police and Dyfed-Powys.

  Local Byelaws
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in his Department are employed on proposals for new local byelaws: and what is the average length of time taken to deal with applications in each year since 1990. [21230]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The equivalent of 4.25 full-time staff work on applications for the approval of local byelaws.

  The Home Office receives about 20 new applications per month for the approval of byelaws. The statistics which are currently maintained on outstanding applications are not in a form which would permit the average length of time taken to deal with them to be

  Decisions on applications for asylum1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Port applications

  In-Country2 Applications

  Total

  Asylum applications3

  10,230

  22,600

  32,830

  Total Decisions3,4

  6,340

  10,805

  20,990

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  300

  530

  825

  Not recognised as a refugee, but granted exceptional leave to remain5

  1,785

  1,875

  3,660

  Total refused6

  —

  —

  16,500

  Refused asylum and ELR after full consideration

  4,255

  8,400

  12,655

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  —

  —

  865

  Refused under para. 340 of the Immigration Rules6,7

  —

  —

  2,985

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.2 The majority of in-country applicants have previously been granted leave to enter the UK in some non-asylum category.

  3 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  4 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year.

  5 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  6 Refusals on safe third count grounds, and refusals under para. 340 are not available split between port and in-country applications.

  7 Para. 180F prior to 1 October 1994, for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amount of legal aid was granted to rejected asylum seekers to pursue their appeals in each year since 1990 and in the first three months of 1995. [20763]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Legal Aid Board does not record separately the cost of providing advice and assistance to asylum seekers in pursuit of their appeals to the Immigration appeals tribunal. It is therefore not possible to distinguish the cost of those cases from other cases involving immigration and nationality matters.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rejected asylum seekers pursued their appeals(a) with and (b) without the benefit
  98
  calculated without disproportionate effort. However, the backlog of outstanding cases as at the end of March for the last five years is as follows:

  March 1991: 196

  March 1992: 186

  March 1993: 143

  March 1994: 179

  March 1995: 158

  Efforts are being made to tackle the backlog, which has been reduced by 25 per cent. over the last six months from a peak of 211 in October 1994. These efforts will continue.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought asylum in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and, of these, how many(a) already had an immigration status within the United Kingdom, (b) applied for asylum within three months of their arrival in the United Kingdom, (c) applied for asylum within three months of the expiry of their leave to remain in the United Kingdom, (d) were refused asylum and (e) were given exceptional leave to remain. [21311]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on asylum applications and decisions made during 1994 is given in the table.

  Information on the length of time that elapses before an application for asylum is made, according to the date a person either arrives in the United Kingdom or their leave to remain in the United Kingdom expires, is not available.

  of legal representation in 1994 and in the first three months of 1995. [20762]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the cases heard since the beginning of 1994, the large majority of appellants have been represented.

  Computer Pornography
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps are being taken to monitor the use of Internet and other electronic networks for obscene material relating to children; [21188]
  99
  (2) what consultations have taken place between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers for drawing up a national police strategy to deal with computer pornography on the Internet. [21185]

  Mr. Maclean
  Monitoring by the police of the Internet and other electronic networks for child pornography is an operational matter for chief officers.

  The recently established inter-departmental working group on obscenity, which includes a police representative, is currently examining the problem of child and computer pornography, including the adequacy and effectiveness of the relevant law and its enforcement. This work will be complemented by that of the Association of Chief Police Officers working group on computer pornography which has been established to offer guidance on training and investigation techniques.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 for the distribution of obscene material between computers using telephone lines within the United Kingdom. [21186]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify offences under section 43(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 1984—the sending, by means of public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character—from other summary offences under the same Act. However, our statistics show that in 1993, the latest available, there were 1,147 prosecutions and 725 convictions for summary offences as a whole under the aforesaid Act.

  Mr. Nick Leeson
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what moves he is making to secure the extradition of Mr. Nick Leeson to the United Kingdom. [21178]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has commenced an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the failure of Barings bank. The question of extradition does not arise until the Serious Fraud Office has decided whether it is appropriate to prosecute the person concerned.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20499]

  Mr. Howard
  The following is the information:

  (a) Publication of annual reports

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (statutory)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  National Lottery Charities Board (statutory)

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  100

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  (b) Publication of annual accounts

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (voluntary)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  National Lottery Charities Board (statutory)

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  (c)Publication of the minutes of meetings

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Fire Services Examinations Board (voluntary)

  In addition, the Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public.

  (d)Publication of the agendas of meetings

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Fire Services Examination Board (voluntary)

  In addition, the Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public.

  (e)Publication of registers of members' interests

  None, although details of members interests are sometimes given in NDPB annual reports.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and(f)provisions under the citizens charter. [20659]

  Mr. Howard
  The executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Home Office are as follows:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Community Development Foundation

  Fire Services Examination Board

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  Police Complaints Authority

  Police Promotion Examinations Board

  The readily available information on these bodies is as follows:

  (a) Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner
  The Commission for Racial Equality, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Office of the Data Protection Registrar are listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (as amended) as among those bodies subject to investigation by the PCA.

  (b) Scrutiny by the Audit Commission
  The Audit Commission only has responsibility for local government.

  (c)Scrutiny by the National Audit Office

  The following bodies are subject to NAO scrutiny either by statute or by agreement:

  Community Development Foundation

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Gaming Board

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  Police Complaints Authority

  101
  (d)Statutory provisions for Open Government
  There are no statutory provisions at present on Open Government which apply to my Department's NDPBs but those which are subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are also subject to the Code of Practice on Open Government.

  (e)Performance Indicators
  NDPBs are encouraged, wherever appropriate, to develop performance indicators and associated targets and to publish these.

  (j) Provisions under the Citizens Charter

  Not all the Home Office's executive NDPBs offer a service to the public but those that do are encouraged to adopt the principles set out in the citizens charter and to publicise how these are being reflected in their working arrangements. This has led to a statement of charter standards by the Commission for Racial Equality and the publication of customer service targets by the Gaming Board in its annual report.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20744]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the current prison population; and for the figures for each of the previous four years.
  On 24 April the prison population of England and Wales was 50,659, of whom 365 were held in police cells. The average prison populations for the previous four years are shown in the table below.

  Year

  Number held in prison service establishments

  Number held in police cells

  Total

  1994

  48,622

  173

  48,795

  1993

  44,552

  14

  44,566

  1992

  44,720

  1,098

  45,818

  1991

  44,809

  1,088

  45,897

  Immigration
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom made by non-United Kingdom citizens on the basis of a same-sex relationship with a citizen of the United Kingdom have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1990; [20771]

  (2) how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom made by non-United Kingdom citizens on the basis of marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1990; [20773]

  (3) how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom made by non-United Kingdom citizens on the basis of a heterosexual common law relationship with a citizen of the United Kingdom have been (a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1990. [20772]
  102
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is given in the table and relates to persons accepted for settlement, after completing a probationary year, on the basis of marriage to a British citizen or other person already settled here. It excludes those persons accepted for settlement at the same time as their non-British citizen spouse is accepted.

  Also given are those accepted for settlement on the basis of a heterosexual common-law relationship and those refused settlement following marriage but the nationality of the settled partner of such persons is not recorded centrally.

  No information is available on the outcome of applications to remain on the basis of a same-sex relationship.

  Acceptances for settlement, and refusals, on the basis of marriage or a heterosexual common-law relationship, 1990 to 1994

  Accepted for settlement1 married to a:

  British citizen

  Other national

  Common-law spouse

  Refused settlement after marriage1,2

  1990

  19,620

  4,190

  190

  270

  1991

  23,270

  3,840

  340

  350

  1992

  22,550

  3,530

  300

  520

  1993

  24,120

  3,060

  430

  630

  19943

  23,280

  2,790

  510

  780

  1At the end of a 12-month period following the marriage or the admission as a spouse.

  2 Includes some common-law applications.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken for a prison area manager to reply to an appeal that has been made by a prison inmate against a decision that has been made by a prison governor; and if he will make a statement. [20743]

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

  Letter from B. Landers to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to your recent Question about the average time taken for a prison area manager to reply to an appeal that has been made by a prisoner against a decision made by a prison governor.
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Area offices are set a target date of six weeks, from date of receipt, to answer requests and complaints from prisoners. Between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995, 85% of requests and complaints were answered within this set target. This figure represents an improvement on the figure for 1993–94, when 82% of requests/complaints were answered within the set target and for 1992–93, when the figure was 61%.

  Prisoners, Wales
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population in Wales; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20774]
  103
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the current prison population in Wales; and for the figures for each of the previous four years.
  On 24 April the number of prisoners being held in Prison Service establishments in Wales was 853. The average populations of establishments in Wales for the previous four years are shown in the table below. The prisoners will not necessarily have been sentenced or committed by Welsh courts nor have committed their offences in Wales.

  Year

  Number held in Prison Service establishments

  Number held in police cells

  1Total

  1994

  862

  —

  862

  1993

  859

  —

  859

  1992

  879

  75

  954

  1991

  873

  91

  964

  1 May not equal the sum of the components because of rounding.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the existing resources in prisons in England and Wales to encourage prisoners(a) to come off and (b) to remain off drugs. [19952]

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  104
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tox Cox, dated 1 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question on the existing resources available in prisons in England and Wales to encourage prisoners to come off and remain off drugs.
  The Prison Service has identified the reduction of drug misuse in prisons as a strategic priority. All Prison Service establishments provide access to detoxification, education and counselling facilities to prisoners with drug misuse problems through the health care centre, probation department or community drug agencies.
  The new Prison Service drug strategy will greatly increase the provision of drug treatment programmes by grouping the supply of rehabilitation programmes across several adjacent prisons. Work is already proceeding on developing the most effective treatment programmes by providing additional funding to 13 establishments in the next six months to be followed by a rolling implementation over the next three years.
  The only data currently available are aggregated from a survey of 130 prisons conducted during December 1994 which showed that 119 prisons provide some form of drug treatment programme. The programmes fall into three main types: individual counselling, group therapy and intensive treatment programmes. At the time of the survey a total of 9 prisons were offering intensive rehabilitation, while 94 offered group treatment programmes and 102 offered individual counselling. A further survey into the details of detoxification treatments in prisons is planned for May.

  Burglary, Hastings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the results to date of the inquiries made by the East Sussex police force in respect of the burglary in January at the headquarters of the Hastings archaeological research group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from Sussex police that extensive inquiries have been made into the burglary that took place in January. However, the property stolen has not been recovered and no arrests have yet been made.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ware Pensioners
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the financial position of war pensioners and those widowed as a result of wartime action to coincide with the 50th anniversary of VE day. [20129]

  Mr. Lilley
  I recently announced that war widows pension would be restored to war widows who remarried but were subsequently widowed, divorced or legally separated.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war widows are currently in receipt of a war widow's pension; and how many he estimates would be in receipt of such a pension if they had not remarried. [20127]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 31 March 1995, 48,405 widows were in receipt of a war widows's pension.

  We estimate that a further 45,000 widows would still be in receipt of a war widow's pension had they not remarried.

  Social Security Reforms
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the long-term effect on public spending of the social security reforms he has announced so far. [20133]

  Mr. Lilley
  The major reforms announced so far, particularly incapacity benefit and job seeker's allowance, will reduce projected expenditure by £4 billion a year by the end of the century.

  In the next century, once the reforms contained in the Pensions Bill currently before this House have worked through, total savings will be £14 billion a year.

  Pensioners (Benefits Claims)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners who are entitled to but are not claiming(a) income support and (b) housing benefit; and if he will estimate the total amount that is not claimed. [20134]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest estimates indicate that in 1992, between 480,000 and 860,000 pensioners may not take up entitlement to income support, worth up to a maximum of £610 million or 30 per cent. of available benefit. The comparable figures for housing benefit are between 260,000 and 340,000 and unclaimed benefit worth up to £300 million or 10 per cent. of available benefit.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current success rate of applicants for special assistance for those suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [20135]

  Mr. Hague
  Of the 42,770 claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema processed by 28 February, 4,792 have resulted in awards of benefit, representing a success rate of 11.2 per cent. This is a similar success rate to claims for other prescribed diseases.
  106

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence there is that the Child Support Agency is now coping efficiently with its work load. [20136]

  Mr. Burt
  The agency is showing an improvement in a number of areas. This year it has completed 528,400 cases compared with 336,200 last year, and has completed almost twice as many second tier reviews. As a result, the agency expects to collect more than £70 million compared with £13.1 million last year.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time the Child Support Agency takes to make an assessment; and thereafter in what period those assessed have to make a payment. [20138]

  Mr. Burt
  The length of time taken to complete an assessment is variable as it depends on the receipt of information from various sources. Once the Agency has all the information it needs, it is currently taking 123 days to complete an assessment. Where no payment is received within 14 days from notification of the maintenance assessment, the agency can consider enforcement action.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure of social security benefits in(a) the current financial year, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago. [20137]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The figures' are in the table:

  Financial year

  Benefit expenditure (£ million cash)

  1994–95

  285,221

  1989–90

  50,174

  1984–85

  38,250

  1 Figures have been taken from the 1995 Social Security departmental report and an earlier equivalent.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are taking to help disabled people. [20139]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's plans for ending discrimination against disabled people were set out fully in the White Paper published on 12 January. These include new initiatives in education and transport, in addition to the measures in the Disability Discrimination Bill for new rights in employment and access to goods and services and the establishment of a National Disability Council. These proposals, which are clear, flexible and fair, have received widespread support.

  Benefit Payment Cards
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to bring in an identity card system for benefit claimants. [20140]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Starting next year, we are planning to introduce benefit payment cards to replace order books and giros for people who choose to collect their benefits at
  107
  the post office. These cards will allow access to payment information which will be held electronically on a database; they are not designed as identity cards. People who choose to receive their benefits directly into their bank or building society by automated credit transfer will not hold a benefit payment card.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received expressing fears that the restrictions to 16 hours per week for study in the proposed jobseeker's allowance will affect people's ability to acquire new skills for the labour market. [20141]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents and from some colleges. In each case, I have been able to assure them that the changes that we are proposing to introduce are designed to eliminate anomalies in the current rules and to allow the same number of people to study part time and claim jobseeker's allowance as do so under the current arrangements.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens, appealing against the habitual residence test, have been awarded social fund loans. [20142]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Child Benefits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will propose that child benefits should be renamed child cash allowances, that the cost should be deducted in national accounts from taxes received by the Exchequer and that the levels should be decided by the Chancellor in common with personal tax allowances. [20143]

  Mr. Burt
  No. Child benefit is proper to this Department's vote and will continue to be treated in national accounts in the same way as all other social security benefits.

  Unemployed People (Benefit Costs)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the total cost in benefits to those registered as unemployed in Britain at the latest available date. [20144]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest estimate of benefit expenditure on unemployed people for the year April 1994 to March 1995 is £9,100 million. The amount includes unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit, council tax and social fund payments but not child benefit or family credit. This information is shown in table 5 of the Social Security Departmental Report, Cm. 2813, which is in the Library.

  Benefit Income Levels
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage the income of people living on benefits has changed in real terms since 1979. [20145]
  108
  Mr. Burt
  Most family types receiving income support have seen a real terms rise in their benefit rates since 1979, the level of change depending on family size and composition. For example, the benefit rates for a typical unemployed couple with two children are now 24 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. During the same period, the income support rates of typical pensioner couple both aged between 65 and 70 have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1994,Official Report, column 630, on the cost of reintroducing the earnings link for uprating retirement pensions and linked benefits on the basis of the assumptions used in that answer, if he will estimate the effect on national insurance contributions rates in the years form 1997–98 to 2006–7. [20974]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The table shows the estimated combined increase in the main class 1 contribution rates paid by employers and employees which would be needed to raise the additional revenue to cover the extra cost of retirement pensions and other linked benefits.

  Year

  Increase in combined rate of employer and employee contributions (per cent.)

  1997–98

  0.2

  1998–99

  0.4

  1999–00

  0.6

  2000–01

  0.8

  2001–02

  1.0

  2002–03

  1.2

  2003–04

  1.4

  2004–05

  1.6

  2005–06

  1.8

  2006–07

  2.1

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the savings made by paying pensions from the Monday following claimants' relevant birthdays or date of retirement. [20815]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost of paying retirement pension for the part-week preceding the first pension pay day is £7 million at 1995–96 price levels. An equivalent amount would be saved if payment were to cease at the date of death instead of, as now, the end of the pension pay week.

  To amend current payment procedures to provide for the changes outlined above would involve an additional clerical cost in the region of £2.5 million per year.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to monitor the introduction of incapacity benefit and to report his findings to the House. [20118]

  Mr. Hague
  All aspects of incapacity benefit will be closely monitored.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Council of Mortgage Lenders regarding changes to income support payments for mortgage interest. [20131]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have had discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders throughout the consultation period and will continue to do so.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive full or part payment of their care in nursing homes out of public funds; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [20374]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest figures, for November 1994, show that 84,000 people in nursing homes have preserved rights to the old system of income support limits. In addition, a total of 80,000 people have income support which includes residential allowance, meaning that they have been placed in nursing homes or residential care homes under the community care scheme. For these cases, it is not possible to distinguish nursing home residents from those in residential care homes.

  Costings are not available for November 1994. The cost of income support for residents in nursing homes in the financial year 1993–94 was £1,280 million under the old

  Claimants with deductions for:

  (a) Community charge

  1(b) Fuel

  2(c) Social Fund

  All claimants

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  1990

  Great Britain

  4,180,000

  8,000

  0.2

  2,600,000

  183,000

  4.4

  105,100,000

  383,000

  9.2

  106,900,000

  North Eastern

  674,000

  3,000

  0.4

  800,000

  41,000

  6.1

  25,500,000

  72,000

  10.7

  18,500,000

  London North

  638,000

  2,000

  0.3

  600,000

  22,000

  3.4

  12,400,000

  40,000

  6.3

  12,700,000

  South Western

  274,000

  —

  —

  —

  7,000

  2.6

  4,500,000

  17,000

  6.2

  4,900,000

  Wales

  248,000

  —

  —

  100,000

  10,000

  4.0

  5,200,000

  24,000

  9.7

  6,900,000

  Midlands

  665,000

  1,000

  0.2

  300,000

  13,000

  2.0

  7,000,000

  54,000

  8.1

  16,000,000

  North Western

  643,000

  1,000

  0.2

  200,000

  25,000

  3.9

  14,300,000

  65,000

  10.1

  17,200,000

  Scotland

  481,000

  —

  —

  —

  47,000

  9.8

  26,400,000

  75,000

  15.6

  19,300,000

  London South

  558,000

  2,000

  0.4

  500,000

  17,000

  3.0

  9,800,000

  36,000

  6.5

  11,400,000

  1991

  Great Britain

  4,487,000

  34,000

  0.8

  3,600,000

  200,000

  4.5

  119,800,000

  443,000

  9.9

  127,400,000

  North Eastern

  688,000

  7,000

  1.0

  700,000

  47,000

  6.8

  32,200,000

  78,000

  11.3

  21,100,000

  London North

  735,000

  2,000

  0.3

  200,000

  21,000

  2.9

  11,500,000

  44,000

  6.0

  14,700,000

  South Western

  310,000

  1,000

  0.3

  100,000

  7,000

  2.3

  4,300,000

  20,000

  6.5

  5,800,000

  Wales

  257,000

  3,000

  1.2

  300,000

  13,000

  5.1

  6,800,000

  26,000

  10.1

  7,000,000

  Midlands

  699,000

  2,000

  0.3

  200,000

  17,000

  2.4

  9,000,000

  70,000

  10.0

  20,600,000

  North Western

  669,000

  6,000

  0.9

  700,000

  33,000

  4.9

  19,000,000

  79,000

  11.8

  22,000,000

  Scotland

  487,000

  13,000

  2.7

  1,400,000

  43,000

  8.8

  25,200,000

  84,000

  17.2

  22,600,000

  London South

  641,000

  1,000

  0.2

  100,000

  20,000

  3.1

  11,800,000

  42,000

  6.6

  13,600,000

  1992

  Great Britain

  5,088,000

  243,000

  4.8

  28,500,000

  243,000

  4.8

  145,400,000

  586,000

  11.5

  175,600,000

  North Eastern

  753,000

  50,000

  6.6

  5,800,000

  57,000

  7.6

  39,400,000

  103,000

  13.7

  28,300,000

  London North

  891,000

  25,000

  2.8

  3,100,000

  31,000

  3.5

  17,700,000

  73,000

  8.2

  25,200,000

  South Western

  357,000

  16,000

  4.5

  1,900,000

  10,000

  2.8

  5,700,000

  32,000

  9.0

  9,400,000

  Wales

  287,000

  17,000

  5.9

  2,000,000

  17,000

  5.9

  9,000,000

  34,000

  11.8

  10,000,000

  Midlands

  800,000

  36,000

  4.5

  4,100,000

  23,000

  2.9

  11,800,000

  90,000

  11.3

  27,700,000

  North Western

  731,000

  44,000

  6.0

  5,100,000

  39,000

  5.3

  21,400,000

  100,000

  13.7

  27,900,000

  Scotland

  519,000

  42,000

  8.1

  4,800,000

  42,000

  8.1

  25,600,000

  94,000

  18.1

  27,400,000

  London South

  749,000

  14,000

  1.9

  1,700,000

  24,000

  3.2

  14,700,000

  59,000

  7.9

  19,700,000

  1993

  Great Britain

  5,643,000

  438,000

  7.8

  51,900,000

  246,000

  4.4

  139,400,000

  —

  —

  —

  North Eastern

  827,000

  82,000

  9.9

  9,600,000

  53,000

  6.4

  33,600,000

  —

  —

  —

  110
  system and the total cost for residential allowance cases was £67 million.

  Currently around 280,000 people receive help through income support with residential care and nursing home fees at a cost of over £2 billion compared to 12,000 in 1979 at a cost of £10 million.
  Source: Income Support Statistics May 1993-February 1994 and November 1994.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21376]

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of external consultancy support for the Department's market testing programmes in the period of April 1992 to 31 March 1995 is estimated as £5,551,000.

  Income Support Deductions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support in each region and as a percentage of the total had deductions made from their benefit for(a) poll tax arrears, (b) fuel bills and (c) social fund loan repayments in each year since 1990; and what was the total annual cash value in each category. [21287]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.
  111

  Claimants with deductions for:

  (a) Community charge

  1(b) Fuel

  2(c) Social Fund

  All claimants

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  Number

  Per cent.

  Estimated annual cash value £

  London North

  992,000

  54,000

  5.4

  6,500,000

  35,000

  3.5

  19,200,000

  —

  —

  —

  South Western

  404,000

  32,000

  7.9

  3,900,000

  10,000

  2.5

  5,500,000

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  305,000

  26,000

  8.5

  3,100,000

  14,000

  4.6

  7,500,000

  —

  —

  —

  Midlands

  888,000

  74,000

  8.3

  8,900,000

  31,000

  3.5

  15,800,000

  —

  —

  —

  North Western

  799,000

  91,000

  11.4

  10,600,000

  39,000

  4.9

  21,400,000

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  543,000

  43,000

  7.9

  4,900,000

  37,000

  6.8

  21,700,000

  —

  —

  —

  London South

  886,000

  35,000

  4.0

  4,300,000

  27,000

  3.0

  14,600,000

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  Great Britain

  5,675,000

  523,000

  9.2

  64,300,000

  271,000

  4.8

  156,900,000

  665,000

  11.7

  214,700,000

  North Eastern

  832,000

  92,000

  11.1

  11,200,000

  57,000

  6.9

  37,600,000

  113,000

  13.6

  34,000,000

  London North

  1,000,000

  78,000

  7.8

  9,700,000

  37,000

  3.7

  20,800,000

  92,000

  9.2

  32,800,000

  South Western

  399,000

  39,000

  9.8

  4,900,000

  10,000

  2.5

  5,800,000

  40,000

  10.0

  12,400,000

  Wales

  312,000

  23,000

  7.4

  2,900,000

  14,000

  4.5

  7,700,000

  36,000

  11.5

  11,700,000

  Midlands

  893,000

  89,000

  10.0

  11,000,000

  38,000

  4.3

  19,700,000

  103,000

  11.5

  32,800,000

  North Western

  801,000

  101,000

  12.6

  12,300,000

  46,000

  5.7

  26,300,000

  109,000

  13.6

  33,000,000

  Scotland

  550,000

  48,000

  8.7

  5,700,000

  39,000

  7.1

  23,000,000

  95,000

  17.3

  31,800,000

  London South

  887,000

  53,000

  6.0

  6,700,000

  30,000

  3.4

  16,000,000

  78,000

  8.8

  26,200,000

  1 "Fuel" includes deductions fro gas and/or electricity.

  2 Data not available for May 1993.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages to one decimal place.

  2. Estimated cash value is based on the number of claimants and average weekly deductions in the enquiry week for each category (multiplied by 52).

  3. DSS Administrative Regions.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1990–93, Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1994.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21202]

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure information for the 199495 financial year has not yet been finalised, but on present information the total amount spent on hospitality in that year by the Department of Social Security was £127,839.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21397]

  Mr. Hague
  In the Department and agencies for which I am responsible, any conflict of interest involving a civil servant would have been dealt in accordance with established guidance. Comprehensive records are not held centrally.

  There have been no reports of special advisers declaring conflicts of interest in the last five years.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21773]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:
  112

  Quarter

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  1 October 1993–31 December 1993

  2,182

  1,243

  1 January 1994–31 March 1994

  2,462

  900

  1 April 1994–30 June 1994

  3,053

  1,346

  1 July 1994–30 September 1994

  3,423

  1,662

  1 October 1994–31 December 1994

  2,936

  1,068

  1 January 1995–31 March 1995

  3,421

  963

  Note:

  The figures include staff recruited on a permanent, casual or fixed-term contract basis plus those reinstated or transferred from other government departments.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of people paying contributions to a personal pension scheme in each year since 1988 under the categories(a) self-employed contributors, (b) employed contributors not contracted-out of the state earnings-related pension scheme; (c) employed contributors contracted-out of SERPS, receiving DSS rebate only contributions to the scheme and (d) employed contributors, contracted-out of SERPS making personal payments in addition to DSS rebates. [21839]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information on employees' personal pensions is in the table. I shall let the hon. Member have a reply on the number of self-employed contributors to personal pensions as soon as possible.

  Type of scheme

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993– 94

  PP with employee contributions2

  350

  1,050

  1,600

  2,150

  2,500

  2,500

  113

  Type of scheme

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  APP based on minimum contributions3 only

  850

  2,450

  2,750

  3,050

  3,050

  2,900

  APP with employee contributions

  500

  1,500

  1,900

  2,100

  2,550

  2,650

  1 Provisional.

  2 The figures for PP's with employee contributions show the number of PP arrangements—this will include a number of people who also have an APP or have more than one PP. It will also include a small number of APP's and PP's where the employee pays no additional contributions but the employer does.

  3 Minimum contributions include the National Insurance rebate and any incentives or additions. Tax relief on the employee's share of the minimum contributions is also payable.

  Note:

  PP means a personal pension not contracted out of SERPS.

  APP means an appropriate personal pension contracted out of SERPS.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue aggregate tax returns from all personal pension providers.

WALES

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of tuberculosis in cattle were reported in each county in each year since 1985. [20551]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Complete information in the form requested is not available and information which is available for the years 1985 to 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The numbers of confirmed cattle tuberculosis breakdowns in each county of Wales in each of the years from 1988 to 1991 were as follows:

  County

  Year(s) in which cases occurred

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Clwyd

  1989

  1

  1

  Dyfed

  1988

  12

  16

  1989

  5

  9

  1990

  8

  21

  1991

  3

  4

  West Glamorgan

  1988

  1

  1

  Gwent

  1989

  1

  4

  Powys

  1989

  1

  1

  In the period 1992–1994 the numbers of confirmed cattle tuberculosis breakdowns in each of the animal health offices' administrative areas were as follows:

  Animal health office area

  Year(s) in which cases occurred

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Dyfed

  1992

  12

  34

  1993

  15

  62

  1994

  38

  188

  Gwent/South, West and Mid Glamorgan

  1992

  3

  3

  1993

  10

  28

  1994

  18

  46

  114

  Animal health office area

  Year(s) in which cases occurred

  Number of herds

  Number of confirmed reactors

  Gwynedd and Clwyd

  1993

  1

  1

  Powys

  1994

  6

  25

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Teschen disease occurred in each year since 1975. [21098]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of Teschen disease have occurred in Wales since 1975.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of African swine fever there have been in each year since 1985. [21064]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of African swine fever have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of vesicular stomatitis occurred in each year since 1985. [21139]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of vesicular stomatitis have occurred in Wales since 1 June 1991. This disease only became notifiable on that date and official records prior to that were not collected, although I am not aware that there has ever been a case of this disease in Great Britain.

  Lougher Estuary
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what land has been purchased on behalf of the Countryside Council for Wales in the Lougher estuary; by whom this land was purchased; for how much; and for what specific purpose this purchase has been made. [21254]

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 29.9 hectares of land, mainly salt marsh, in the Lougher estuary near Lougher, West Glamorgan was bought from the Land Authority for Wales by the Countryside Council for Wales for a nominal sum because it was on offer and is part of the Lougher estuary site of special scientific interest.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made to date on the provision of compensation areas in respect of conservation interests lost by the Cardiff Bay Barrage proposal; and if he will make a statement. [21252]

  Mr. Redwood
  A working group comprising the Countryside Council for Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Land Authority for Wales are currently considering a report on the outcome of studies into suitable sites along the South Wales coastline between the Burry inlet and the Gwent levels.

  Following advice from the working group, I expect to make an announcement about site acquisition shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the estimated actual spending for 1994–95, (b) the standard spending assessment for 1995–96, (c) the amounts by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a), and (d) the percentage by which (b) exceeds or falls short of

  115
  (a) for (i) each district council, (ii) each county council and (iii) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20376]

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on 1994–95 revenue expenditure budgets and 1995–96 SSAs is given in the following table. Outturn expenditure for 1994–95 is not yet available. Budgeted expenditure includes spending financed through the use of reserves and spending about SSAs within capping limits and is not directly comparable with SSAs.

  Local authority estimates of revenue expenditure for 1994–95 and 1995–96 SSAs1

  (a) 1994–95 budget (£000)

  (b) 1995–96 SSA (£000)

  (c) (b)—(a) difference (£000)

  (d) Percentage above SSA

  Alyn and Deeside

  10,937

  10,296

  -641

  -6

  Colwyn

  8,511

  8,520

  9

  0

  Delyn

  14,517

  9,339

  -5,178

  -36

  Glyndwr

  5,972

  5,473

  -499

  -8

  Rhuddlan

  9,073

  8,900

  -173

  -2

  Wrexham Maelor

  17,168

  16,574

  -594

  -3

  Carmarthen

  8,875

  7,869

  -1,006

  -11

  Ceredigion

  10,384

  10,446

  62

  1

  Dinefwr

  5,922

  6,027

  105

  2

  Llanelli

  14,240

  13,294

  -946

  -7

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  12,792

  11,477

  -1,315

  -10

  South Pembrokeshire

  7,741

  8,104

  363

  5

  Blaenau Gwent

  16,674

  15,568

  -1,106

  -7

  Islwyn

  14,654

  11,729

  -2,925

  -20

  Monmouth

  10,654

  9,879

  -775

  -7

  Newport

  23,342

  22,305

  -1,037

  -4

  Torfaen

  14,124

  13,584

  -540

  -4

  Aberconwy

  9,023

  8,609

  -414

  -5

  Arfon

  10,948

  9,890

  -1,058

  -10

  Dwyfor

  7,687

  6,035

  -1,652

  -21

  Meirionnydd

  6,605

  6,187

  -418

  -6

  Ynys Mon

  12,908

  11,242

  -1,666

  13

  Cynon Valley

  14,133

  13,659

  -474

  -3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,243

  12,135

  -108

  -1

  Ogwr

  20,957

  21,279

  322

  2

  Rhondda

  19,589

  17,622

  -1,967

  -10

  Rhymney Valley

  16,038

  15,879

  -159

  -1

  Taff Ely

  15,435

  14,662

  -773

  -5

  Brecknock

  7,615

  6,631

  -984

  -13

  Montgomeryshire

  7,980

  7,679

  -301

  -4

  Radnorshire

  3,348

  3,486

  138

  4

  Cardiff

  47,641

  45,787

  -1,854

  -4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  16,636

  15,063

  -1,573

  -9

  Port Talbot

  16,088

  9,004

  -7,084

  -44

  Lliw Valley

  8,802

  9,039

  237

  3

  Neath

  13,891

  10,389

  -3,502

  -25

  Swansea

  34,450

  32,710

  -1,740

  -5

  Clwyd

  268,390

  266,705

  -1,685

  -1

  Dyfed

  248,209

  241,288

  -6,921

  -3

  Gwent

  294,408

  291,717

  -2,691

  -1

  Gwynedd

  163,718

  160,883

  -2,835

  -2

  Mid Glamorgan

  376,390

  366,613

  -9,777

  -3

  Powys

  90,531

  90,776

  245

  0

  South Glamorgan

  263,775

  268,620

  4,845

  2

  West Glamorgan

  250,163

  241,661

  -8,502

  -3

  Total districts

  507,597

  466,373

  -41,224

  -8

  Total counties

  1,955,584

  1,928,262

  -27,322

  -1

  Total police authorities

  283,256

  315,753

  32,497

  11

  Total Wales

  2,746,437

  2,710,388

  -36,049

  -1

  1 Net revenue expenditure for 1994–95. The figures have been adjusted for the transfer of police services and changes to recoupment to provide comparability with SSAs but have not been adjusted for the transfer of the careers service. 19952013;96 count SSAs include the additional resources for care in the community. 1994–95 expenditure includes £46.3 million funded through the use of reserves and £66.8 million spending above SSA within capping limits. Includes community councils.

  School and University Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relative real term salary increases of teachers and university lecturers. [20929]
  116
  Mr. Richards
  Comparisons between school teacher and lecturer salary increases are not meaningful. Teachers' salaries flow from recommendations of the School Teachers' Review Body. The salaries of lecturers result from negotiations between employers and employee representatives. In recent years the salary movement of both groups has had to take account of Government policy for pay in the public sector. Between April 1979 and April 1994 the average salary of a teacher rose by 60 per cent. in real terms as measured by the new earnings survey. In the same period the average salary of a university academic rose by 27 per cent. in real terms as measured by the new earnings survey.

  Health Service Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the chairs and non-executive directors of each NHS trust board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual and; [21357]

  (2) if he will publish an up-to-date list by region of all the chairs and non-executive members of each health authority, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual. [21360]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales 1 March 1995", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21380]

  Mr. Redwood
  Market testing has been undertaken as part of the "Competing for_ Quality" programme.

  The estimated cost of consultants engaged in this respect from April 1992 to date is £287,600.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of licenced mink farms in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been no licensed mink farms in Wales at any time since 1989.

  European Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European social fund support since privatisation indicating(a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received; [21295]

  (2) if he will list those public projects which received European social fund support and were subsequently privatised over the last 10 years, indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [21294]

  Mr. Redwood
  No such privatised companies in Wales have applied for European social fund support
  117
  since 1990. Information for the years before 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 51, if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European regional development funding since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [20578]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current reported rate of illiteracy; and what were the figures in each of the previous four years. [20695]

  Mr. Richards
  The adult basic skills unit annual report for 1994 looked at those people who lack "basic skills", which are defined as"the ability to read, write, speak, and use mathematics at a level necessary to function and progress at work and in society in general".

  The report does not contain a figure for Wales on its own.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21210]

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of £28,784.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21778]

  Mr. Redwood
  During the period in question my Department, including its executive agency Cadw, appointed seven substantive administrative staff as follows:four administrative officers and two administrative assistants in the September quarter 1993;
  one administrative assistant in the December quarter 1994.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1130, if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter of 28 March 1994 to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [21937]

  Welsh Office funding

  TEC areas

  Programme costs £ millions

  Capital costs £ millions

  Additional contributions to capital costs by TECs and other organisations £ millions

  Gwent

  0.189

  1.556

  0.275

  Mid Glamorgan

  0.214

  1.640

  0.228

  North East Wales

  0.140

  0.705

  0.107

  118
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 February 1995,Official Report, column 124.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received the business case for the highway infrastructure related to the expansion of the University hospital of Wales; if the Eastern avenue east on-slip is expected to be part of that highway infrastructure; and which elements of the University hospital of Wales highway infrastructure package require Treasury approval. [21936]

  Mr. Redwood
  An outline business case for the westbound slip road proposal is being prepared by the University hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust but has not yet been received. The eastbound slip road proposal is included within the outline business case for a multi-storey carpark at the UHW which has received approval to move to the next stage of testing private sector interest in the proposal. Treasury approval would be required for either slip road if, in the event, public funds were needed to progress these developments.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount of public support given to the modern apprentice scheme for Wales and for each county or training area; what proportion was spent by employers, training and enterprise councils and other identifiable groups for the last three available years; and if he will make a statement. [20377]

  Mr. Richards
  A total of £1.285 million was made available in 1994–95 to the seven Welsh TECs to support the introduction of modern apprenticeships. This sum was supplemented by a further £10.262 million for the purchase of capital equipment of which the Welsh TECs and other organisations in both the public and private sectors contributed £1.074 million.

  Alongside this, colleges used some of the funding made available to them by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales—£144.985 million in 1994–95—to support modern apprenticeships.

  The development of modern apprenticeships is fundamental to sustaining the competitive edge that Welsh industry needs to compete in world markets. In 1994–95, the first year of modern apprenticeships, I made manufacturing engineering a priority. In 1995–96, while continuing to give a high priority to manufacturing, I am extending support for modern and accelerated modern apprenticeships to other key occupational areas needed by Welsh businesses. These initiatives will allow for up to 3,400 young people to start apprenticeship training.

  Figures in the following table set out the funding I made available in each of the TEC areas in 1994–95. No figures are available on the amounts spent by employers or other identifiable groups.
  119

  Welsh Office funding

  TEC areas

  Programme costs £ millions

  Capital costs £ millions

  Additional contributions to capital costs by TECs and other organisations £ millions

  North West Wales

  0 171

  1.023

  0 098

  Powys

  0 057

  0 459

  0 029

  South Glamorgan

  0 130

  1.375

  0 157

  West Wales

  0 384

  2 420

  0 180

  Total

  1.285

  9 188

  1.074

  Doctors and Nurses (Languages Spoken)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of doctors practising in Wales who speak(a) Welsh, (b) Punjabi and (c) Urdu; and if he will make a statement; [20920]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of nurses working in Wales who speak (a) Welsh, (b) Punjabi and (c) Urdu; and if he will make a statement. [20921]

  Mr. Richards
  None. This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Cost Improvement Programme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total annual cost improvement programme in the National Health Service provider units in each of the last four years. [21332]

  Mr. Richards
  In the latest available four years, the minimum efficiency savings targets, including cash-releasing cost improvement programmes, set for the NHS in Wales were as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  1.1

  1991–92

  1.1

  1992–93

  1.1

  1993–94

  2.0

  of authorities' recurrent revenue cash allocations. This resulted in cumulative cash releasing savings over the four years of £53 million at 1993–94 prices.

  The minimum efficiency target for 1994–95 was 2.7 per cent., which included a target of 1.3 per cent. for further cash-releasing cost improvement savings—forecast cash savings of £17 million—and 0.45 per cent. or £6 million in respect of savings to be achieved through reductions in management costs. For 1995–96 the minimum efficiency target is 3 per cent., which includes a further £3.25 million cash savings for reductions in management, administrative and clerical costs.

  It is for the health authority to determine in its contracts with service providers how the remaining efficiency target should be split between cash-releasing savings and activity increases generated by increased production.

  Conflicts Of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its
  120
  agencies have declared conflicts of interests; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21401]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department and agencies for which I am responsible deal with any conflicts of interest involving civil servants in accordance with the established guidance. The information requested is not held centrally.

  In the last five years, one special adviser has declared a conflict of interest.

  Falconry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences have been issued in each year since 1988 to possess birds of prey; and what were the numbers of birds of each species held under such licences. [21244]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many permits have been issued to falconers to take protected species of birds as quarry in each year since 1988; what were the species in respect of which such permits were issued; and what were the numbers of each species taken. [21246]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The responsibility for the issue of licences did not devolve to the Welsh Office until 1991. Details of licences issued to take protected species in Wales in the course of falconry for the period 1992–93 are listed in the following table.

  Species

  Number of licenses1

  Birds killed

  1992

  Alauda arvensis

  4

  16

  Anthus pratensis

  —

  1

  1993

  Turdus merula

  3

  16

  1994

  Turdus merula

  5

  8

  Alauda arvensis

  —

  20

  Anthus pratensis

  —

  1

  1995

  Alauda arvensis

  1

  19

  Anthus pratensis

  —

  3

  1 Licenses covered all or some of the named species.

  Turdus merula—Blackbird

  Alauda arvensis—Skylark

  Anthus pratensis—Meadow pipit.

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

The Building Industry
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they are considering to stimulate and assist the house building and construction industries.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government work with these industries on a wide range of initiatives to promote productivity, innovation and competitiveness.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that wide-ranging Answer. There is of course no question at all that an expanded house building programme of properties for rent would benefit the building industry. I wish to concentrate on the latter part of my Question regarding the building industry. There appears to be general agreement among all sections of the building industry that legislation is required for what is known as a construction contracts Bill. I understand that a commission formed by the Government under Sir Michael Latham is now looking at the situation with a view to bringing legislation forward. Is the Minister aware that almost all of those involved in the building industry are asking that such legislation be brought onto the statute book as quickly as possible in order to benefit their ailing industry? Can the Minister give an undertaking as to whether or not that will happen in the near future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be appreciative of the fact that the Government have given their support in principle to legislation. A consultation paper on legislative proposals on liability and latent defects insurance was published on 12th April. One on fair construction contracts—that was mentioned by the noble Lord—should be published shortly. I believe that the Construction Industry Board, which is chaired by Sir Michael Latham, has not stood still in wanting to put his recommendations forward.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that everyone recognises that the house building industry is in a parlous state? Why does the Minister not pick himself and the Government up and say that something will be done for house building, instead of messing about?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, construction output increased by 3 per cent, last year after three and a half years of decline. New orders held up well during the strong resurgence in 1993. I believe that some readjustment would be expected as construction emerges from recession. Public sector capital spending was high during the recession, boosted by government measures,
1200
and stood at record levels for three years. With recovery it is right, I believe, that private investment should rise to take its place.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that completions of houses in 1994 were still some 30,000 below the figure that was achieved in 1979? Is not the fact of the matter that the Government are afraid of bringing supply and demand for housing into better balance because that might depress the value of existing houses and create further difficulties in the mortgage field?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it depends on which measure one wants to judge these matters. However, the homelessness and bed and breakfast figures continue to fall. New lettings funded by the Housing Corporation plus new lettings provided by local authority investment should provide around 180,000 homes over the next three years. That is a substantial contribution to tackling housing need in the areas where it is greatest.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount indicate whether the Government are concerned about the results of the previous housing condition survey which showed the poor state of a large proportion of the houses in this country? Are not houses and buildings part of the national capital asset and will the noble Viscount indicate what the Government propose doing about making their condition better?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I think that any survey which indicates such measures not only has to be looked at very carefully, but also the measures on which that survey is based. By no means do I believe that the conditions outlined by the survey indicate that the housing is not fit for human habitation. But certainly the construction industry and the Government are aware of that. They are putting large sums of money into insulation projects so as to make homes, especially for elderly and disabled people, more comfortable to live in.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept—as it is universally accepted by everyone involved in housing—that there is a drastic shortage of affordable housing for the many thousands of people who are languishing on waiting lists because they do not earn enough and do not qualify for benefits? The housing corporations cannot supply their needs because they have to charge market rents; and local authorities cannot supply their needs because the Government will not release their money. Who, then, will build the affordable houses that everyone knows is the greatest need at present?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is why the balance of our housing programmes has shifted more towards low-cost home ownership schemes. It is not right to say that that harms the house building industry or fails to tackle housing needs. Grants to tenants to buy homes in the private sector creates additional demand that helps the house building industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has just mentioned figures projecting 180,000 completions over the next three years. Will he confirm that the target for completions in the first three years of this

1201
Parliament was 153,000 but the actual number completed was only 87,000? Under those circumstances what credence can we give to his present forecasts?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not satisfied that the noble Lord is equating like with like. However, I believe that the fundings, the lettings and the completions, together with the new lettings provided by local authorities, should provide 180,000 homes. As I indicated, the homeless and bed and breakfast figures continue to fall. We should pay great regard to that indication.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Government have failed to be helpful to the Aelwyd Housing Association in Wales, upon which many people depend for new housing at this time. Why is that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me little indication of how the Government have failed to be helpful.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if I do that it will take me a long time. However, I shall write to the noble Viscount, and I hope that he will turn out to be more helpful than the Government have been in the past.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should be grateful to the noble Lord for more information, and of course I shall write back to him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to the second part of my supplementary question concerning the building industry, the Minister gave a rather broad answer about the present situation which is not in accord with what I read is happening in the building industry at present. Is he aware that between 400,000 and 500,000 building operatives are still unemployed? Is he also aware that there is a perceptible downturn in building activity almost across the board? Will the Government take that on board and do something to arrest that decline?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that employment in the construction industry has declined. However, I am glad to say that that decline stopped last year. In addition, we have seen considerable productivity improvements, which typically run at about 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per annum. Therefore, the construction industry is very well placed to take advantage of the fact that the economy is being well run at present.

British Banknotes and Coins
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration is being given to balancing the preponderance of coins in British currency by the introduction of a £2 or £3 note.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the issue of banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank of
1202
England. The Bank has no plans to introduce a £2 or £3 bank note. However, the Royal Mint has recently carried out a public consultation exercise about the possibility of introducing a circulating £2 coin. The results are being evaluated but no decision has been taken.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is— of the strong popularity of the Scottish £1 note and the support in the United States for retaining the US dollar bill? Is not the Royal Mint a little out of touch in ignoring that support? How widely will the Royal Mint consult when considering this type of question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in its consultation document the Royal Mint consulted major users and handlers of coins, such as the vending industry, banks and the retail industry, as well as special interest groups such as blind people and the elderly.
Dealing with my noble friend's first point about Scottish banknotes, one Scottish bank still issues £1 notes; but I had better not name it in case that is seen to be advertising the bank against its competitors. Yesterday I took a straw poll in Scotland. I am not entirely sure whether people are not gradually coming to see the advantage of the coin over what can be, increasingly, a grubby £1 note.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, may I invite the Minister to urge on the Government the need to replace entirely our deplorable coinage? They could not do better than imitate the Swiss coinage. It is the most perfect coinage in the world, all graded, and all round as good coins should be. The largest coin, no bigger than our 50 pence piece, is worth between £2 and £3.
If the Minister is prepared to consider such changes, I can provide him with a complete set of the Swiss coinage. I shall be glad to donate it free of charge for that purpose.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not so sure that I should accept that offer of the Swiss coinage! However, I have little doubt that the Royal Mint will listen with interest to that point. With its specific shape, the 50 pence coin is one of the items on which the Royal Mint is consulting. However, the shape of coins is important for special groups such as the blind, who need to be able to identify the coin they are handling by the feel of it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if the coinage is to be looked at, and if we are to add a £2 coin, should we not eliminate some coins which cause trouble? My particular bête noire is the 5p. coin. It is so small that it becomes lost in the recesses of my pockets. For that to occur may be useful to HMG, but it is not very productive for me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one does not wish the coins to be too large or too heavy. Certainly the 5p. coin obeys both those conditions.
Interestingly enough—perhaps I may jolt some of your Lordships' memories—when we moved to decimal coinage, there were eight coin denominations ranging from the halfpenny to half-a-crown. We currently have only seven coins, so we have lost one in the process of decimalisation.

Baby Milks: Promotion Restrictions
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to control the promotion of artificial milk products for bottle feeding babies in NHS hospitals and the health service generally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the advertising and promotion of baby milks are restricted by the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations which came into force on 1st March 1995.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does the Minister agree with all the healthcare authorities in this country that breast feeding is infinitely superior to bottle feeding both for mothers and for babies? Is she not alarmed that the rates of breast feeding in this country are falling? Is that not because the voluntary code embodied in the latest regulations failed to stop the promotional advantage of the manufacturers of bottle feeding products over our own health service? Is she aware that the manufacturers' association admitted in a letter to me a few days ago that it is spending £4 million to £5 million a year on promoting those infant formulae, whereas the Government are spending less than £130,000 a year?
Will the Government not listen to such authorities as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and 40 other healthcare professional bodies and ban the advertising and promotion of those products in the health service and healthcare centres?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with the noble Baroness that breast is best; and we try to encourage women to feed their babies from the breast. However, the new regulations that have been introduced in fact put into legislation an agreement that has been running for over 10 years. Indeed, the instance of women breast feeding has not fallen. It has been about the same over the past decade at 63 per cent. If one considers how the lifestyle of many women has changed, I believe that that is good progress.
Nevertheless, the Government will invest more heavily in the campaign. From 22nd May to 26th May we have a sponsored national breast feeding awareness week; we have set up the national breast feeding working group; we shall be investing £50,000 in a training programme; and we support the three voluntary groups in this area which do so much to promote this very good cause.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chairman of the Royal Free Hospital Hampstead NHS Trust. Is the noble Baroness aware that we have appointed a second breast feeding adviser? Many women require encouragement, in particular at the beginning if breast feeding is difficult. Will she confirm that that kind of practice is desirable in hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend runs an extremely good NHS trust. I would expect her to take up this cause, as she has. I believe that
1204
she is absolutely right. What women need is consistency of advice. To have two workers advising women in this field is an excellent idea.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in December 1993 the Government issued draft regulations on infant formula milk advertising which followed the guidance of the WHO and the European directive and restricted advertising solely to professionals concerned with infant feeding. Why did the Government later change their mind? The present regulations allow advertising to mothers through the healthcare system, thus giving the advertisements a spurious professional authenticity.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the situation has not changed. We supported the adoption of the code by the World Health Assembly in 1981. That recommended a basis for action in member states. It was left to individual countries to decide how to give effect to those aims and principles in their own territories. We have never given a commitment to transpose every jot and tittle of the WHO code into UK law. We believe that the regulations strike the right balance. They reflect our commitment to promote breast feeding and to deregulation where appropriate. Nothing has changed. All we have done is to ensure that the voluntary code, which has been operational for 11 years, is now enshrined in legislation in line with the WHO principles.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it may be better to allow women to choose for themselves how their infants should be fed? Perhaps women know best.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we very much support the view that it is up to women to make their own decisions. However, we also want to promote breast feeding where that is appropriate.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: No one is suggesting that women should be prevented or prohibited from using bottle feeding formulae if they so choose. We object to women being submitted to promotional pressure by those with vested interests in bottle feeding at the most vulnerable times for women—in the maternity wards, the health clinics and the healthcare centres. Is such pressure not a disgrace? Is the Minister aware that five European countries have introduced the ban advocated by the World Health Organisation with very beneficial results? The result in Norway, for instance, was that breast feeding rates rose to 99 per cent. on a free choice basis.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not think that women are silly. I believe that they know what is best for themselves, their babies and, indeed, their families. The new regulations ban all forms of general advertising and promotion of infant formulae to the public at large. Advertisements are permitted only in publications specialising in baby care and distributed through the healthcare system or in scientific and trade journals. Those advertisements are not seen by the general public. The content and presentation of all the advertisements are tightly controlled by the regulations.
I do not believe that there is a huge issue here. We are simply doing what has been done for 11 years. However, we are putting more effort and investment into promoting

1205
breast feeding because we recognise that it is better for mothers and their babies. But in the end it is up to women to make the choice.

Turkey: Human Rights
2.59 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask the chairman-in-office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to call the attention of the OSCE Permanent Council to the violations of the Budapest Declaration in the emergency region of Turkey.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the chairman-in-office is aware of the shortcomings in Turkey's human rights performance. We understand an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation is visiting Turkey this week.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that the Budapest Declaration stated that armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians and their property, and that they will not limit the peaceful and lawful exercise of their human and civil rights by persons, nor deprive them of their cultural or linguistic identity? Is not the fact that 2 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes in the south-east of Turkey, and something like 2,000 villages and hamlets have been demolished, a large violation of the Budapest Declaration? In the case of Chechnya, the OSCE undertook two missions to the territory and subsequently stationed a permanent mission in Grozny. Does the noble Baroness therefore consider that a mission to the south-east of Turkey is justified, and that a permanent mission should be stationed in the capital of Diyarbakir?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand exactly what is in the Budapest Declaration. I have it here and read it again this morning. On the noble Lord's point, as I said in my initial reply, we understand that there are major problems. However, through the OSCE Permanent Council there is a multilateral forum in which we wish Turkey to continue to participate.
The noble Lord is also right that the chairman-in-office, a Hungarian by birth, has done excellent work on Chechnya. Obviously, he exercised a little political judgment. That work is now also continuing for Turkey, and I am delighted that the Turks will receive a visit by the OSCE parliamentary assembly delegation next month. I am certain that we shall hear a great deal more of it because the work is being carried out thoroughly by chairman Kovacs.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that membership of the CSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union all entail respect for the rule of law? Whatever else that may require, it is inconsistent with persecuting lawyers simply because they appear for clients of whom the government disapprove. Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear
1206
to Turkey that it will not be acceptable as a full member of the European community of nations until it discontinues that practice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question is yes. We have taken every opportunity to make known to the Turkish Government our anxiety over their human rights performance overall. We have emphasised time and time again the need for improvement. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has reiterated its deep concern about human rights in Turkey. It has called for Turkey to bring its constitutional laws into line with the Council of Europe's standards. We know full well that the European Parliament will not agree to various proposals until Turkey puts its house in order. Therefore, all those bodies are working on the subject.
However, we should always remember one point: the closer Turkey is to western institutions, the better locus we have to put across our anxiety on human rights and the rule of law, and the more influence we can bring to bear. That is most important. Of course, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the persecution of lawyers—and not just persecution but even the killing of some lawyers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that the Turkish Government are able to quote in their own defence the outrageous breach of the Budapest Declaration by President Yeltsin against Grozny which happened seven days later?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Indeed, my Lords; not for the first time I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that on the recent inaugural broadcast of the Kurdish satellite television programme in which I took part, I was able to hold a broadcast telephone conversation with Mr. Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, the so-called separatist terrorist organisation? He stated that he was willing to lay down his arms at any time if the Turkish Government would do the same, in order to start talks with an open agenda. Can we persuade the Turkish authorities—to use an old adage—that jaw-jaw is better than war-war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, had appeared on that programme with Mr. Ocalan. I agree that if that were all that Mr. Ocalan said or did—that is, jaw-jaw rather than war-war—it would be better. However, the PKK leader has undoubtedly been involved in things that are a long way from jaw-jaw and much more like war-war. That is why there is objection to him. It is also why there is great anxiety that any broadcasts made with people like him should be made in the interests of restoring human rights and the rule of law and getting away from the terrible fighting that we have seen in Turkey.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the ideal approach being to bring the Turks into the western arena. Does she accept that since 1974 that has failed? What has resulted is an intransigence on the part of the Turkish authorities and the Turkish

1207
Government, preventing any real attempt at a solution. Is it not time that the United Kingdom Government changed their mind about their own approach?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. What I said some moments ago is important. We need to have Turkey within the sphere of western influence if we are to put across our concerns and if we are to achieve change. I have no doubt that the best approach to Turkey is dialogue. That dialogue needs to be carried on at all levels. It may not succeed and we may have grave problems with it; but I see a situation in Turkey with a government with a narrow power base where it is sometimes difficult to achieve the kind of democracy that we in this country are used to.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept the desirability of trying to keep Turkey within the sphere of western influence, and of course the desirability of dialogue. Nevertheless, will the Minister agree that until Turkey complies with international law—which it has certainly failed to do with respect to its invasion of northern Iraq—and until it improves its human rights record, in particular regarding the Kurds, it is premature for Turkey to enter a customs union with other member countries of the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. We know that the incursion into northern Iraq was aimed at destroying the PKK capability to mount attacks against Turkey. But there is no doubt that the non-combatants in the region should not have been affected. It seems that they certainly have been. However, troops are withdrawing and that is a substantial step in the right direction—not before time. We look to the Turks to abide by their undertaking to withdraw fully at the earliest opportunity. Until that happens, and until there is an improvement in the way in which the Turkish Government operate the rule of law, I do not believe that the customs union will come about. That is important for us and is certainly important in influencing that government's better relationships with their own people.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, the Minister quoted from the decision of the Council of Europe last week. Are the Government fully in accord with that decision and all the clauses of the resolution?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would be foolish to say that the Government agreed with every single word; but certainly as to the general tenor of it, I can assure the noble Baroness that the answer is yes.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [After-care under supervision]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 10, leave out ("is liable to be") and insert ("has been").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and I believe it would be convenient to take with it Amendment No. 2, also in my name. Those and the several other amendments to which I have put my name on the Marshalled List have been put forward by the Federation of National Health Service Trusts, of which the trust of which I have the honour to be chairman is a member.
I begin by apologising to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the House for tabling amendments so late in the day. I am warmly in support of this piece of legislation and had every confidence in my noble friend's ability to steer it through the House. It did not seem that it required any assistance from me in the earlier stages.
I approach the Bill from the point of view of those who will have to operate the new provisions in Forest Health Care Trust. I insisted that the Christopher Clunis report should be read by every single member of the staff who had anything to do with the care of mentally ill patients, whether in hospital or in the community. There is no doubt that many of the lessons from that report have been learnt. Based on that case and a number of others, we have the provision for a supervised community care order which forms the heart of the Bill. Therefore I have no quarrel with the substance.
The amendments that I tabled last week have only one purpose; namely, to address what those who are out in the field and who have to operate the legislation see as difficulties, indeed anomalies, in the wording of the Bill. It is my hope that simpler and clearer wording will ensure that the responsibilities, in some cases quite heavy, imposed by the Bill on the statutory agencies and the individual professionals involved are more easily understood and therefore better fulfilled.
Like other noble Lords, I found the Notes on Clauses which the Government made available to the House extremely helpful. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the first two paragraphs. The first, under the heading "Summary", states:
"Clause 1 introduces eight new sections to follow section 25 of the Mental Health Act 1983 … These provide a new legal framework for supervising the after-care in the community of certain patients"—
and I draw attention to the next few words—
"who have previously been detained in hospital for treatment under the 1983 Act, and who are considered to need this form of supervision to help to ensure that they receive the necessary care and support".
Paragraph 2 states:
"Clause 1 introduces into the 1983 Act a new concept of after-care under supervision to be available for people with a mental disorder who have left hospital after being detained under the 1983 Act".
I therefore find it very puzzling that, in referring to this matter at the outset, the Bill refers to patients who are,
"liable to be detained in a hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for treatment".

1209
That is why the amendment that I have tabled reflects, I believe, more accurately the intention of the Bill; namely, it relates to patients who have been detained. Instead of having an "application" for admission, the Bill could simply refer to an "order" for treatment. For the life of me I cannot understand why one has to go into all this hypothetical business about dealing with patients who are liable to be detained.
It is clear, is it not, that the provisions of this Bill apply only to aftercare under supervision for those who have been detained. If that is the case, why should not Clause 1 (1) of the Bill actually say so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the amendments tabled by my noble friend, they seek to address what professionals have advised him are anomalies in the Bill. My noble friend wishes to emphasise that aftercare under supervision depends on the operation of Section 117 of the Act, and I understand that he has been advised that this applies only to patients who have actually been detained, as opposed to those who are liable to be detained. As I understand it, my noble friend wishes to change the definition of eligible patients to reflect this.
These amendments would allow the application to be made only after the patient had ceased to be detained. It is a basic principle in the Bill that the application is made while the patient is still detained or liable to be detained so that aftercare under supervision can take over from detention without a break. In practice, a patient may remain in hospital informally after the application has been accepted, but if he or she then leaves, supervision immediately comes into force.
The term "liable to be detained" is needed so that the definition includes detained patients who are on leave of absence, as well as those who are actually detained in hospital. Section 117 aftercare does in fact apply to those who are on leave of absence. That is made clear in the Mental Health Act code of practice. We wish to ensure that someone who is on leave of absence may be made subject to aftercare under supervision when their period of liability to detention ends.
It is very unlikely that anyone who is liable to be detained will not actually have been detained at some time. Even if there were such people, paragraph (b) would limit the scope to those who had actually been detained because the application could be made only if the patient was entitled to receive aftercare services under Section 117.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to formalise aftercare services for the most immediately vulnerable patients—those who have been recently detained because of the severity of their mental condition and those who, on discharge, must receive aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I believe that my noble friend and I are at one in ensuring that all those who are entitled to Section 117 aftercare receive it. Health and social services authorities have a duty to provide aftercare services to those who have been detained or who are liable to be detained under Sections 3, 37, 47 or 48 of the Act.
1210
The Bill as drafted will ensure that those patients who are eligible for aftercare under supervision will receive the necessary services provided the criteria are met.
I can assure my noble friend that the Bill as drafted secures what he hopes to achieve. If these amendments are pressed it could lead to some unfortunate and unintentional results. I therefore ask him to reconsider his amendments in the light of my explanation.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very full explanation. In the course of her reply she used the phrase,
"who have been detained or who are liable to be detained".
If the Bill stated that, it would meet my case absolutely. I wonder whether between now and Third Reading my noble friend would consider whether, given the notes that I quoted, it could be made perfectly clear that this clause applies only to patients who have been in hospital and it does not apply to somebody who has not been detained—though I take the point about those who may be about to be detained and for whom the order needs to be considered. If it referred to patients who "have been detained or are liable to be detained", that would make it abundantly clear to those who have to operate the legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, as with all mental health legislation it is a matter of enormous concern to everybody involved that they follow the legislation meticulously. There is plenty of litigation if they do not. I hope that perhaps my noble friend might be prepared to consider that point before the final stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 5, after ("suffering") insert ("or has suffered").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 and my later amendment arise from questions raised by a leading psychiatrist based at a well-known hospital and dealing particularly with schizophrenia. These questions arrived after Committee stage. As we know, this Bill was brought forward quickly and obtained a place in the legislative Session. I was glad about that, but it meant that some of those working in the field were not able to comment at the early stages. These questions also reflect queries from some of his colleagues. I have been able to reply to him on some of the points, which were anyway answered by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in Committee.
The intention of the Bill is to provide care and supervision for the mentally ill who become incapable of rational actions, cannot look after themselves and may also be dangerous to themselves and others. As it stands, the wording is "is suffering from mental disorder". It does not appear to take into account the ups and downs of mental illness, especially with schizophrenia. A sufferer may have days or weeks in a good state but could then have a serious relapse and indeed he may have a history of relapses. There could be substantial risk if such a patient on discharge from hospital could not be placed under a supervision order.
I am encouraged by the Government's acceptance recently in another place of an amendment on the Disability Discrimination Bill. In that Bill the definition of disabled people includes someone who has suffered from mental illness. That appears to recognise the point that I am making.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point in another way. Several days ago a television programme was presented by Marjorie Wallace, who has campaigned for understanding and suitable and sensible treatment for mental illness. About 10 years ago in your Lordships' House I drew attention to the excellent series of articles on the subject written by her and published in The Times. In that well constructed television programme appeared Mr. Ben Silcock, who had jumped into the lions' enclosure at the zoo. He testified personally to the varying conditions of his schizophrenia and how he could be normal for periods and then have dark periods of insanity which caused him to perform crazy and dangerous acts, such as his escapade at the zoo. After all, that is the origin of the word "schizophrenia". It refers not so much to a split personality as to changing moods, impulses and conduct at different times.
Therefore, I hope that in her reply my noble friend will be able to indicate whether the Bill as now drafted will cater for those situations or whether it needs to be altered.
I hope that the House will not be surprised to see me sitting with my leg up on the Bench and not consider that I am being casual or in any way disrespectful to the House. I should explain that at the end of last week a thrombosis was diagnosed in a disabled leg, for which I am being treated and on medication. I am supposed to keep the leg horizontal as much as possible. I am sure that those in the medical profession will understand what that means. I am trying to obey doctor's orders, unlike some of the mental patients whom we are considering. Over the weekend, my doctors in Scotland, rather than forbidding me to come to your Lordships' House, encouraged me to come when they heard that I would be speaking again on this Bill. But they requested me to observe their advice about the position of the leg. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very sorry that my noble friend suffered a thrombosis. I wish him a very speedy recovery. As I understand his wishes, he is anxious to broaden the scope of the aftercare under supervision to include those patients who have suffered from one of the forms of mental disorder which are set out at new Section 25A(4) (a). That would mean patients who are no longer adjudged to be mentally disordered at the time of the application. I appreciate that it would still mean that the other conditions of new Section 25A(4) would have to be satisfied before the supervision application could be accepted.
My noble friend drew a correlation with the disability Bill which is currently in another place. That Bill brings in provisions whereby disability for the purposes of protection against employment discrimination would include forms of mental impairment, including severe mental illness such as schizophrenia.
1212
The impairment in this context would have to have a long-term daily substantial effect on the ability to carry out normal activities. There is, I believe, no intention of including those who are deemed to have suffered from, say, schizophrenia in the past. Nor is that our intention under this legislation.
My noble friend's amendment would conflict with a basic principle of the 1983 Act. The existing compulsory powers of the Act—detention in hospital or a nursing home; and guardianship—are employed only while someone is suffering from a mental disorder, and the patient has basic rights to have the case reviewed by a mental health review tribunal, which will need to be satisfied that the basic criteria for the use of the power is met. We propose the same regime for aftercare under supervision. Indeed, to do otherwise would risk contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.
I should also point out that the threshold for receiving aftercare under supervision is different from that to being detained in hospital. Under the present Bill the patient's mental disorder does not have to be of a nature or degree justifying his or her detention. So we are already making the new power available to a wider group of patients, but we think it would be going too far to extend it to people who currently are not suffering from mental illness at all.
Perhaps I may add that the Bill was based on proposals which were published in August 1993 and were the subject of wide consultation. Full account was taken of the comments made. In the light of those remarks, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for such a full reply, which I shall convey to those who have raised this matter. I hope that there will be adequate arrangements in the final legislation for relapses where sufferers from mental illness, particularly schizophrenics, seem perfectly normal but then have one of their really dark periods. I am grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, a person to whom a duty is owed under section 117 below shall be deemed vulnerable as a result of mental illness under section 59(1) (c) of the Housing Act 1985 (Priority need for accommodation).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the importance of this amendment cannot be underestimated. In terms of the need to have an acceptable package which will provide an environment in which someone can have the right to care and treatment, housing is an integral part. Because of the nature of the illness involved, the normal housing priority considerations may well not apply. It may well be that the individual concerned is not without a roof over his (or her) head. He or she may well have a room in a home with other members of the family, but it may be singularly inappropriate in the view of those considering the care package for that accommodation to be taken up.
Given the shortage of housing and the difficulty of finding it, it is critically important for that category of people—I cannot say how many are involved; perhaps at this stage I could press the Minister to be a little more specific about the numbers that the Government envisage might be involved with this legislation—that proper housing is part of the care package. Therefore, it is also critically important that a patient should be deemed to be, absolutely beyond any kind of argument, a priority need in terms of housing availability. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend, who mentioned all the principles that lie behind the amendment. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to one specific case which came to my notice after we debated this amendment at Committee stage. I hold in my hand the report of an independent panel of inquiry to the City of Westminster, the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authorities and the North West London Mental Health Trust on the case of a mother and son, Ellen and Alan Boland, both of whom died.
I draw your Lordships' attention to this case because it illustrates clearly the points made by my noble friend about how inadequate housing may exacerbate the mental health problems of an individual. Mr. Alan Boland, one of the people who were the subject of the inquiry, was under the care of the local health authorities and attending a day hospital for his mental condition. He lived jointly with his mother, Ellen Boland, in a council flat. His relationship with his mother was particularly difficult and the people looking after him said that it seriously exacerbated his mental condition. Unfortunately, he later murdered his mother and six months ago committed suicide in Wandsworth Prison.
The problem as it relates to this amendment was that although his medical carers and the social services involved in his case applied several times—I imagine they made dramatic pleas given the circumstances and the final outcome —for him to be rehoused, the report states that,
"There was a considerable lack of urgency about his particular case. There was a lack of understanding by officers in charge of the housing of the exact nature of his problem".
Alan Boland was described in the report as having been a "cipher" on the housing list.
When the report was published various practical recommendations were made and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall quote them in a little detail. They fulfil some of the criteria which, at Committee stage, the Minister suggested would be good practice at local level. For example, one recommendation said:
"The Westminster Housing Department and its medical adviser, together with the medical practitioners and health authorities in the borough, should establish a formal mechanism through which they develop and keep under review the medical criteria and application procedures for obtaining priority housing on medical grounds".
The policy and procedures group, which arose from another recommendation of the housing department,
"should improve the scope and quality of the advice it provides to housing officers on how to implement policies and on the procedure that the group lays down. The housing department should examine the
1214
nature and location of the guidance given by senior managers to junior housing officers in cases of particular complexity. The housing department should, as part of service development, examine its procedures, publications, standard letters and other communications to ensure that they are clear, comprehensive and comprehensible".
If all those recommendations are accepted by the local authorities concerned, they will become an outstanding example of good practice. I refer your Lordships to the Minister's response to a similar amendment at Committee stage where, at col. 165 of the Official Report on 4th April, she said that it must be for local agencies to determine priorities. My concern is that if every local agency must suffer a tragedy similar to that I described, which happened close to our doors here in central London, it would be much more sensible for the legislation to be drafted in such a way that it establishes the vulnerability of people who are under these orders so that they become, automatically, priorities of local housing agencies and the difficulties of which I spoke are not likely to arise. I am reminded of the arguments that we rehearsed some 10 years ago in relation to the question of children on "at risk" registers when we argued that it was awful if every local authority had to suffer some individual tragedy which then had to be the subject of a public inquiry before national guidelines were set.
When replying to a similar amendment at Committee stage, the Minister said that not all people under the terms of the Housing Act and the terms of my noble friend's amendment, would be described as "vulnerable". I have been advised that that cannot be the case; that anybody who comes under one of the supervision orders must be vulnerable within the meaning of the Act and therefore would be suitable for this treatment. For those reasons I support the amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend. Whatever the technicalities, when one talks to people or reads the tabloids and more popular newspapers an impression is given that people are being released from hospitals to roam around the streets and that they are liable to cause great harm.
The Minister may deny that, but that is essentially the impression that most people have; that under care in the community something has slipped. It is felt that these people are either homeless or not being placed in homes where they are looked after. That impression will not go away unless something specific and clear is done about the housing of vulnerable people. That is why I say that it is in the interests of us all to do something that is clear and noticeable.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this amendment brings this specific client group into a special category. Social services and the health authorities are already working at maximum priority. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring housing up to that level of priority.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand it, noble Lords opposite are seeking to reintroduce an amendment which was proposed at Committee stage but are now suggesting that it should appear in a different part of the Bill. I am not clear about the significance of this repositioning, but I believe the effect would be the same;

1215
that is, to introduce a provision whereby all patients entitled to receive services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act will be deemed vulnerable under the Housing Act 1985, whether or not they are subject to supervised discharge.
The consultation arrangements we have built into this Bill, its emphasis on inter-agency co-operation and communication, and the importance it attaches to care planning must mean that accommodation will rate highly in the considerations of all concerned. As I said when this was last discussed, it is for local agencies to decide where their housing priorities lie and we do not think it necessary or desirable to give all previously detained patients blanket vulnerability status in law.
The new power established by this Bill is rooted in Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 which places a clear obligation on health and local authorities to provide for the aftercare services the patient needs. It would clearly be inconsistent with this not to ensure that the patient had an acceptable place in which to live.
Housing needs will be considered as part of the initial assessment and housing placements will relate to the total care plan. The suitability of this housing placement will, of course, be kept under review as part of the regular review of the aftercare services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked how many people would be covered by the Bill once it is enacted. The numbers will depend very much on how it is used. Our best estimate at present is around 3,000 people a year. We accept that the housing authorities have a key part to play. We believe that that is best covered by co-operation between the health authorities, social services and the housing departments rather than by a statutory requirement. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but must express disappointment. Her reply indicates a failure by the Government to recognise the pressures that exist on the limited availability of housing throughout the country and the vulnerability of this group of people. I feel therefore that I should test the opinion of the House.
3.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Banks, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dubs, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkender, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gallacher, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

David, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

1216

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Peston, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Haskel, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tope, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nelson, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Northfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Aldington, L.

Gray, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Astor, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Blyth, L.

Hogg, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.[Teller.]

Bruntisfield, L.

Ironside, L.

Burnham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kitchener, E.

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsay, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chesham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Long, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lucas, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McConnell, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Crawshaw, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Manchester, D.

Davidson, V.

Manton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mersey, V.

Downshire, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundonald, E.

Milverton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Munster, E.

Foley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

1217

Newall, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northesk, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Swansea, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinfen, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swinton, E.

Peel, E.

Terrington, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Teynham, L.

Rathcaven, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thurlow, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Richardson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sharples, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) The Health Authority and Social Services Authority shall, in providing after-care services, indicate how they propose to deal with the matters listed in section 117 and Schedule I below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5,1 wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 16. These amendments deal with the importance of the process whereby the care package which is deemed to be suitable is agreed and is checked for resourcing to be fully in place. In Committee and earlier this afternoon the Minister spoke about the importance of the process of working together. It is critically important that that process is set out and embedded in the legislation in order to ensure that all parties—all those with a role to play—dealing with this particularly vulnerable group of people have all the component parts of the care package in place to the professional satisfaction of those involved in the process of determining the care package. It is therefore vitally important that there is an explicit indication from the health authority and the social services authority in providing those services how they intend to deal with matters listed in Clause 117 and Schedule 1.
It is critically important for those with a professional responsibility who must exercise judgment in this critical and potentially dangerous situation that there is an opportunity for them to exercise that professional judgment, as Amendment No. 6 states, by incorporating and including the opportunity to refuse such a package as being inappropriate. It must also surely be the case that a health authority or social services authority should have the right to refuse a supervision order if it deems it to be impossible for it—that is, the authority—to meet the terms of that order in a way that it feels is professionally satisfactory.
Finally, the importance of Amendment No. 16 is that it stresses that the services must be available. It is not satisfactory when dealing with a very vulnerable group
1218
of people to say that the services in the package would be identified as satisfactory but that they are not fully available at all times to meet in full and in every way the needs that have been defined.
This is such a critical area that it is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the background to the legislation is what has happened when things go wrong and tragedy occurs and when there is a failure on the part of those who are supposed to be involved in the process of looking to the needs of both the patient and the community. It is therefore obvious that it is essential that all those professional components come together to the satisfaction of the authorities involved.
The Minister referred at previous stages to the consultation process and said that there will be consultation. All of us who have been involved in political and public life are aware that consultation can take a variety of forms. Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I refer now to the fact that the consultation through discussion which has been pioneered at earlier stages of the passage of legislation is a good example. We have also in public and political life come across consultation with other parties which has taken the form of the delivery of a statement of intent with a request for comments, which are then duly noted, although the original intent is carried out without further to-do. In cases involving such a vulnerable group of people, it is critically important that that process does not occur. It is critically important that the process involves working together to mutual satisfaction to ensure that the package that is put in place will be effective, that it will be monitored and that it will meet the challenges. That is why this group of amendments deserves support. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend in this amendment. The Government should welcome this group of amendments because they put teeth into the aftercare package which should form part of a supervision order.
The amendment counters a criticism that has been made of the Bill—that the Bill substitutes an authoritarian legalistic measure for the proper care in the community which many people feel is the real thing that is lacking. If there was proper care in the community, the tragedies that we have seen would be less likely to occur. The amendments would ensure that a working package was put in place so that patients who were discharged would not feel lost but would know what was going to happen. The amendments would also ensure that the people who were going to help would know what their duties were.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should like to support Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 in particular. Without the provisos of those amendments, it is impossible to ask either the health authorities or the social services authorities to take on a responsibility which, willy-nilly, they will have to fulfil without the right to say, "We do not happen to have available the service that is required for that patient. We must refuse to accept him for the moment until we can organise being able to receive him into the community". Nothing

1219
would be more dangerous for a mental health patient than to be let out into the community without adequate provisions being made for his care.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment on the ground that it helps health authorities which are in the lead position in relation to the Bill. Anything that can be done to give power to the elbow of health authorities in their consultations and discussions with local authorities seems to me to deserve support. I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is proverbial that the impossible takes a little longer but, like most good jokes, it became a good joke because the real situation that it describes is not quite so funny. A lot of people have done on occasion what appeared to be impossible, but if one sets out to do the impossible, it must be a precondition that one has nothing else that one has to do. The trouble is that when an obligation is placed on an authority which has very scant resources or perhaps no services in place at all, the attempt to do the impossible must lead to the neglect of something else. We do not know what that something else might be. It might turn out to be something equally urgent or serious.
I have noticed over the past few years an increasing tendency, especially when dealing with local authorities, to deal with the question of shortage of resources by placing more and more stringent obligations on those local authorities in the hope of bumping up to the top of the queue whatever issue we are dealing with. It is beginning to be a bit like a rush to escape from a fire—and if we are not careful, it may end up the same as a rush to escape from a fire, with everybody falling over each other and a great deal more damage being done than need have been done. That is why I support this group of amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 5. I believe that a detailed statement to prove that all the negotiations that should have taken place have taken place would be useful because I suspect that many of the authorities are still not very good at co-operating with each other.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, most of these amendments were discussed in Committee and, as your Lordships are aware, the Government resisted them then. Although we have considered carefully the points that were made during that debate, we remain of our original view.
Section 117 ensures that the services will be specified because the detailed care plan drawn up by the multi-disciplinary team has to be attached to the application. There is nothing to be gained by insisting that the health and social services authorities repeat what is already in the care plan. As I have already explained, the Bill already allows that the health authority can refuse an application. Consultation with the local social services department will already have taken place before the application is made as part of the discussion with the care team whose duty it is to provide for the patient's care after he or she leaves hospital. The care plan must have been agreed by the local authority's representatives as far as it relates to the social care element. This is
1220
backed up by the requirement on the health authority to consult the local authority before it accepts the application.
We have already made it clear in the department's guidance to health and local authorities that the services required under Section 117 of the Act should be provided and organised in accordance with the care programme approach. The fact that the Bill defines aftercare under supervision by reference to the Section 117 duties should therefore ensure that the care programme approach is followed.
However, the care programme approach is not a statutory arrangement and we think there would be a risk of confusion if we tried to bring it more explicitly into the Bill. The form to which Amendment No. 16 refers is, we think, the aftercare check list which we have recently circulated to health and local authorities. The trouble about including this in the Bill is that its status is only advisory, so if an authority was using a different form the amendment would make it impossible for it to operate aftercare under supervision.
During the Committee stage noble Lords opposite pressed me on what would happen if the health authority rejected the application as they have done today, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The simple answer is that it would be "back to the drawing board". The patient would either remain in hospital if his or her period of detention had not yet expired or, if it had, he would be free to leave. If, however, the responsible medical officer in undertaking the necessary risk assessment before discharge, decided it would not be safe to release the patient then he or she would be detained once more. If the patient were discharged there would still be a duty to provide Section 117 aftercare, but it would be provided outside the framework of aftercare under supervision. In practice, I think a rejection by the health authority after consultation with the local authority will be very rare. The aftercare services will have been agreed by all concerned before the application is made and it is unlikely that any party will go back on its agreement unless there are exceptional circumstances. I hope the movers of these amendments will not press them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister's reply to the points raised. There still appears to be an unbridgeable gulf between the two positions in terms of what is necessary. It is very important that we continue to press the amendments. Therefore, I should like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
4.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Avebury, L.

McNair, L.

Banks, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nelson, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Dubs, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Thurlow, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tope, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Wharton, B.

lay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Addison, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ailsa, M.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Aldington, L.

Courtown, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ampthill, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Davidson, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Beloff, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Downshire, M.

Blyth, L.

Dundonald, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Finsberg, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Foley, L.

Burnham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Cadman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gray, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Chesham, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

1222

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Norrie, L.

Hogg, B.

Northesk, E.

Holderness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hood, V.

Orkney, E.

Howe, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Pender, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rathcaven, L.

Kintore, E.

Rawlings, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Renton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renwick, L.

Richardson, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Liverpool, E.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

Lucas L.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lyell L.

Shaw of Northstead. L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McConnell, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Manton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Marlesford, L.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mills, V.

Ullswater, V.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mountevans, L.

Vivian. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
4.11 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) If, on the date when a patient ceases to be liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act, a supervision application has been made in respect of him but the Health Authority have not yet accepted the application, his liability to be so detained shall continue until the Authority either accept or refuse it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, I am taking part of the subject that we have just debated, because I wanted, if possible, to persuade the Minister that this aspect of the problem needs to be reconsidered. She made a few remarks which I did not think took us very much further.
As everyone knows, this matter was debated thoroughly in Committee. On these general subjects, my noble friend (at col. 123 of Hansard for 4th April) sought to persuade the Committee that there was no need for safeguards such as those contained in the amendment because of differences in law and procedure between Scotland and England. As your Lordships will know, the provisions contained in Amendment No. 8 are in the Bill for use in Scotland.
I wish delicately to suggest to my friend that that argument is a smokescreen. The important point is—this was touched upon by those noble Baronesses who spoke

1223
from the Benches opposite—that when people need to be in hospital, they must be retained there if there are no facilities to look after them in the community. In England and Wales, the health authority is required by the Bill to consult the social services authority about the provisions necessary. That may well take a great deal of time.
My noble friend said that there would be no question—she has just repeated it—of an application for a supervised discharge being accepted by the health authority before appropriate arrangements had been made. But in Committee she made no mention of the need for the patient to be detained, if otherwise due for release, until the arrangements for care were provided fully. She did, it is true, touch upon that point in relation to the previous group of amendments, but that does not convince me that there is no need for a safeguard in the form of my amendment, which would make certain that if the care arrangements cannot be achieved by the time the patient's liability to be retained runs out, the liability would be extended to allow more time for services to be organised, thus enabling the application to be accepted, or for the health authority to decide that it must be refused.
It is an important safeguard not just because it prevents the type of situations that have led to these amendments, but because it gives a simple and definite way in which the relevant authorities can take the action necessary to retain the patients who need to be retained, as, indeed, is the case in Scotland. It is marginally different from the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in that it does not, of itself, put an extra cost on the care-in-the-community budget. The extra cost, such as it is, will lie with the hospital retaining the patient. That is a different matter.
Perhaps my noble friend could move slightly towards accepting the principle that her noble Scottish friends have accepted, to ensure—that is all it is—that people who should not be released into the community because there are not the facilities to accept them, shall be retained in hospital until such facilities can be provided. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord mentioned the cost to the care-in-the-community service. There may be some additional financial cost; but we should mention against that that the cost of letting the person go if there are no facilities, will be much greater. We must balance the visible costs (financial) as against those which are contingent and which could be much greater. That would be sound economics.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment, because there is something in it. As others have said, it is not right that people should be sent out into the community without there being proper and full arrangements at hand to receive them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a constructive and helpful amendment. I believe we all agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has just said: we do not want patients discharged into the community if they have
1224
nowhere to go. That, I think we would agree, is the worst eventuality. What is needed here, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has provided, is a safety valve.
Every now and then, Parliament, in its wisdom, enacts things which it is difficult to make happen. In 1563, for example, Parliament enacted that anyone who refused twice to take the Oath of Supremacy should be guilty of treason. That meant, in effect, that any Roman Catholic in the country was guilty of treason. The Queen merely instructed the Archbishop not to tender the Oath a second time. That is the sort of let out that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has supplied to us. It is in a long and honourable English tradition. I am very glad to see it.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, it may be that we are dealing with a marginal issue; but if I understood the Minister's comments on the previous group of amendments, it is likely that in any circumstances patients who fall into the category covered by the amendment would probably be retained in hospital. I am not sure about the procedures for that in certain cases. So to plug the gap, I hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment; but, if he cannot do so, to go some way towards bridging the gap by saying something about the principle.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too support the amendment, and ask the Minister to accept it. The situation for which the legislation is intended is not easy, and will inevitably take time to resolve. There must be confidence on the part of those who are afraid of people who may be released into the community without the right support. But much more important is that there must be confidence on the part of those people who are worried about members of their family or friends, and there must be the security of knowing where responsibility lies regarding who will care for the patient and continue to have that responsibility until the package is accepted, agreed, and in place.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, the amendment was fully debated in Committee. As both he and I explained at the time, it reflects what is contained in Clause 4 for Scotland. New Section 35A(6) extends a patient's liability to be detained in cases where an application for a community care order has been made but the patient's liability to detention has meanwhile run out. In these cases, a patient's liability to detention shall be continued until a community care order is accepted or until the application for the community care order is turned down by the sheriff. The powers in England and Wales are framed differently from those in Scotland, reflecting the different legal arrangements in the two jurisdictions. This is not just a technical point; two important issues are involved.
First, it is possible to apply for aftercare under supervision while a person is liable to detention but for it to come into effect after the period of liability to detention has ceased. Section 25A(1) enables the supervision application to be made while a patient is liable to be detained and Section 25G(1) states that a period of six months (the initial duration of supervision) begins when the patient leaves hospital. If a patient were to leave

1225
hospital after the application had been made but before it was accepted, it would simply mean that there would be a gap during which the patient had left hospital but the provisions of aftercare under supervision had not yet actually operated. In practice, we believe that, having been consulted about the aftercare services he is to receive, the patient is more likely to remain as a voluntary patient for a short period until the application has been accepted, and aftercare under supervision will take effect as soon as he is discharged.
Secondly, we must remember the role of the body considering the application. In England and Wales the application will be made not to the equivalent of a sheriff, for none exists—or, to use the noble Earl's words, not in an honourable and noble tradition of this country—but to the health authority. Unlike the sheriff, the health authority, under its Section 117 aftercare duty, will be one of the bodies which is actually responsible for providing the services. The responsible medical officer in the hospital will have to ensure that those involved in the provision of the aftercare services have been consulted before making the application. Therefore, we cannot envisage a situation whereby there should be any delay in accepting the application because the services are not in place, which is the aspect which understandably concerns your Lordships.
I should add that my noble friend's amendment has, however, set us thinking about another issue in this area; that is, the effect of a custodial sentence on aftercare under supervision and upon community care orders. We may need to bring forward an amendment about this at Third Reading.
Aftercare under supervision is rooted in joint working, good communications and the understanding of all concerned of their role. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I ask my noble friend to reconsider the matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining her point of view clearly. I am delighted to hear that my amendment has set her and her officials thinking. However, she does not appear to be thinking along the same lines as I am. I wish to try to detach the thinking from the explanation that, because some things happen in Scotland, the provision that appropriate people are released into the community only when the facilities exist for them should not have the underpinning for which I asked. That is quite apart from what happens to sheriffs in Scotland, which is nothing to do with the argument at all. Perhaps we can detach our minds from that.
My noble friend said that there might be a gap as a result of a delay in making a supervision order. It is those very gaps that worry us because it is then that some people climb into lions' cages. My noble friend also said that the person having been consulted about the kind of services that are required for him will possibly be only too happy to stay as a voluntary patient. Perhaps that will occur in many cases, but one wants to be sure once the procedure is set in motion.
There is a further approach but perhaps it is too late to deal with it at Third Reading in this place. However, Members of another place might consider it. It is a
1226
provision requiring the responsible medical officer to begin the process good and early before the end of the patient's time in hospital so that there is at least nine months to plan what is to be done with him. I am not sure that that suggestion is practicable because some people will not be exactly the same nine months later. Therefore, on one occasion one may set the process in motion and it will not be necessary; on another occasion one may not begin the process and it will be necessary. In that case, I am wedded to my amendment.
However, my noble friend has generously said that she is thinking about the subject, even though her solution may be different, with a view to proposing an amendment when the Bill reaches another place. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No; 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 27, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55 and 56. All the amendments deal with the crucial question of the way in which a patient who is to be made subject to a supervision discharge order is informed of its conditions and of his right to apply to a mental health review tribunal. We discussed the matter in Committee. Of the amendments in the group, only Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 stand in my name; the rest stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Your Lordships will therefore understand that we have reached almost total agreement on the subject, about which I am delighted.
However, before the Minister explains the Government's thinking behind this long list of amendments I wish to ask her about one small matter. In Committee we asked that when those in the health authority inform the patient, both orally and in writing, of his right to apply to the mental health review tribunal it should also be explained that he should be legally represented at the tribunal hearing. That provision appears in Amendment No. 12.
Is it possible for that additional provision to be contained in the Minister's amendments? She will remember that in Committee there was some discussion about the matter and it was not totally understood whether there was the ability to be legally represented at a mental health review tribunal. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said that he thought that it was not possible. After some discussion, the Minister corrected us and said that it was indeed possible.
Given that there was such a degree of confusion about the matter, even in your Lordships' learned House, it may be appropriate to put the provision on the face of the Bill. That would make it clear to patients and to those looking after them that the right is included in the Bill.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting and developing the amendments. As was said in Committee by my noble friend Lord Carter, it would be difficult to improve on the limpid clarity of "in writing",

1227
which is included in Amendment No. 10, but the Department of Health appears to have done so. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that introduction of the amendments. Perhaps I may say that in Committee we agreed to the two amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
These amendments have again been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The effect is to require the patient to be informed in writing of the acceptance of the application, and at the same time told both orally and in writing of his rights to a mental health review tribunal and to be legally represented there.
We accept the spirit of these amendments but have considered that this principle needs to be applied more broadly. We believe that there should be a duty to inform the patient both orally and in writing at each stage of the process: on making the application, when it is accepted, if the aftercare services to be provided or the requirements upon the patient are modified, if the power is renewed and when it is terminated.
The patient also needs to be told formally of his rights to a mental health review tribunal not only when the application has been accepted but when it is renewed. In practice, we envisage a leaflet setting out those rights. That would include reference to the free legal representation which is available to all those who appeal to a tribunal.
In considering the duty to provide information we also think that it would be right for the nearest relative to be informed in writing, where it is practicable to do so and where the patient does not object. Informing the nearest relative in writing will enable him or her to exercise the right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal.
Informing the nearest relative in writing ties in with existing provisions of the 1983 Act. We have not amended the references to the informal carer who does not at present feature in the Act. We think there should be flexibility in the way they are informed. In many cases the informal carer may be the nearest relative as well, so would be informed in writing anyway. The Government's amendments will be in the interests of the patient and I trust will be welcomed by your Lordships.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that extensive explanation. I am being extremely stupid because I have not yet found the reference in relation to legal representation but I am grateful to hear that it exists. Perhaps the Minister will tell me at a later stage in which of the Government's amendments that appears. I am satisfied by the Minister's explanation. We have covered a great deal of ground which we discussed at length in Committee and that has had a very satisfactory outcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out lines 30 to 37 and insert ("both orally and in writing—

(i) that the supervision application has been accepted; and

(ii) of the effect in his case of the provisions of this Act relating to a patient subject to after-care under supervision (including, in particular, what rights of applying to a Mental Health Review Tribunal are available);

(b) inform any person whose name is stated in the supervision application in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (e) of section 25B(4) below that the supervision application has been accepted; and
(c) inform in writing any person whose name is so stated in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph that the supervision application has been accepted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("(9) Where a patient in respect of whom a supervision application is made is granted leave of absence from a hospital under section 17 above (whether before or after the supervision application is made), references in—

(a) this section and the following provisions of this Part of this Act; and

(b) Part V of this Act,

to his leaving hospital shall be construed as references to his period of leave expiring (otherwise than on his return to the hospital or transfer to another hospital).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment puts beyond doubt that a supervision application can be made for patients who have been granted leave of absence from hospital and who may be made subject to aftercare under supervision without having first to return to hospital, once their period of liability to detention comes to an end. That has always been our policy intention.
Under the existing Act patients who are on leave of absence are entitled to Section 117 aftercare, but remain liable to recall to hospital and are subject to the consent to treatment provisions in the Act. This means medication can be administered without their consent, although that would usually be given in hospital. When their period of detention ends, we foresee that some patients who are on their way to successful rehabilitation at the end of their period of liability to detention, but who still require supervision, could be made subject to the new power at that stage. Such aftercare services would then have to be provided under supervision. The patient would have the right to appeal against the decision to a mental health review tribunal in the same way as any patient for whom a supervision application has been accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) On the acceptance by the Health Authority of the supervision application in respect of a patient, he shall cease to be liable to be detained in a hospital under the provisions of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment intends to clarify the fact that aftercare under supervision applies only to patients who have been discharged from hospital into the community and are no longer liable to be detained. In a sense, that follows very closely and neatly after the previous amendment proposed by the Minister.
We debated a similar amendment in Committee which was moved by my noble friend Lord Carter. In her reply the Minister seemed to suggest that she felt that the force of the amendment was as regards the distance in time between the time at which the patient was in theory discharged from a hospital but was not yet under the auspices of a health authority and social services in the community.
In order to clarify that matter, perhaps I may emphasise that that is not the problem that concerns us. What concerns us is that, as currently drafted, the first part of the Bill does not make it clear that patients subject to aftercare after supervision should no longer be liable to be detained under the 1983 Act and hence liable to recall to hospital. As was pointed out in Committee, that was spelt out much more clearly in relation to the community care orders in Scotland. Clause 4 of the present Bill at Section 35A(8) states:
"On the coming into force of a community care order in respect of a patient, he shall cease to be liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act".
In response to that point, the Minister said in Committee:
"As I understand it, the Scottish Act is very different from ours. It involves sheriffs and courts in a way that our Act does not".— [Official Report, 4/4/95; col. 133.]
But that does not seem to be an entirely appropriate answer to the point raised about the patient's situation, which is dealt with in Clause 4 at new Section 35A(8). In view of the misunderstanding by the Minister, which seemed to arise in Committee, that we were concerned about the time-lag, which is not our primary concern, and in view of the fact that we did not feel that the Minister gave an appropriate answer, we have now brought back the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, when this amendment was last moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he told your Lordships that the intention was to clarify that aftercare under supervision applies only to those who are no longer liable to be detained. He drew a comparison with the Scottish provisions which state at new Section 35G(8) that a patient shall cease to be liable to be detained as soon as a community care order comes into force.
In England and Wales a supervision application can be made and accepted while the patient is still in hospital or liable to be detained. The new provisions would not, however, take effect until the patient had left hospital. Until that point the patient would remain liable to be detained provided his period of liability had not meanwhile expired. If it had, he could remain in hospital as a voluntary patient. New Section 25G(1) makes it quite clear that aftercare under supervision actually
1230
commences when he leaves hospital, although the period for appeal rights and renewal is calculated from the date the application is accepted.
In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for that explanation, which is slightly different to that given in Committee. It expands on the points that were made then and with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 43 and insert:
("(a) subsection (2) below is complied with;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 25, 43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 58 and 142. During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mottistone made a persuasive case for consulting the patient's nearest relative when reaching important decisions about making a supervision application, renewing it and ending it. I agreed to consider this further and I am pleased to inform my noble friend that we accept his case, with the proviso that the patient must retain the right to object. These amendments will require the nearest relative to be consulted about these matters where the patient does not object. We have also taken the opportunity to amend the phrase, "except where" the patient objects to "unless" the patient objects in the various places that it appears in Clause 1. This is simply a drafting improvement in the interests of greater clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this group of amendments. Amendment No. 57, to which she referred, is in my name and is a safeguard in case she had not got around to tabling amendments. She has more than covered what I was hoping to see and I am grateful for that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for covering all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and others who spoke so eloquently at Committee stage on the subject of involving the closest relatives and the family. I wish to speak briefly to my Amendment No. 58, which is also in this large group we are discussing. In that amendment I suggest deleting the word "appearing", and inserting the phrase "identified by the patient". This is an area which we discussed in Committee. I wonder whether, on reflection, the noble Baroness might accept both "appearing" and "identified by the patient" instead of substituting the one for the other.
I return to the point about the patient having the ability to identify who is his nearest relative for precisely the reasons that I raised in Committee as regards families who fall out with each other and as regards how relations are substituted for one another, as in the Mental Health Act.

1231
I make no apology for returning again to the tragic case which has disturbed me very much, and to which I referred earlier when we discussed my noble friend's amendment on housing, and that is the inquiry into the case of Ellen and Alan Boland. In the terms of the Government's amendment as it now stands, Mr. Boland's mother would be Mr. Boland's nearest relative. The psychopathology of the relationship between them was clearly so bad that it contributed greatly to the deterioration in his mental state. Although he expressed his dissatisfaction at living with his mother and explained the extraordinary circumstances of their bad relationship to many of the social and health workers who looked after him at different stages in his illness, it was difficult, given the precise nature of the social services arrangements and of the various legal arrangements, to disentangle the circumstances in which he lived from those in which his mother lived.
I explain this again, not to reopen the discussion about housing, but simply to use this as an illustration of a tragic case where someone who would appear to be the patient's nearest relative, and who fulfilled that function, did so in a negative way. If the patient in this case had been asked to identify who he would regard as his nearest relative, he might well have identified someone else, with rather less tragic results.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should just like to say a brief word of support in favour of Amendment No. 58. This seems to me a thoroughly sensible, practical and helpful amendment, and essential for the process to work. It is characteristic of mental illness that it often comes out of a pattern of a good deal of tension within the family and occasionally—as in the case which the noble Baroness mentioned—one particular relative may be the object of a particularly intense distrust on the part of the patient. It does not do any good to discharge the patient into the supervision of that person. I hope that the Minister will be able to see her way to accepting this amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to make a small observation to which I hope the Minister will reply. When defining "relative" it occurs to me—I have thought this ever since this debate started —that that term is rather narrow in terms of modern life. It relates to family or to a relative acquired by marriage. It may in practice be broadly interpreted—I do not know about that—and perhaps if a person is in a homosexual relationship, the partner may not be described as a relative. Perhaps, however, that might be precisely the person to consult. Could the noble Baroness say whether the term "close relative" is interpreted broadly so as to include a number of relationships, or whether it is interpreted narrowly? It is important that the term should be interpreted broadly and not narrowly.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Baroness said and the support which she has from your Lordships. I understand that "nearest relative" is defined in the Mental Health Act 1983, Section 23. Therefore, it would be difficult, indeed impossible, for me to accept that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 3 and insert:
("(2) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) the following persons have been consulted about the making of the supervision application—

(i) the patient;

(ii) one or more persons who have been professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment in hospital;

(iii) one or more persons who will be professionally concerned with the after-care services to be provided for the patient under section 117 below; and

(iv) any person who the responsible medical officer believes will play a substantial part in the care of the patient after he leaves hospital but will not be professionally concerned with any of the after-care services to be so provided;

(b) unless the patient has otherwise requested, such steps as are practicable have been taken to consult the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient about the making of the supervision application; and

(c) the responsible medical officer has taken into account any views expressed by the persons consulted.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, that amendment having been agreed to, I cannot now call Amendments No. 18 to 20 inclusive because of pre-emption. The next amendment to be considered is Amendment No. 21.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Where the patient has requested that the person appearing to be his nearest relative should not be consulted about the supervision application but the responsible medical officer has reason to believe that it may assist the after-care under supervision of the patient if that relative is consulted, the responsible medical officer may consult that relative, especially where there is a history of violence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we touched on this subject in Committee but I wish to return to the charge and ask my noble friend to consider once again the particular case of someone who has such a history of mental illness that it is necessary to inform his nearest relative about what is going on, even when the patient concerned says that he does not wish this to happen. I refer to the kind of circumstances which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has just mentioned. Sometimes it may be in the best interests of a patient that the nearest relative is involved in the matter. In Committee my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke of the situation in Scotland (cols. 341 and 342 of Hansard). In Scotland there is such a provision. Let us not worry about the legal need for it to exist; it is a sensible measure to have.
My amendment seeks to provide similar arrangements in England and Wales with particular emphasis on cases where there is a history of violence. The Clunis case springs to mind. I think that Mr. Clunis himself said that it would have been helpful if his nearest relatives had

1233
known about his case. That kind of situation needs to be covered. Nearest relatives can themselves be the object of an assault and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship feels strongly about this matter because that body in the main consists of nearest relatives of the people we are discussing.
My noble friend wrote to me recently on this subject correcting something that she had said in Parliament, She wrote inter alia that guidance to doctors from the General Medical Council stated that they could override patients' objections if it was in the public interest. That might apply to the situation we are discussing. However, that is guidance. I am advised that the provisions of a statute can only be overruled by a statute. Therefore, my amendment is particularly necessary in view of the wording of the new Section 25A(8) at line 33 of page 2 of the Bill. For that reason it seems to me that there is room for an addition to the Bill on the lines of my amendment. I am quite ready to accept that there could be better wording. Indeed, in the splendid group of amendments which we have just agreed my noble friend used quite different wording from mine. She may do the same again.
The amendment is concerned with cases where patients have a record of violence which may not be immediately apparent to the people looking after them and which the nearest relative will be aware of, even if the nearest relative has been rejected by the patient and he or she does not want to see that relative. My amendment does not propose that the nearest relative should be made responsible for, or even be put in contact with, the patient. It proposes only that they should know what is happening so that they can contribute information concerning the historical background, to the general benefit of all the people who are trying to cope with that particular problem.
I hope that my noble friend will feel that the matter needs further consideration, perhaps not in this House but in another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I am concerned that where a relative has either been a victim or may become a victim there is probably a greater duty to inform that relative than to observe the patient's rights. I should not like us to create more victims unnecessarily. I hope that such information will be made available.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the general idea behind the amendment. However, I am still anxious about the issue I raised in relation to the previous amendment concerning who is the nearest relative and whether that understanding lies with the patient. I wonder whether we can find some way of identifying the nearest relative on the face of the Bill—and I understand what the Minister said about the wording of the Mental Health Act. Can we not try to find some way of using the words "nearest relative" or "appropriate person" in a manner which gives rights to the patient to say whether or not he wants that person to be informed but, as the noble Lord,
1234
Lord Mottistone, and other noble Lords have suggested, does not exclude the practical need to talk to the person who is involved with the patient's care in the community.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I support the amendment. I wish to emphasise that it is cast in very moderate language. It provides that the responsible medical officer may consult, leaving some discretion. Therefore, if there are compelling reasons for the clinically responsible officer to decide not to consult he may be guided by his own judgment.
I can conceive of a whole range of cases in which the patient would not wish the nearest relative to be consulted or informed because, as we all know, persecution mania, a familiar symptom of schizophrenia, concentrates on those nearest to the patient himself or herself.
I can imagine circumstances in which, if I were in a position of having to help with the care of a patient, that patient might wish to conceal information from me, even though it was agreed that it was in the interests of the patient himself that the nearest relative should be consulted or informed. I hope that the Minister will find some means of accommodating the principle covered by the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, again, I declare an interest as the nearest relative of a sufferer from schizophrenia, as I indicated in Committee. However, these provisions are very unlikely to apply in my case.
As I said in earlier debates, I believe that more interest should be taken in the relatives, and particularly the nearest relative, and their part in the procedure. Of course, various options should be available for different cases involving different families.
I believe that the arrangements are to be different in Scotland, as set out in the second part of the Bill, The nearest relative will be taken into account more than in England and Wales. I shall be grateful if my noble friend could comment on that point.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to correct an error I made in the previous discussion on the definition of the nearest relative. I said that it was outlined in Section 23 of the Mental Health Act; it is, of course, Section 26. I do not wish to mislead your Lordships.
My noble friend's amendment repeats one he introduced when we debated the Bill in Committee. I agreed then to consider further the points he made about the involvement of the nearest relative throughout the Bill's provisions. My noble friend will find when we come to discuss his next amendment that we have agreed to take on board most of his underlying anxieties that the nearest relative should be consulted unless the patient objects. However, we do not feel that we can go quite as far as he suggests here.
I must reiterate my earlier explanation. The potential danger to the patient himself or that which he presents to others must be included in the risk assessment undertaken when supervised discharge is being considered. Doctors and other professionals considering the discharge of a patient have a special responsibility to consider carefully any history of violence, and that is emphasised in the guidance which the department issued last year. In the event of their being unable to make a confident

1235
assessment because the patient objected to the nearest relative being consulted they could be expected to err on the side of caution. Indeed, the refusal itself might be seen as a matter of some significance. On that basis, the potential value of the additional information does not seem to us to justify overriding the general principle of the patient's right to object.
If there is a serious risk of violence which could not be contained by supervision it is highly unlikely that a supervision application would be made. My noble friend prayed in aid the case of Christopher Clunis. The interesting point is that Christopher Clunis's family were not involved, not because Christopher Clunis objected but because nobody found out who the family were.
We are advised that the wording of the Bill would not prevent the responsible medical officer from contacting the nearest relative against the patient's wishes if he judged that there was an overriding public interest which justified doing so. In the light of those comments I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to make just one point. As I said, I am advised by a lawyer that any provisions in this area—I quoted those of relevance here—which are declared in statute have to be nullified in statute. My noble friend did not pick up that point. I do not expect her to do so now at short notice. However, she may like to give thought to the matter and make sure that the part of the Bill to which I referred does not prevent the RMO from doing what she says he can do, on the basis of advice from the BMA rather than statute.
At this stage I do not wish to pursue the argument further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 31, after ("officer,") insert ("who shall be a practitioner having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 129, 130, 133, 139 and 140. All the amendments are designed to ensure that the community responsible medical officer has special postgraduate experience in mental health work before assuming that new and important role.
Noble Lords will see, again, that some of the amendments in the group will be proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and another by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. All the amendments address the points to which we spoke in Committee about the essential nature of this postgraduate and specialist qualification for someone holding this new and difficult post who will undoubtedly deal with a very stringent caseload.
I am delighted that the Government have seen the force of the argument and have agreed that guidance to local health authorities and local social services departments—as they suggested at an earlier stage in Committee—should be reinforced by primary
1236
legislation. As I stated in Committee, I believe that it is entirely appropriate that the salient government amendment, Amendment No. 139, should be included in Schedule 1, rather than in Clause 1 of the Bill as we propose in Amendment No. 22. I am delighted that the arguments appear to have been accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment No. 130, since it is Report stage of the Bill. In advance of the Minister moving her amendments, I thank her for having accepted what I and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said in Committee regarding ensuring that those community medical officers are properly qualified to deal with mentally ill patients. It is splendid that she has accepted the argument; and I thank her very much.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind comments from all sides of your Lordships' House. These amendments pick up the concerns expressed by a number of your Lordships at Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to the need to have a medical officer with the necessary postgraduate training to enable a detailed understanding of the diagnosis and the treatment involved in caring for a difficult group of people. She received support from my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who returned to this issue on the second day of Committee, my noble friend Lord Haig and the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
We acknowledged that doctors approved under Section 12 of the 1983 Act had special expertise and our intention was to stipulate in guidance that we anticipated the community responsible medical officer should normally be approved. Having considered this further we are persuaded that the importance of the community RMO's duties justified making this a statutory requirement.
The amendments do this in a slightly different way from that which was proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. For technical reasons, it is not proposed to add Section 12 approval to the definition of the community responsible medical officer, but to add to the duties of the health authority accepting the supervision application that someone with Section 12 approval should be in charge of the patient's medical aftercare at all times. This will have the same effect.
Amendment No. 139 also requires that there is a supervisor at all times while the patient is subject to supervision, and that the supervisor should be someone professionally concerned with providing the aftercare services. This means that a community psychiatric nurse, a social worker, or the community RMO himself or herself could fulfil that role. It has been pointed out to us that the Bill as drafted would have allowed, for example, an informal carer to be nominated as the supervisor. This is not what we intended, and we believe it is important to establish the principle that this is a professional function.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising the matter. I hope they will now feel that their concerns have been met.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is Amendment No. 22 to be agreed to in view of what the Minister said?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that there was a slight confusion with the Deputy Speaker. I moved Amendment No. 22. In view of what the Minister said, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, should Amendment No. 23 be agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 24 owing to pre-emption.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 31, leave out (", and of the person who is to be the supervisor,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I say straight away that it is simply a probing amendment. In my view, there is no question of it affecting later amendments.
It is a matter on which clarification is sought. It is another amendment which I have put down because I received comments from a leading practising psychiatrist based at a well known hospital. The comments were too late for Committee stage, although I have been able to deal with many of the other points he raised.
Attention was drawn to the point by the wording of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in the original version of the Bill. It stated that supervision will be the personal responsibility of a nominated supervisor. We all know that that memorandum has no validity; it is not part of the Bill. However, within the medical profession it has raised a need to know what responsibilities the supervisor is expected to assume.
At present, does the Bill imply that the legal responsibility for doctors, which hospital trusts have taken on in cases of litigation, will not cover the nominated supervisor? Will the nominated supervisor be responsible for any failings of the social services, hospital services, GP services and others which are needed to provide the treatment for the mental patient? I am sure that there is an explanation. Clarification is sought by those who asked me to raise the matter.
If that were to be the case, there would be an impossible burden. It would also seem unacceptable to force someone to be a nominated supervisor against his will. For example, I am informed that a doctor accepting that responsibility might expect to face huge increases in his personal medical liability insurance premium. That is the kind of point which may arise unless the responsibilities that the supervisor will take on are clear.
Another point has been raised: what happens when the supervisor is away on holiday or in some other part of the world? Who is then responsible? These matters have been
1238
raised by the profession. I do not know the answers but I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some clarification and assurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that my noble friend wishes to remove the name of the supervisor from the application form.
Lord Campbell of Croy: No, my Lords, this is purely a probing amendment. I have no intention of trying to remove the phrase, merely to draw attention to the point I raised. I hope that my noble friend realises that I am asking for clarification and not trying literally to take the words out of the Bill. I contacted the Minister's office last week to tell her the object of the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The supervisor will, of course, play a crucial role in the successful working of the new power. It is he or she who will keep closely in touch with a patient, co-ordinating the care which the patient is to receive, convening meetings of the care team, alerting colleagues to any modifications that may be necessary and checking that any requirements laid upon the patient are followed. If found to be necessary, it will be the supervisor in the first instance who will invoke the power to convey the patient.
It is essential that the person who is to play this important role is identified early on and before the patient is discharged from hospital. The whole application process is founded on the understanding that there has been full consultation between the hospital RMO and the future care team and that one of the multi-disciplinary team has agreed to act as a supervisor for the patient. Indeed, the health authority could not accept an application without that degree of clarity. The nomination of the supervisor must follow from the consultation and discussion which have preceded the application and upon which the care plan has been based.
Having explained how we see the supervisor's role and how important it is to have it identified and formalised at the outset, I believe that my noble friend may have concerns about what legal liabilities this key role will attract, as he mentioned this afternoon. I think I can reassure him on that point. While the supervisor will have professional liabilities and responsibilities along with other professionals in the care team, there will be no additional liability of the kind I think my noble friend has in mind. The supervisor would, of course, be personally liable in cases involving, for example, serious professional negligence, indiscipline or the abuse of patients. But, in general, liability would fall on the bodies responsible for providing the Section 117 aftercare services, not the supervisor personally, just because he or she fulfils that role. This is the normal relationship between public bodies and the professional staff they employ, and in this respect the supervisor is in the same position as other professionals. I hope that in the light of that elucidation my noble friend will be satisfied.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether she could answer the question

1239
which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked. It was whether it would be possible to refuse to be a supervisor. It is an interesting question.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if someone did not wish to be a supervisor but was appointed then the care plan would not work. It is essential that everyone should agree on how the care plan works, and the supervisor is the key person in that role.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall ensure that what she said is conveyed to those who are worried about the legal and constitutional side of their responsibilities. I hope that they will be reassured by what she said. These are serious points and that is why I thought it worth raising them in a probing amendment, even at this stage, because they had not been brought to my attention before the Committee stage. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 32, after ("supervisor") insert ("who shall be a community psychiatric nurse or an approved social worker").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 follows precisely the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to establish on the face of the Bill who will be the nominated supervisor who will deal with the patient who is on a discharge order and what that person's professional qualifications will be. Noble Lords will remember that at the Committee stage I raised the question in an amendment stipulating that the supervisor should be a community psychiatric nurse. Amendment No. 24 seeks to extend that to include an approved social worker under the meaning of the 1983 Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who replied to our discussion at Committee stage, said (at col. 142 of the Official Report for 4th April 1995) that naming one professional discipline was an unnecessary constraint and that flexibility was needed. However, it seems to me that those were exactly the same arguments as were made by the Government at an earlier stage about not professionally defining the qualifications of the community responsible medical officer. As we have heard, the Government themselves rejected those arguments in bringing forward Amendment No. 139, which the House is likely to accept this afternoon. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords who were not in the Chamber that that amendment defines the qualifications for the community responsible medical officer in the way which we seek to do by Amendment No. 24 for the equally crucial role of the supervisor in the community. I hope that the Minister will be able to change her position about it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, told us in Committee, the supervisor will be the key worker dealing with patients in the community. As I said in earlier debates, the position of supervisor will be a new and extremely responsible one. It therefore seems only
1240
sensible that they should be appropriately professionally qualified. Both the Royal College of Nursing and the British Association of Social Workers believe that the position must be specified.
Their position is similar to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on the previous amendment. They are concerned that their members will feel unable to undertake the responsibilities unless they are given specific professional status within their organisations. Both organisations are anxious that anyone who holds the position must be properly resourced. The Royal College of Nursing, for example, pointed out that only one in five people diagnosed as having schizophrenia currently has access to a CPN. The Royal College of Nursing therefore estimates that the number of CPNs would have to be doubled in England alone if supervised discharges were to work effectively.
At Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I discussed whether, if professional designation of the supervisor were on the face of the Bill, it might encourage better resourcing of those people who held the posts. If that happened, it would in itself, it seems to me, be a good argument for accepting the amendment.
I also wish to point out that the amendment reflects one of the crucial recommendations made in the Ritchie Report on the Christopher Clunis case which has not yet been accepted by the Government. I thank the Minister very much for writing to me in considerable detail about the Government's present position on the recommendations of the Ritchie Report on Christopher Clunis. I particularly thank her as I raised the question with her only in the middle of last week.
The Minister will undoubtedly recall that in a previous debate which we had on community care on 16th March 1994—over a year ago—she said in reply to her noble friend Lady Cox:
"My noble friend Lady Cox will be pleased to learn that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Ritchie Report".—[Official Report, 16/3/94; col. 283.]
I emphasise "all" because, although the Minister was kind enough to write to me explaining the position of the Government on the present state of their approach to the recommendations of the Ritchie Report, this recommendation is crucial. It is that anyone who held the key worker role in relation to supervised discharge— although at that stage the Government were only theoretically considering future legislation—should be either an approved social worker or a CPN, as the amendment suggests. I hope that this afternoon the Minister will stand by that commitment on this important issue and be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I support my noble friend from the point of view of a practising GP. In my practice, many chronic mental patients have been supervised in the community either by CPNs or by social workers. It seems often to be the luck of the draw which member of which profession the patient relates to. In my case the CPNs were often moved more rapidly. The social workers were

1241
the more stable professionals who related to long-term schizophrenic patients. However, both professions equally can take on the role and do so effectively.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is important that for a case at this level of priority only an experienced social worker with specialist training in the mental health field should be allocated to the task and not just any social worker.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, your Lordships expressed the view when we last looked at these provisions that a supervisor should always be a community psychiatric nurse. The present amendment broadens that by proposing that, as an alternative to a community psychiatric nurse, the supervisor may be an approved social worker—that is, a social worker approved by the local social services authority under the Mental Health Act as having a special competence for the purpose of making applications for compulsory admission to hospital or guardianship. As I explained previously, we envisage the supervisor being the same person as the key worker under the care programme approach in most cases and, again, in most cases, this will be a community psychiatric nurse. But we do not want to restrict who may be the supervisor in the way that the amendment proposes. In some cases that person might be a social worker rather than a nurse, but in others the patient's doctor might be better placed to perform the role. Nor would we want to exclude other possible but perhaps unusual arrangements such as, for example, a clinical psychologist being nominated.
The Government's Amendment No. 139 to Schedule 1 will, if your Lordships accept it, ensure that the supervisor is someone professionally concerned in the patient's care. We think that this will provide the safeguards necessary without being unduly rigid and prohibiting what, in some unusual cases, may be the most appropriate professional person. In the light of our proposed amendment to Schedule 1, I hope that the mover of this amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said when we discussed the group of amendments that included Amendment No. 139—we accept that particular amendment and we are grateful to the Government for introducing it—I still feel unhappy about leaving this provision quite so baldly as it stands at the moment on the face of the Bill. As I said, there are two particular concerns, one of which is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the concerns of professionals over their liability. The second is a more general one. It is the question of concerns about undertakings given on the basis of the Ritchie Report on Christopher Clunis, which made the very specific suggestion about the CPN or the ASW being the person responsible, which appears to have the agreement of all the professional bodies. Perhaps the Government will think about this matter again before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 34, leave out from ("of') to end of line 37 and insert ("—

(i) any person who has been consulted under paragraph (a) (iv) of subsection (2) above; and

(ii) any person who has been consulted under paragraph (b) of that subsection.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 24, after ("requirements") insert ("which will be set out in the care programme approach").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, we shall also take Amendment No. 135. Perhaps I may deal with the two points in turn.
Subsection (8) of what is now to be Section 25B of the Mental Health Act requires the application for a supervision order to be accompanied by four requirements: first, a statement from the proposed community responsible medical officer that he will be in charge; secondly, a statement by the supervisor that he will supervise the patient—we have just discussed the professional qualifications of such a person, and I shall return to that a little later; thirdly, the details of the aftercare services to be provided under Section 117 of the 1983 Act; and fourthly, details of the requirements to be placed on the patient for the purpose of securing that he receives those services. It is the last of those requirements to which my Amendment No. 26 is directed.
Noble Lords will remember that at the start of today's proceedings I expressed the view that it is crucial that this legislation should be readily understandable to those who will have to operate it. Few areas of health legislation require such continuous, precise and meticulous observance of the ipsissima verba of the statutes as the care and treatment of the mentally ill. It is therefore very helpful if the amending legislation can deploy language with which practitioners will be readily familiar. The phrase "care programme approach" is now widely used. Indeed, it is used in the Notes on Clauses with which we have been provided and was used in an amendment moved earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
It is simply not clear what the "requirements" are, of which details need to be given under subsection (8) (d). However, practitioners would understand the words in my amendment,
"requirements which will be set out in the care programme approach".
That is perfectly clear. It is language with which they are familiar, and they would know precisely what has to be included. I commend that form of words to my noble friend.
Somewhat similar considerations apply to Amendment No. 135, which relates to page 35 of the Bill. It is to be found on page 19 of the Marshalled List. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill amends Section 34 of the 1983 Act by adding two new definitions: one is the community responsible medical officer, and the other—we come back to our old friend—the supervisor.
Amendment No. 135 would add some words at the end of that definition, again to give, I hope, familiarity to those who will have to operate the legislation. The additional words suggested are,
"and will normally be the person who is the key worker for the purposes of the patient's care programme".
The phrase "the key worker" is one that is widely used and understood, and everybody will know what is meant. In other words, it is the front line person in charge.
I really must ask again: why is it that the draftsman will not use this phrase? It is widely understood in the professions. Why is it not possible to bring these sorts of commonly used expressions into legislation? Why is it that the draftsman always turns his back on words that ordinary people use and imports his own language, which simply gives everybody another task of trying to understand. They will say finally, "Oh, what you mean is the key worker", and, "Yes, that is who we mean, the key worker". Why can that not be in the Bill? This will apply again when we come to Amendment No. 135, although I shall probably not move it. The draftsman dealing with this kind of matter seems to live in a world of his own, remote from the people who deal with these matters. They have to deal through my noble friend's department, which is itself, with the best will in the world, somewhat removed from the health authorities, the trusts and local authorities where the people who operate the legislation are employed. The result is that thoroughly familiar expressions get lost. We have two such expressions here, and there is no reason why they should not be written into the Bill. They would make the legislation clearer and easier to understand for the people who will operate it. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He explained to me why Amendment No. 24 was not accepted; namely, because the words "community psychiatric nurse" and "approved social worker" are obviously not suitable for the draftsman either.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, our objections in that regard go a little deeper.
As I understand my noble friend's amendments, they refer to the care programme approach which lies at the heart of all our initiatives to improve the care provided for mentally ill people. This approach provides for a personal key worker (to use my noble friend's words) and systematic arrangements for the assessment of aftercare and accommodation needs to ensure that those with a mental illness get the health and social care they need in the community.
The report of the internal review into the Legal Powers on the Care of Mentally III People in the Community which was published in August 1993, and upon which we consulted widely, forms the basis of the new power of aftercare under supervision. In that report we stressed that it was an underlying principle that any new power would reflect the objectives of the care programme approach and be part of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach to care. This principle has been incorporated into the Bill.
1244
These amendments are designed to link aftercare under supervision explicitly with the care programme approach by including it in the reference to requirements which may be imposed on the patient and by requiring the supervisor to be the key worker for the patient's care programme.
I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by my noble friend and the plea for plain language. But, as I understand it, our objections are not related to any language problem. It is simply that we do not believe that the amendments would work because they would make the operation of aftercare under supervision rely on the terms used in the care programme approach, which have no statutory basis.
It is certainly true that the Bill seeks to ensure the effectiveness of the care programme approach by giving it a measure of statutory backing. But because the CPA is not itself a statutory arrangement the Bill needs to have its own distinct terminology. The alternative would be to create a comprehensive statutory framework for the CPA and we do not think that that would be justified, given that most of the patients to whom it applies do not need to be subject to statutory supervision. We agree entirely that the supervisor should normally be the patient's key worker and that will be made clear in guidance. But we would not want absolutely to exclude an alternative arrangement if, for example, there were special reasons for the community responsible medical officer acting as the supervisor in a particular case.
My noble friend said that he would not press these amendments. I hope that to some extent I have enlightened him upon our position.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation. I understand the reasons of substance why, in the present framework of the legislation, it may not be possible to encompass words such as "care programme approach" and "key worker" and so on—words which are absolutely in the vernacular of CPNs and those who are involved in this area. I simply ask that when this kind of legislation is being put together it could start from the proposition of what people do and the language that they use —the phrases with which they are familiar—and not simply say, "Well, it is outside the statute and we will have our own special legislation in the statute".
I shall not labour the point. I simply say that I find the whole approach of the draftsman to this kind of legislation increasingly difficult. I hope that perhaps they may take some notice of the protests made from these Benches in this House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for her support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 28, leave out lines 29 to 36 and insert ("both orally and in writing;

(b) inform any person who has been consulted under paragraph (a) (iv) of subsection (2) above; and

(c) inform in writing any person who has been consulted under paragraph (b) of that subsection,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) The responsible after-care bodies shall not make such requirements specified in subsection (3) below unless they have first heard and considered the views of the patient.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as my noble friend and others have pointed out, the Minister has gone a long way in her amendments to meet the points made at Committee stage about consultation with those who might be concerned with aftercare and informing patients of their rights. However, it is still necessary to ensure that the patient himself, who after all is the chief actor on the stage—or chief persona, as he is acted upon—should be brought into the centre of the discussion about his (or her) future management and not merely into the mechanisms of drawing up the application for the supervision order.
It is true that long-stay patients with severe mental illness are still vulnerable people—although, according to the noble Baroness, they are apparently not vulnerable when it comes to deciding whether they should get priority in housing—but when they are about to be discharged, patients will be more settled and rational than when they were admitted. They should be given a full right as a citizen to express their views and preferences.
The amendment is not simply to ensure that a patient has a right to consultation. It is likely to make it much more probable that he will willingly co-operate with any arrangements that are made as a part of that process of consultation. Therefore, this provision will make the package much more likely to be a success rather than have it disintegrate through cither misunderstanding or even a form of protest by obstruction, because the patient did not feel that he had played any part in drawing up the care plan or package and did not have a proper voice in it.
I hope that my remarks have made the purpose of the amendments clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification from the noble Lord. Was he also speaking to Amendment No. 32?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am extremely sorry. In moving Amendment No. 29, I spoke also to Amendment No. 32.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Although I very much appreciate the noble Lord's concern about possibly unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions being placed on patients, I have emphasised the need for consultation and information throughout the procedures that we are proposing for supervised discharge. Before making an application for supervision, the hospital responsible medical officer must ensure that the patient has been consulted, along with members of the current and future care team. Such consultation will include the contents of the aftercare plan and any requirements on the patient thought necessary to help him comply with the plan. Thus, those who are actually discharging functions on behalf of the health and local authority are already under a requirement to consult patients and we do not think that it is necessary to impose a further requirement on the authorities themselves.
1246
The effect of the Government's amendments to which we have already agreed is that the patient will have to be told orally and in writing that the supervision application has been accepted, and of his rights of appeal to a mental health review tribunal. This represents very full provision for consultation and notification and we do not feel that the additional requirements that these amendments would impose are necessary. Therefore, we shall resist the amendments.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I shall not press the amendments. The clarification that she has just given will be useful because it is now in the Official Report and those who will interpret the Act when it is brought into force will possibly look back to her words. It is good to have them on the record to refer to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 30, after ("that") insert ("after consultation with the patient").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this a very simple amendment which seeks to require the aftercare authorities to consult with the patient about where he lives once he has been released from the hospital into the community.
I proposed a similar amendment at Committee, when I asked for a requirement that the authorities should "agree" with the patient. In reply, the noble Baroness pointed out some of the difficulties that might ensue if there were no agreement. However, in the framework of the consensual nature of this legislation, which has been very much extended this afternoon by the Government's own amendments, I believe that this is an amendment which could be accepted.
I also brought the amendment forward again because, on re-reading the Official Report, I felt that the Minister had perhaps misunderstood the very limited nature of the amendment. In her reply to me, she said:
"The Bill allows those responsible for a patient's aftercare under supervision to require him, if they think it is justified, to attend for treatment, rehabilitation or related purposes at specified times and places. Another requirement is that the patient should live at a specified address. To require the patient to agree beforehand would make the requirements unworkable".
I accept that and that is why the present amendment is drafted with the word "consult". She continued:
"If the patient were to withdraw his agreement, the provisions would fall entirely and become meaningless. As presently drafted, if he fails to attend when specified, he has failed to comply with the terms of his discharge and a review of his case might ensue".— [Official Report, 4/4/95; col. 149.]
In her reply the Minister emphasised the requirements on a patient to attend for rehabilitation or other forms of treatment. I agree that a patient must be required to attend at a specified clinic, rehabilitation centre or whatever; but there is a difference between that and requiring him to live at a specific place without the right to consult with him before that happens. As I said earlier in Committee, that is an authoritarian position which does not sit comfortably with the other more consensual arrangements to which the Government have agreed and to which they have added

1247
significantly this afternoon. I hope that in this slightly modified form the Government will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already commented on the need to be sure that unreasonable restrictions are not being placed on patients. The Bill allows for full consultation before an application for supervision is made. In particular, I am sure that if there was any question of a patient not agreeing to live at a specified place, and if such a requirement was thought to be in his best interests, the application would not go ahead.
I have explained the information the patient is to be given, in writing, when the supervision application has been accepted and his rights of appeal to a mental health review tribunal about the imposition of supervised discharge. I do not believe that a separate process of consultation in respect of this particular requirement—if indeed it is imposed—is either necessary or desirable. The terms of a patient's discharge will be agreed as a package in terms of the aftercare services to be provided to him, the person who will be his supervisor and the details of any requirements thought necessary to help him comply with his care plan. I cannot agree that the additional consultation provision proposed under this amendment is necessary.
I hope that, albeit the noble Baroness explained very clearly the lighter touch she has had on this occasion, she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. In a sense we have a slightly different approach this afternoon in terms of consultation. As the Minister repeated, the oral and written notification to patients of their rights and their specific position under a supervised discharge order was re-emphasised in the group of amendments spoken to with Amendment No. 10. I feel that that would be reinforced still further if this provision were on the face of the Bill. However, I accept what the noble Baroness says. We can only hope that good practice is as good as she thinks it will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 32, after ("treatment") insert ("including the requirement to take medication").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35. Noble Lords may think that this amendment and the ones that follow —to which my noble friend Lord Rea will speak—are mutually exclusive. That is true. Noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage will remember that I tabled an amendment similar to Amendment No. 33, to which my noble friend Lord Rea will speak in detail, and that that amendment would have deleted from the Bill the power to take and convey, partly because of the legal doubts about the possible contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights and also because of the important practical question of how community supervisors and responsible medical officers would be
1248
able to treat patients effectively, even if they had the power to take and convey them to a place where treatment could be given.
As I said at the Committee stage, the proposals in the Bill as presently drafted fall between two stools. First, they offend those whose primary concern is to protect the civil rights of the patient; and, secondly, they do not fulfil the wishes of many clinicians who would like to have powers to treat patients on supervision orders with medication. Amendment No. 31 seeks to fulfil one of those concerns by inserting the taking of medication into the provision of medical treatment. That is included also in Amendment No. 35.
Noble Lords will remember that the community treatment order which was earlier suggested by the Royal College of Psychiatrists included that power. At present the British Medical Association describes the Bill as:
"limited by the lack of power compulsorily to treat patients should they not comply with their recommended care programme".
Many recent reports on individual tragedies, such as that of Andrew Robinson and Christopher Clunis, emphasise that irregular medication contributed to the patients' instability and unpredictability and often in the end to tragic circumstances. I was interested to read on 6th April —the day we had our second Committee stage of this Bill—two experienced and senior doctors writing on this issue, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, in the London Review of Books. In relation to community treatment orders they said:
"Keeping someone stable in the community can only be guaranteed if regular medication is part of that process. Since the '60s the basis of community care has been the availability of effective medication, the sine qua non of the business, which does not mean that social support, personal relationships and a psychological understanding are not also vital in psychiatric care. But, if the patient/client suffers from formal thought disorder, little can be done by the comforts of talking".
Of course there is the legal controversy as well as the clinical discussion about accepting some form of compulsory treatment order. Fears about mandatory treatment in the community seem to revolve around dramatic images of men in white coats forcibly injecting people on the kitchen table, although of course the Mental Health Act insists that medication can be given only in hospital. As Drs. Turner and Neave, the authors of the article in the London Review of Books pointed out:
"Most patients, once they are in hospital, accept the verdict of the law and are compliant with medication. Given the choice between living in their own home and being in hospital, the great majority would prefer to be out of hospital. If it is laid down by an appropriate legal statute that they have to receive regular medication, then that would become part of the deal".
It would obviously only be "part of the deal" in extreme or emergency circumstances.
As to the problem of transgressing the European Convention on Human Rights, I draw your Lordships' attention to the report of the public inquiry on the Andrew Robinson case, The Falling Shadow, where that issue was addressed. I also remind your Lordships that the chairman of that inquiry was Sir Louis Blom-Cooper the distinguished barrister. The view of the inquiry was that European case law appears to demonstrate that a community treatment order with a requirement to take

1249
medication to prevent a deterioration of health is most unlikely to fall foul of convention obligations. Given that authoritative opinion, it is a little strange that the Government have not gone all the way in this Bill and introduced a provision for compulsory treatment in the community as well as the power to take and convey. The logic is surely that either the power to take and convey should be removed from the Bill, as I suspect my noble friend Lord Rea will argue in his amendment, or it should be extended to include medication. The purpose of this probing amendment is to invite the Government to explain why they have adopted an unsatisfactory middle course. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is right. We are definitely not looking for compulsory treatment at a physical level. But it is important that the community care team is able to take action sooner rather than waiting for the mental breakdown of the patient and subsequent hospitalisation. It is important that this is seen as a main condition of the order.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, in general terms I support the amendment. I realise that it takes us into a wide field. It was not discussed in Committee, but, as the noble Baroness said, her intention is primarily a probing one.
I have long been in favour of this kind of provision but it requires a great deal of public discussion in order to get more public support than is at present apparent. There does not seem to be any logical reason why, if one has compulsory medication in hospital, under suitable safeguards one should not have it out of hospital, especially as, if treatment is to be effective, it is imperative that it should be regular. While saying that, I would not wish to press for any far-reaching commitment at this stage.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 33, so it will seem as though my noble friend and I are doing a strange double act in that she is advocating one course and I am advocating precisely the other course. However, there is a valid point of view which objects very strongly to the power to convey, which is quite an essential part of the Bill.
My remarks on this matter should be taken in conjunction with my noble friend's points in her amendment, which suggests that the power to order medication should logically be part of the power to convey and is the only way in which it would work effectively. Good community care for those with severe mental health problems entails intensive support from key workers, who will work at making good relationships with service users and will visit service users and keep in touch with them regularly and not just when they have an appointment for medication. Sadly, the latter is what one sees so often now. It is feared that the power to take and convey will enable supervisors to keep a minimum of contact and not to maintain a supportive relationship.
In Committee the noble Baroness said that this power would give a useful backing to the care team when there is a temporary reluctance on the part of the patient to
1250
co-operate. That highlights a concern that the power will be exercised to force a patient to comply with the conditions imposed on him or her, such as the requirement to attend for medical treatment, but, curiously, not to have to accept medication or other forms of treatment once they have attended. There is in the Bill little control over the exercise of the power to take and convey.
The Government maintain that they envisage a comparatively rare use of this power. The noble Baroness said:
"Clearly this power to convey would be used only in times of emergency".—[Official Report, 4/4/95; col. 156.]
But there is nothing in the Bill to regulate the use of the power and, as drafted, it could be exercised arbitrarily, at any time, in any circumstances and for any reason. Such an extensive power could be open to widespread abuse.
A number of organisations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, are extremely worried about the power and suggest that it might well be discriminatory in its effect. Despite the belief of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper that there would not be problems with the European Convention on Human Rights, his is not the only opinion and others feel that there might well be problems with the European Court of Human Rights.
I have set out a very small list of the points which people have made against the power to convey. I feel that either the power to convey should be dropped altogether or that it should be given some teeth, as my noble friend suggested.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on all three amendments. It may be helpful if I give the House the view conveyed to me by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship on this very tricky area. I refer first to Amendments Nos. 31 and 35. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship members are not in favour of a patient being required to take medication when living outside hospital. They do not think it is workable on practical grounds. If a patient is not prepared to comply with taking prescribed drugs, either orally or by injection, he or she should be admitted to hospital. It is as simple as that. If there is a deterioration in mental health or a danger in terms of suicide risk or violence to others, which often happens as a result of not taking medication, hospital must be the place for them.
Turning to Amendment No. 33, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, many civil liberties organisations object strongly to the power to convey. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship thinking on that point is that the power to convey could not and would not be used to convey someone to a clinic, a residential home, a work experience project, evening classes or whatever by force, as is sometimes necessary on admission to hospital. If there were any attempt to do that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship would object as much as any of the civil liberties organisations might do, as it sees that as destroying the whole basis of the Bill, which is to get as far as possible by consultation.
I am sure that many times my noble friend the Minister has told us that consultation and agreement are the basis of so much of what the Bill is trying to do. The

1251
National Schizophrenia Fellowship feels that having the power will be a very useful reinforcement, as my noble friend said in Committee, for, for example, a community psychiatric nurse or a social worker saying to someone, "You have to go to the clinic. I have my car here. Now come along". Such an approach might well work in practice by persuasion. In other words, what is wanted is the power to reinforce persuasion for the persuadable and not to get hold of 10 policemen or even one to take the patient anywhere by force. Therefore, I believe that the proposal in Amendment No. 33, which is to remove subsection (4), would lead to so much time being taken to implement the other aspects of the Bill that the situation that it is designed to deal with would have long changed into something else by the time the application had been approved by the health authority. Amendment No. 33 is not practicable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it seems to be the contention of the Opposition that the Bill is, as Sir Winston Churchill said of Sir Clive Bossom, neither one thing nor the other. The Minister might possibly be tempted to reply that in that case the Bill is just like real life.
I understand the argument for saying that one needs a power to compel the taking of medication in the community. But that is a great deal easier said than done. If any of us had been in the position of having to try to induce a patient to take medication which he is absolutely determined not to take, I think it would be agreed that it really is true that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.
That is why the power to take and convey in this Bill is necessary. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. It is true that one takes such powers only warily and hesitantly. In the end one has to take account of safety. There are many situations when the patient left outside is not safe. I remember an occasion when, late at night and in the dark, the patient was in a black cloak standing in the middle of the road. The traffic could not see her, and she would not move. That is the sort of situation where one needs the power to take and convey. I do not believe that we shall ever get this right but it seems to me that the Bill has come as near to it as we can reasonably hope.
6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we very much share the views of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am grateful for his support on this occasion. We feel that compulsory medication in the community has no place in our proposals. The requirements placed on a patient may include where he should attend for treatment. There will be a power to convey him there if absolutely necessary. But the idea of compulsory medication goes against the basic philosophy of the Bill.
The medication a patient needs will be part of the aftercare services provided for him under Section 117 of the Act, and if he does not co-operate with this part of his care the new Section 25E provides for the case to be reviewed and in particular for consideration to be given to whether he might need to be re-admitted to hospital under the Act. As your Lordships know, the
1252
balance between the liberties of patients and the protection they and other people may need from the effects of their illness is a delicate one. To introduce a provision for compulsory treatment in the community into the Bill would alter that balance fundamentally and this is not a course we wish to take. The fact that there is no power to medicate will itself help to ensure that the power to convey is used sparingly because there will be no point in using it unless there is reasonable expectation that the patient will co-operate.
I must confess that we are a little surprised to find the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, proposing in the same breath that the Bill should be made tougher by introducing compulsory medication in the community and that the power which it already contains to convey the patient should be removed. As I have acknowledged previously, we recognise that ultimately aftercare under supervision is not going to work without the co-operation of the patient. I also accept that the power to convey a patient can be seen as somewhat more coercive than Clause 1 as a whole. Indeed, we would expect it to be used in only fairly rare cases.
But in those cases where there is a temporary reluctance to co-operate on the patient's part, this limited measure of compulsion may be very valuable in ensuring that the care arrangements are maintained. That is a significant part of the underpinning of the aftercare arrangements introduced by the Bill. I hope very much that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree not to press the amendment. Perhaps I may just add that all the legal advice we have had is that all the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks, my noble friend and I were introducing these amendments, which we recognise to be mutually exclusive, in a probing way. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate because it has illustrated how complex and difficult this whole area is.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that if the patient does not agree to take medication and, as he was suggesting, that hospital would then be the place for them, the difficulty is that it would mean totally revising the supervised discharge order under which they were living in the community, as I understand the Bill as it now stands. That may not be quite as easy as the noble Lord suggested it was. That again illustrates the complexity of this area which the amendments were designed to address.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the amendment was perhaps not compatible with real life. My concern is that so many of the people who are dealing practically with patients in the community suggest that their work would be made much easier if Amendment No. 31 was adopted. However, in real life so many members of the civil liberties community and many patient bodies, are opposed to the provisions about taking and conveying which would have been left out if Amendment No. 33 had been accepted.

1253
As I say, it has been made very clear from these discussions that real life, particularly as it deals with the whole issue of treating the mentally ill successfully in the community, is enormously complex and stretches way beyond the simple issues of social care and probably far into areas of jurisprudence and ethics. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Baroness Jay Baroness Jay moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, leave out line 39 and insert:
("( ) An application for a patient subject to after-care under supervision to be taken and conveyed (in this Act referred to as a "conveyance application") duly completed in accordance with subsection (4A) below, shall be sufficient authority for the patient to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. In a sense these two amendments are in contrast to the previous group. They seek to introduce a rather practical provision into the power to take and convey and to ensure that it is used only in emergencies, as has been suggested by the Minister at Committee stage and which has been discussed in our debates on earlier amendments this afternoon.
These amendments would establish that this power was required in the interests of the health and safety of patients or for the protection of others. It would also establish that the appropriate procedures making a conveyance application had been duly completed. In this way the amendments would bring the Bill into line with the existing powers to take and convey which are in the Mental Health Act 1983.
Many concerns have been expressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, as regards the earlier amendment, about the power as drafted and particularly that it does not include the same explicit criteria for taking and conveying as exist in the Mental Health Act 1983. For example, the Law Society has written to me saying,
"A power of this nature is only necessary when the person is refusing to comply with the requirements imposed on them. Since this involves depriving the person of the liberty and freedom of movement against their will, it is therefore a power with considerable weight normally reserved only for police officers when taking a person into custody. Powers of this nature are in any other situation only allowed to be used with numerous safeguards to protect both the person being conveyed and the person effecting the conveyance".
As we know, the Mental Health Act 1983 already contains some provisions for an unwilling patient to be taken and conveyed to hospital although these provisions are limited to what is necessary to effect an admission to hospital. Under the existing provisions, which I understand are in Sections 6 and 137, a properly completed application for admission to hospital provides the necessary authority to take the patient and convey him to hospital. The application includes the recommendations of two medical practitioners that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants detention. The Act also confirms that the power to convey a person to hospital includes all the powers of a police officer when taking a person
1254
into custody. Reasonable force may be used to effect the conveyance and the person is deemed to be in legal custody.
During the debate in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said,
"We have followed the form of the existing Mental Health Act power for conveying a patient to hospital following an application for detention".—[Official Report, 4/4/95; col. 154.]
But the Bill as currently drafted does not set out the circumstances in which it is envisaged that the power may be used nor does it require the supervisor to obtain any form of authority before using the power or before delegating the power to anybody else.
At col. 156 the noble Baroness also said in response to an earlier debate on this subject,
"Clearly this power to convey would be used only in times of emergency".
However, the circumstances which constitute such an emergency are not on the face of the Bill. They should be clarified to give the legislation the force and to give the people involved in it the protection which they have under the Mental Health Act.
These two amendments would achieve that clarity by specifying the circumstances in which the power may be used and by clarifying the authority required by the supervisor before using this power or delegating it to someone else. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, now propose that the power to convey should feature as a way of helping a patient to comply with the requirements of his care plan in the community. However, I cannot support the approach they have adopted here. It would introduce a provision whereby on each occasion that a supervisor thought it was in the best interests of the patient to convey him to where he was supposed to be, a "conveyance application" should be made to the health authority. If a patient is on supervised discharge, the health authority would have accepted a supervision application at the outset and, under our proposals, the authorisation of a power to convey is implicit in that original acceptance.
That power would be used under only very limited circumstances, but I understand that it may be particularly valuable in emergencies. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, illustrated clearly in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when we discussed our proposals in Committee last month, where someone has a severe mental illness—possibly a person with schizophrenia who is not adhering to his care plan and might cause himself or others harm if not supported urgently—an immediate power is needed. It would not be practical or in the best interests of the patient to wait for the bureaucracy of an application to take its course. We do not believe that the amen0dments are practical and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is not in his place at the moment because, following his earlier amendments about making things clear to those in the community who will

1255
have to deal with these complicated provisions, he might have said what I feel—that the amendments would help to spell out precisely the circumstances and authorities needed to apply to what we have all described as a very important and rather difficult power.
Surely, however, the Minister's point about the provisions involving unnecessary bureaucracy in an emergency has already been met under Section 6 of the Mental Health Act, where emergencies are acknowledged and where the powers to take and convey are provided for, as suggested in my amendment. In fact, I believe that the wording of my amendment is drawn almost precisely from that of Section 6 of the Mental Health Act. Presumably, those who apply that part of the Mental Health Act to emergency admissions to hospitals do not find the bureaucracy overwhelming and difficult. I see no logical reason why it should not be the same in the community.
As I said, these are practical amendments as compared with our earlier amendments which were designed to provoke precisely the discussion that we had so successfully. I am disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to accept them because, as I said, I believe that the provisions would help those who are working in the community in this extremely difficult area to understand both their powers and responsibilities. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Where the patient is admitted to hospital for treatment following a referral to an approved social worker under sub-section (4) (b) above, the hospital manager must refer the case to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for a hearing within 4 weeks, without prejudice to the patient's right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the provisions of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure a speedy review of any patient's detention in hospital should that patient fail to comply with aftercare under supervision. The only sanction—the ultimate sanction—that is available to the responsible medical officer in the community and the associated aftercare body with which he or she is working, in cases where a patient under supervision refuses or neglects to comply with all the requirements imposed upon him or her, is to consider readmission to hospital.
There are likely to be many reasons why a patient may refuse or neglect to comply with the requirements of his aftercare under supervision. Preparation for aftercare and taking the patient's views into account may, as we said earlier, improve the success rate of the care plan. However, since readmission to hospital is to be the main sanction for non-compliance, particularly now that the decision not to require medication in the community has definitely been made, it is important that the need for detention is reviewed by the mental health review tribunal at the earliest possible opportunity to
1256
protect the patient's rights and to ensure that the power is not abused. That is a brief description of what the amendment is about. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this amendment seeks to require that where a patient who has been subject to aftercare under supervision is readmitted to hospital for treatment under the Act, he will have his case automatically referred by the hospital managers to a mental health review tribunal within four weeks. Such a referral would be independent of his right to appeal to a tribunal on his own behalf.
Patients who have been subject to aftercare under supervision will have been closely monitored and their progress towards rehabilitation will be known to the supervisor and other members of the care team. Therefore, if unfortunately their mental condition deteriorates to such an extent that they require detention once more, several professionals will be well acquainted with their condition and readmission can be organised speedily. They will have an immediate right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal against their detention.
The effect of the amendment would be to treat those patients differently from those who were detained for treatment without having been subject to aftercare under supervision. I can see no justification for that. All patients have the right to apply for a tribunal as soon as they are detained under the Act. We see no reason why, in the case of these patients, it has to be reinforced by an additional duty on the managers. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We still feel that this is a special group of patients who should be able to cope, with help, in the community. We feel that rather more searching scrutiny should be made of the reasons for their readmission and that consideration should be given to the question of whether their readmission or detention in hospital is necessary. However, I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("under") in line 37 and insert:
("(5) The responsible after-care bodies shall not modify—
(a) the after-care services provided (or to be provided)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 38, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. This group of amendments tidies up the existing provisions in new Section 25E. These all relate to the modification of the aftercare services; in other words, changes to the agreed care plan.
As currently drafted, the Bill would not allow for a change to the care plan to be made before the patient left hospital. In the great majority of cases the sequence of events will be, broadly, that the care plan will have been drawn up and agreed, the supervision application made and then accepted by the health authority, and the patient leaves hospital and returns to the community

1257
where he will be subject to aftercare under supervision. However, it is possible that the care plan may need to be revised before discharge from hospital—perhaps a hostel place has fallen through, or the care team has to change. It therefore seems sensible to build in the possibility that the aftercare services could be modified before the patient leaves hospital. Changes as needed could also be made to the requirements in new Section 25D. Any other approach would mean that the original care plan and requirements would take effect when the patient leaves hospital and would then need immediate review and change.
The responsible aftercare bodies must not modify the aftercare services which are actually being provided or will be provided when the patient leaves hospital, unless they consult the patient, informal carer and nearest relative (where practicable unless the patient has objected) about the modifications. Again, as currently drafted, the Bill places the duty to undertake the consultation upon the responsible aftercare bodies; that is, the health authority and the local authority with the duty under Section 117 to provide aftercare. The amendments are intended to add flexibility to the system by leaving open who actually undertakes the consultation. In practice, we envisage that when the patient is subject to aftercare under supervision it will fall to the supervisor. The amended new Section 25E(6), however, makes it incumbent upon the responsible aftercare bodies that they must take into account the views expressed by those who have been consulted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 8 and insert ("unless subsection (6) below is complied with.
(6) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) the patient has been consulted about the modifications;

(b) any person who the responsible after-care bodies believe plays (or will play) a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not (or will not be) professionally concerned with the after-care services provided for the patient under section 117 below has been consulted about the modifications;

(c) unless the patient has otherwise requested, such steps as are practicable have been taken to consult the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient about the modifications; and

(d) the responsible after-care bodies have taken into account any views expressed by the persons consulted.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 9, after ("provided") insert ("(or to be provided)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, leave out lines 13 to 21 and insert ("both orally and in writing;

(b) inform any person who has been consulted under paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above; and

(c) inform in writing any person who has been consulted under paragraph (c) of that subsection,

that the modifications have been made.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 44, after ("patient") insert ("both orally and in writing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("except where") and insert ("unless").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 2, after ("inform") insert ("in writing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, I understand that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List, and that Amendment No. 45 should be in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert:
("Regulations as to transfer of patients.
(1) This section applies when a patient decides to move from the original place of residence decided under section 25(d)
above and this move involves a change of responsible Health Authority or Social Services Authority.
(2) Where subsection (1) above applies in relation to a patient, the responsible after-care bodies shall consider whether appropriate after-care services will be available in the areas in which the patient wishes to reside, being an area not within that of the responsible Health Authority or local social services authority as specified in section 25A.
(3) Where subsection (1) above applies in relation to a patient, the responsible after-care bodies shall consult the persons referred to in subsection (4) below who will be professionally concerned, in the intended area of residence, with the after-care services to be provided for the patient under section 117 below, or shall, if the patient intends to reside in Scotland, make an application to the appropriate sheriff under section 35 below.
(4) The persons referred to in subsection (3) above are—

(a) the responsible medical officer within the area of the Health Authority where the patient intends to reside; and

(b) an approved social worker acting for the local social services authority where the patient intends to reside.

(5) Where a patient is for the time being subject to after-care under supervision of a Health Authority by virtue of an application under section 25A above, that patient may be transferred into the after-care supervision of another Health Authority after such consultation, and in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(6) Where a patient who is subject to after-care under supervision is transferred in pursuance of regulations under subsection (5) above to after-care under supervision of another Health Authority, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply as if the application were for his reception into the after-care under supervision of that Health Authority and had been accepted at the time when it was originally made.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry that the amendment does not stand in the Minister's name. It is, however, similar to an amendment introduced in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and it is with his permission that I am introducing it. The amendment allows for flexibility and continuity in the aftercare arrangements if a patient on a supervised discharge order moves from one health or local authority area to another. That will obviously be an issue where patients live in a large city such as London and by inadvertence move out of one local authority or health authority's area into another.
The noble Earl asked what would happen to patients who may move between Scotland and England where, as we know, the jurisdictions and care programme arrangements are different. The community supervision arrangements proposed in the Bill are dissimilar. We have been made aware that many patients are inclined to drift from one place to another. We have experienced such examples, and reports of difficult cases have been mentioned several times today.
Responding to the noble Earl's amendment in Committee, the Minister said that continuity of care was assured under the Section 117 duties on health authorities and social services which are transferable. That is fine in theory and in statute: it may not be so good in practice. It does not always work. Patients sometimes become the only source of information about their circumstances and diagnoses when they turn up in another jurisdiction and appear before another set of doctors and social services staff.
There is a strong case for revising the powers of the Mental Health Act Commission, something that we shall discuss under Amendment No. 141. In any case, there is an argument for being more precise on the face of the Bill about the need for cross-boundary consultation. That, as I say, will be especially important across the national border between England and Scotland. In Committee, in reply to that point, the Minister said:
"We are looking carefully at what might be done to address this and we hope to bring forward our proposals soon".—[Official Report, 4/4/95; col. 163.]
When I saw the Marshalled List before the misprint came to light, I thought that that might have been what had happened. I have been disabused of that optimism. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the amendment suggests that where place of residence is among the requirements—if any—placed upon a patient, special arrangements for moving him or her to another area covered by another health and local authority would be necessary. I hope I can explain that, while the arrangements will indeed be necessary, the amendment itself is not. The power of supervised discharge aims to ensure that a discharged patient receives the services which must be provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. This latter provision has been in existence since 1983 and allows—without specifying the detailed arrangements and consultations which must take place as a matter of good practice—a patient to move from one area to another without losing the care in the community and support he or she needs. Section 117 simply says that it is the duty of the authorities in
1260
which the patient is resident (or to which he or she is discharged) to provide those services, regardless of whether the authorities change because of where the patient subsequently moves to. Therefore, if a patient wishes to move to a different area and it is considered to be in his or her best interests, then arrangements can be made regardless of whether his or her actual place of residence is a requirement under supervised discharge. Such a change could be accommodated by the review of requirements provisions already in the Bill and by the flexibility which Section 117 already allows. A change of community responsible medical officer or supervisor, whether because of a change of location or any other reason, is allowed for in the Bill as drafted.
The transfer to Scotland is, as your Lordships have identified, a slightly different matter, as would be a transfer in the opposite direction. We are looking at this at present and I intend to put proposals to the House on Third Reading. In the meantime, in the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and in particular for her remarks that she will be tabling proposals relating to cross-border transfers, or whatever one may call them—drifting perhaps rather than transfers —at a later stage of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 26, after ("patient") insert ("both orally and in writing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("except where") and insert ("unless").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 56:
Page 9, line 28, after ("inform") insert ("in writing").
Page 9, leave out line 31 and insert ("that the report has been furnished.").
Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 43 and insert ("the conditions set out in subsection (4) above are complied with unless—

(a) the following persons have been consulted—

(i) the patient;

(ii) the supervisor;

(iii) unless no-one other than the community responsible medical officer is professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment, one or more persons who are so concerned;

(iv) one or more persons who are professionally concerned with the after-care services (other than medical treatment) provided for the patient under section 117 below; and

1261

(v) any person who the community responsible medical officer believes plays a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not professionally concerned with the after-care services so provided;

(b) except where the patient has otherwise requested, such steps as are practicable have been taken to consult the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient; and

(c) the community responsible medical officer has taken into account any relevant views expressed by the persons consulted.").

Page 11, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert ("both orally and in writing—

(i) that the report has been furnished; and

(ii) of the effect in his case of the provisions of this Act relating to making a patient subject to after-care under supervision for a further period (including, in particular, what rights of applying to a Mental Health Review Tribunal are available);

(b) inform any person who has been consulted under paragraph (a) (v) of subsection (6) above that the report has been furnished; and
(c) inform in writing any person who has been consulted under paragraph (b) of that subsection that the report has been furnished.").
Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 45 and insert ("subsection (3) below is complied with.
(3) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) the following persons have been consulted about the giving of the direction—

(i) the patient;

(ii) the supervisor;

(iii) unless no-one other than the community responsible medical officer is professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment, one or more persons who are so concerned;

(iv) one or more persons who are professionally concerned with the after-care services (other than medical treatment) provided for the patient under section 117 below; and

(v) any person who the community responsible medical officer believes plays a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not professionally concerned with the after-care services so provided;

(b) unless the patient has otherwise requested, such steps as are practicable have been taken to consult the person (if any) appearing to be the nearest relative of the patient about the giving of the direction; and

(c) the community responsible medical officer has taken into account any views expressed by the persons consulted.").

Page 12, line 7, after ("patient") insert ("both orally and in writing").
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("except where") and insert ("unless").
Page 12, line 14, after ("inform") insert ("in writing").
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("of his ceasing") and insert ("that the patient has ceased").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. The amendments change the commencement date of the Bill from 1st January 1996 to 1st April 1996. We have taken stock of the Bill's progress through Parliament and considered the need for consequential amendments and secondary legislation. We believe that once the legislation has been passed
1262
there must be sufficient time for guidance to be issued and read and fully understood by those who are to operate the new powers both in England and Wales and in Scotland. During Committee we also took note of the points made about local government reorganisation in Scotland, and the Government consider that a 1st April start date would be a more suitable date for this reason. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Guardianship
In section 7(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983 after the words "the local social services authority" in each place they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or relevant health authority".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. They would place on the face of the Bill the amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 which would make guardianship a statutory alternative and with the same terms as a supervised discharge order. That would thus make the two provisions interchangeable.
On Second Reading we discussed the general advantages of guardianship. I suggested that if the guardianship orders in the Mental Health Act 1983 were amended as we now propose, the new supervision order could be made redundant. However, in Committee I proposed an amendment to ensure that guardianship was considered before a supervised discharge order was made. In reply, the Minister said that she was sure that in practice that would happen. However, she also said that, as the guardianship order was seen as a social services provision and the new order is to be health authority driven, and as there is no power to take and convey in guardianship as it now stands, it was unlikely that guardianship would often be used for this particular group of patients.
The new clause seeks to amend the 1983 Act so that guardianship may in future be the responsibility of a health authority as an alternative to a social services authority. It also adds to Section 8 of the Mental Health Act the additional power to take and convey. I remind your Lordships that that additional power as regards guardianship was suggested by the Law Commission report on mental incapacity. It was published earlier this year but after publication of the Bill. Those consulted by the Law Commission were unanimous in supporting the additional power and said that the fact that it was not in the present guardianship arrangements was a serious omission.
We know that guardianship is growing in practice, although at one stage it was not often used by local social services. There were 66 orders in 1983–84 and 326 in 1993–94. I believe that if the practice is becoming acceptable to patients and to doctors and social workers, who understand the implications of the guardianship law and have practice in using it, the simple addition of taking and conveying to make it consistent with the new

1263
Bill and to amend the 1983 Act in the way that I have suggested would make it even more useful. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, these amendments would make it possible for a health authority to become guardian to a vulnerable patient under the Mental Health Act and would also introduce to guardianship for the first time the power to convey for treatment and rehabilitation.
We believe that there may be scope for improving the use of guardianship. Indeed, we have just finished a consultation exercise about how it is used and how this could be improved. But we also believe it is there for a different type of patient—one with perhaps a lower risk factor and fewer medical needs—than the patient we think would benefit from supervised discharge. My noble friend has explained at earlier stages our reasons for believing that a new power is needed which will have a different focus from guardianship and can work alongside it. What these amendments would do is to change guardianship to make it more like supervised discharge. We believe that this can only cause confusion and that it will be better to keep the two powers distinct until we are better able to take stock of the effectiveness of the new one.
Similarly, we would not want to introduce a power to convey someone subject to guardianship at this stage. But we will certainly be prepared to look at this again when we have analysed the comments that we have received from our recent consultation exercise and when we are in a position to see how supervised discharge works as an entirely different provision to guardianship. I hope that under those circumstances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for that helpful reply. In particular, I am pleased to hear that the Government are considering a new approach to guardianship and are closely considering the results of their consultation. I look forward to hearing about the results of that and to any appropriate amendments subsequently made to existing or future legislation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Absence without leave]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 12, line 43, leave out ("later") and insert ("earlier").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to ensure that a person is not liable to be taken into custody for longer than the period for which he or she was liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act. Once again, the amendment is designed to ensure that the provisions of the new legislation are consistent with the 1983 Act; in particular, that the protection of the rights of the patient is not undermined by a failure to make explicit the understanding of some of the new arrangements—in other words, not to leave crucial matters to good practice when bad practice may mean that very vulnerable and difficult patients suffer.
As we understand it, Clause 2 has been introduced because under the Mental Health Act the power to take a patient who is absent without leave back into custody and then into hospital ceases after 28 days. It is also my understanding that this provision attracted considerable negative public attention after the highly publicised case of a man who was detained under a hospital order—that is, it was made after a criminal conviction—but not a restriction order. It is worth repeating that most of those detained in hospital—I believe about 87 per cent.—are detained under civil provisions, which means that they are not detained following conviction.
Several of the organisations which deal with patients in the community and which act as their informal advocates are anxious that, for example, if patients are absent without leave and liable to detention for much longer than the original sectioning under which they were detained, it is likely that they will stay away from mental health services even though they might otherwise have sought help. It has been suggested that the decision to detain someone must be free from arbitrariness.
It is also suggested that under the proposals as drafted someone could be taken to hospital more than five months after the original authority to detain had expired and detained without the procedures that are otherwise provided for by the 1983 Act. I remind your Lordships that those include an application by a social worker supported by two medical opinions. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the Bill as drafted and I believe that the amendment would help to make more explicit the understanding of some of the new arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the amendment would significantly shorten the period of time in which a patient who went absent without leave would be liable to be taken into custody. Indeed, should a patient go absent without leave within the last 28 days of his or her authority for detention, his or her liability to be taken back into custody would be shorter than the 28-day period in the 1983 Act which this clause was introduced to address. Should a patient abscond the day before his or her authority for detention expired, the period in which he or she was liable to be returned to hospital would be little more than a matter of hours. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that this would not be an acceptable situation. The fact that at present a patient who absconds cannot be returned to hospital after more than 28 days has aroused widespread public concern. I believe that the public would be a little surprised to see us shortening this further.
I also remind your Lordships that if a patient had been at liberty for more than 28 days, he could not simply be returned to hospital without further ado. The new Section 21B then requires the responsible medical officer to examine the patient. He will then only continue to be detained if the RMO, who must consult others including an approved social worker, so recommends.
Setting a time limit on the return of absconding patients is not a straightforward task. It involves a careful balancing act taking account both of the civil rights of patients and their safety and that of the public. We are

1265
confident that the provisions in Clause 2 as they currently stand have got this balance right. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As the noble Baroness said, this is an issue where the balancing act which we all have to follow is extremely difficult. Obviously, there is legitimate public concern about some of the incidents to which I referred when introducing the amendment.
What the Minister said about explicit undertakings and her explanation of them in relation to new Section 21 B in terms of the distinct co-operation and collaboration between the RMO and an approved social worker will remove many of the anxieties that have been expressed about the lack of consistency in the present proposals and the 1983 Act. In view of that and what the Minister rightly described as a certain public disquiet about this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Community care orders]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 17, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 3 and insert:
("Where a patient who is liable to be detained in a hospital under section 18 or Part VI of this Act, and has attained the age of 16 years,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that the Government intend that the new orders should apply only to people who have serious mental health problems and who are the subject of long-term sections or who have come to hospital through the criminal justice system. I understand that that is the intention of new Section 35B on page 18 at lines 37 to 40.
However, new Section 35B does not achieve that result. Under Sections 24 and 26 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, a person may be detained in a hospital for a total of 31 days. It is then possible to make an application for a community care order during the last three days of the patient's detention. The amendment removes that possibility.
If one looks at the position of children and young people, the English provisions of Clause 1 limit the supervision and discharge of young people who have attained the age of 16. The reason would appear to be that such young people are dealt with more appropriately under the Children Act. Similar concerns apply to children in Scotland who could have the benefit of supervision from social work departments and reference to a children's panel.
Those would seem to be the appropriate bodies for exercising control and supervision over the lives of young people. They have the experience and the procedures in place for considering the special needs of young people. In general, we are very pleased with the work of our children's panels. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that those panels will be used, in particular for those aged under 16. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this amendment appears to make community care orders available to those
1266
detained under Section 18 and Part VI of the 1984 Act, and to patients who are over 16 years. I regret that, although we understand what the amendment seeks to provide, we are not able to accept it.
It is only proper that community care orders should be made available in respect of any patient detained in hospital under Section 18 and those detained under Part V, which includes patients sent to hospital by a court under a hospital order without special restrictions following their involvement in criminal proceedings. The discharge arrangements of such patients are a matter for the responsible medical officer. It is only appropriate that community care orders should therefore be available, as indeed leave of absence already is, as a further stage in rehabilitation.
By including a reference to Part VI of the Act, the amendment could also make community care orders available to restricted, or "state", patients. As the noble Lord will know, for public safety reasons responsibility for the case management of these patients ultimately rests with the Secretary of State. The powers available under Sections 64(2) and 68(2) of the 1984 Act, which allow for the conditional discharge of these patients, work well. Consequently, we do not consider that community care orders should be available for restricted patients.
The noble Lord is, I understand, seeking clarification in the Bill that community care orders are not available for patients detained under Section 24, then Section 26. I hope that we have provided that clarification by tabling government Amendments Nos. 64, 69, 70 and 77.
On the question of an age limit, and as we discussed in Committee, we all appreciate that the detention of children under the age of 16 years in psychiatric hospital is a disturbing topic. However, the existing position is that it is possible for a child to be detained in hospital, but it is recognised that detention should not be used for children unless absolutely necessary.
If there is the possibility of a person under 16 being detained in a hospital, it is also fair that that person should have the same rehabilitation opportunities as all others so detained, including community care orders. It is for this reason that the age limit of 16 years should not be imposed. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation, although I do not pretend to agree with it. For example, will children in hospital in those circumstances be detained in conditions different from those for the other general patients? Will there be a wing for patients aged under 16 or will they be in wards with adults? I am sure that the noble Earl will recognise that that would be a very retrograde step. I shall look at what he said and take advice on the technical points which were raised. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("under this Pan of this Act") and insert ("in pursuance of an application for admission").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 77 at this stage. It became evident in Committee that it was not necessarily clear exactly which patients might be candidates for community care orders. I note in particular the discussion which took place then about Amendment No. 85, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, as recorded at columns 337 and 338 of the Official Report.
We have therefore proposed these amendments of a drafting and technical nature to seek to clarify exactly who is, and who is not, a candidate for a community care order. The text of these amendments states that it shall be a person who is liable to be detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,
"in pursuance of an application for admission".
This is the wording used in the Act to refer to a person who is liable to be detained in hospital as a result of an approved application for admission, that is, a person detained in hospital under Section 18 of the Act. Patients subject to a hospital order without special restrictions are also included by virtue of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2.
We further require that the person should have been liable to be detained under Section 18 or under the hospital order for a period of 28 days before an application for a community care order can be made. This allows the review of the patient's liability to detention required by Section 22(4) of the 1984 Act. We seek to clarify that in Amendment No. 77.
We take the view that community care orders should be for people who have been detained in hospital because of their mental disorder under Section 18 or under a hospital order. Patients who are detained under Sections 24, or Section 24 followed by Section 26, and who then require no further liability to detention in hospital are covered by the care management arrangements. We have made it clear in guidance that patients with a mild mental illness may be discharged only following agreement of a multi-disciplinary care plan which will ensure that they receive a good standard of clinical and aftercare services. This is set out in the circular, Community Care in Scotland, Assessment and Care Management. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) a community care assessment under section 12A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
(in this Act referred to as a "community care assessment").").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide that a person who is subject to a community care order will have a full community care assessment under the National Health Service and Community Care Act. We believe it is essential that a person who is subject to a community care order receives the benefits of the new community care system of assessment and care management. This amendment attempts to tie in the two systems to bring this about. In an earlier part of the discussion on this Bill the noble Earl said,
"Local authorities already have a duty under Section 12A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to assess people's social care needs"—[Official Report, 6/4/95; col. 329.]
This amendment would make it clear that such an assessment should be carried out before the community care order was granted. The sheriff should have the benefit of seeing the full assessment before he grants a community care order. I have not been able to tie up what the Minister said earlier with this amendment, but I believe that it takes his amendment a little further than he would perhaps wish. However, I should like to hear his reply to Amendment No. 65 and, incidentally, to Amendment No. 81 which is also in the group we are discussing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as we understand it, these amendments, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seek to introduce a statutory requirement that the patient should receive a needs assessment, and make an associated change to the Bill. I have to say in passing that we are not convinced that the drafting would achieve their aim. We do not need to legislate for this. As the noble Lord remembered from the Committee stage, local authorities already have a duty under Section 12A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to assess people's social care needs.
We believe the duties on local authorities to provide aftercare under Section 8 of the 1984 Act are quite clear and are being made even clearer in this Bill on page 39, at paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. We will also underline in guidance the circumstances in which this duty applies to community care order patients.
The noble Lord also mentioned that the sheriff should see an assessment in place before he grants a community care order. However, I would stress that, as it is, the sheriff must be fully satisfied with the arrangements which have been made both for the medical and the social aftercare of a particular patient before he grants an order. As matters stand, the sheriff has to be convinced that the necessary arrangements are in place. If there are problems in meeting these duties, these should be addressed administratively and not by primary legislation. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, if the Minister can assure me that the consultation with the sheriff will be the equivalent of the sheriff having the benefit of a full assessment, and it is not merely an untutored or an unstructured discussion, I would be happy with that. However, we wanted the sheriff to be required to have a full assessment established so that in future the sheriff would be able to say, "I saw everything and I agreed with it". If the noble Earl can assure us that what he is suggesting would be the equivalent of a full assessment, I would be quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord. The sheriff must be convinced that the appropriate community facilities are in place, and that the structural support is in place. Until he is convinced that that is the case, he will not be in a position to grant a community care order.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am satisfied now with what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 17, line 24, after ("appropriate") insert ("and which are agreed to by the special medical officer and the aftercare officer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my concern here is that the wording of the Bill allows the sheriff to introduce conditions of his own. I want to guard against the rare situation where a sheriff might introduce unrealistic conditions based upon idiosyncratic views. I note that in Committee we learnt that the sheriff should be able to approve conditions which are newly suggested during the course of an application hearing. We all applauded the news that applications would be held in chambers rather than in the more formal setting of open court. In Committee I withdrew an amendment which denied the sheriff the opportunity to make any additional conditions on a community care order without prior consent of the special medical officer and the aftercare officer. After learning of the informal judicial setting of the application, I believe that this amendment would enable the sheriff to propose new and additional conditions achieving consent from the special medical officer and the aftercare officer as the application was being dealt with. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, would require the special medical officer and the aftercare officer to agree to any additional conditions which the sheriff decided were appropriate when he made the order. We discussed related points at the Committee stage of this Bill. The sheriff has discretion to make conditions at the point of making an order as he considers appropriate. Also, sheriffs must exercise powers reasonably. We have no grounds for assuming that they would not exercise their powers reasonably. The noble Earl thought there might be some rare circumstances where they might indulge in idiosyncratic whims. If they do, the making of any such order on such idiosyncratic whims would be open to legal challenge. It is unlikely that a sheriff could regard as appropriate a condition which was opposed by either the special medical officer or the aftercare officer.
The sheriff has a power under new Section 35A(5) to defer the making of an order until arrangements have been made. If a sheriff decided in a particular case that he wished to use that power to satisfy himself that arrangements had been made, and that as part of this he wished to be satisfied that the conditions to be imposed were acceptable to the care team, that would be a matter for him.
I should emphasise that such other conditions as the sheriff considers appropriate are, in the terms of new Section 35A(1) also conditions pertaining to the objective of the community care order, and they would have to fall within the scope of all conditions imposed under a community care order; that is, they must be imposed with a view to ensuring that the patient receives medical
1270
treatment and aftercare under Section 8 of the 1984 Act. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. My concern is that the special medical officer and the aftercare officer have to implement anything which is in the order. That is why I raised this amendment again. However, I am happy with the noble Earl's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 17, line 49, leave out ("under this Part of this Act") and insert ("in pursuance of an application for admission").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("under this Part of this Act") and insert ("in pursuance of an application for admission").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I also spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 18, line 17, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 18 and insert ("any other person who has been consulted under subsection (3) (a) of section 35B of this Act;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 71 it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 80, 88, 92, 93, 99, 102, 111, 116, 117, 122, 123 and 124.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we believe in efficient working in this House.
In the light of the discussions in Committee about the importance of the nearest relative, we are proposing to clarify his role. As your Lordships may have gathered from that lengthy list of amendments, these are quite complicated changes, but I shall attempt to be as clear as possible.
We propose that, in addition to any situation in which he may already be consulted, the nearest relative should be consulted, if practicable and if the patient does not object, at the following points: first, before an application for a community care order is made; secondly, before the renewal of a community care order; thirdly, before a proposed variation of conditions; fourthly, before reassessment in hospital is directed; and, fifthly, before a community care order is revoked by the special medical officer. We also propose that the patient, in addition to any point at which he must already be consulted, must be consulted before the renewal of the order and before the revocation of the order by the special medical officer.
We also propose that, if he has been consulted, the nearest relative is also informed at various points in the following ways. First, if he is consulted before an

1271
application is made, then he will be sent a copy of the community care order and he will be sent a copy of the written explanation given to the patient when the order is made. Secondly, if he is consulted about the renewal of the community care order, then he will be notified of any renewal and he will be sent a copy of the written explanation given to the patient. That is proposed in government Amendment No. 96, but I shall mention it briefly here. Thirdly, if he is consulted about a proposed variation of conditions, then he will be sent a copy of the proposed variation of conditions and a copy of the approved variation of conditions. Fourthly, if he is consulted about a proposed reassessment in hospital, he will be sent a copy of the pre-hospital reports and the direction requiring the patient to attend hospital. In all these cases, if the nearest relative has been consulted, the patient will have no right to prevent him being informed.
We have deliberately excluded the case of revocation from this scenario because it is a particularly important part of the community care order. Where a community care order is revoked, the nearest relative will always be informed. That is regardless of whether the revocation has been by the special medical officer or the Mental Welfare Commission and regardless of whether the nearest relative has been consulted.
The other amendments make technical changes to the procedures by which the nearest relative receives a copy of the written explanations given to the patient. This will occur only where the nearest relative has been consulted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
7.3 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Act,

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act,

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act,

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Act.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law]:
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("Schedule 1").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. It would substitute for the provisions of "subsection (1)" in Clause 1(1) "Schedule 1". The schedule sets out the articles of the convention to be incorporated into law and the first protocol. "Schedule 1" is all that need be said. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, all the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although minor in nature, appear to the Government to be entirely sensible improvements to the Bill as it presently stands. It follows that the Government will not seek to oppose them, notwithstanding their wider concerns about the Bill as a whole.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13. leave out ("serve as") and insert ("be").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this again is purely a drafting amendment, but there is some point in getting the matter right now rather than purely from the point of view of drafting.
Clause 1(2) provides that the provisions shall:
"serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation".
My amendment would delete the words "serve as" so that it reads the provisions shall:
"be an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation".
Clearly, this is a purely drafting amendment. However, there is a lack of harmony in speaking of words in an Act of Parliament as "serving as an aid". There is almost a degree of subordination of Parliament. The matter is perfectly straightforward if those words are deleted and the word "be" is inserted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("primary and secondary legislation") and insert ("any enactment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again this is a drafting amendment. Clause 1(2) (a) refers to the provisions serving as an aid to the construction of "primary and secondary legislation". That is a long description and a rather academic description of something that could be put in terms which are already used in the Bill. Therefore, I propose to delete the words "primary and secondary legislation" and insert the words "any enactment". The clause would then read:
"The provisions set out in Schedule 1 … shall … be an aid to the construction of any enactment".
That covers the whole field of statute law. I chose those words because they pick up and echo subsection (5) in which there is a reference to the meaning of the word "enactment" in the Bill. It indicates quite clearly that the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, any enactment covers the whole of statute law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment no. 5:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in the United Kingdom").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment equally briefly. There is no need to indicate that legal proceedings are "in the United Kingdom". If one deletes those words, the provision states:
"The provisions set out in subsection (1) … shall … be taken into account in equity and at common law, so that effect may be given to them in any legal proceedings".
It can only be "in the United Kingdom". The additional words are surplusage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In The Title:
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 6:
Line 4, leave out ("the disposition of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we move now into a strange world—at least I always find it strange when we start to tinker about with the Title of someone's Bill. Nevertheless, on Report some strange words were introduced into the Title, which now reads:
"An Act to incorporate Section 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 and the First Protocol to that Convention in the disposition of the law of the United Kingdom".
I propose to delete the words, "the disposition of". What on earth do those words mean in that context? The word "disposition" indicates to me that someone has a choice. Does the Bill suggest that the judges should chose whether or not in a specific case the convention should be considered incorporated? Those are dangerous words. I do not really know what they mean. Let us get rid of them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 7:
Line 5, at end insert ("and to provide for the interpretation and application of the law.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. I propose that certain words should be added to the Title. The words are,
"and to provide for the interpretation and application of the law".
I do so in order that it may be perfectly clear that the new clause which entered the Bill on Report—it was the clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—should have its purpose reflected in the Title. Quite clearly, the emphasis of the new clause was on interpretation and application of the law.
In a sense, in justice to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, we should ensure that those words are now in the Title. So far as is relevant the Title will then read,
"An Act to incorporate Section 1 of the Convention … in the law of the United Kingdom and to provide for the interpretation and application of the law".
Emphasis on interpretation and application is sound. It reflects what I believe to be the main purpose of the amendment that was moved on Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
1274
I should like to express my gratitude to the whole House for the care with which the Bill has been considered, debated and improved. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who—at great personal inconvenience—has improved the drafting of the Bill and, if I may say so, given wise leadership and unflagging encouragement to those of us who seek to strengthen the effective protection of human rights in this country.
Although the House passed three similar Bills, introduced by Lord Wade and Lord Broxbourne in 1979, 1980 and 1986, this is the first occasion on which the incorporation of the European Convention has the support of the senior judiciary and of the Labour Party. The great majority of noble Lords who have spoken in the debates on the Bill have supported it. That is a source of great encouragement for the future. It is also apparent from recent independent polls of public opinion that this is by far the most popular of all proposals for constitutional reform, being supported by almost three-quarters of respondents.
The Government have argued that the Bill would diminish parliamentary sovereignty. However, as amended, the Bill requires our courts to give effect to Acts of Parliament if they are plainly intended to be inconsistent with the convention. By passing the Bill your Lordships would help to restore rather than to diminish parliamentary sovereignty.
The decision to ratify the convention and accept the right of individual petition was taken by the Government of the day under prerogative powers without any parliamentary debate. Parliament, as represented by this House, now has the opportunity to decide to translate convention rights, freedoms and duties into the law of the land so that British courts can provide British remedies with the European Court of Human Rights acting only as a long stop, where British remedies are insufficient. That would, I submit, strengthen the protection of the civil and political rights of the citizens of this country under the rule of law and greatly influence the role of British law in Europe. It would also give effect to the doctrine of subsidiarity. It would bring the UK into line with the position of all the other contracting states which have incorporated the convention or have constitutional Bills of Rights which match the convention. That is also the position in almost all Commonwealth countries, including Canada and New Zealand.
The passing of the Bill would be likely to diminish the embarrassingly large number of cases in which the UK has been found in breach of the convention—second only to Italy, most of whose breaches result from delays in the Italian legal system. The Minister argued in previous debates that the record is not as bad as it seems when related to population size and to the date on which the right of petition was accepted by the state concerned. That is a fair point, but it does not explain the continuing high level of breaches; nor does it justify the continuing failure to provide speedy and effective remedies in this country, giving us equal protection to that available in the other contracting states.

1275
Perhaps I may give one example from a country of comparable size and complexity, to serve for all—Germany. Germany has accepted the right of petition for 10 years longer than the UK; yet the number of established breaches of the convention is more than three times as many for this country as for Germany. Whereas there are 16 cases against the UK now pending before the European Court, only one case is pending against Germany. That is not because we respect human rights any less but because Germany provides far more effective domestic remedies in its system.
The Lord Chief Justice has kindly expressed his disappointment at being unable to be present today to speak in support of the Bill, as he did at Second Reading. In yesterday's Sunday Times he was reported as saying that:
"The fundamental freedoms accepted by the Government nearly 50 years ago are not sufficiently protected by the common law and existing statutes".
The House will wish to give great weight to that considered statement by the Lord Chief Justice, whose views are shared by the Master of the Rolls and, on the basis of the previous debate, by the great majority of noble and learned Lords.
It was reported in yesterday's newspaper that the Government might take the unusual course this afternoon of seeking to kill the Bill in this House, using their considerable in-built majority. I hope that that report is incorrect because it would deprive the other place of an opportunity to consider the Bill. I should like to think that that is simply an example of misplaced and inaccurate journalism.
Whatever the fate of the Bill this evening, the question is no longer whether Parliament will domesticate the convention but when it will do so. I hope and believe that the people of this country will not have to wait much longer to have their rights properly protected by British law. I also hope that this House, having made the original Bill so moderate and unobjectionable in its amended form, will now decide that it should pass so that it may be available to he considered in another place. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, a Bill of this importance requires and should have a better consideration than it can be given in the dinner break in your Lordships' House. We have here some of the most notable and teamed Lords, who have forsaken their knives and forks in order to come to the debate and help us understand the Bill and bring it to a conclusion.
It is a story of government indifference. It is staggering to think that we are considering acting on a convention accepted 45 years ago. Forty-five years ago I was a youngster and it has taken all this time to give me the civil rights that the rising generation was intended to have after the war.
I am in a fog as to whether the European law is incorporated in United Kingdom law. If it is, it is not in the form to which we are accustomed—having our law good for certainty and precision; good for courts to interpret. European law is not always—probably not at
1276
all—in conformity with the form we have evolved for our own legislation. There is no doubt that in some countries the broad outline of the law is what Parliament decides and administration and bureaucracy decide on application and interpretation.
I have a particular interest in some of the cases pending at present before the European Court. I do not know whether I should comment on them. But Britain ought to be protected from the legislative panic which the Government got into in 1991 with the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is causing much trouble, confusion, anger and anguish. It was the product of a government who ran for cover before they were attacked.
I must not dwell on it. We have only an hour and I am waiting for the noble and learned Lords who have kindly come here to speak. We offer a special welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, a pleasant person to listen to in our earlier debates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, expressed his regret at being unable to attend the debate. He would have been a supporter of the Bill. See what the House has lost in holding a Third Reading of such an important Bill when people are otherwise occupied! It is as if those who want to do a service for their country must give up their dinner to come. That is contrary to all the rules and trade union practices of which I am aware. We ought to have compensation—double time—for being put to such inconvenience.
I support the Bill. I recall with approval the late Lord Wade who used to come here year after year in order to foster the extraordinary departure from our normal legislative ways to incorporate the broader concept of human liberty which comes from Europe. If people do not like Europe, they do not like European law and European methods. I am afraid that even with the enthusiasm that we had all those years ago, all the parties have lost interest in the matter. If anyone had taken notice of it, we would not be talking about the Bill now. The Government would have decided to do something. I have said enough. I heartily support the Bill and hope that noble Lords will rise as one from all Benches to say: "Aye! Content".
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I intervene early in the debate because I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Houghton and assure him that, whether or not we support the Bill, the stomachs of the House will not suffer. There will be no gastro-enteritis as a result of this debate.
I quickly take the point: my noble friend Lord Lester is absolutely right that the European Convention was one of the most valuable products of victory in Europe. It is providential that the debate should take place in VE week. Victory in Europe was not victory over German arms. That is not what we celebrate. It was victory over the principles and governance of wicked men, led by Adolf Hitler. One of the products of that victory was the European Convention.
We have been arguing the technicalities of the matter. I invite noble Lords to look at the merits. The European Convention was a gift from victory. When we celebrate VE Day, think of it as the victory of the principles of the European Convention over the evil of those to whom the wonderfully civilised German people fell.

1277
It is thought that there is not much common law in the European Convention. No doubt that is because it is called the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We at governmental level took a very large part in drafting the European Convention. There is plenty of common law thought in the articles of Section I of the convention, soon, I hope, to be part of our law. If I may refer to him in a colloquial way, Maxwell Fyfe played a great part in leading a team of draftsmen from this country. One of the senior parliamentary draftsmen of that time, with him, helped to draft the convention. There are packets of common law sense in the convention.
Then why did the government of the day not incorporate it? They had a facile view—shared, I regret to say, over centuries by a great number of our fellow Britons—that English law was so perfect that there was no need to incorporate the European Convention; we had it all. I suppose that that was a legitimate view in 1949 and 1950. It is not a legitimate view now. I shall not go into statistical arguments about how we stand vis-à-vis other signatories to the convention or unhappy experiences in the European Court of Human Rights. That is no part of my task. I shall simply say that there have been enough to indicate that we should look at the common law and see that it gets strengthened. The object of this Bill is to strengthen the common law, and to strengthen common law rights in just those areas where they need strengthening. I mention one example, and I shall say no more. What is the common law of privacy? We could do with a little injection of Article 8 of the convention.
There it is. It is available. But why do we want this Bill now? I shall tell the House why I want it. I want persons present in the United Kingdom, whether citizens or not, who find that they are suffering an infringement of their human rights or fundamental freedoms to go at once to a court and get relief. It is absurd that we should make great efforts to draft this Bill, ratify it—that is to say, make ourselves internationally obliged to comply with it—and then say, "If the common law as laid down by the judges does not touch it, you can't have it, even though it is in the convention. What you have to do is go trotting off in the company of very expensive lawyers to Strasbourg and there see whether you can first persuade the European Commission that you have some sort of case, and then hope that the Commission will push you on to the European Court of Human Rights". That is a monstrous thing to do as we celebrate VE Day. Let us make our contribution to VE Day the incorporation of the European Convention.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords for not having having been here when he made his speech. I had to detach myself—I hope within the trade union rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would say—from a rather special family gathering.
Although I am a loyal supporter of the Government, I strongly favour this Bill. We have a convention to which Britain was a party, which all parties in our Parliament agreed at the time and which gives rights to British
1278
people. It seems a very strange situation that those rights should not be capable of being enforced under our own legal system. The situation is quite absurd.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, mentioned the European situation. I remind noble Lords that, so far as the laws of the European Community are concerned, our courts have not only the power but the duty to enforce them. That they should not have either the power or the duty to enforce the rights which every British man, woman and child has under the European Convention in our own splendid courts seems to be an absurd proposition.
I wish to add one other point arising from the speech of the noble and learned Lord. He put forward the proposition that this country played some part in drafting the convention. I do not wish in any sense to put forward my own virtues—I do not think that ! have any. But I have to tell noble Lords that the first draft for the European Court of Human Rights was one for which I had responsibility—I was only a Back-Bencher at the time; I was a delegate to the Council of Europe. M. Rolin, the famous Belgian lawyer who defended Dr. Mossadec at The Hague after the unfortunate situation in Iran, worked on the French text. I worked on the English text. He knew English better than I knew French. He had lived here for a lot of time during the war. I knew a little French and a little of French law. We agreed the two texts for the European Court of Human Rights. It was those texts that were put before the European Assembly for approval. They were slightly altered later, but they were the foundation of the method of working of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that noble Lords do not mind my just mentioning that, but it seems to reinforce the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord as to the part that this country has played throughout.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, if this House felt able to pass the Bill in its present form, a substantial body of Church people in this country would applaud us. In 1985, the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales supported the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law in principle, as did the majority of the executive committee of the then British Council of Churches a year later.
I had the privilege of being a member of the working party of the Churches of Britain and Ireland which produced Human Rights and Responsibilities in Britain and Ireland, of which mention was made in earlier debates on the Bill in this House. It was one of the strongest recommendations of the report that the European Convention should be so incorporated.
Since that report was published in 1988, thank God, real progress has been made in Northern Ireland. But the peace process is still precarious. There are still very great fears, which could be assuaged by incorporation of the Human Rights Bill into the law of this country. What was written then is no less true today:
"We have unanimously concluded that the single most important recommendation that we can make in this field is that each of the two states should incorporate into domestic law all the human rights and freedoms which it is already bound by international law to respect and ensure. This can best be done by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into the national legal systems of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland".

1279
The arguments were so thoroughly rehearsed in previous debates that I simply want to make two very brief points. First, I see the incorporation of the convention as a confidence building measure, not only in relation to Northern Ireland, as I mentioned, but more generally in relation to our whole political and legal system. It is widely recognised that our society is in many ways floundering, with so little in the way of agreed moral guidelines.
As your Lordships have already pointed out, the United Kingdom was one of the first to ratify the convention and make it possible for individuals to petition. It seems to many of us that the next logical step is to incorporate the convention into law, thereby revealing the clear framework and foundation of human rights on which we have always prided ourselves. Not being a legal positivist, I believe that in the end it is a moral matter and that the rights enshrined in the convention are not there simply because certain states decide that they will be there but because those states recognise certain fundamental moral principles which need to be enshrined in law.
The noble Baroness the Minister has twice indicated concern about disturbing the balance between the judiciary and Parliament. But it is basic to our democracy that the judiciary already has a degree of independence and it is a fundamental and proper concern of the judiciary to safeguard the rights of individuals. In her previous speeches the Minister has indicated that there were very often conflicting claims which needed to be balanced or adjudicated between Parliament and the judiciary.
I should like to suggest that the majority of the rights set out in the convention are absolute and, although they have to be interpreted, it is the proper role of courts to interpret the law. Parliament, of course, is very concerned with human rights; but it is quite properly concerned with the general interest and the common good. The reason that we have rights is to say that there are circumstances in which, whatever the common good, certain fundamentals should not be overridden. It seems to many of us that where there is a conflict it is the function of the judiciary to safeguard those rights. It can be significantly helped in that task by having the clear framework of the European Convention incorporated into United Kingdom law.
I believe that there is a growing body of opinion which desires that. It will be an important confidence-building measure in relation to the peace process in Northern Ireland and will help to make clear the moral foundation of our own legal system.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the amendments at Third Reading were designed to correct some anomalies that had crept into the Bill at Report stage. My noble and learned friend Lord Scarman came to make those corrections and, in addition, has favoured us with a most moving speech. My noble and learned friend has come to the House at great personal sacrifice and must have spoken under considerable personal strain. We are very deeply in his debt.
Those amendments have put the Bill into a reasonable, clear and comprehensible state, in which it can be submitted to the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out very clearly—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has put us in his debt, and my
1280
noble and learned friend—what this Bill does is very simple. There is a European Convention on Human Rights. Our own lawyers took a prominent part in framing it and the noble Baroness no doubt will attach weight to the fact that it was one of the most illustrious of her predecessors, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who had a principal hand in framing it. He had already brought great glory to the English law by his conduct of the prosecution at Nuremberg. What he did in that convention was to see embodied in it the principles of British law which had already been expressed in our own Bill of Rights, which was the main source of the American Bill of Rights, the first amendment of the constitution.
We are bound by that convention, we are bound to follow its interpretation. But at present there is the extraordinary situation that anybody who wants to rely on the convention has to go to Strasbourg to obtain adjudication. This Bill says that that adjudication shall be available in the English courts, which are so well conversant with its principles, whether statutory or common law.
It would be most extraordinary if at this stage there were any vote against the Bill. It would be entirely contrary to the conventions of this House. It would be quite disgraceful if Ministers on a Private Member's Bill were now to go into the Lobby against tem. I strongly support the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I cannot match the eloquence of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. I would not seek to do so. However, it seems to me that the legal views on the Bill have so far been expressed by those who no longer, unhappily, adjudicate. My remarks will take less than one minute.
As a serving judge, I am profoundly in favour of the Bill for reasons which have already been deployed. First, it is common ground among all parties—all sides of this House —that all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom enjoy the rights secured by the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no dispute about that. Secondly, everybody is agreed that those rights should be enforceable. Thirdly, there is apparently a difference of view between many people —I am among their number— who say that the rights of Englishmen should be capable of enforcement in an English court and that Englishmen, enjoying those rights, should not be turned away from the English courts, which say that they have no power to act, being forced, five years later and several thousand pounds the poorer, eventually to reach Strasbourg. This Bill repatriates our rights. I believe that it should be allowed to do so.
Finally, perhaps I may again seek, as I have tried at earlier stages, to shoot the canard—I am not sure if one shoots canards—which is the argument that this Bill infringes parliamentary sovereignty. That is, with the utmost respect (as lawyers say), complete rubbish. This Bill enables Parliament to do as it always has done; that is to say, to enact exactly what it likes. Parliament having done so in clear terms, the courts must give effect to what Parliament has enacted. What the Bill will do, if it passes into law, is prevent the position continuing to arise whereby Parliament uses general words and then those

1281
general words are said to authorise administrative acts which infringe the convention. That is the practical application of this Bill. There is no question of Parliament's sovereignty being interfered with in any way.
I believe that I speak on behalf of a very large number of judges, certainly all save one of those who spoke in the earlier stages of this Bill, when I say that the Bill is welcomed by the judges not as empire building but as conferring the basic right to which all Englishmen are entitled; namely, to have their rights determined within this country and not outside it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he agree that just as Parliament ratified the Rome Treaty and the amendments to it, so Parliament was asked to ratify the Convention on Human Rights and did so?
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, undoubtedly the convention has been ratified; there is no doubt about that. What has not been done is to comply with what I understand to be one of the articles; namely, that those rights be assured by the Government to people within this country. As I understand it, that is the position.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree strongly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I happen to be a member of the working party to which he referred. He is completely right in saying that at this time the passage of the Bill through Parliament will be a confidence-building measure in the peace process in Northern Ireland.
My second reason for strongly supporting the Bill is that domestic jurisdiction under the convention, and in particular under Articles 4 and 5, will provide real protection in this country for a class of people who are particularly subject to abuse and exploitation. I refer to the domestic workers coming from overseas countries to Great Britain who are tied and bonded to one employer. When this Bill is enacted they will be able to apply for a remedy to British courts. That will greatly enhance and protect their position.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, what is recognised internationally is that the European Convention on Human Rights is the most successful expression of the United Nations declaration on human rights arrived at as an answer to the horrors of the 1930s and the Second World War. I personally regret that we in the United Kingdom should be the last of the parties to that convention to make it part of domestic law.
I wish to add only two points to what I said at an earlier stage. First, between 1969 and 1976 I appeared on behalf of the United Kingdom in probably all of the cases brought before the Commission and the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I became increasingly convinced that it was regrettable that those cases had to go to Strasbourg and could not be dealt with by our national courts in this country. I felt it was inefficient, expensive, time-wasting and left entirely out of account the ability of judges in this country properly to deal with those claims. It is therefore largely for a pragmatic and practical reason that I feel strongly that we should now give this convention the force of law in this country so that it may be dealt with by our national courts.
1282
Secondly, at that time I was a member of the Bar. Now, as a judge, I do not feel that the kind of issues which are likely to be raised in the national courts will involve judges in grave political disputes and distinctions which may lead to problems. I shall not tease the Minister by referring to one or two other cases, not concerning human rights, which over the years the courts have had to decide and which some people think had a political context. I do not believe that the issues likely to arise under the Convention on Human Rights fall into that category. I am proud to be associated with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in supporting this Bill.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps a layman may be excused for introducing a note of dissent into the unanimity which has so far prevailed—not that I think it would be proper for the House to reject this Bill, according to our normal conventions. However, there appears to be a gap, if I may respectfully say so, in the arguments put forward in its support.
The principal argument and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy is that if rights are formulated in an enactment, to which we are bound by our ratification of it, then the proper place for remedies is in our own courts. It is certainly, and has been, somewhat absurd that in order to secure redress, litigants have been obliged to face the delays and expenses of Strasbourg.
I would therefore have been perfectly happy with the Bill if, at the same time, it meant that such recourse would no longer happen; if our courts had the final say in the interpretation of what would be then part of British law. I shall be glad if one of the supporters of the Bill will explain whether or not there is any barrier proposed to people who, failing in a British court, then seek to appeal to Strasbourg. It seems to me that there we have the makings of a possible clash of jurisdictions, the more likely because although, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others, there was a good deal of input of the common law into the document, it nevertheless remains the case that western Europe is divided between two forms of law—the civil and the common—and that the court in Strasbourg is bound by virtue of its membership to be heavily weighted against the common law and common law interpretations. Is it therefore envisaged that if the Bill is enacted there will be no further appeal against the decisions of our highest courts?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that straightaway. All 34 contracting states that belong to the European Convention are in the process of ratifying the 11th Protocol. That will give a permanent right of access to the European Court for all the peoples of Europe, whether or not they have incorporated the convention. I am glad to say that the Government of this country ratified that convention earlier in the year.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, therefore is that even if we incorporate the convention, as I hope we shall, there will remain the same right in this country as in the other contracting states, as a last recourse, to go to Strasbourg.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord made reference to the Government being engaged in some kind of dastardly plot this evening. I made it absolutely clear

1283
on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that I would not oppose the Bill at any stage and I find it deeply depressing therefore that he has not come to view me as somebody whose word is her bond. What I wish to say also is that of course I alone speak for the Government in these matters; all other Members in this Chamber, on Private Member's Bills, are free spirits. It would be absurd and inappropriate of me to pre-empt how the Bill may be viewed when it is asked that it be given a Third Reading. I make it absolutely clear that I shall not oppose it.
The guiding principle of the Bill, and of the series of stimulating debates we have enjoyed during its passage through this House, is that the preservation and development of the rights and freedoms of the individual are an essential feature of effective and legitimate constitutional arrangements. The Government wholeheartedly endorse that principle and—I must stress this—take very seriously their human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and under the other international treaties to which they are party.
What we are discussing here therefore is not ends but means. The Bill now before us would incorporate the convention into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, providing for the principles set out in the convention to serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation and to be taken into account in equity and at common law. We have debated at length various different forms of incorporation and, as the Bill now stands, some have suggested that this particular form of incorporation would be helpful in that it would clear up existing confusion over how the courts should approach the convention without impinging upon parliamentary sovereignty.
That is simply not the case. The current position in our courts is clear: under our constitutional arrangements it is for Parliament to enact detailed and specific legislation on matters affecting the rights and liberties of the individual and for the courts to apply that legislation, having regard to the convention only where there is ambiguity. This Bill would certainly change that position. It would enable the courts to interpret legislation by reference to the convention even where there is no such ambiguity and Parliament's intention is clear and specific; and, in the case of the common law, it would apparently allow the courts to overturn long established traditions in common law which would, now, be considered to be the domain of Parliament.
It is a vital merit of our present arrangements that, if and when change of this kind is needed, it is our democratically elected and accountable Parliament which decides how and when any such changes should be made. As well as assuring proper accountability for such decisions, this helps to ensure that such changes, often in areas of keen social and public interest, carry public support and understanding.
The Government's view remains that incorporation of the convention into the domestic law of the United Kingdom would do nothing in practice to improve the enjoyment of the rights of freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Secretary General of the Council of Europe himself has recently observed, these rights and freedoms are already well protected under the existing arrangements in this country.
1284
The figures speak for themselves. Given the length of time that the right of individual petition has been accepted in this country, and the size of our population, the United Kingdom's record is very much better than that of many countries which have incorporated the convention.
Nor would incorporation guarantee fewer referrals to Strasbourg, as some of your Lordships have argued; nor would it minimise the cost or waste of time or effort, as is shown very clearly when we look at the records of those countries where the convention has been incorporated into their domestic law. What happens in practice is that a large number of those cases still find their way to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights where they must be examined afresh.
I should remind the House that, in 1994, 62 allegations of violation were referred to the Austrian Government; 723 to the Turkish Government; 118 allegations to the French Government; and 356 allegations to the Italian Government. What did they all have in common? All those countries had already incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights. By contrast, 46 such allegations were referred to the United Kingdom Government during the same period. I cannot see how, from these figures, it can be argued that incorporation is a way of reducing costs or speeding up the handling of cases.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to Germany. He was mightily selective in choosing Germany. He did not choose Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria or Switzerland. France, a country with a comparable size of population to the United Kingdom, has almost as many violations as the United Kingdom despite having accepted the individual right of petition only 14 years ago. Italy, which again is of similar size to the United Kingdom, has more than twice as many violations. Of the smaller countries, which arc a quarter of the size of the United Kingdom or less—the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden—all have between 20 and 27 violations. That hardly suggests that the United Kingdom has the worst record in Europe.
This hardly seems a basis upon which to make changes to constitutional arrangements which have been tried and tested over many years. No citizen in this country is denied his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government's view remains that incorporation, whatever form it takes, is undesirable and unnecessary, both in principle and in practice; and accordingly, we cannot give support to the Bill. But although it is the convention that we make known our views about the Bill, I shall not be opposing the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would very humbly tell your Lordships, speaking from the little red book, that not speaking more than once and not speaking after the Minister applies on Third Reading as it does on Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I hope that I am not violating anything in the little red book in saying, first, that I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken

1285
part in this remarkable debate among a series of very remarkable debates. Secondly, I do not propose, your Lordships will be relieved to hear, to make a speech. I should like simply to say about the league tables, to which the noble Baroness referred, that it is in a way, with respect, pointless to start making these complex international comparisons.
In a reply in Hansard on 18th April the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, gave information which showed that the United Kingdom had the second largest number of violations of the convention recorded before the European Court, being exceeded only by Italy. Those Italian cases all flow from delay. It also showed that we have the largest number of cases pending before the European Court.
I agree that that does not give a fair picture of the state of human rights in this country. But nor is there much point in comparing our position with that of Turkey on the basis that it has incorporated and we have not and that incorporation therefore does not do the trick. All I would like to say about the league tables—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I did not mention Turkey.
Noble Lords: You did!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my recollection is to the contrary. All I would like to say is that the case for incorporation does not depend upon a comparison with other member states. It stands on its own feet. The question is whether there should be effective domestic remedies in this country. The Minister has not suggested that our domestic remedies are as effective.
I very much hope that your Lordships will feel able to pass the Bill through this House so that the democratically elected other place will have the opportunity, if it wishes, of considering its provisions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord is right in terms of the number of allegations referred. In the comparisons which I gave in terms of population and numbers of cases that were regarded as breaches I did not include Turkey.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
8.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 18, line 32, leave out (", if practicable and the patient does not object,").
Page 18, line 33, leave out ("the nearest relative of the patient") and insert ("any other person who has been consulted under subsection (3) (a) of section 35B of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 when I moved Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 18, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) Where the performance of a condition attached to an order requires the provision of a facility or a service by a statutory agency, it shall be the duty of that statutory agency to provide that duty or service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment requires the social work department and health board to provide the services spelt out in the community care order. If the patient must comply with the community care order we believe that the statutory agencies must also abide by the rules of the order. This amendment merely underpins that duty. It may be for the convenience of the House if Amendments Nos. 72 and 76 are dealt with at the same time. They merely stress the fact that information given to the patient should be given orally and also in writing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to Amendment No. 75. It is important to understand that the conditions specified in the order are imposed with a view to ensuring that the person concerned receives medical treatment and aftercare services. The amendment appears to do nothing more than underline statutory duties which already exist. Health boards have a statutory duty under Section 37 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to provide healthcare, regardless of whether this is part of the conditions of a community care order. Similarly, if a person is detained in hospital, the health board is obliged under the same general duty to provide for that person.
It was nevertheless considered necessary as a consequential amendment for this Bill in Schedule 2, paragraph 3, to amend Section 8 of the 1984 Act to ensure that the statutory duty on local authorities to provide or arrange for the provision of aftercare services includes those persons subject to a community care order, without prejudice to the general duty under that section.
It appears that health boards and local authorities are the only statutory bodies which could be affected by the amendment. Statutory duties already exist for these bodies.
I hope that this explanation goes some way to reassure the noble Lord and that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I take it that the very full explanation given by the Minister means that the patient will be given the statutory orders that are required. As I said when speaking earlier, we merely intend to underpin the duties of the statutory agencies. I believe that the Minister has satisfied us in that respect. As regards giving the orders orally and in

1287
writing, that is something which the Minister has not quite covered. Perhaps that is part of the duties imposed on the statutory bodies. Can the Minister answer that?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it may be for the benefit of the House if I say that we are coming to that specific point in a later amendment. Perhaps we can deal with that matter at that time.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 18, line 36, leave out from ("time") to ("the") in line 37 and insert ("after the expiry of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 18, line 36, leave out from ("time") to the end of line 40.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to allow an application for a community care order to be made on behalf of a mentally ill person who would benefit from the provisions of a community care order without the need for compulsory admission to hospital. There seems to be an anomalous situation looming ahead of us here. The Bill as written dictates that the patient has to have at least 28 days' compulsory detention in hospital under Section 18 before a community care order can be considered. To do that in every case would be against the philosophy of community care and indeed might not be possible if a person at that point did not meet the criteria for compulsory admission under Section 17 of the 1984 Act.
Indeed, to become acceptable for a community care order a person has to be stated not to meet the criteria for compulsory admission to hospital as set out in new Section 35B(7) (a). People already living in the community are therefore denied the benefit of a community care order, and that seems wrong and unduly restrictive. The amendment suggests that any relevant person would be eligible for a community care order and not just those coming towards the end of a period of detention in hospital.
While we are rescheduling priorities for the care of the mentally ill, I believe that a broader approach is appropriate and would be most beneficial, especially as this kind of group may need the co-ordinated help of a local authority and health board workers. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Earl is seeking to broaden the group with access to community care orders. As I made clear when speaking to Amendment No. 64, we are firmly of the opinion that community care orders should be available only for people whose mental disorder has, as a result
1288
of meeting the criteria in Section 17(1) of the 1984 Act, led to detention in hospital under Section 18 or under a hospital order. We have sought to clarify this. As we have also previously pointed out, we envisage that many candidates for community care orders will have been on leave of absence from hospital for a long period.
We do not believe that those detained under Sections 24 and 26 should be candidates for community care orders. Their detention in hospital is quite short. We have made it clear in guidance that if a patient's needs are mild, he should not be discharged until a multi-disciplinary care plan has been developed. This will ensure that he receives a good standard of clinical and aftercare services. I referred before to the circular Community Care in Scotland, Assessment and Care Management.
It appears to us that those who have not been detained in hospital at all should most certainly not be candidates for community care orders. It is not our intention to make a person who has been in hospital voluntarily, or who has been living in the community, subject to the legal framework of a community care order. A step down in the legal controls over a person, from liability to detention in hospital to a community care order, is quite different from a step up, from no control to a community care order.
Local authorities and health boards have statutory duties to provide care and treatment. This is true regardless of whether people are subject to community care orders. There may be prioritisation of mental health services, but we believe that this is proper. But we do not believe that providing a legal framework of the type proposed by community care orders will result in those not subject to the orders being denied access to services.
Bearing all these points in mind, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I wish to make two points. I am disappointed that those who are mentally ill and in the community cannot be afforded the same high priority care as will be granted to those on community care orders. The second point is that I accept that the noble Earl has laid down that those who are eligible are only those who are on Section 18 orders. Did I understand him correctly to include those on hospital orders? The noble Earl nods his head in acceptance of that. I thank the noble Earl for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("under section 18 or 26 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to establish whether it is the noble Earl's intention that only Section 18 patients should be eligible for community order applications. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the explanation given on the earlier amendments covers many of the points which he raises as regards this amendment. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 19, line 3, at end insert ("and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 81:
Page 19, line 30, at end insert ("; and
( ) the community care assessment of the patient").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 65, which was not accepted by the Government. Accordingly, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 19, line 37, after ("name") insert ("and the written agreement").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the position of the special medical officer in relation to an application. The responsible medical officer—that is, the consultant—and the aftercare officer are both able to give their consent to their part in the future care of the patient who is to be the subject of the community care order. However, the special medical officer, a more junior doctor, may find that the case is simply allocated to him or her. As the special medical officer plays a leading role in the community care order and is also subject ultimately to punishment for failure to care adequately, I believe that it is essential that the sheriff should be able to read the written consent of the future special medical officer when the application is before him.
For once, I shall plead that the English provisions are more adequate in this respect because line 9 on page 4 states:
"A supervision application shall also be accompanied by—
(a) a statement in writing by the person who is to be the community responsible medical officer in relation to the patient after he leaves hospital".
1290
The Scottish phrase for "community responsible medical officer" is "special medical officer". Given all the lavish praise that was heaped on the Scottish provisions earlier, I am sure that the noble Earl will see the advantage of accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I note from cols. 338 and 339 of the Official Report that we considered a similar matter in Committee. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, I am afraid I can do little more than underline the explanation I gave then. The intended special medical officer and the intended aftercare officer must be consulted by the responsible medical officer before an application is made. We do not see how a person would become the proposed special medical officer or proposed aftercare officer and be consulted about the proposed application yet not be aware of this. If he is not happy about the distribution of work by his line manager, he should address this in the usual manner.
I should underline once more that we do not see how a sheriff could approve an application without the named persons agreeing to carry out their professional duties.
In response to the noble Earl's suggestion that the SMO might be a more junior doctor, I should stress that that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, we disagree with the assumption behind the noble Earl's remarks. With the assurance that I have given him, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Earl and note that he resisted the idea of adopting English practices—I probably agree with him on that! I believe that it was worth raising this issue because social workers will have their say. Nevertheless, accepting the noble Earl's word, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 20, line 5, after ("by") insert ("the patient's general practitioner or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment suggests that one of the medical recommendations be made by a patient's general practitioner. In most cases, a patient's GP would be the appropriate person to support an application for a community care order. It is important that the second opinion is given by a doctor who knew the patient while he was living in the community. A patient's GP would, or should, be able to speak about any problems which the patient might have had while living in the community. If the amendment is not accepted, the second opinion could be given by another hospital doctor who knew the patient. Such an opinion would not be acceptable if the plan is to prepare the patient for life in the community again.
The amendment merely mirrors the wording of Section 20B of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act which states that one of the medical recommendations accompanying an application for detention should be made by the patient's GP or another doctor who knows the patient. In the view

1291
of most people in Scotland, that is equally important for patients who are being considered for community care orders.
Many GPs will say off the record that they have no doubts at all about the great skill, ability and devotion to duty of the specialists, but in many cases a GP will have known a patient for 20 or 30 years, whereas a specialist, who sees a patient for only a short time, will be able to offer a diagnosis on the symptoms only. From personal experience, I can cite a number of examples of a GP knowing how a patient would be in five years' time because he knew the patient's previous history intimately and over a long period. I hope that the Minister will view the amendment with a certain amount of understanding and recognise that a GP could be a back-up to a specialist in being one of the people empowered to make medical recommendations to a specialist. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can show the noble Lord a certain amount of understanding as regards the sentiment behind his amendment. We accept that a patient's GP will normally know a patient very well and may therefore be the best person to provide the second medical report to accompany the application for a community care order. However, I am sure we can all think of circumstances where this may not be so. A patient may not, for instance, have been registered with a GP prior to being detained in hospital. The Bill retains the flexibility to cover such circumstances. The Bill seeks to cover all options in the event of a patient's GP not being available or it not being practicable for a GP to provide a second opinion. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Bill as drafted on this point and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I see the problems. Indeed, I saw them while I was moving the amendment: not everyone has a GP for life and some people may not be with a GP for very long. I find the Minister's sentiments satisfactory, however. If only we could get GPs occasionally to spend a little time reading the Minister's wise words in Hansard, everything would be all right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness however caused or manifested").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment limits the making of community care orders to people with mental illness. There was no suggestion on consultation that the Government's proposals were intended to cover people with a learning disability, but the term "mental disorder" in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act includes mental handicap. We have been over some of this ground before, but it is important to get it straight. I am not aware of any discussions or consultation about whether the new provisions are appropriate or necessary for people with learning disabilities.
I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of wider consultation with organisations representing people with learning disabilities before he imposes a new order on that group of people. There is time. The Bill will be under
1292
consideration in the other place for several weeks. If the noble Earl could simply give us an idea of his thinking on the matter, that would save a certain amount of time in the other place. I believe that the amendment merits considerable attention and discussion. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment would restrict the use of community care orders to people with a mental illness. As the noble Lord said, the detention criteria are framed by reference to "mental disorder", which means both mental illness and mental handicap. The community care order criteria, which must relate to liability to detention in hospital, must therefore be framed by reference to "mental disorder".
The consultation papers on this subject referred clearly to the legal powers of the care in the community for people with a mental disorder, which includes both mental illness and mental handicap. As the noble Lord will know, the consultation was widespread and was carried out over three separate periods. I can assure the noble Lord that among the organisations consulted was Enable, formerly the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped. Such organisations were given the opportunity to put their ideas into the consultation process.
That said, I have no difficulty in accepting that the vast majority of the intended client group would be mentally ill. However, there may be cases in which a community care order would be appropriate for a person with a learning disability; for example, if such a person also had a mental illness.
The noble Lord used the word "imposed" in connection with the community care order. It is merely an option where the patient has both a mental handicap and a mental illness or there are some such circumstances. It is important that we do not close off that avenue as it might be of use in a small number of cases. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there have been discussions. I was not aware of that. His answer is sufficient to enable me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 20, line 28, at end insert:
(" and for the purposes of subsection (6) (a) above the recommendations do not comply with this subsection unless the patient is described in each of them as suffering from the same form of mental disorder (that is to say, mental illness or mental handicap), whether or not he is described in either recommendation as suffering also from the other form").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee I undertook to consider further the amendment proposed on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, as recorded at cols. 342 and 343 of the Official Report. It is important that the two medical recommendations which accompany the application for a community care order should be required to specify the

1293
same form of mental disorder, just as that is required of medical recommendations accompanying an application for admission to and detention in hospital.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has tabled an amendment to that end which appears on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 90. I think we are at one on this matter, but we believe that the wording of Amendment No. 85 is more likely to achieve the desired effect. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that on balance he will not need to move Amendment No. 90. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to what was said in Committee. I agree that it may be wiser for me to accept the amendment. When we come to Amendment No. 90, I may have something else to say, but at this point I agree with the Minister on Amendment No. 85.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert:
("(iv) the views of the patient and his or her carers as to such matters, as disclosed to the person making the application for the community care order during consultation; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to require the person making the report to inform the sheriff of the discussions that he has had with the patient and his carer. It is important for the sheriff to understand any problem with the community care order which the patient or his carers may have. The RMO will have consulted both before making the application. The amendment merely requires him to report on those discussions. Although the patient has a right to attend the hearing, he may be too ill to attend or feel intimidated by the process, which is much more likely for the average patient. The amendment will provide an additional safeguard to ensure that the patient's views are taken into account. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment would introduce a requirement that the aftercare officer's report accompanying the application should include the views of the patient and his carers about the proposed order. As drafted it would be the patient's views as disclosed to the RMO.
Let me begin by pointing out that the Bill as drafted makes it a requirement that patient and carers are consulted by the responsible medical officer before the application is made. Logically, the application should reflect the views of those consulted.
As I am sure your Lordships are also aware, new Clause 35A(2) attracts the provisions of Section 113 of the 1984 Act to the application for a community care order. That means that the patient must be given the opportunity to be heard by the sheriff either in person or by means of a representative. I hope your Lordships will agree that an interested and vociferous patient will probably wish to attend the hearing and that that is the best safeguard. I have to say that we take the view that a patient who was
1294
so ill as to be unable to attend a court hearing should probably not be being considered for a community care order.
However, I accept that a patient may choose not to attend the hearing, and we will use guidance to underline the importance to the application of the views of those consulted and to make it clear to the different professionals involved that patients should be encouraged to attend such hearings.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are reassured by the fact that the patient will be encouraged and not intimidated in any way by the use of bold type or underlining in the letter, which may scare the wits out of him. It is important that patients be involved, and so encouragement is what we want. I thank the Minister for what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 21, line 1, leave out from ("inform") to ("to") in line 2 and insert ("any person, other than the patient, who has been consulted under subsection (3) (a) above of his right, by virtue of section 35A(2) of this Act,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, in view of the fact that Amendment No. 88 was agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 89.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 21, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) A community care application shall be of no effect unless the patient is described in each of the medical recommendations as suffering from the same form of mental disorder, whether or not he is described in either of those recommendations as suffering also from the other form.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a community care application. It would require that each doctor should agree whether the patient's mental disorder is mental illness or mental handicap. If the amendment on page 10 of the briefing is accepted, Amendment No. 90 will not be needed. We strongly suggest that the new community care order should apply only to people with mental illness. If that amendment is not accepted, this amendment would ensure that the doctors have to agree what is wrong with the patient—mental illness or mental handicap.
This provision mirrors the provisions contained in Section 18(3) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act which provides that a patient cannot be detained in hospital under the section if the doctors do not agree about which form of mental illness he is suffering from. I understand that the Government are to propose an amendment at a

1295
later stage to cover that point. I may have that wrong, but if that is the case, I shall be happy to accommodate the Minister. In the meantime, I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we covered some of the concerns he has raised when we dealt with Amendment No. 85. I can assure the noble Lord that the later amendment for which he is hoping will indeed be forthcoming.
I may have misled the House on that point. Amendment No. 85, to which the House has agreed, related to the medical reports being agreed in their conclusions and also to the possibility of a community care order being applied to someone with a mental handicap who simultaneously has some form of mental illness, or such circumstances. I hope that that is something that the noble Lord can accept, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 21, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) A patient who is detained in hospital under this section shall have the right to appeal to the sheriff for his discharge from detention.
( ) Unless the sheriff is satisfied that—

(a) the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for assessment, or for assessment followed by medical treatment for at least a limited period; and

(b) he ought to be so admitted and detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons,

he shall order that the patient be discharged from hospital and he may revoke the community care order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is misplaced in the Marshalled List. Having taken advice, I shall not move the amendment today but will bring it back on Third Reading. That is perhaps the best way of dealing with the difficulty, which is my fault. I apologise to your Lordships.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 21, line 22, at end insert:
("(ai) the patient and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative;").
Page 21, line 43, leave out from first ("and") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("any other person who has been consulted under subsection (3) (b) (ai) above;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 21, line 46, after ("of") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. Section 110(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 spells out the information to be given to a person whose section has been renewed. We are advised that some of the authorities in Scotland which are involved believe that it is not tolerable that a lesser amount of information should be given to a patient whose community care order is renewed. An alternative way to achieve the same effect is to extend Section 110 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, which is covered by community care orders. That would be a neater way than that suggested in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, following an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, we undertook to consider the issues that he raised. That we have done, and Amendment No. 96 will make it a requirement for the aftercare officer to give the patient an explanation orally and in writing at the time of the renewal of the community care order. That would address the noble Lord's anxieties.
Having indicated that position, and in anticipation of Amendment No. 96, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 21, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (10) of section 35A of this Act shall apply in relation to a renewal of a community care order under this section as it applies in relation to a community care order made under that section, but with the substitution of a reference to subsection (3) (b) (ai) of this section for the reference to subsection (3) (a) of section 35B.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, we undertook to consider whether it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that the patient should receive an explanation of the effect of the renewal. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the matter to our attention.
The effect of this amendment would be that, following renewal of a community care order, the aftercare officer would be required to explain to the patient, both orally and in writing, the purpose and effect of the renewal and the conditions of the order; the patient's right of appeal to the sheriff; and the fact that the patient could make representations to the Mental Welfare Commission at any time. The aftercare officer would also be required to send a copy of the written explanation to the nearest relative, if the nearest relative had been consulted.
We believe that this meets the concerns which were expressed. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having listened and acted on the amendments tabled in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 22, line 1, after ("where") insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to provide an opportunity for the doctor or the social worker dealing with the case to consider whether the order requires variation. We believe that in many cases the social worker in the community will be closer to the needs of the patient and will be able to take a view whether his or her aftercare is working. Indeed, a high proportion of social workers are women. If it is not working, the social worker should be able to call for a variation, which I assume will go through the usual channels before a decision is made. The social worker or the doctor will be allowed to trigger the reconsideration of the case. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak at this stage to Amendments Nos. 98,100 and 108.
In Committee we discussed and rejected the question of widening the scope of an application for a community care order to allow other persons to make it, because joint applications raise doubts as to who would be ultimately responsible for the application.
The purpose of these amendments would be similarly to widen the scope for varying the conditions of a community care order. I accept that some conditions will relate purely to social care issues and it would seem appropriate to allow the aftercare officer to vary them. However, we believe that the care team needs a single focus for decisions about a patient's care and that that role is best carried out by the special medical officer, who must decide whether the patient's condition justifies a proposed variation.
We have made provision for the care team, and specifically the aftercare officer, to be consulted on all variations. Indeed, guidance could encourage the aftercare officer to propose such variations to the care team. However, we do not favour extending to the aftercare officer the responsibility for proposing a variation of the conditions of the order.
I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am not sure whether I understood the Minister's reply. Does it mean that the aftercare officer will not be able to initiate reconsideration of the case even by discussing it with the medical practitioner? If that were the case, I should be reluctant to withdraw the amendment. Will the Minister give an assurance that the aftercare officer acting with the patient will be able to discuss the matter formally with the medical practitioner? If so, I shall be happy to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we understand the noble Lord's point. Guidance will encourage the aftercare officer to propose such variations to the care team.
1298
Therefore, the aftercare officer can initiate an inquiry with the rest of the medical team. The special medical officer, however, will continue to have ultimate responsibility for the community care order patient and therefore he will initiate and lodge the application on a formal basis. It may be that informally the variation has been initiated by the aftercare officer.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert ("and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 22, line 21, at end insert ("and any other person who has been consulted under subsection (1) (a) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 22, line 21, at end insert ("and, if he does not object, the patient's nearest relative.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the nearest relative must always be kept informed, if the patient does not object. This amendment ensures that the nearest relative will be able to speak at any hearing as regards the proposed variation and can act generally to protect the patient's interests. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we considered this issue when we discussed Amendment No. 102. That proposes that if the nearest relative has been consulted about a proposed variation then he will be sent a copy of both the proposed and approved variation of conditions. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, yes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 22, line 23, leave out ("who made the community care order") and insert ("of the sheriffdom within which the patient is resident").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we undertook in Committee to consider this point further. This amendment will provide that the proposed variation of conditions should be sent to the sheriff clerk of the sheriffdom in which the patient is resident, not the sheriff clerk for the sheriff who originally made the order. We believe that this amendment meets the anxieties which were expressed in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 22, line 24, at end insert ("whom failing a sheriff of the same sheriffdom; and

(d) the Mental Welfare Commission.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that if the sheriff who made the original order is not available, another sheriff from the same sheriffdom should be informed of the proposed variation and the Mental Welfare Commission should also be informed.
The sheriff who made the original order is obviously the best person to consider a variation. However, if he is no longer alive, or has retired, someone else will have to be appointed. We believe that the Mental Welfare Commission should be involved in that at all stages.
It may well be argued that a sheriff is a sheriff is a sheriff and that a different sheriff has all the wisdom of the previous sheriffs. However, I believe that we should have an explanation as to why such a reasonable amendment cannot be incorporated into the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we undertook in Committee to consider the question of ensuring that any proposed variation in conditions would be sent by the special medical officer to the sheriff clerk for the sheriffdom in which the patient is resident, rather than to the sheriff clerk of the sheriff who made the order. We made the necessary technical amendment in Amendment No. 104.
Amendment No. 105 also seeks to ensure that a copy of the proposed variation is copied to the Mental Welfare Commission. We undertook in Committee to consider this further and I think we shall be meeting the concern in this part of the amendment when I move Amendment No. 109. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing these amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 22, line 25, after ("patient") insert ("or his nearest relative").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide that the nearest relative shall be given the right to object to any variation in relation to a community care order. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act gives the nearest relative the right to advocate on the part of the patient. He is given the right to appear at all hearings. If he is concerned about a proposed variation of a community care order, he should be given the right to express his concern directly to the sheriff. As I said, that mirrors the provisions in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this amendment would allow the nearest relative to object to the proposed variation, and be heard on this subject. I have to say that we do not consider that appropriate. We understand that there is concern that a floridly ill person may not understand or be able to discern the purpose of a variation of conditions. If a person is so floridly ill we
1300
would suggest that those caring for him might feel the need to consider whether a reassessment in hospital was necessary, and not a variation of conditions.
If the nearest relative is the informal carer, he will be consulted about the proposed variation. We believe that this is reasonable because there is no statutory duty on anyone other than the health board and the local authority to provide health care or aftercare for a person subject to a community care order. We would not expect that the moral duty of care which so many informal carers feel they have should be disregarded, and we do not think that those statutorily involved in caring for a patient will override the feelings and wishes of informal carers. As I said in Committee, we shall want to ensure that the position of carers is fully recognised in guidance.
I should also make it clear that it appears to us that it would not be for a variation of conditions to "increase" the burden of care on an informal carer. Any condition imposed on a patient under a community care order is with a view to ensuring the patient receives the care and treatment he needs, and the statutory duty to provide what is necessary falls on the health board and local authority. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a lengthy explanation. However, I believe that there is still a problem. I admit that sometimes the nearest relative is not the best person to give advice or with whom to discuss the matter but, on the other hand, in most cases the nearest relative will be the person who has the greatest interest in the welfare of the patient.
I do not know that there is an easy solution to the problem. Therefore, I must accept the Minister's good will. I hope that that will be carried forward into the institutions and officials so that they appreciate that the nearest relative should also be involved in helping to make the decisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 22, line 37, leave out ("the patient and") and insert:

("(a) the patient and any other person who has been consulted under subsection (1) (a) above;

(b) the Mental Welfare Commission; and

(c)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment addresses the point about the Mental Welfare Commission which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, have sought to highlight in Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 respectively.
I should remind your Lordships that consultation with the nearest relative only takes place if practicable and if the patient does not object. We believe that it is important that the patient and his nearest relative, if he has been consulted, along with the aftercare officer, should be informed of the variation of conditions when it has been approved by the sheriff.
That is also an appropriate stage for the Mental Welfare Commission to be informed, since it needs to be aware of any change to the conditions as part of its role in exercising protective functions over the community care order patient. The Mental Welfare Commission does not need to be informed of a proposed variation of conditions. Clearly, once the variations are approved, the commission may, for example, make appropriate inquiries into any particular set of facts, or visit a patient on a community care order, in exercise of its protective functions. The commission's role tends to be reactive. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will help me as regards the drafting. I believe that the name of the organisation should be the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Am I right about that?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I believe that the suggestion made by the noble Earl is correct. We shall certainly seek to act on any consequences of his observation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 22, line 37, after ("patient") insert ("and, if practicable and the patient does not object, to the patient's nearest relative").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment could perhaps have been grouped with others. It may be a déjà vu situation but the amendment is concerned again with the matter of the nearest relative being given notification. I am sure I shall receive an assurance from the Minister that best endeavours will be made to keep the nearest relative informed at all times. Perhaps that could be put on the face of the Bill. I have moved the amendment to ascertain what help the Minister can give on the matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, this amendment seeks to ensure that, if the patient does not object, his nearest relative will be sent a copy of the approved variation of the conditions of a community care order. I addressed the concerns behind this amendment in government Amendment No. 109 which ensures that a copy of the variation of conditions approved by the sheriff is sent to the nearest relative if he has been consulted on the variation. I hope the noble Lord will feel satisfied with that explanation and feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert ("but with the substitution of a reference to subsection (1) (a) of this section for the reference to subsection (3) (a) of section 35B").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert:
Change of special medical officer or after-care officer
("35DA.—(1) This subsection applies where a patient's special medical officer, after consulting the persons mentioned in subsection (3) below, agrees with another medical practitioner ("the new special medical officer"), who shall be a practitioner approved for the purposes of section 20 of this Act by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder, that the new special medical officer should, from a date so agreed, assume principal responsibility for the patient's medical treatment while the community care order is in force.
(2) This subsection applies where a patient's after-care officer, after consulting the persons mentioned in subsection (4) below, agrees with another person ("the new after-care officer"), who shall be a mental health officer of the local authority which is providing (or, if different, the local authority which is to provide) the after-care services to be provided for the patient under section 8 of this Act while the community care order is in force, that the new after-care officer should, from a date so agreed, assume responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of the after-care services to be so provided.
(3) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the patient and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative;

(b) the other persons concerned or to be concerned with the patient's medical treatment (including the new special medical officer);

(c) the patient's after-care officer;

(d) the other persons professionally concerned or to be so concerned with any aspect of the after-care services provided or to be provided for the patient under section 8 of this Act; and

(e) any person who the special medical officer believes plays or is to play a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not, and will not be, professionally concerned with the after-care services so provided or to be so provided.

(4) The persons referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the patient and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative;

(b) the patient's special medical officer;

(c) the other persons concerned or to be concerned with the patient's medical treatment;

(d) the other persons professionally concerned or to be so concerned with any aspect of the after-care services provided or to be provided for the patient under section 8 of this Act (including the new after-care officer); and

(e) any person who the after-care officer believes plays or is to play a substantial part in the care of the patient but is not, and will not be, professionally concerned with the after-care services so provided or to be so provided.

(5) Where subsection (1) or (2) above applies the new special medical officer or, as the case may be, the new after-care officer shall, from the agreed date, assume responsibility as mentioned in that subsection and shall within seven days of that date intimate the change, in the prescribed form, to—

(a) the patient and any other person who has been consulted under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) or, as the case may be, (4) above;

(b) the Mental Welfare Commission; and

(c) the patient's after-care officer or, as the case may be, special medical officer.

(6) On a change of special medical officer or after-care officer by virtue of this section, the community care order shall have effect in respect of the patient as if the new special medical officer or, as the

1303
case may be, the new after-care officer had been the special medical officer or after-care officer specified in the community care order by virtue of section 35A(4) of this Act").
The noble Earl said:
My Lords, the way in which a change of special medical officer or aftercare officer might take place was a subject raised in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I indicated then that we were considering the way in which this might take place. This amendment contains our proposals.
If I can take the example of a change of special medical officer, the change could only take place after consultation with the patient and, where practicable and if the patient did not object, his nearest relative, and with those involved, or to be involved, in the care and treatment of the patient. There would be an agreement between the special medical officer and the proposed new special medial officer that, from an agreed date, the new special medical officer should assume principal responsibility for the patient's medical treatment while the order was in force.
Within seven days of assuming responsibility, the new special medical officer would have to inform the patient, the nearest relative, if the nearest relative had been consulted, along with the Mental Welfare Commission and the aftercare officer. A change of aftercare officer would operate in a similar way, with the aftercare officer and the new aftercare officer taking the leading roles, and the special medical officer being consulted. We believe this provision would offer a means of changing the special medical officer and aftercare officer which is in keeping with the spirit of consultation in the Bill. I hope it meets the concerns raised by the noble Earl in Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I certainly think the amendment that the noble Earl has proposed meets the concerns I expressed in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 22, line 46, at end insert ("or for a variation of the conditions of the order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the point that while the doctors and social workers have the right to apply to the sheriff to vary the conditions of the community care order, there is no such right given to the patient who is having to live with the conditions on a day-to-day basis. We think this is wrong. The amendment gives the patient the right to require the sheriff to reconsider his case. Having reread the amendment, I realise that there are flaws in it. For instance, there is no time factor involved. There is no indication as to how often a patient can ask for a variation. We know that in certain cases, perhaps because of a loss of memory, there may be almost daily applications. Therefore, the provision would need to be tightened up in that regard. However, the sentiment behind the amendment is that someone other than the doctors or the
1304
social workers should be able to ask for a variation. We are seeking a safeguard that the patient should have some rights in this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, this amendment seeks to extend the right of appeal by a patient to the sheriff to include an appeal against a variation of conditions. The noble Lord may be less enchanted with some of the detail of the amendment but we feel that the substance of the amendment, which I now concentrate upon, is unnecessary.
The Bill as drafted includes in new Section 35D(3) a right for the patient to object to, or make representations concerning, the proposed variation, and, if he does so, the sheriff shall not approve the variation without hearing the patient's case. We therefore believe that the right to be heard which we propose is adequate.
I should mention in passing that we are considering a technical amendment to ensure that the appeal against the community care order is by summary application to the sheriff of the sheriffdom in which the patient resides. I would ask the noble Lord on this basis to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is quite reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling the next amendment I should inform your Lordships that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List. This amendment should read,
"Page 23, line 20, leave out from first ("The")".
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 23, line 20, leave out from ("The") to first ("of") in line 21 and insert ("person applying for the variation of the community care order shall promptly notify the patient, and if practicable and if the patient does not object, the patient's nearest relative, and the after-care officer or the special medical officer, as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the person making the application must notify the patient, his nearest relative and the aftercare officer or the special medical officer not involved in the application for variation. The notification should, of course, be given promptly. If the amendment is accepted, then either the special medical officer or the aftercare officer may apply for a variation and either will have to notify the others. It is essential that the patient and his nearest relative be informed and that that is done promptly. This seems fairly straightforward to me. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, this amendment appears to seek to ensure that the person making a variation in the conditions of a community care order must notify the patient, his nearest relative and those professionally involved but who were not consulted about the variation. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We have already rejected Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 100 and 108 which sought to allow a variation of conditions to be proposed by the aftercare officer in

1305
addition to the special medial officer. We agreed to government Amendment No. 102 which amends new Section 35D(2) and ensures that the special medical officer must send a copy of the proposed variation of conditions to the patient, the nearest relative if he was consulted, the aftercare officer and the sheriff of the sheriffdom in which the patient is resident.
Government Amendment No. 109 will also ensure that where a variation is approved the patient and any other person consulted shall receive a copy of the approved variation in conditions. We believe that that is sufficient. I hope that the noble Lord will also consider it sufficient. On that basis, I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have laboured the point in many of the earlier amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for elaborating even further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 116 and 117:
Page 23, line 34, at end insert:
("(za) if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative;").
Page 24, leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert:
("(a) any person who has been consulted under subsection (2) (za) above;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 when I moved Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 24, line 33, at end insert ("and shall not be further detained in a hospital by virtue of this section immediately after the expiry of the period of detention.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that in speaking to the amendment I shall be able also to address some of the points that the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, and Lord Macaulay, may raise in connection with Amendment No. 121.
In Committee we agreed that we would consider further the question of immediate re-use of the provision allowing reassessment in hospital. We take the view that where a person has been reassessed in hospital for seven days those caring for him should not have the opportunity on the expiry of the seven-day period immediately to redetain him for further assessment for a further period of seven days. The amendment would ensure that that would be the case.
If further detention is likely to be necessary after the expiry of the seven-day reassessment period then an application for admission under Section 18 of the 1984 Act should be submitted to the sheriff. That will permit the interim detention in hospital of the patient while the application is being processed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 26, line 4, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 5 and insert ("patient, his nearest relative (if practicable), his after-care officer and the Mental Welfare Commission").
Page 26, line 8, at end insert:
("(za) the patient and, if practicable and the patient does not object, his nearest relative;").
Page 26, line 28, leave out from second ("the") to second ("of) in line 29 and insert ("patient, his nearest relative (if practicable), his special medical officer and his after-care officer").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 122, 123, and 124 with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Absence without leave]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 26, line 48, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 126 is to reduce the length of time that someone detained under civil procedure under Section 18 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 may be detained after being recaptured after going absent without leave from the hospital. I am concerned that the Bill does not discriminate between those detained under civil procedures and those detained on a hospital order by order of a criminal court. The two client groups are distinctly different. That is exemplified by the right of the nearest relative to seek the discharge of a Section 18 patient while for the hospital order patient no such opportunity exists.
I believe that it would be correct to have a variation in the period allowed to elapse after absence without leave so as to avoid discrimination against civil procedure patients. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has given of his amendment.
We decided that patients who go absent without leave should be liable to be returned for a period of six months or for the period of their liability to detention, whichever is later, because we take the view that that balances our concerns about the patient's need for and right to treatment and our concerns about public protection. We believe that we have struck the right balance and that three months would be too short.
I should also point out in passing that the decision whether or not to return to hospital a person who is liable to be so returned must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is conceivable that a person who had absconded near the end of his liability to detention, for example, might not be returned to hospital if he was managing well in the community.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, also raised the question of the lack of discrimination between Section 18 and hospital order patients. On the subject of absence without leave, the 1984 Act makes no discrimination. It is the Government's view that we should not change that.

1307
In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I concur with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Leave of absence from hospital]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 127:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of my proposing the omission of Clause 6 is that I wish to probe a little deeper into the rationale underlying the reduction and use of leave of absence, and to question its future use.
In Committee, the noble Earl stated that the Government had taken legal advice. The conclusion was that a 12-month period of leave of absence was legally sound. Will the noble Earl tell me from where in the European Convention on Human Rights, or in its associated case law, the 12-month limit is derived? I understand that when Sheriff Younger gave his judgment he expressed the view that the words, "liable to be detained in a hospital" meant that some degree of hospitalisation was actually, as opposed to potentially, required. Does that not rule out any use of leave of absence for periods of weeks or months at a time, whether or not it was of a duration greater or less than 12 months? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Clause 6 fixes at one year the total consecutive periods of leave of absence which may be granted in respect of a patient detained in hospital in Scotland under the 1984 Act.
I note what the noble Earl said about all leave of absence possibly falling foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems rather odd to me that he should be arguing this point, since I had understood that he was rather fond of leave of absence—certainly when he expressed his views at an earlier stage of the Bill. We take the view that leave of absence as a concept meets the UK's obligations under the convention. It is clearly a useful and necessary part of treatment in some cases. I would further point out that it can be used for specified occasions, not just for specified periods.
The noble Earl also questioned the decision to introduce a 12-month limit to leave of absence in the light of the Sheriff Younger judgment. I point out to the noble Earl that the decision on the 12-month period was not based specifically within the European Convention on Human Rights but on legal advice emanating from it.
When considering the Sheriff Younger judgment the options for change were carefully considered. We examined whether it might be possible to adapt the leave of absence provisions in such a way as to reduce the risk of legal challenge, but still allow the use of leave of absence in the long term. That appears difficult and would require a major rewrite of the 1984 Act. We are not even sure that that could be done in a way which would meet the concerns raised by Sheriff Younger's judgment. We therefore concluded that the best way forward was to limit
1308
use of leave of absence to consecutive periods totalling one year and to introduce proposals for community care orders.
The period of one year was chosen as the maximum total of consecutive periods of leave of absence because it is the maximum period for which a person may be liable to be detained under the 1984 Act, after two initial six-month periods. We believe that this reduces the risk of legal challenge to within acceptable limits.
We are aware that leave of absence is valuable. It is for that reason that we have retained it for consecutive periods of up to one year. We believe that to be the best solution. On that basis I hope that the noble Earl is able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as the noble Earl rightly said, I have been much in favour of the continued use of leave of absence. It is ironic that this leave of absence system works well, and has worked well until now. There seems to be slight questions of whether the system is legally flawed as opposed to practically flawed. However, I shall go along with the noble Earl and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 32, line 46, leave out ("January") and insert ("April").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [After-care under supervision: supplementary]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 34, line 32, leave out from ("the") to end of line 36 and insert ("person who, in accordance with section 117(2A) (a) below, is in charge of medical treatment provided for him;".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in view of Amendment No. 129 having been agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 46, leave out from ("who,") to end of line 4 on page 35 and insert ("in accordance with section 117(2A) (b) below, is supervising him."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 134:
Page 35, line 1, after ("Authority") insert ("and local social services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I must say that I was somewhat taken aback by the abrupt way in which Amendments Nos. 131 and 132—
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that it is not possible to move the amendment because it has been pre-empted.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, all I can say is that it is a great pity that no one took the trouble to tell me that before the debate started. These amendments were put down last week. I do not know when it was decided that it had been pre-empted. I have been sitting here all evening waiting to move three amendments and am now told at the last moment that they have been pre-empted. I think that that is shoddy treatment and I am extremely angry.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for that. Of course he should have been informed and I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate authorities. However, the brief is that, as the previous amendment has been agreed to, I am not able to call the noble Lord's amendment.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved]
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 36, line 31, after ("are") insert ("not").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and with it speak to Amendments Nos. 137 and 138, The purpose of the three amendments is to reverse the burden of proof before the mental health review tribunal so that the responsible medical officer must satisfy the tribunal that the grounds for aftercare under supervision are met rather than the other way round; that is, the patient having to show that supervision is not required.
By moving Amendment No. 11, the Government have now placed on the face of the Bill the explicit right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal. The amendments simply take the process a little further. As noble Lords will know, under the Mental Health Act 1983, the mental health review tribunal's current function is to review the detention of patients detained under the Act and to consider whether the patient should be discharged from hospital. The statutory criteria for discharge are drawn in what is colloquially known as a double negative: that the tribunal must be satisfied that the patient is not then suffering from a mental disorder or that the patient's detention is not justified for the protection of the patient or others. The burden of proof is on the patient, who has the difficult task of trying to prove this negative.
I am advised by the Law Society that Jill Peay in her study of the operations of the mental health review tribunal, which was published in 1989 and entitled A Study of Decision Making under the Mental Health Act—which itself was published in 1989—showed that many judicial members dislike having to employ the double negative formulation. They find it both grammatically inelegant and, perhaps more important, conceptually difficult. If the judicial members of tribunals find it a
1310
difficult process, how much more so must it be for the patients? As the Bill stands, they have to prove not only that they do not have a mental disorder but also that they will not pose a risk to themselves or to anyone else.
As currently drafted, the Bill will require patients subject to aftercare under supervision to satisfy the tribunal that supervision is not required, and again the patient will have to prove the negatives. The grounds for aftercare under supervision set out in Section 25A(4) of the Bill are extremely widely drawn and we have discussed them before. It will therefore be extremely difficult for the patient to present evidence to the mental health review tribunal to show that the grounds are not met and that supervision is not necessary.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I speak to this amendment I wish to clarify an earlier point that I made. I am afraid that I may unwittingly have misled the House on one point in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the Government's Amendment No. 11. I have already given notice of it to the noble Baroness.
As your Lordships will recall, the proposal requires information to be given to patients about, among other things, their rights to a tribunal hearing. It is not true, as I suggested, that the Bill will explicitly require patients to be told of their rights to free legal representation at a mental health review tribunal. However, the amended Bill refers explicitly to informing patients of their rights to apply to a tribunal. It is unthinkable that anyone advising a patient of his or her rights would not make the position about legal representation clear. But, in any case, we will make sure that our guidance on the operation of the power spells that out. Although this does not go quite so far as I believe the noble Baroness would have liked, I hope that she will find it acceptable.
Amendments Nos. 136,137 and 138 would reverse the wording of the Bill in relation to the way that a mental health tribunal has to consider appeals from patients who are, or will be, subject to aftercare under supervision and from those appealing against renewal of the power. Instead of saying that the tribunal will direct that the patient should cease to be subject if it is satisfied that the conditions for the imposition of the power in Section 25A(4) or a renewal in Section 25G(4) are not met, if this amendment were carried the tribunal could so direct if it was not satisfied that the conditions for cessation were met.
We must remember that this Bill amends the existing Mental Health Act 1983. The paragraphs in the schedule dealing with mental health review tribunals will slot into the existing provisions of the Act. The tribunal's powers in relation to aftercare under supervision have to be related to their powers on appeals from those liable to be detained or from those subject to guardianship, and the way in which they hear appeals from people subject to the new power must be framed in the same way as the hearing of appeals from people subject to the existing powers. For this reason I am unable to support this amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and particularly for her remarks at the beginning about the earlier discussion that

1311
we had about whether the requirement to inform patients of their free rights to legal assistance before a mental health review tribunal was or was not included on the face of the Bill. I understand now exactly what she was saying and I am grateful for that clarification. I am still a little concerned, remembering the discussion that we had in Committee in which there was a variation of opinion among Members of this House about whether free access to legal aid was a right under the mental health review tribunal, and there was some confusion about that. But I hear what the noble Baroness says about making it absolutely clear in guidance and I am satisfied with that assurance.
On the question of the later amendments, to which we are speaking directly now, I understand what the noble Baroness says about this being in a sense an attempt to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 by a somewhat back-door method. The purpose of these amendments is indeed to make the whole situation of the mental health review tribunals clearer. I can only say that in listening to the noble Baroness, and indeed to myself, becoming somewhat confused over our double negatives, I still feel that the purpose of these amendments was precisely right. However, in view of what the noble Baroness said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 139 and 140:
Page 37, line 20, leave out from ("that") to end of line 25 and insert ("at all times while a patient is subject to after-care under supervision—

(a) a person who is a registered medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12 above by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder is in charge of the medical treatment provided for the patient as part of the after-care services provided for him under this section; and

(b) a person professionally concerned with any of the after-care services so provided is supervising him with a view to securing that he receives the after-care services so provided.").

Page 37, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to both of these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert:
("General Protection of Detained Patients
—(1) Section 120 of that Act (General Protection of Detained Patients) shall be amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 below.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words "detained under this Act and shall make arrangements" there shall be substituted "detained or received into guardianship or after-care under supervision under this Act".
(3) In subsection (1) (b) (ii), for the words "has been so detained" there shall be substituted "has been detained or liable to be detained or received into guardianship or after-care under supervision".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to extend the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to cover those patients placed on supervised
1312
discharge orders and living in the community. Such patients are the main subject of this Bill. With the leave of the House, I should like to discuss the ancillary issues which arose in relation to Amendment No. 20, which was not discussed earlier in the day. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, discovered, the amendment was pre-empted without notice being given. I understand that I cannot now move Amendment No. 20. However, with the leave of the House I should like to discuss and include some of the issues related directly to Amendment No. 141 which I would have raised in relation to Amendment No. 20 had I spoken to that amendment in its place on the Marshalled List. We discussed these questions briefly in Committee, but I should like to return to them in greater depth now.
I remind noble Lords that the Mental Health Act Commission is a special health authority which, on behalf of the Secretary of State, keeps under review the uses of the Mental Health Act in England and Wales as it relates to patients detained in hospital. The commission now visits at least once a year every hospital and mental nursing home caring for detained patients. I understand that that is currently about 634 units. It deals with approximately 500 complaints each year under its statutory complaints remit. In other words, this is the one national statutory authority which is able to monitor and evaluate both mental health services and mental health patients across the country.
As I said at the Committee stage, if we are to be able in the future to make an accurate nationwide assessment of the success or failure of this new supervision order, it will best be carried out by the Mental Health Act Commission. It is equally important that, if the health and social services are to be able to keep track of patients as they move about the country, it could best be done also by the Mental Health Act Commission. Noble Lords will remember the examples which were quoted extensively in earlier debates. They showed how patients like the schizophrenic, Andrew Robinson, turned up in different places, and doctors and social workers had only his account of his problems and background to go on. At the moment there is no central reference point or central monitoring of mental health patients who are living in the community. I remind your Lordships that the public inquiry into the Robinson case noted that as a serious failure in the existing system.
At the Committee stage the Minister said that these matters would be dealt with by the social services inspectorate or the National Health Service executive. I refer noble Lords to col. 141 of the Official Report dated 4th April. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Minister believes that that is rather unrealistic and impractical. I am afraid that I have to say that I do. Since we had the Committee stage discussion, the Mental Health Act Commission itself last week published a position paper on the Bill. That paper appears to argue in support of Amendment No. 141 and indeed for the earlier Amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 20, which was not called, asked that the Mental Health Act Commission should be notified when a supervision order was made. Paragraph 2.4 of the commission's paper states:
"We consider that careful observation and monitoring of the use of these new powers will be necessary, particularly in the early years. Although the commission has no wish to be directly involved in the

1313
consultation process itself, which has to be carried out before a particular discharge takes place, it may be considered sensible and desirable for the Bill to include a provision which obliges the applicant RMO to copy the application, whether or not it is successful, to the commission".
It was also noted that the Bill already provides for similar proposals in Scotland. I remind your Lordships that the RMO there shall, within seven days of making a community care order, send a copy to, among others, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. That is found in Clause 4(1). When we debated that matter at an earlier stage, noble Lords around the House raised the question of the inconsistency between the Scottish and the English provisions. We did not have a very satisfactory reply as to why they were different south of the Border. Perhaps the Minister could help us with that point in her reply tonight.
Going further, in Section 3 of its comments on the Bill, the commission discusses the general extension of its statutory remit through amendments to the 1983 Mental Health Act, as proposed by Amendment No. 141. The commission states that the new powers of control and compulsion of patients proposed by the Bill warrant consideration being given to the extension of its remit to patients under supervised aftercare, and to make its new proposed position consistent also to patients discharged under guardianship orders.
The commission argues—I quote directly from its document:
"This would ensure that the new powers are correctly exercised and applied in strict accordance with the statutory requirements and, by a process of observation and monitoring over the years, the use of the powers is of benefit to the patients involved and to the community into which the patient is being discharged".
I should also add that that was another of the recommendations from Jean Ritchie's report on the Christopher Clunis case, which—despite the general undertakings that we discussed earlier from which it appeared that the Government had undertaken to adopt all the recommendations—has not yet been agreed on. Surely, given those authoritative opinions on the situation related to the Mental Health Act Commission, the Government should accept the amendment, which must safeguard both the effective operation of the new orders and the well-being of the patients concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the second of these amendments was tabled by the noble Baroness at Committee stage and I explained then our reservations to extend the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to cover those subject to legislation in the community. I know that the noble Baroness had some sympathy with the arrangements proposed north of the Border. But the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has a different statutory function to that of its nearest equivalent in England and Wales.
In keeping with the second amendment, the first would empower the Mental Health Act Commission to keep under review, on the Secretary of State's behalf, the way both guardianship and supervised discharge were being applied in the community. It would enable the commission to investigate complaints accordingly. I
1314
understand the case being made; but in terms of priority, the commission must concentrate on the special position of those who are detained in hospital.
We consulted with the commission over our proposals and listened carefully to what it said. At present, and bearing in mind the commission is undergoing a major structural change later this year, we do not propose to divert it from its central task of safeguarding the interests of detained patients. Patients receiving aftercare under supervision will have their rights protected by access to the Mental Health Act review tribunal, as those subject to guardianship do now. We shall be looking at the use and effectiveness of the new power as practitioners become familiar with its application.
I can assure your Lordships therefore that monitoring and evaluation will take place both locally and nationally. Again, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, but I am rather disappointed by it. If an effective national evaluation of these new and complicated procedures is to take place, then it should be done by a national body. I simply repeat the Minister's words at Committee stage when she said that the Mental Health Act Commission admirably fulfils its function. I should have thought it would be a necessary extension of that function to include patients in the community.
I should have thought also that if the commission itself argues in its position paper on the Bill that it should take on these new functions, then the Government's anxieties about them having inadequate resources or capacity are ill-founded and the commission's position must be taken at face value. However, I hear what the Minister says. I shall think about the matter again and perhaps return to it later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 38, leave out lines 1 to 18.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Community care orders: supplementary]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 39, line 5. at end insert:
(". In section 96 of that Act, after the word "Act" in line 8 insert "and any patient subject to a Community Care Order under this Act"").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the powers to deal with breaches of the conditions of a community care order. However, on the face of it, its purpose is to bring all those on community care orders under Part X of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, thereby insisting that they accept treatment. Without that the community care order will not be helpful in relation to the people for whom it is most needed—that is, those who, because of the severity of their illness and possible associated lack of insight, are not in a position to decide whether they wish to accept treatment on an informed basis.
I am worried that without a continuing power to insist on the acceptance of treatment in the community after one year's leave of absence, unfortunate incidents will be more likely to occur in Scotland with immediate unfortunate consequences for those involved, especially for the immediate carers, and indeed may have consequences for the whole public acceptance of the policy of community care.
The fundamental behind the amendment is that the Bill, in Section 35(A) (1), indicates that the purpose of the community care order is to ensure that the patient receives medical treatment and aftercare services. I do not think that the Bill backs up the word "ensure". There are no measures to be taken in the event of the patient ignoring the conditions other than the possibility of readmission to a hospital. That could happen only if the patient's mental health had deteriorated. The central deficiency I wish to expose is the lack of authority to deal with any breach in the terms of the order. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Earl has explained, the effect of the amendment would be to allow treatment of a community care order patient in the absence of his consent when the community care order was in force. We do not find that acceptable. We believe that long-term use of leave of absence is based on what appears to amount to a fiction since the patient is clearly well enough to remain in the community on a long-term basis, yet at the same time he suffers as a matter of law from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to receive treatment while detained in hospital. As we understand it, it may have been a considerable time since those on long-term leave of absence have actually been inpatients in hospital.
There is a power to medicate compulsorily a patient who is liable to be detained in hospital but who is on leave of absence in the community. A patient who is in the community on a community care order is not liable to be detained in hospital. A community care order patient can be treated in the absence of his consent only when he is detained in hospital for reassessment under new Section 35F because he then becomes liable to detention in hospital.
We do not believe that a power to medicate compulsorily in the community would be acceptable. That is a view which we share with many of those who replied to our consultations. As we understand it, the power is not pressed for by the Scottish division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We would also be at risk of falling foul of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by introducing such a power. I should add that we believe that the real answer to any problems of reluctance on the part of the patient to take medication while subject to a community care order is good, sensitive care with a clear framework of responsibilities.
If a patient's mental condition has deteriorated and gives cause for concern, or is likely to give cause for concern, as outlined in the Bill he may be detained in hospital under new Section 35F when he becomes liable to Part X of the 1984 Act. I hope that my explanation has
1316
gone some way to meeting the concerns raised by the noble Earl. In that light, I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I am still concerned that a patient who is on a community care order may choose to ignore some of the conditions. For example, if there is a condition that he should attend a particular sheltered employment programme but he just does not go it does not strike me that anything can happen. I am not yet aware of any breach of community care order provisions. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help me on that.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I draw the noble Earl's attention to new Section 35F, especially to subsection (1). It points to the circumstances in which his readmission to hospital for reassessment might take place. As well as referring to deterioration it states,
"is, or is likely to become, such as to give grounds for serious concern regarding his health or safety or the protection of other persons".
If a community care order patient began to neglect some or all of the conditions by which he was meant to live within the community it would be up to those monitoring him and his progress to see whether or not he was falling within the ambit of the first part of new Section 35F and initiate a reassessment to hospital if any concern arose. It is a matter of good practice that that sort of monitoring continually takes place. Therefore, as the requirements of the community care order begin to be neglected by a patient, concern will rise among those who are monitoring his progress.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I can see that if the patient does not go along with some of the conditions such as the one I mentioned, it will boil down to persuasion by the care team that there is no return to court on a breach of the community care order. Here I am obviously comparing it with a breach of probation.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I believe that the prospect of being submitted to hospital for reassessment might act as persuasion in its own right with many community care order patients.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I accept that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 39, line 23, at end insert:
("Consent to treatment
( ) In section 96(1) of that Act (consent to treatment) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(d) a patient under a community care order who has been detained in hospital for assessment under section 35F(4) (a) of this Act."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. Sadly, we have come to the end just when we were beginning to get to know each other. It is rather an important amendment. It is to provide that a person on a community care order who has been readmitted to hospital shall not be subject to compulsory medical treatment for the first seven days of

1317
his detention. We believe that for technical reasons the Bill as currently drafted does not obtain what is apparently set out concerning the compulsory medication of patients on being recalled to hospital.
The Bill envisages two types of detention. During the first seven days the patient will be detained for assessment and during the latter 21 days the patient may be detained for both assessment and medical treatment. The assumption is clearly that there will be no compulsory medical treatment for the first seven days of the patient's detention. That is a mirror of the conditions of Section 24 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The patient cannot be given compulsory medication during the three days of emergency and assessment detention.
The Bill provides that, in fact, a person who is admitted to hospital, even for assessment, can be given compulsory medical treatment. That seems to us to be a reversal of the intention of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. The Bill says that the person recalled to hospital is a detained person. I refer to line 15 of the new Section 35F(4) (b). Section 96 of the Act states that any person who is liable to be detained under the Act can be compulsorily medicated although he was supposed to be there for assessment.
This amendment provides that people who have been recalled to hospital for assessment should not be subject to compulsory medical treatment found in Part X of the Act. We believe that it is in accordance with the stated intentions of the Bill and with the other assessment provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. Therefore, we believe that there is an inconsistency, which we hope is an accidental one and which will be corrected either here or at a later stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I fear there may be a misunderstanding of our intentions on this point. We are aware that as the provisions are currently, a patient detained in hospital could be treated without consent if necessary. This has always been our intention and is the basis on which we consulted in relation to the Bill.
1318
We consider that where a patient's mental health has deteriorated to the point where it has been necessary, after a full multi-disciplinary review, to admit him to hospital for reassessment—particularly where that deterioration may have resulted from the patient's failure to take his medication and the patient may lack full insight into his condition—we are in no doubt that it is in the patient's best interests that the clinicians have the power to administer medication without the consent of the patient and within the terms of Part X of the 1984 Act in order to prevent or limit further deterioration. It is not appropriate to draw comparisons with Section 24.
As the patient is then liable to detention in hospital, he is subject to Part X as are other patients liable to detention. We believe this to be necessary and appropriate.
With that fairly comprehensive and detailed explanation of concerns raised by the noble Lord, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I accept the noble Earl's good intentions, but this is a matter we shall have to consider with care and on which we need advice. The provisions could be the beginning of a slippery slope with medication being given too conveniently when someone who has absconded is returned and readmitted. As I said, we shall take advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  Mexico: Human Rights
  Mexico: Human Rights
  European Parliament: Speech to Taiwan Delegation
  European Parliament: Speech to Taiwan Delegation
  European Commission: Representation on Outside Bodies
  European Commission: Representation on Outside Bodies
  European Commission Unified External Service
  European Commission Unified External Service
  Kurdish Parliament in Exile
  Kurdish Parliament in Exile
  Council of Ministers: Points for Discussion
  Council of Ministers: Points for Discussion
  Landmines
  Landmines
  Chechnya: Mediation Offer
  Chechnya: Mediation Offer
  Chechnya: OSCE Mission
  Chechnya: OSCE Mission
  Holocaust Museum
  Holocaust Museum
  Slaughterhouses: Appeals against Closure
  Slaughterhouses: Appeals against Closure
  Mandatory Life Sentences: Administrative Changes
  Mandatory Life Sentences: Administrative Changes
  Homicide by Shooting
  Homicide by Shooting
  Postage Stamps and Import Duties
  Postage Stamps and Import Duties
  Postage Stamps and VAT
  Postage Stamps and VAT
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Draught Shandy
  Draught Shandy
  Single Market and Multilateral Investment Rules
  Single Market and Multilateral Investment Rules