Sitting of 2 April 1996

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

    West Indies Guard Ship
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the Royal Navy's West Indies guard ship has made to the joint UK/US/Dutch anti-drug patrol. [22306]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Royal Navy West Indies guard ship makes a formidable contribution to the international efforts to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that just over 51 years ago Dover was in the front line of the fight against an evil dictator? Now we find ourselves in the front line against evil drugs barons. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Royal Navy will do everything possible to protect children in our schools because many local parents are worried about access to drugs in ever increasing quantities? Will he assure the House that the Royal Navy will make war on the drug barons if necessary and take every necessary action to stop the evil trade?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because he is plainly quite right to highlight the anxiety of his constituents—and indeed all our constituents—about drugs in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true that, with its West Indies guard ship, the Royal Navy has played an extraordinarily prominent role in fighting the evil of the drugs trade. Since December, the current West Indies guard ship, HMS Brave, has made three major drugs seizures of a combined street value of more than £125 million. In addition, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a helicopter has identified a number of drug plantations ashore for destruction by the civil authorities. I hope that he and his constituents will be pleased with that answer. He has my assurance that the Royal Navy will do whatever it can to play its part in the war against that wicked trade.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I recognise the relevance of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), would he not be far wiser to support Opposition Members who have repeatedly argued
    136
    for the retention of customs officers, instead of backing Government cuts in the Customs and Excise service, which have a direct bearing on Dover?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) informs me that there have been no cuts in the number of customs officers in Dover, so I think that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. I repeat that all those organisations have an important role to play in the terrible trade. All I can account for at the Dispatch Box is the actions of the Royal Navy, which will continue to play a very prominent, extremely successful and important role.

    Peacekeeping (RAF)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the RAF is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. [22307]
    Mr. Soames: I should like to pay tribute to the exceptional role that the Royal Air Force has played and is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. Important examples include the vital support provided to the implementation force in Bosnia and to the enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.
    Mr. Spring: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the RAF for its role in transportation and supply in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Angola and Rwanda? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the vast range of unsung activities undertaken by the RAF, which certainly illustrate that it is the finest air force in the world?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and pleased once again to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the RAF's work, which, as he says, so often goes unnoticed. As a matter of fact, between 3 July 1992, for example, and 9 January this year, the RAF flew 1,977 sorties, delivering 27,000 tonnes of aid to the beleaguered city of Sarajevo—the longest lasting humanitarian airlift in history.
    At the same time, Harriers are flying close support missions in the NATO-led implementation force in Bosnia, and Chinooks are providing lift based at Split. In Iraq, Tornados are doing an important job in the no-fly zone. The whole House will wish to pay tribute to the extremely important efforts of what is—as my hon. Friend rightly said—the finest air force in the world.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members are also appreciative of the peacekeeping work undertaken by the RAF? Does he recall that in December last year his noble Friend Earl Howe, the Under-Secretary of State, promised some of my hon. Friends and me that he would review the burden of low flying in the south-west of Scotland and the rest of the borders tactical training area? Did not that burden increase in the past year, whereas low flying decreased in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he carry forward the examination of the study and tell us when some of the pressure of low flying in south-west Scotland will be relieved?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman never fails to take the opportunity—even on the most inappropriate

    137
    occasion—to raise the subject of low flying. Low flying has a limited operational capability in peacekeeping, but I hear what he says and will report it to my noble Friend.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for the phased withdrawal of British troops from IFOR; and if Her Majesty's Government plan to keep any British forces in former Yugoslavia after 31 December. [22310]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Under the terms of the Dayton peace agreement, and UN Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR's mandate expires at the end of the year. The British contingent to IFOR will withdraw along with other IFOR forces. Planning the withdrawal is a matter for NATO; the United Kingdom is participating fully in this process.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that. Can he assure us that, this time next year, British forces in former Yugoslavia will not be trying to hold the ring in a possible three-way conflict in a resumed civil war while the United States has cut and run, and pulled out to arm one side in that conflict?
    Mr. Portillo: I have said repeatedly that NATO has deployed together, is working together and will withdraw together. The hon. Gentleman has advocated the withdrawal of British troops for a long time. I well understand his reasons, but I believe that the performance of British forces in Bosnia under the UN and NATO has done a great deal to save lives and has brought enormous credit to our forces.
    Mr. Colvin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the time comes for our troops to come back from former Yugoslavia, they can do so without having to wait to thumb a lift from our United States allies? Does he recall that that was necessary when the troops were deployed to Yugoslavia? Can he confirm or deny two recent reports in the press—first, that the French have withdrawn from the future large aircraft project, and secondly, that the MOD is procuring ro-ro liners to supplement the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
    Mr. Portillo: On the last point, during the formation of the joint rapid deployment force—to which I would have referred had I been asked Question 4—we have seen the need to acquire roll-on, roll-off craft to transport heavy equipment. The future large aircraft is not at present being funded by the French Government, and we are seeking clarification of their position. As far as transporting our soldiers back from Bosnia is concerned, I do not approach this on a nationalistic basis. It is a NATO operation, and we should use those elements of transport that provide the best value for money and the best security for our returning soldiers.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Secretary of State think that after their tremendous work in IFOR, our troops will be impressed to find on their return that their homes are being sold from under them and that their rents are being
    138
    jacked up by 10 to 25 per cent. to pay for the exercise? Will he finally now recognise that the sale of the married quarters estate is dictated by dogma—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The issue of the married quarters estate is far away from the issue of IFOR. Members must relate supplementary questions to the substantive question. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman follows the substantive question on the Order Paper. If he can do that, it is fine. If he cannot, I shall move on.
    Mr. Spellar: Will the Secretary of State, even at this stage, stop the ill-thought-out sell-out of service houses before the troops return from Bosnia—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That question has no relationship to IFOR.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is universal admiration for the way in which our forces are working in Bosnia and for the co-operation of all the NATO forces? Will he assure the House that the success of their operation will not be jeopardised by too rigid an adherence to timetables?
    Mr. Portillo: I recognise, as my hon. Friend says, that there is universal acclaim for the work that the forces are doing. That acclaim is not confined to one side of the House. Quite properly, the whole nation is joined in admiration for their work.
    It is important that the former warring factions should recognise that NATO has set itself a deadline, that the NATO operation can be completed in that period and that civilian reconstruction and the putting in place of the institutions of a normally functioning state can all be done in that time. It must be recognised that at some point, we shall rely on the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to construct a lasting peace; they cannot rely for ever on the outside world to impose it. Although I recognise the point underlying my hon. Friend's question, I underline that message to the former waning factions.

    Jobs
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are provided in the United Kingdom by the defence industry. [22312]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): The most recent figures available are for 1993–94, when an estimated 395,000 UK jobs depended on defence expenditure. About 80 per cent. of these—315,000—were sustained by my Department's spending, on both equipment and non-equipment items; the other 20 per cent.—80,000—depended on defence exports.
    Mr. Batiste: Has my hon. Friend had a communication from Bill Morris, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor and which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and which at its conference called for an £18 billion cut in Government defence spending? Can my hon. Friend confirm that if such a cut

    139
    were made, not only would there be no defence procurement budget, but there would be no armed forces at all?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, indeed, had such a letter, which has caused us some surprise. The proposal would reduce the level of our defence forces to some sort of volunteer militia. It would mean that we were spending £122 per head on our armed forces, which is less than half the amount spent in Luxembourg. We were surprised to receive the letter. The fact that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is sponsored by the trade union that put the proposal forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the union has abandoned his sponsorship. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union suggests that the proposal is firm Labour party policy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister safeguard jobs and create more in the defence industry by going forward with the future large aircraft project? What is the status of the project now that the French have indicated that they may not go forward? Will he receive my deputation in his office later this month to discuss the project? Does he know that my constituents wish to make the wings of the future large airbus and that they have a very good track record in making the wings of the airbus itself?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the future large aircraft. The fact that France has withdrawn funding for its development phase throws the project into some jeopardy. As always, I should be delighted to receive a deputation from the hon. Gentleman—I have received more deputations from him than from any other hon. Member.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of Saudi Arabian exports to our defence industry? Does he think it helpful to British trade abroad and major contracts, such as those with which British Aerospace and others that employ many thousands of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, are involved, when programmes such as "Panorama" are made, which merely make life difficult for people who are trying to do business in the interests of the British economy and British jobs?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend is right. Saudi Arabia has been and remains a very close friend of this country and we should bear that in mind in all that we do. We should recognise the importance of the defence industry for jobs, industry and the strength of our exports.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister acknowledge the paramount importance to Scotland of Rosyth in terms of defence and defence-related employment? Given the coverage in the Scottish media today about the likely decision to use Devonport for Trident refitting, will he comment on the great concern that is being expressed in Scotland, not least the view of local trade unions that the decision that the MOD appears to have taken will cost the taxpayer £100 million more? Is that the case and does he recognise that the feeling that there has been a sell-out in Scotland is running high?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall be announcing, in answer to a written question later this afternoon, that we have decided
    140
    to place the nuclear refitting at Devonport, but that decision was announced initially in 1993. The comparison between the comparator prices that were put forward in 1993 and today is not a real one because different levels of risk and other matters were included in the prices. I confirm that Rosyth will benefit from the allocation of a large proportion of work share in refitting ships, including aircraft carriers. That will be valuable for Rosyth in particular and for Scotland in general.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware how important our defence industries are to employment, investment and manufacturing capacity, not least at Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency? In awarding the contract for 81 mm mortars shortly, will he bear it in mind that some competing countries do not open their tendering systems to Royal Ordnance? Is he aware of the success in gaining orders in overseas markets against tough competition which has reduced the costs of production to the MOD? For those and many other reasons, will my hon. Friend undertake to think British and buy British?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Perhaps I was unfair to my hon. Friend in saying that I had had more deputations from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) than from any other hon. Member because she has been assiduous in backing her constituents on this matter as on others. I cannot say that we will always buy British. We will buy what gives us best value for money. About 90 per cent. of our money is spent on buying British weapons—not because we go out of our way to buy British, but because British industry produces the best weapons. That is partly because of the strength of British industry and partly because the MOD has insisted on value for money and competition. That has done much to strengthen British industry and make it the success that it is.
    Dr. David Clark: The Minister's reckless attacks on the Labour party's defence policies show how bankrupt of ideas the Government have become. He knows full well that the Transport and General Workers Union policy is not the policy of the Labour party. At our party conference, we specifically rejected such a move or such cuts.
    I have a specific question about the defence workers in the royal dockyards. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no moneys from the dock workers' pension funds will be used in the privatisation of the royal dockyards?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: So it is not the policy of the Labour party. When was it then, that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield signed an advertisement calling for the banning of nuclear weapons from British territory? When was it that, six years in a row, the Labour party passed a resolution demanding that this country reduce spending to the European average? I find it incredible that the hon. Gentleman, who himself calls for a defence diversification agency, thinks that we misrepresent the Labour party's policy. The idea of a defence diversification agency suggests that the Labour party feels that it is better able to tell industry what to do than industry itself. Labour Members, instead of being failed university lecturers,

    141
    would become failed people trying to stick their fingers into industry. It would not work and it will not work, and they will be rejected.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have so many jobs in the defence industry is that the United Kingdom armed forces are not only extensively involved in peacekeeping operations but are training constantly for high-intensity situations, such as proper wars? [Laughter.] There is a big difference, and those who have been involved in proper wars know that difference. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such training includes low flying, which is an essential part of high-intensity operations, and that many of the jobs at Prestwick depend on such operations?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is correct; with his experience of flying, that is the least that I would expect of him. It is true that our armed forces provide much support to the industry of this country. One thing that we comment on too little in the House is the quality and support provided by the Red Arrows. What they have done in support of British policy and the British image abroad is nothing short of fantastic. We should praise them more often, and I do so now.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted into the failure rates of self-destruct land mines. [22314]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department carried out a study of the reliability of timers associated with self-destruct mechanisms for mines in November 1995.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that from Vietnam to Bosnia many innocent people have been maimed or killed by such mines? When will he agree with the Labour party and introduce a ban on their export? Is he further aware that in Coventry on Saturday many Church leaders of all denominations were collecting signatures for a petition to the Minister to introduce such a ban?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is right about the hazard that anti-personnel mines pose to civilians, and that is a matter that greatly concerns the Government. That is why we are playing a leading role in the United Nations weapons convention to ensure that anti-personnel mines will in future incorporate devices to ensure that they self-destruct and are detectable. We believe that that proposal is likely to come into effect and be enforceable. We do not want to make pious requests that we know will not be acted upon; we want to achieve a genuine increase in safety for civilians, and that is what we are fighting for.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom has an honourable record in its dealings with anti-personnel mines, and I am sure that he will speak about that. It is unfortunate that some Opposition Members use the issue as a stick with which to beat the Government. However, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, if it were possible, a complete ban on the manufacture of anti-personnel mines would be welcome?
    142
    Will he work through the United Nations and try to foster such a ban, because many Members on both sides of the House would welcome one?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend correctly used the phrase "if it were possible". We know that several countries would simply not agree to a complete ban on anti-personnel mines. We want to avoid a situation in which some countries agree to banning anti-personnel mines and some countries do not so that many anti-personnel mines are still lying around and posing a danger to civilians. We recognise that there are severe dangers to civilians, which is why we are going for a ban on mines that do not self-destruct and that cannot be detected. We think that such a ban is very important, and that is what we are aiming for.
    Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister follow the logic of his case that some countries will not accept only self-destruct mines? Further, does he not appreciate that there is much dispute about the failure rate of self-destruct anti-personnel mines? Will he join the Labour party—[Interruption.]—in supporting a call for a ban on the import, export and transfer of all anti-personnel mines, self-destruct or otherwise, and their component parts?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall not join the Labour party, Madam Speaker. We believe that a failure rate that is better than one in 1,000 is achievable. We have recently acquired some mines that have been investigated by the United States army, which has suggested that the risk of those mines posing any danger after 200 days is less than one in a million. So the chances of those mines becoming a danger to civilians have been very much reduced.
    I do not agree with the Labour party's policy. It is important to produce an arrangement on which all countries can agree. We are working towards that end, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

    Procurement Budget
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence procurement budget is spent on equipment designed to military specification; and what scope there is to reduce this percentage. [22315]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To deliver the battle-winning equipment our forces need in demanding environments we have to prescribe certain military standards and specifications in our contracts. We aim to make maximum use of civil standards.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that many commercial specifications are now more reliable and are available at less cost than are military specifications? Is he further aware that the US Secretary of Defence recently issued a directive instructing US forces to use commercial specifications whenever possible? When will we follow in those footsteps?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The US has about 31,000 military specifications, and it is working to reduce that number. However, we have made significant strides in that direction ourselves, and we have fewer than 2,000 military specifications. We are working to reduce

    143
    the number of our military specifications, and we are doing so at a higher rate than the United States. My hon. Friend is right that we want to rely heavily on civil and commercial standards whenever possible.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that much of the defence procurement budget is spent in my constituency on repairing vital military equipment? So when he makes his statement today about the award of the Trident contract, will he also make a statement about the privatisation of Devonport dockyard and end the deeply damaging delay?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes.

    Defence Spending
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on existing military capability of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [22316]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year, which is about half of our entire procurement budget. That would clearly have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.
    Mr. Butler: This is clearly a very serious situation. Is the Minister telling the House that if such cuts were to be made—which, in the absence of any subsequent declaration from it, I understand to be Labour party policy—we would not be able to carry out either our international commitments or the defence of the realm?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, yes, but it is worse than that because of the letter that we have received from the Transport and General Workers Union—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—about which the Labour party seems to be rather uncomfortable. That letter echoes Labour party policy that has been passed at party conference, after party conference, after party conference. It means that we must consider the precise effect of cutting £18,000 million from our defence spending. Even if we simply reduced our level of spending to the European average—at least 42 Labour Members have signed a motion calling for that, and we know that that is the fundamental view of most of the Opposition—the programmes on the attack helicopter, the European fighter and the future frigate would be put in jeopardy. If we followed the policy set out by the TGWU, we would, as I have already said, be reduced to acting like traffic wardens.
    Mr. Skinner: May I just remind the Minister of what I have told him before—it is getting very wearisome—that the Labour party conference passes resolutions to cut defence expenditure and the Tory Government carry them out?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the demands of the Labour party conference to cut defence expenditure. He probably agrees with the TGWU that defence expenditure should be cut by £18 billion, because he does not believe in defence. In that respect, he is representative of the Labour party because one cannot trust Labour on defence.
    Mr. Key: If we were to cut defence spending to the European average, would there be a severe cut in the number of jobs in the civilian support industries, such as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? That prospect would be far more frightening to the agency and its work force in my constituency than any proposal for possible privatisation, which could establish it as a world leader.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. We would probably have to get rid of all research on defence and as a result we would have to buy equipment off the shelf. We would have to do that at the cheapest possible cost, which would almost certainly mean buying equipment from the United States of America—in fact, all our equipment would have to come from abroad. That would mean that the benefits to the defence industry from exports would be lost. In 1994, we won 15 per cent. of the world defence export market, but that was not good enough, because in 1995 that figure went up to 19 per cent. That success shows the strength of British industry today, and that strength would be lost if we were to cut spending on defence as the Labour party advocates.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [22317]
    Mr. Soames: IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.
    Mr. Touhig: Given the appalling risks that face our troops in Bosnia as a result of the indiscriminate use of millions of land mines, is the Minister aware that General Shalikashvili, the chairman of American joint chiefs of staff, has said that he is inclined to eliminate all anti-personnel mines? Does the hon. Gentleman share his view?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made the view of the Government plain just now, but it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that such mines are a serious matter and that our troops are in some danger from them. The House should know that members of the Royal Engineers, greatly to their credit, have played an extraordinary, gallant and successful role in helping to de-mine Bosnia. They have played an important role in teaching about mine awareness in schools. Where it is able to do so, all of IFOR makes a vital contribution towards trying to return Bosnia to some form of normality.
    Mr. Brazier: As well as the excellent measures that my hon. Friend has just outlined, can he also confirm that our noble Friend Lady Chalker set aside money last year to assist programmes for mine clearance in a number of countries, including Bosnia? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we could contribute towards the long-term curbing of the dreadful problem in Bosnia and elsewhere by promoting research into more revolutionary methods to detect and clear mines, because we are still basically working with war time technologies?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has made an important and valid point. I confirm that my noble Friend Baroness Chalker has laid aside such money. I warmly endorse and agree with his suggestion about research into land mines, and he can rest assured that we are playing a leading role in trying to bring this forward. He, with his expertise, has a valued role in keeping us up to the mark, and we shall be grateful to hear from him if he has any other ideas to this end.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is it not obscene to carry on supporting the manufacture of land mines when the Overseas Development Administration spends millions of pounds on land mine clearance and in helping amputees? Do the Minister and the Government feel any shame whatsoever when they see the limbless victims of this dreadful policy?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady almost certainly is not aware that anti-personnel mines have not been exported from this country for many years. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, considers mines, including anti-personnel mines, to be legitimate defence weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. Our armed forces have and need these weapons—without them, they would be less effective. It is plain that the hon. Lady is right: it is not something that we wish to prolong for any longer than we need to do so. We are working, together with everyone else, to try to bring an end to this regime—but we will not do so unilaterally.

    Maritime Patrol Aircraft
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procurement of replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [22318]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We are currently assessing bids for a replacement for the RAF's maritime patrol aircraft and we expect to award a contract in the late summer.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that only the Orion 2000 team is putting forward a brand new aircraft as part of its package? Will he also accept that the majority of the goods, products and services purchased with this particular project will come from the United Kingdom, including the majority of the technology from GEC Marconi and Hunting Aviation, which will do a great deal of the work, manufacture and assembly—and which includes the important firm of Baxter, Woodhouse and Taylor from Poynton in my constituency, which employs almost 400 people? Will he ensure that Britain gets value for money not only in respect of technology but in respect of employment and manufacturing?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have wronged my hon. Friend—he, too, is assiduous in fighting for his constituency interests, always has been and always will be. I do not want to anticipate the competition that we are running at the moment. I am delighted to say that there is a high United Kingdom content in all three of the aircraft that we are being offered for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. I had the great benefit of going out with a Nimrod aircraft last week and seeing some of the excellent work that the maritime patrols do, both in anti-submarine warfare and
    146
    in the search and rescue operations in the area of RAF Kinloss. That is a valuable team, which will continue to do very good work for the RAF and for the country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has referred to Nimrod. Does he accept that the refurbishing of Nimrod, as proposed by British Aerospace and Short Bombadier, would be a better bid than the Orion?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Again, I do not wish to anticipate the competition—however, it is delightful to see the battle fought out on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is most important is that the RAF gets the aircraft it wants, within the confines of the expenditure necessary to do so? In this context, will he ensure that, in relation to the aircraft that he picks, the full-life costs will be taken into account as well as the initial purchasing price?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to the full-life costs of the aircraft. We shall take into account all the factors that we usually take into account in considering this competition. I am pleased to say that the Royal Air Force has been very closely consulted about this procurement, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful remarks.

    Public Funds
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to judge whether it provides value for public funds; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which his Department meets these. [22319]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department judges expenditure proposals in terms of their cost-effectiveness in contributing to defence objectives, using techniques such as investment appraisal and operational analysis. We are determined to achieve the best value for the taxpayer's money allocated to defence.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it really good value for money to continue to employ the Ministry of Defence police in investigating Martin Gregory, the producer of the "Dispatches" programme on instruments of torture, to whom the Department of Trade and Industry has already paid out £55,000 in libel damages? Would it not be better if the MOD police were to investigate the role of the British Government and British firms in exporting instruments of torture to despicable regimes?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. I will write to the hon. Lady about the first matter, but it would not be right to accept the second matter.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22335]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a typical person made redundant has to face a 20 per cent. pay cut in order to find a new job? As more than 10 million people have experienced unemployment under the present Government, that is an awful lot of pay cuts and job insecurity. Will the Prime Minister publish the truth in his manifesto—that Conservatives make things worse for working men and women?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the extent to which unemployment has fallen in this country—faster than in any comparable European country. It is down by more than a quarter on its peak some time ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that in western Europe we all operate in the same economic climate. More people are getting back into work, more people are in work and there is a lower level of unemployment in this country than in any comparable European country.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Did my right hon. Friend by any chance see "On the Record" on Sunday, when education was discussed and we were treated to the sight of a Liberal councillor from Kingston who spoke out very strongly against any selective education, but who sends her daughter to a grammar school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the true working of a Lib-Lab pact?
    The Prime Minister: At the risk of causing enormous offence to an important television programme, I confess to the House that I did not watch "On the Record" on Sunday or the Sunday before, and I suspect that I shall not watch it next Sunday. I notice nods of agreement from the Opposition. We seem to have a cross-party consensus on that point. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and I doubt that that is an isolated incident.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall, in the days when he was flatly against a referendum on Europe, saying that referendums were introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet and none such existed in his Cabinet? Are not those divisions precisely the reason why he is in favour of a referendum today?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that when he has just announced a referendum to sort out internal difficulties in his party about his policy. I have said that I will contemplate a referendum on a particular issue of policy that has never occurred before. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ballot all his party members about Labour policy—which is a novel proposition: I am not entirely sure how one can ballot people about something that does not exist.
    Mr. Blair: I suspect that I shall have rather more support for my referendum than the Cabinet will give the right hon. Gentleman's. Why cannot the Prime Minister answer now the question that he was able to answer a few months ago? Has the Chancellor changed his mind—a nod or a shake of the head will do? We have paralysis in the Government—even the big man of the Cabinet cannot get his way. Is not the decision being taken only because the Government are weak, divided and are being pushed around by their factions?
    The Prime Minister: That was well prepared, but the right hon. Gentleman was too shy to mention that he has changed his policies on Europe, defence, the trade unions and on almost everything else. As for divisions, I have in my hand a paper entitled "Europe Isn't Working". It is produced by 50 Labour Members and it opposes every aspect of European policy that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    As to a single currency, the deputy leader of the Labour party—whom we miss today—says, "Yes, we are against a single currency." The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—who is also not here—says that he, personally, is in favour of a single currency. Labour Members of the European Parliament are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and constraints, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says that it is irresponsible. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to dance in the midst of those divisions while pretending that there are none. The reality is that his party is as split as it can be on that issue.
    Mr. Blair: I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not put his Government out of their misery and give the country a referendum on a matter that it really wants to decide—his Government or ours?
    The Prime Minister: In order to be kind and generous to the right hon. Gentleman, I am giving him time to find some policies so that he has some basis—other than negative campaigning—upon which to conduct an election.
    Mr. Marlow: While our masters in Brussels are deciding how to dispose of the British beef industry, will my right hon. Friend suggest to them that, if they are to slaughter perfectly healthy cattle, the beef would be better used as food aid rather than being incinerated? If people were faced with a one in three chance of dying of starvation or a one in 100 million chance of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, surely they would eat the beef.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend intimates, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in Luxembourg today trying to restore public confidence to the beef markets across Europe. He is making good progress and he will keep negotiating until a package of measures is agreed. It is no longer certain whether that will occur today: there is a long way to go in the negotiations and I anticipate that they will continue for many hours yet.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, as we speak, jobs are being lost and small farms and small firms are going to the wall because of delay and indecision on BSE? Does he acknowledge that he could take some steps without waiting for Brussels? I shall suggest three: first, launch a British standard for quality British beef; secondly, launch a public information campaign to correct misrepresentation and misinformation, which is still widespread and damaging; and, thirdly, get together with the banks and put together a credit guarantee scheme to help small firms and farmers until compensation arrives. I beg the Prime Minister to act now, when he can, rather than stand there wringing his hands and waiting for Brussels to open the door.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence beggars belief, given his party's policy on the European Union, but I agree with him about the need to do whatever we can to help the beef industry. Nine or 10 measures have been taken already; a number are currently under consideration and more are under discussion in Brussels. The Agriculture Council is considering and discussing the possibility of extending the scope of intervention to deal with short-term confidence problems. That would clearly be of great benefit to many British farmers. We are also considering a package of measures to deal with BSE. We are discussing its funding and a number of other confidence-building measures for the market. The right hon. Gentleman knows that although there are certain things that we can do in Britain, the fundamental decision needs to be a cross-European one, as he himself told the House the other day.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know of the concern of some Conservative Members about recent developments in defence. Therefore, will he study carefully reports of a recent conference which considered defence issues, found a potential peace dividend of some £18 billion and, yet again, voted for unilateral nuclear disarmament? When he discusses the resolutions of the recent Transport and General Workers Union conference, will he recall that that union sponsors not only the shadow Chancellor, but the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure what proportion of the Labour party's income comes from the Transport and General Workers Union, but it is clearly substantial. If accurately reported, its proposition on cutting defence would effectively leave Britain with no defence at all. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been planning a defence review. I had not anticipated that it would be quite so draconian, but as half their policy is determined by trade unions, we cannot be certain that that will not prove to be the case if it is the policy of the Transport and General Workers Union.
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22336]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister issued an invitation at the weekend via the national newspapers for a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on national television. Now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has accepted that invitation, would the Prime Minister like to name the day?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says the nicest things. I enjoy my tussles with the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesdays and Thursdays and on other occasions. I was as surprised as the hon. Lady was to read what was reported over the weekend. I recall very well, as a young untried candidate, trying exactly the same trick with an
    150
    experienced Labour Member of Parliament. I recall that he said to me at the time, "Go and sort out your policies first. Then I shall consider these stupid PR stunts."
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22337]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Notwithstanding the exchanges between the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is not the answer for the Prime Minister to give the people of the country on the issue of beef, in Easter week, when Grimsby and Cleethorpes holds the biggest fish market of the year, the message that people should consume Grimsby fish? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Frank Flear, who is behind the new fish docks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the Government supported with massive investment, and urge the people of Britain this week to consume Grimsby and Cleethorpes fish?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to invite the nation to eat Grimsby fish, and fish from elsewhere in the British Isles. I hope that, having had their fish, people will spare some time to eat some beef too.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22338]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the recent national poverty hearings in London, one single mother, registered disabled and dependent on income support, described how she had been forced to place her son in the care of her local authority, because underfunding prevented that authority from meeting his special educational needs in any way except through its residential budget? How does he explain to that family, and to the families of the one in three of today's children born into the same oppressive poverty, the contemptible and odious Tory slogan that "life is better under the Conservatives"? For the poor, it most certainly is not; and for that, the right hon. Gentleman and the party behind him are directly responsible.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say that he thinks that his party should put up taxes—I think that he knows that it will. He at least has had the candour to say that in public; it is his idea of the future. He is quite wrong about poverty. In fact, the vast majority of people are better off. Average incomes have risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation. The average income of all family types has risen. Pensioner average incomes since the Government came to power are up by about 50 per cent. after inflation. Average incomes of the unemployed and others not in work have also risen. That would not have happened but for the policies, both economic and social, that we have followed.

Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
3.30 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle." [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would Members leaving please do so quietly?
Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to put my case to the House. Late last night I became aware of a police investigation into four suspicious deaths in the adult intensive care ward of the Royal Victoria Infirmary trust in my constituency. The unit serves a wide area of the northern region. It has been known to be under intense work load pressure for several years—pressure which neither the trust nor the regional health authority has dealt with.
The pressure on the children's intensive care unit is worse still. Young people are often referred to the adult unit, thereby adding to the pressure on it; unfortunately, one of the deaths under investigation is that of a very young teenager.
The Minister must come to the House to tell us how he proposes to inquire into the crisis in intensive care beds in the northern region. I hope that he will also tell us how he proposes to inquire into other matters that raise serious doubts about the competence and good judgment of the trust management.
Why, for instance, has it taken four years for one of these suspicious deaths to come to light? This is a major high-tech teaching hospital. Why was it left to the coroner to call in the police? What was the quality of the trust's legal advice? Why did it take five weeks from the initial complaints for the coroner to be called in? Why did it take a fortnight after the internal inquiry had identified four suspicious deaths and sacked a nursing sister for the coroner to be called in?
This smacks of weakness, confusion and cover-up. There are matters here which no police investigation, however thorough, can deal with. The Minister must come to the House and set up an independent public inquiry into the situation at the hospital right now.
I should perhaps add that I have often been a visitor and a patient at the hospital, which has also served my family. I raise the matter not because I want to denigrate the hospital but because I wish to restore its good name and good reputation.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to give my decision, of course, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (ADDITIONAL POWERS)
  Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Secretary Sir George Young, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to extend powers of search in connection with acts of terrorism and terrorist investigations; confer powers on constables in relation to areas on which police cordons are imposed in connection with terrorist investigations; and confer powers in connection with the prevention of acts of terrorism to impose prohibitions and restrictions in relation to vehicles on roads: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time today and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Freezing of Human Embryos
3.34 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the freezing of human embryos.
The Bill that I am introducing today would have the effect of stopping the practice of freezing human embryos in hospitals and clinics where in vitro fertilisation treatment is provided. My Bill proposes to do this by adding the three words "freezing an embryo" to the list of procedures that cannot be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Medical science is such that practically every week an announcement is made about or there is a report of some new breakthrough which will help any number of people with medical problems. Such announcements, sadly, often give hope to our constituents when the reality is that the report is simply speculation and the procedure being suggested is only at the trial stage.
I well recall the detail of the debate that we had in 1990 in the House when we discussed human fertilisation and embryology. It is quite clear that in 1996 we know much more than we did then about the effects of freezing the human embryo. I am grateful for a report that an organisation called CORE, led by Josephine Quintavalle, has produced; for the work of Jack Scarisbrick of Life; and, as ever, for the assistance of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, under the leadership of Phyllis Bowman.
This issue has been highlighted by the Government's introduction of regulations to allow for embryos stored in freezers for the past five years to be stored for another five years. I must tell the Government that I much regret that, apparently, those regulations will not be debated on the Floor of the House.
Nearly 300,000 embryos were created between 1991 and 1994. Most were destroyed or experimented on, but some 63,000 were frozen. Many of our citizens regard such freezing of human life as deeply repugnant. The licensing body admits that it has lost track of the parents of 3,000 of the embryos. Hon. Members will have followed in the media recently many disturbing stories about the plight of those human embryos generated in the course of IVF treatment who were surplus to immediate requirements and so were put into cold storage for future use, but whose parents can no longer be traced. Sometimes the parents have remarried or left the country. Others may have decided that the annual fee of £100, which parents must pay for the storage of their offspring, was not worth it. Yet others may have lost interest for other reasons.
We are facing a tangled and unfortunate moral dilemma. What should we do with those orphans? There is still no convincing evidence that we understand the full long-term implications of cryopreservation. Recent negative reports warn about hazards. Embryo freezing is not really a successful technique, with just a 7 to 10 per cent. live baby rate. It will be outdated quickly by new developments in the freezing of eggs rather than embryos.
154
Clinical opinion and scientific reports suggest that the possibility of significant long-term damage, as a result of cryopreservation, cannot be ruled out. It is extraordinary that only one major study into the long-term effects of cryopreservation has so far been conducted. Drugs should undergo extensive toxicological tests on a number of different animals over a long time before they proceed to clinical trials.
The only study that has examined the long-term effects of cryopreservation has raised concerns. The ectopic pregnancy rate for unfrozen embryos is also inexplicably high. There is growing evidence that the experience of freezing and thawing not only kills on an unacceptably large scale but can cause serious long-term damage to the survivors. There is evidence from Cambridge in the United States, and especially from France, that even if embryos survive the experience, the shock of being frozen can cause serious genetic dislocation that could manifest itself perhaps years later in the form of major abnormalities. It is to be regretted that attempts were made to discredit the findings of a distinguished team of doctors in Paris.
The status of the embryo has never been defined. In legal disputes we are in triple limbo because embryos are considered as human beings, sort of human or simply property. If gamete donation has been involved in the case of abandoned embryos, it is even harder to decide who owns an embryo. Despite repeated statements from the HI-BA that all assisted reproductive technology is done in the interests of the offspring, no research is available from the child's perspective. It is lamentable that 18 years from the time of the first IVF baby, no such research has been commissioned. An examination of European practices in that regard leaves little doubt that United Kingdom legislation is liberal compared with that in Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Spain or Sweden.
Any fertility treatment that produces surplus human embryos is contrary to the respect that is due to early human life, and it results in the deliberate or accidental killing of those embryos. Interestingly, the Hammersmith hospital does not carry out cryopreservation as it thinks that the process has been insufficiently tested and does not have a good record. This is a classic case of rushing into legislation without more careful consideration.
Some hon. Members are uncomfortable with the HFEA's regulatory regime as constituted by its present membership. It has been said that we think that it is enough to discover new things but that we do not realise that knowing more demands a corresponding development of morality. In the freezing of human embryos the end does not justify the means.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Toby Jessel, Dame Jill Knight, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

Freezing of Human Embryos
  FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to ban the freezing of human embryos: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—

(1) At this day's sitting:—

(a) as soon as the proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relating to Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill (Allocation of Time) have been concluded, the order for the second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill shall be read;

(b) notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;

(2) at the sitting on Wednesday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both

Houses.— [Mr. Newton.]

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Madam Speaker: I have selected amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and amendment (e), a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
3.43 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading
1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.
(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall. notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Conclusion of proceedings
2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

157

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amemdments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

158

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Business Committee
6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
Supplemental orders
9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.
Recommittal
11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
As the House knows, yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained in a statement to the House why, in the current security circumstances following the calling off of the IRA ceasefire, he had been persuaded of the need to confer additional powers on the police. He described his proposals yesterday, and they are set out in detail in the draft Bill which was also published yesterday, and which, in the past 10 minutes, has been metamorphosed into an actual Bill and introduced in the House.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the need for the Bill is shared by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The official Opposition have made it clear that they are satisfied with the case that has been made, and while the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps, been more delphic—I hope that that is not unfair—I think it reasonable to say that their concerns appeared to be with the procedures proposed rather with the policy itself. On the procedures, I can only say that the Government think—having made the judgment that the powers are needed—that it must be right to try to enact them before Parliament rises for Easter, rather than waiting a fortnight or more for Parliament to resume. That means that the House must complete its consideration of the Bill today, so that it can be dealt with in another place tomorrow with a view to

159
securing Royal Assent tomorrow evening. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to achieve that in a sensible and orderly way.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Could not what the Leader of the House wants have been achieved—even taking into account the Home Secretary's delay in producing the Bill—if the Home Secretary had published the Bill last week, and if each day this week, including Thursday, had been used to enable us to discuss separate stages on separate days? Consultation with outside bodies could have taken place between the sittings.
Mr. Newton: It has been necessary for full consideration to be given to these matters within Government. The policy was agreed collectively by the Government only last week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has acted with commendable speed in the wake of that, and as a result we need to transact the business in the way laid down in the motion.
Mr. Max Madden: First, what is the most recent precedent for the Government's recommendation of the procedure that we are being asked to follow? Secondly, can the Leader of the House explain—as the Home Secretary signally failed to do yesterday—the motivation for the Bill's being rushed through the House in this way?
Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately recall a precise precedent, but then I cannot recall precisely similar circumstances. Terrorism has been resumed in this country; the police have made clear their belief that they need these additional powers in order to have the maximum scope for combating further instances of that terrorism; and we are operating within a day or so of the Easter recess.
The hon. Gentleman made the same point in response to my business statement yesterday. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made the case for the proposals absolutely clear in his own statement yesterday—and, indeed, that has been accepted by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Everyone accepts that the Bill is very important. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify having allowed less than five minutes for the discussion of each amendment—presuming that all were selected—quite apart from any time spent on voting?
Mr. Newton: I defend it on the basis of my general judgment that the amount of time that we have provided for discussion of the Bill and the motion—to which I shall refer in a moment—is appropriate for proper debate of the proposals in the particular circumstances, and against the background of a resumption of terrorism on the mainland.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Over the 16 years in which I have been in the House, I have noticed that when legislation is guillotined it invariably goes wrong. Why can we not have real time in which to discuss what may—I do not know—be a perfectly valid Bill?
Mr. Newton: Let me repeat what I just said. I think that the motion provides appropriate time in the particular
160
circumstances—Opposition Front Benchers have found that view persuasive on the basis of briefing that they have been freely given—and in view of the fact that the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. It will not surprise the House that, despite my support for the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, it gives me no pleasure whatever to be moving a timetable motion. It is in fact the first that I have moved for more than two years. I simply believe that, in the circumstances with which we are confronted, it is both sensible and necessary.
I am once again grateful, as I said yesterday, to the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the constructive manner in which they acknowledged that, and made it clear that they would not stand in the way. Perhaps I might assure them in return, particularly the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who made some cautionary comments yesterday, that it does not in any way lessen my commitment following the Jopling reforms, during which time I have worked closely with her, to achieve the progress of legislation by voluntary understandings, when circumstances are normal, through the usual channels.
The motion provides—it is already obvious that it is controversial and will no doubt be the subject of further comment—that all stages of the Bill will be completed during this sitting. It provides three hours for debate on Second Reading, and then two hours for proceedings in a Committee of the House. Report and Third Reading will end three hours after the start of the Committee stage, which should allow an hour for Third Reading, less any time spent on Divisions at the end of the Committee stage. The remaining provisions are more or less standard for such motions.
As I have said, given the urgent need that we have identified and the exigencies of the calendar, I think that such provisions will generally—although I accept not universally—be regarded as reasonable, and I commend the motion to the House.
3.50 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: We are today dealing with a Bill in a very unusual, if not unprecedented, manner. I should make it clear at the outset that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I said yesterday, we do not underestimate the importance of the fight against terrorism. It is on the basis of information given in security briefings to my hon. Friends that we are accepting the word of the Government that the Bill and the time scale are absolutely essential. However, I must emphasise, to the Leader of the House in particular, that our willingness to facilitate the passage of the Bill does not mean that we are happy about the position in which the Government have placed the House.
There are two separate matters. First, there is the fact that everyone—I believe—feels bounced into consideration of the legislation because of the lack of notice that has been given. More could have been done to ease that feeling among hon. Members. Secondly, there is a specific problem that the proceedings are subject to the guillotine motion that the Leader of the House has just moved.
On the need for the guillotine motion, I accept that if measures such as those in the Bill are deemed necessary on security grounds, it is reasonable for the

161
Government to ensure that they get legislation through the House in the required time scale. On that basis, I shall not be voting against the timetable motion. That still begs the question, however, why the House has been bounced in such a manner into considering the legislation in these difficult circumstances today. I do not believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already referred to the point—that hasty legislation is likely to be good legislation. There is always a danger that if we legislate in haste, we may implement defective provisions. As a result, all hon. Members are faced with significant difficulties. The time scale has meant that it has been very difficult for Members to table amendments. Indeed, a great deal of pressure has been put not only on Members but on Officers of the House in order for it to be feasible to consider the Bill properly today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not an immense principle involved here—that one should never guillotine legislation that has implications for civil liberties?
Mrs. Taylor: There are always difficulties in saying never in politics. A balance must be reached in difficult situations such as this and people must weigh up competing claims, and that presents the House with an extra difficulty. That is why the time scale is providing so many difficulties and—if I may say so—so many suspicions on the part of hon. Members who believe that the Home Secretary and the Government are bouncing the legislation through and that we are taking their word on its merits.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In answer to questions yesterday, the Home Secretary made it clear that the stop-and-search measures are comprehensive and will not apply simply to the rounding up of alleged terrorists. The net result will be that anybody can be caught in the net, and that is a matter of civil liberties and justice. The Home Secretary made the game plan abundantly clear. Is my hon. Friend seriously happy with that?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—the shadow Home Secretary—has received significant assurances from the Home Secretary on such aspects as the monitoring of the workings of the new proposals, and he is satisfied with those assurances. The Home Secretary said in the House yesterday that many of the measures are technical, and added that he is trying to bring the powers of the police in Great Britain into line with those available to the police in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was, I think, referring to section 13A of the Act, but the Opposition have accepted the Home Secretary's assurances in good faith on the basis of what he said in the House and in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend show where those assurances on protection appear in the Bill? She said that the powers in the Bill were roughly the same as other powers, and that the Government were putting them on the statute book. Has she read paragraph 10 of the
162
schedule which says that the powers are additional to any other powers and that those of common law or any other enactment are not affected? Will not the situation remain as it was before the passage of the Bill?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend—who follows these matters closely—was here yesterday when certain assurances were given by the Home Secretary, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pressed on these during our subsequent debates should the motion be carried by the House. The points that my hon. Friend are making—he is right to make them—are significant as they illustrate people's concerns that we are being bounced into legislation affecting civil liberties without adequate consultation.
Mr. Beith: Bearing in mind the fact that the original prevention of terrorism Act went through under a Labour Government in one day without a timetable motion, and that the hon. Lady has promised the Government—on behalf of the Opposition—full co-operation with the Bill, why does she think that the tight timetable motion is required? Who does she think will prevent the Bill getting on to the statute book?
Mrs. Taylor: A business motion was before the House in 1974 to make sure that that timetable was protected. At that time, the House was not up against a recess as we are at present. The Government are saying that they wish to protect the business so that there can be no delay or spill-over into the recess. If Ministers do not agree with that explanation, it is for them to explain. We are talking about Government business and while the Opposition are facilitating the process, we are not responsible for the legislation.
In view of what has been said, I hope that the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Home Secretary will understand that by introducing the legislation in this way, they have created many suspicions about the haste and many fears, especially about the changes to which my hon. Friends have referred in respect of section 13 of the prevention of terrorism Act. Any changes that involve or might involve individual civil liberties are bound to raise concerns. Even those who promote the restrictions in the Bill must recognise that there has to be a fine balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. The Home Secretary must take that concern on board when he makes his speech on Second Reading.
Mr. Madden: A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend rightly said that the powers in the Bill to stop and search pedestrians have applied in Northern Ireland for a long time. Is she aware of the outcome of those provisions in Northern Ireland? How many persons have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist offences? If my hon. Friend is unaware of that information—clearly, we have not been given any time to seek such information—does she believe that there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince us of the case later today?
Mrs. Taylor: Of course there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince the House of the case for his proposals. That is why it will be for him and not the Opposition to answer questions such as the one my hon. Friend has just raised.

163
My understanding is that the powers are somewhat more limited than my hon. Friend suggested, although I acknowledge that he has a great deal of information on these matters.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady really think that the British people or the people of Northern Ireland would forgive my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary if he did not take the matter seriously ahead of the very significant anniversary this weekend?
Mrs. Taylor: We have not demurred from that view; that is one of the reasons why we have accepted the case put to us for dealing with the Bill in this way today. However, I do not think that that should make us any easier about accepting very unusual procedures. It is incumbent on Ministers on all occasions to provide as much notice as possible of any changes in legislation that they wish to make and that is why I regret the fact that we have not had more notice of these changes.
Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that Home Office briefings, as reported by the media yesterday, said that the Home Office did not expect any particular problems over the coming weekend?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not responsible for Home Office briefings; I am responsible for the collective decision of the shadow Cabinet which was made on the basis of the overall briefings that we received. We face a real problem and a real danger. If the Government say that there is a significant risk and if the Bill can minimise that risk and help to protect lives, we have a responsibility to facilitate its passage through the House. I hope that in view of all that has been said, we can have an explanation from the Home Secretary of why no indication whatever of the possibility of the changes was given during the recent debate on the prevention of terrorism Act just three weeks ago. It would have been wiser if the Home Secretary had given a proper indication that these changes were under consideration. We shall all have to make our own judgment about why he did not do so.
It is important that the House is consulted where possible. It is not just a matter of the pride of Members. It is a fact that the more Members are consulted and involved in decision making, the better the chances are that we shall get our legislation right and that the Government will not have to return to the House for further amendment because of deficiencies in the legislation.
In conclusion, we are not happy with the way in which the Government have forced such instant decisions upon the House, but, for the reasons that I gave earlier, we will not stand in the way of the Bill or the proposed time scale. However we trust, and ask for an assurance, that the House will not be treated in such a cavalier way in future.
4.4 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, amendment (a) in line 8, leave out 'two' and insert `five'.
We should start from the working assumption that the IRA is likely to seek to plant bombs at any time and that the means of so doing can be concealed more effectively
164
than ever before. We do not need a high-level security briefing to know that. It was my assumption through much of the period of the ceasefire. Ministers conceded that it was well known the IRA remained active. Amendment (a) would give us more time to consider in Committee the details of how we seek to address this menace.
Let nobody assume that the reason for taking more time and having more careful consideration of the matter is any doubt about the possibility, or even the likelihood, of the IRA planning further bombing attacks. Nor is there any doubt about the threat to civil liberties that the IRA represents. There are few greater threats to civil liberties than having life and liberty taken away by a bomb. The question is by what means we can effectively prevent that and how can we ensure that those means are properly discussed in Parliament before they are placed on the statute book.
We must ask whether it is urgent that we should bring these measures on to the statute book. The police have been putting these proposals forward for a long time—some of them for years rather than months. Since the South Quay bombing, the Home Secretary has been well aware of the police's desire to have clarified their powers under the law that they use to mount searches and cordons. The provisions are primarily about the power that police can use in cordoning off an area or mounting a search.
The police do those things under existing powers. If there is a bomb threat or emergency this afternoon or tonight, the police will not wait for Parliament to change the law. They will use existing powers, as they have done in the past, and obtain the co-operation of the public in clearing an area of vehicles, stopping access to it and ensuring that members of public are not put in danger by entering it. That is what happens now. The police have reasonably requested that the powers under which they do that should be made clearer. We shall discuss that in detail later. There must be some doubt about whether they would depend on these provisions to do what needs to be done.
Even if we take it as read that for the purposes of this weekend the police need the powers, it was open to the Home Secretary to ensure that they received adequate parliamentary debate. He could have brought the Bill forward considerably earlier—even a week ago would have enabled its stages to be properly considered. The Bill was in his hands last Thursday or Friday, if not before. He could have published it then so that interested organisations and bodies, especially those dealing with the courts, could have brought forward proposals for amendments. Having failed to do any of those things, he could yesterday have ensured that the procedure that the House followed would take as much time as was available this week so that it could be done properly. I put it to the Leader of the House, who I think has himself been bounced into this to a considerable extent, that we could have sat on Thursday had he not been so insistent on getting away for holidays.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Holidays?
Mr. Beith: I suspect that that is the pressure on the Government. The hon. Gentleman may, like me, have plans to do constituency work on Thursday, but I suspect

165
that the Government did not believe that they could keep their Members here on Thursday. Why else did they fail to take the obvious step of ensuring that on each day of this week, a stage of the Bill was taken? For example, the Bill could have been taken in the Lords later on Wednesday and Lords amendments could have been considered on Thursday. That would have enabled us to take the Committee stage on Wednesday, following Second Reading today.
There are a number of ways in which the procedures for the Bill could have been dealt with. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who seem to think that this is some kind of joke should realise that if there are no gaps between the stages of a Bill, the people outside the House, who will have to live with the legislation—some of them will have to arrest people in the street on the basis of it—will not get the chance to consider it properly.
I made some inquiries outside the Metropolitan police area and discovered that in other police authority areas, chief officers were not familiar with what was going on, and did not know the precise content of the proposed powers. Those are the sort of people whom we would consult between the stages of the Bill, to ensure that the powers reached the statute book in an appropriate form.
Sir Michael Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1994, when the House debated extensively the provisions of what is now section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which extended the powers of a constable to search without reasonable suspicion for an offensive weapon? All that is proposed here is to allow a constable to do the same thing in relation to a device—a device that could cause a serious explosion and massive loss of life. That is not a huge change of principle; it is a comparatively minor change. Moreover, the power is hedged around with all the provisions in the 1994 Act, in that a senior police officer has to authorise it and the Home Secretary has to keep a close watch on it. So what is the case for the extension of time, when we are debating something that is simple to understand?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my opening remarks. I said that there was indeed a case for clarifying the powers that the police use in that connection, and that we needed to consider them carefully in detail. It may even be that when we come to those details we shall be able to deal with the matter more expeditiously than would now appear. However, the House will be up against the problem that if there is a substantial debate on the early clauses in Committee, when the axe falls every other clause will be read out as a number and passed into statute without any debate. That is how the timetable works. There is no Business Committee, and no subdivisions within the timetable period. If hon. Members become especially concerned with an early part of the Bill, its later provisions will not be debated at all.
There will be no Report stage, because the Government will accept no amendments. I was struck by the fact that the Leader of the House spoke as if he had already accepted that there would be no Report stage. He said something like, "That will be an hour for Third Reading"—but actually the hour is for both Report stage
166
and Third Reading. The Leader of the House has already taken as part of the scheme of things the fact that the Government, however wrong they may be shown to be on detail, will not amend the Bill in Committee because they do not want a Report stage. So we can forget about a Report stage. And they will take the same attitude in another place.
That is government by decree. The Government have already decided the precise form that the Bill should take. Whenever Governments make such decisions, they get things wrong. Even with the best will in the world, the best organised Government in the world, with the finest Ministers and the finest civil servants, might still make mistakes. The present Government have a record of making mistakes. The Home Secretary and the Home Office certainly have a record of making mistakes about what the law is, and about the position in which they will be found when the matter comes before the courts. The Home Secretary has made so many such mistakes that he should be bound to expect it to happen in this instance.
Mr. Skinner: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—there will be no Report stage; it is pretty clear that the Government will get their own way; the debate will be time-limited; the matter should have been dealt with earlier; perhaps we should have sat on Thursday—he seems to be leading up to a great principle. He seems to be about to say not only that he will vote against the guillotine motion, but that such is the nature of the process that he and the whole Liberal Democrat party will vote against the principle of the Bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Beith: It is important that the hon. Gentleman should learn to recognise the difference between the procedures of this place and the contents of a Bill. [Interruption.] It is significant that the Labour party appears to find that idea funny. Labour in office, in both central and local government, sees no difference between the value in its eyes of what it wants to carry out, and the procedures by which we protect people's liberties, and protect proper democratic debate.
There is an important distinction to be drawn between those two factors. One of the things that the Leader of the House is paid to do is to be aware of that distinction, to represent it in Cabinet and to ensure that the House has procedures for controlling the way in which even the most pressing of matters on the Government's agenda are dealt with.
There is always a good reason for doing a bad thing. There is always some compelling argument for undermining the basis on which parliamentary democracy operates, and in a way that will cause damage in the future. I have absolutely no doubt that, just as hon. Members have asked for precedents for this motion, on a future occasion a Minister will say, "We have the precedent in the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996. That Act went through on a timetable motion in one day, with no amendments being accepted. Why should we not do that on any of a wide variety of other pieces of legislation?"
I remind the House that there was no timetable motion when the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 went through; the House simply continued considering it until it had completed

167
consideration of the amendments. It is possible to imagine a better timetable motion in which the allotted time was subdivided to ensure that each part of the Bill was discussed, but we do not have such a motion before us. The Standing Order relating to the Business Committee will not apply.
The time that is taken up in Committee will be taken off the time allocated for the Report stage and Third Reading. This timetable motion is very unsatisfactory. It has been moved to get the Government off the hook because they delayed introducing the Bill. The Home Secretary then went to the Leader of the House and said, "Can you get this Bill through this week?" The Leader of the House said, "I can do it only on a timetable motion, and a fairly stringent one. No problem; the Labour party will agree to it," and that was that. If that is how we are to run this place, we might as well go home. We are supposed to be here to ensure that the law is properly discussed and considered and that, when it gets on to the statute book, it achieves the purposes for which it was introduced.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Parliament's role in scrutinising legislation. However, since this legislation is being rushed through—it will not be considered and it will be subject to a guillotine motion—can he be clear about that? Does he agree that the best message we can send to the British people when the Government try to treat Parliament with contempt is to say no and vote against the Bill?
Mr. Beith: The opportunity to say no will arise today when we vote on the timetable motion. I hope that most Labour Members will vote with me when we reach that stage; but that remains to be seen.
Another principle that we want to make clear is that we are determined to fight terrorism and to assemble such powers as are necessary for that purpose and consistent with the maintenance of our civil liberties. That is why the Liberal Democrat party has voted for prevention of terrorism legislation when Labour opposed it and continued to vote for it when Labour abstained. We are prepared to make such decisions as long as we have a proper parliamentary process by which to do so. The House is being denied that process today, and it is an extremely bad precedent.
I am quite convinced that, in times to come, there will be criticism of the details of the legislation. Some ordinary police constable who seeks to exercise the powers granted under this legislation will find, when he is called to account, that those powers crumble in his hands. That will happen because the House did not properly consider the powers, which subsequently did not satisfy the purpose for which they were enacted.
I always remember the phrase used by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he was Solicitor-General, when one of his Bills went before a Special Standing Committee—the type of Committee in which hon. Members scrutinise in detail what a Bill does. After a couple of sittings of the Committee, he announced that he had discovered that the Bill could not satisfy the purpose for which it was intended—it could not do so and it could not be made to do so. I am not suggesting that the proposals in the Bill are in quite such a mess as that,
168
but it is almost certain that any proper, detailed consideration would discover defects in them and ways in which civil liberties could be more effectively protected. We will be denied that opportunity for scrutiny.
Therefore, I invite the House to extend the time available to the Committee. I also invite the House to ensure that amendments other than Government amendments are voted on at the end of the guillotine period. That measure is contained in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), to which he will no doubt speak later.
Who in the House believes that all wisdom resides with Ministers? I hope that not even Conservative Members, let alone Opposition Members, believe that. Hon. Members must know of many occasions when Governments have been forced to accept amendments tabled by Back Benchers or by Opposition Members or have then tabled similar amendments to get the Bill into a proper form. That process will be denied tonight once the guillotine falls.
The people who wrote this Bill are the Government's draftsmen, and they are the only people who will be able to amend it. They will not amend it because the Government do not want that procedure to be brought into force. As I have said, it is government by decree—take it or leave it—and the police and the public will pay the price of it.
4.19 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the arrangements that you set in motion yesterday to allow the House to consider amendments; hon. Members are very grateful to you for that. I do not intend to delay the House on this matter—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken about parliamentary procedure.
It is important to note that each and every power that we are debating today has been the subject of discussion by the police and the police forces since the explosion at the Baltic Exchange—at least that far back. They have discussed what should be done, what can be done and how it should be done.
Suddenly, the House is being bounced into passing this measure with 24 hours' notice and with limited time. As I pointed out to the Leader of the House, we will have less than five minutes to discuss each of the amendments. If we were properly to debate only one amendment and vote on it, in all probability the remaining time to debate the other amendments would be lost.
We are in a difficult position. Some people have been tempted to say that we should just let the Bill go through and thereby show our contempt for it and for the way in which the House has been treated. Others have said that we should have one debate on one amendment and try to make our points—if we are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker—either in the Second Reading debate or in the truncated part of the remaining hour after our two-hour debate on the amendment.
The position is difficult because the decision has been made not only by the Government but, sadly, with the agreement of my hon. Friends. It was patently obvious that something was going to happen once we changed our position on the prevention of terrorism Act. Once we had conceded that point without debate, we were easy

169
pushovers for any other power that the Government might seek to introduce because we could not go back on that decision. That is the way things are at the moment: new powers are being proposed and if we vote against them we will be told that we are denying what we did a fortnight ago.
The Government knew a fortnight ago that they were likely to introduce these powers, but they did not mention them. They knew on Thursday that they were likely to introduce the powers, but there was no mention of them in the business statement. We know that because that was the occasion on which my hon. Friends first had their secret briefings. We are now asked to pass and to accept the legislation on the basis of a secret briefing—and when we are receiving conflicting evidence and signals.
We were told that the Bill has to pass by the weekend because of the significance of Easter in the Republic's calendar—I shall deal with this matter in the Second Reading debate—but last night we were told that we are not expecting any problems over Easter. The threat of Easter was given to my hon. Friends as the reason for this Bill, which was denied by Home Office briefings late last night. Have the Opposition been bounced into agreeing to this matter on the basis of briefings? How specific, direct and objective were the briefings that we have been given to make us accept the guillotine motion?
It is quite outrageous that there will be serious incursions into people's normal civil liberties and that we will have only two hours to discuss them. For the sake of the argument, let us say that the Government are justified in everything that they are doing. However, for them to expect us, as a House and as a democratic assembly, to allow the Bill to go through in two hours flat is a nonsense. People can be stopped in the streets in designated areas and searched, their outer clothing can be removed, their shoes can be removed and their hats can be removed—that will create problems in the Sikh community and in other communities. It has been suggested that we should let it go through in two hours, when the Government have known about the problems since the Baltic Exchange. That is a nonsense.
We should reject the timetable motion because, first, the Government knew about the need for this Bill and could have informed the House earlier; secondly, because their reasoning for bouncing the House into agreeing to the motion is dubious; and, thirdly, because if we are going to remove the civil liberties of many of our citizens, it is their entitlement that the House, the representatives of the people, should examine each amendment more carefully than it is possible to do in five minutes.
4.24 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. In a usual situation it would be unacceptable, procedurally, for a Bill to be introduced and pass through all its stages in one day. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said as much, and made it clear that there was a very special and very definite reason for so doing.
Furthermore, if indeed the Home Secretary has been able to convince the leaders of the Opposition that this is a necessary step, the House would be at fault if it did not pass the legislation in one day, as suggested. There are precedents for so doing; we need not rehearse them. They are known, but they are only precedents of the most extreme nature.
170
If certain outrages were perpetrated in this country between now and when the House returns and we had not taken these measures, we should be very much to blame. Although, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I do not like this procedure, I can see the need for it. As the Leader of the House and hon. Members on both Front Benches said, no hon. Member likes having to do it but, as it is necessary, we should proceed—and proceed quickly, not spend time discussing the timetable motion.
4.26 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Leader of the House say that he was proposing the motion to enable the House to proceed in a sensible and orderly way. There is nothing sensible or orderly about proposing that, in less than six hours, we debate the detail of draconian legislation that, if passed, will deprive many people of their basic civil rights and that is of questionable value in the campaign against terrorism. By proposing the motion, the Government are treating Parliament with contempt.
I was a Member of the House 22 years ago when the House debated the original Act—the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. As has been said, no timetable motion was deemed necessary then and the legislation passed through both Houses in approximately 48 hours. It was, in retrospect, seen not to be the good legislation that many people had thought it might be. It was rushed through, and I repeat the word "rushed" because, despite the fact that there was no guillotine or timetable motion, it passed through both Houses with inordinate haste. It was in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, when there was almost a nationwide knee-jerk reaction; obviously, people were outraged by such atrocities. Many people who were outraged at the time now feel, in retrospect, that the House did not deal with the situation in the best way possible. The legislation that was rushed through Parliament did not help to catch the real culprits in the Birmingham bombings. No fewer than 27,000 people—the vast majority of whom were innocent—have been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act in the past 22 years. I do not think that the precedents for rushing through legislation are good, even when the motive—trying to defeat terrorism—is.
I am amazed also that it is less than three weeks since the House debated the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. Some time was allocated for the debate—perhaps not as much as several hon. Members would have liked, but I had the opportunity to make a five-minute contribution, as did other hon. Members. In opening and in summing up the debate, Ministers did not hint at the need for additional powers. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who I believe is a member of the Security Commission and has access to security information—suggested that such a proposal has probably been lying around in the Home Office collecting dust for some months, if not years. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to tell us why the dust is now being shaken from the legislation and why it is being put before the House.
I do not understand it. Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary seemed quite satisfied with the status quo of the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act. He told us that Lord Lloyd of Berwick is reviewing the legislation. Has Lord Lloyd issued an interim report

171
Stating that the powers in the existing prevention of terrorism Act are inadequate and putting the case for additional powers? I do not believe that further draconian measures are justified at this stage—particularly powers to stop and search people who are going about their lawful activities.
Mr. Peter Shore: I have listened with great sympathy to my hon. Friend's remarks. It clearly would have been far preferable if the Home Secretary had anticipated, as it were, the 80th anniversary of the Dublin uprising of 1916 and tabled amendments to be debated properly when the Act was renewed a fortnight ago. I accept that point and I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises, however, that, if the Government receive serious information about a renewed threat, we have a duty to err on the side of caution and to protect our own people. I speak as a Member of Parliament who represents one of the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets where the appalling atrocity was committed not long ago. People might not understand it if passionate defenders of the rights of the individual, such as my hon. Friend, did not consider that fact.
Mr. Canavan: I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view: he obviously speaks in defence of his constituents. My fear is that the Bill could be counter-productive because, in the campaign against terrorism—which is absolutely legitimate and necessary to defend my constituents, my right hon. Friend's constituents and those of every right hon. and hon. Member—good relations between the police and the community are absolutely essential.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that is much more suitable to a Second Reading debate, and I would be glad to hear it at that time. For the moment, however, it would be more appropriate for him to refer to the guillotine and the timetable motion.
Mr. Canavan: As we are debating the timetable motion rather than considering the Bill on Second Reading, I am sorry not to be able to go into more detail.
We should be careful, however, about rushing through legislation that could be counter-productive in the campaign against terrorism. We all want effective powers to defeat terrorism, but Parliament should be given the time and the opportunity carefully to scrutinise such measures to ensure that they are necessary, that they are effective and, above all, that they are not counter-productive. So far, I have not been convinced on any of those counts.
If time permits, during the subsequent debate I might be persuaded by the Home Secretary or other hon. Members of the need for powers of search regarding cargoes at ports or uninhabited properties, or powers to impose parking restrictions and cordon off certain areas. I am not keen on such measures, but I might be persuaded of them during the debate. I am absolutely opposed to the powers of stopping and searching innocent people and no one can accuse me of being soft on law and order.
If we are looking to rush through emergency legislation in a few hours between now and the Easter recess, I honestly believe that there is a stronger case—and that
172
there would be widespread public support—for rushing through emergency legislation on gun control in view of the recent Dunblane massacre. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by more than 120 hon. Members, calling for a ban on the private possession of handguns and a stricter control of all firearms. Not one Tory Member supported it. The Home Secretary continues to allow gunmen to walk the streets while innocent people can be stopped and searched while going about their lawful business.
4.37 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion. They could at least have looked back to the original prevention of terrorist legislation in 1974 and followed that model. At that time, we had a reasonable amount of time on Second Reading and a lengthy debate on amendments. The Government made it quite clear that they were prepared to—and did—accept some of the amendments. Most important, the Government firmly told Parliament, "It is an emergency measure. We want to do it now, but we shall return to it and do it properly if we want to keep it for any length of time."
The measure was in force for 12 months. It then lapsed and was replaced by an Act of Parliament that received full scrutiny in Committee and the House had the opportunity to consider it with care.
If the Government are telling us that there will be a particular crisis over the next weekend, the next three weeks or the next three months and that they need to rush through legislation that severely restricts individuals' rights because they believe the threat to be so great, I can understand the need for it. If that is indeed what they want, they should seriously consider new clause 1, which proposes that the Act should cease to have effect after four months—a perfectly reasonable argument.
During yesterday's statement, the Home Secretary seemed to be arguing for this option half the time; but during the other half, he seemed to be suggesting that the measure is not really very draconian or important: it is just designed to clarify powers that the police think already exist. If the Government are aiming at clarity, surely we should take our time and produce carefully thought out legislation that is easy to enforce. The Government will have to make up their mind.
My first reason for opposing the motion is that the Government are running two things together—putting in place emergency legislation that, at the same time, they claim is designed merely to provide clarity.
Moreover, the Home Secretary suggested yesterday that we should not worry too much because he was going to produce guidance for police officers. That is welcome; most of us find it quite difficult to understand new legislation, although police officers may be better at it than some. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to produce guidance, why does he not follow the normal procedures of the House? The Minister in charge of a Bill usually circulates guidance in draft form. If the Home Secretary really wants clarity and proper debate, where is his draft guidance to show us what he believes the legislation is intended to do? In the panic to get the Bill through, hon. Members are being given no chance to see the accompanying guidance.
This is a particularly ungenerous and stupid guillotine. There have been many guillotines to ensure that the House finishes at a given time, but they have allowed flexibility

173
within the time allotted. If we shorten the three-hour debate allowed on the guillotine motion, we gain no time to discuss the amendments. If we shorten the lengthy debating time allowed for Second Reading, we gain no time to consider amendments. The Leader of the House must realise that he should have introduced the guillotine motion allowing the House flexibility. Instead, we shall have very little time to debate the amendments.
The provisional selection of amendments appears to allow about 12 minutes per group. For proper scrutiny to take place, the Leader of the House should have offered us flexibility as between the time allowed for various debates.
The Home Secretary should tell us what he wants. Does he want emergency legislation, in which case he could accept new clause 1, which would stop the Act after four months, or does he want clarity? If it is the latter, let us go through the proper Committee procedures and replace the Act with something better—if necessary, at the end of that time. As it is, I cannot possibly support the guillotine motion.
4.43 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Hindsight is a wonderful debating tool. "We could have done this," is fair comment. "Why didn't we do that?" is equally fair comment. Still, we are where we are this afternoon, one day before a recess and a few days before Easter, with all its significance.
The House faces a stark choice. Either we stick with our usual procedures and defend the rights of the House as against those of the Executive, or we modify our procedures and take a slight chance with the wording of the Bill in order to minimise the risk of another atrocity.
If, by standing on our dignity this afternoon, the House fails to prevent just one more death of an innocent person, the nation will never forgive us.
4.44 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This procedure underlines the weakness of the House of Commons and the system of patronage in it. If the House were independent of the Executive, and between 80 and 100 Conservative Members were not bound by patronage to vote for the Government, and if a similar number of Opposition Members were not similarly bound, the legislation would not be introduced in this manner. We would certainly not be discussing a three-hour guillotine motion followed by a truncated debate on a very serious issue.
The history of guillotine motions and rushed legislation is not a happy one. The original PTA was rushed through the House and has since been universally condemned as a human rights aberration and as denying many people the liberty to which they are entitled. Today, I suspect that we are repeating the mistakes of the past—
Mr. Stephen Day: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. I admire those who, like him, put civil liberties above all else, but what I find difficult to understand about his point of view is his apparent failure to recognise that the greatest civil liberty
174
is the freedom to walk the streets of a town with some certainty of not being blown to smithereens by the most ruthless, cold-blooded terrorist organisation that the world has ever seen.
Mr. Corbyn: Obviously, the liberty to walk the streets of a person's home place and to live a life of peace is central. What I am not convinced of is the idea that this legislation will achieve anything besides giving the police excessive powers to stop and search people at random. That will lead to a deterioration in relations between the police and the community. Furthermore, it will do nothing to solve the problems of terrorism, which are basically political in origin and therefore require a political solution. The sorry experience of Northern Ireland since 1969 has shown that we need something more than repressive legislation to solve the problem. I am convinced that rushing through legislation of this kind, denying Members the opportunity to debate it properly and denying the public the chance to comment on it before it is discussed, is a sign of contempt for the democratic process by which we arrived here in the first place.
Only after protests yesterday were amendments to the Bill allowed. I am grateful to all occupants of the Chair for allowing them, but the Government should never have put the House in this position in the first place.
Mr. Tony Banks: In respect of stop-and-search powers and the lacuna in section 13A of the PTA, can my hon. Friend tell me how many IRA terrorists whom he knows are black? Whom does he think will be stopped on the streets of London?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman may like to provide that information later this evening, but it is not appropriate to a guillotine motion debate.
Mr. Corbyn: Either on Second Reading or outside, I shall certainly discuss experience of the PTA with my hon. Friend.
We have been presented with a ludicrous choice of options at the conclusion of this debate. We have almost as much time on the guillotine motion as on the substance of the Bill. During the Committee, there are a possible 17 debates to be held, all on important matters. Those of us who tabled amendments certainly thought them through carefully, albeit quickly, last night. The idea that we can properly debate 17 issues in three hours, if necessary voting on all of them, is just not credible. Time will run out, and if the House divides on earlier amendments, we shall not reach the later ones, which will therefore receive no consideration at all.
The likelihood is that there will be a number of legal challenges to parts of the Bill. It will look pretty thin if the Home Secretary's defence in court some years hence is that Parliament did not even discuss the matter. Parliament will not have discussed the matter because the Home Secretary proposed a motion to deny the House the right to discuss it and to deny to hon. Members the right to table amendments.
When we have a difficulty or an emergency, it is up to the Home Secretary to convince people that the difficulty or emergency exists. I cannot speak for everybody, but many people in my constituency have suffered under the

175
prevention of terrorism Act in the past. Many people now recognise that the PTA is obsolete and unnecessary legislation and a denial of civil liberties. The Bill is a further denial of civil liberties and the House should not debate it today. The Bill should be laid on the Table so that we can discuss it properly after due consideration, and so that all interested parties can put forward their points of view.
If Parliament is to mean anything, it must be able to represent the views of the people who have sent us here. It is simply not possible to do that if we rush legislation through less than 24 hours after its existence has even been intimated in the media by the Home Secretary. I hope that the House will not agree to the guillotine motion and, therefore, will not enable debate to take place on the Bill today.
4.50 pm
Mr. Max Madden: Like other Opposition Members, I have to confess that I remain totally confused and uncertain about why we are being asked to rush such important legislation through the House in less than 24 hours. If we listen to the Home Secretary and to the Leader of the House, we get two conflicting explanations. The Home Secretary said yesterday:
"In recent weeks, I have discussed with senior police officers whether there were any additional powers that would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public. I have listened carefully to points that they made. The proposals that I am announcing today are designed to meet the real needs that they have identified. The additional powers will be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that they are used only where there is a real operational requirement. They are essentially practical and technical measures, but I believe that they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]
The Leader of the House this afternoon, however, chose to argue that we were living in unusual, if not unique, circumstances. I again failed to be convinced about those unusual, if not unique, circumstances. Sadly, over the past 25 years, we have experienced terrorist outrages, including serious incidents in London. We have also experienced ceasefires introduced by paramilitary groups and, sadly, those ceasefires have been withdrawn. We can all also agree that we have had Easter before. I therefore do not understand the unusual and unique circumstances that the Leader of the House, unlike the Home Secretary, has used to justify this emergency legislation.
The fact that we have a timetable motion—a guillotine—to drive the measure through the House in such a short space of time reveals the Government's basic lack of confidence in their case. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said earlier, if the Government were so convinced of the need for the legislation, why on earth could they not have the confidence to come to the House and convince us of the need without a guillotine motion? If nothing else, such an approach would have provided additional time for us to consider the measure. The guillotine motion is very revealing.
What is unusual and unique is that we have a peace process. It may be that the peace process is—sadly—losing momentum and unravelling, but what signal and what message would be sent out by the British House of
176
Commons this afternoon on the peace process by rushing through draconian emergency legislation as we are being invited to do?
Mr. Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that the peace process is in some difficulty at the moment. Will he also acknowledge that the reason for the difficulty is that the IRA decided unilaterally to break the ceasefire and has committed bomb outrages since?
Mr. Madden: That is absolutely right, but I am sad that my hon. Friend has been persuaded of the case for this emergency legislation to be rushed through the House. In the IRA, the people who will be aided and abetted by what we are being asked to do this afternoon will be the hawks, the hard men and the people who want to continue the terror campaign.
I remember many of those magnificent and impressive peace demonstrations that took place in London, Belfast and Dublin. I do not recall any of the placards saying "Please renew the PTA" or "Please extend the PTA". Not one of those demonstrations called for the Bill.
When the Home Secretary made his statement yesterday, I regret that he was not able to say a word about a matter that would be of major assistance to rebuilding momentum in the peace process, marginalising the hard men in the IRA and restoring the ceasefire. I refer to the repatriation of Irish prisoners to the Irish Republic. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon be able to make a decision about repatriating Patrick Kelly and others who have applied to be transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic. In my view, that would make a major contribution to rebuilding confidence in, and the momentum of, the peace process.
This is not a minor Bill. It consists of seven clauses and a schedule. It has not been produced in the last week. As my hon. Friends have suggested, it has been sitting in the Home Office for a considerable time. We must ask ourselves why the Government have chosen this moment to bring it out of the filing cabinet and invite the House of Commons to pass it. I am not convinced by the case that has been made. Why were we not given even a scintilla of information about the proposals by the Home Secretary when the PTA was renewed on 14 March? I would have thought that that would have been a way of seeking and obtaining the confidence of the House, but that is not this Home Secretary's way.
On that occasion, the Home Secretary spent most of his time gratuitously insulting my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for deciding officially that the Labour party would not oppose the renewal of the PTA but would abstain. Yesterday, however, it was all bouquets and praise for my hon. Friend. That change of attitude and behaviour in the Home Secretary came because he wanted something from the official Opposition, but not all of us in the Labour party will abstain on this measure tonight. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the guillotine motion; will vote against Second Reading; will propose amendments, if we get the chance; and will vote against Third Reading.
Mr. Greg Pope: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point in suggesting that the Bill is being rushed through so quickly so as to gain party political

177
advantage for the Government. If that is the case and if that is what my hon. Friend believes, would it not be the utmost foolishness to aid and abet the Home Secretary by voting against the Bill?
Mr. Madden: I have always believed that people should act as they believe. I believe that the Bill is thoroughly bad and, therefore, I will vote against it as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend should understand that the Lobby does not belong to anyone. We vote as individual Members representing our constituents. We are asked to exercise our best judgment on their behalf in all matters, and that is what I intend to do on this occasion, as I have done on all previous occasions.
I regret that the Bill is being rushed through because it denies us all an opportunity to consult individuals and groups in Northern Ireland who for many years have had to put up with the search powers that are proposed in the Bill. When the Home Secretary winds up, will he say how many arrests, charges and convictions for terrorist-related crimes have resulted from the powers to search pedestrians that are available in Northern Ireland, which are similar to the ones in the Bill?
I gave the Home Secretary's office notice this morning of a question about information which I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to provide later in the debate. In his statement yesterday, he said:
"It may reassure the House to know that the existing stop-and-search powers have been invoked only in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police areas in the aftermath of South Quay. In the City, the powers have applied for the full 28 days allowed on each occasion; in the much larger Metropolitan police district, they have been applied for periods of between seven and 10 days at a time. They remain in force at the moment, and rightly so."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 36.]
How many people have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist-related crimes as a result of those powers? How do the existing stop-and-search powers vary from those in the Bill? It is also important for the House and the public to be absolutely clear about what these powers imply.
If the Government had not subjected us to the panic measure of trying to push the Bill through the House, we would have been able to talk to people in Northern Ireland about their experiences of what happens and what has happened there over many years as a result of such powers. I remind the House that clause 1(2) states:
"This section confers on any constable in uniform power to stop any pedestrian and search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism."
Subsection (3) states:
"A constable may exercise his powers under this section whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind."
Yesterday, the Home Secretary spoke about safeguards, and today, several of my hon. Friends asked about those. What are they? They do not appear in the Bill, but unless they are real, we can rightly claim that the legislation is a return to the hated sus law. Under the legislation, for a period of up to 28 days, large numbers of people, in a completely arbitrary area, can be stopped and searched without any explanation or justification. Because of the time factor, we have not been able to take evidence on
178
that issue. We have not been able to table amendments and we shall certainly not have adequate discussion of the matter.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, in politics generally and in Irish politics in particular, perception is all. I appeal not only to the Home Secretary but to the Government to recognise what will be the perception of the Bill that we are being asked to rush through. It will be exploited by the paramilitaries, whose propaganda machine will go into overdrive. They will say that the Brits have not learnt anything and will not learn anything, and that the only way forward is a return to terror and bombing.
Before the ceasefires came about, the Government promised that if they were introduced they would show generosity and imagination. It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say that, since the ceasefires were withdrawn a few months ago, and during the period that they were in operation from the summer of 1994, such generosity and imagination were singularly absent from all that the Government did. It was a question of delay and obstruction and of playing for time, and that played into the hands of those who were never in favour of the peace process or of democracy and who always argued that they could obtain their objectives by terror. The Government were materially at fault and I am disappointed to have witnessed that.
I am disappointed that, rather than being positive in relation to the peace process and Northern Ireland, we are again returning to the measures that have failed in the past. They are not relevant to today's problem. We need to show generosity and imagination to ensure that the peace process becomes reality. We must not return to this tired, arbitrary and possibly illegal legislation that has so failed us in the past.
5.6 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: No one should believe that party advantage is sought from the guillotine motion. No one should work on the assumption that any hon. Member wants to speak in a way that would give any comfort to Sinn Fein, the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries. People outside want to be sure that, irrespective of our views on civil liberties or on other issues, every hon. Member wants to reduce the number of victims and to make sure that the relevant powers are available to those who bravely answer every blue-light call to areas in which there may be bombs or to those who intercept people who may be carrying firearms. They deserve support in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Bill contains critical issues. Most people will understand that most of the Bill's powers already exist in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland. I do not think that people will see an issue of principle. I represent part of the borough of Greenwich, which had the experience of the Woolwich pub bomb, and of bombs at Government house, at the entrance to the Royal Artillery barracks and at Court road in Eltham at the Army resettlement offices.
People in my constituency and, I am sure, in Tower Hamlets and in many other parts of the country, want to be sure that, in all parts of the House and across the political spectrum from left to right, people are willing to consider powers for the police on their merits.
Three matters limit what the IRA can do. The first is what it thinks will achieve its aims. It will not seriously believe that the additional and limited police powers will

179
affect its aims that much. IRA members know that the biggest pressure on them comes from Irish people who say in growing numbers and more and more often, whether in Dublin, Derry or London, "The violence is not being done in our name. End it now." As the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has said in the past and as all hon. Members say, there is a fundamental right to life.
The second limit on the IRA is its physical capability. The powers that are being sought will help to make it possible to intercept, or to require people to show that they are not carrying materials that may be of some use in a terrorist attack. That is a clear sign that the legislation is proportionate. The last limitation on what terrorists can do is what they think their supporters will tolerate. We must go on trying to encourage people to ask questions about why the violence returned. Some people suspect—I fear that I am one of them—that Sinn Fein-IRA have not yet decided that they seriously want talks. Every time that that becomes possible they seem to back away, taking action or setting preconditions of some kind.
That, however, is a subject for another debate. The question before us now is whether it is right for us, as a democratic House, to allow the time for debate of the Bill. There has been a reference to an attack on democracy. I think that the attacks on democracy happened when a bomb went off in the police canteen of Westminster Hall, when Airey Neave was blown up as he left the House of Commons car park just before the 1979 election and when a terrorist walked into Robert Bradford's constituency surgery and killed him.
We accept the same risks as the police, and the populations of Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. We must not give anyone the impression that there is an excuse for a return to violence in allowing the time proposed by the Government. I hope that the Bill will be passed, that the amendments can be considered in the time available and that the powers will not need to be used—or, at least, will not need to be used very often. Throughout these islands—in Ireland, where Sinn Fein-IRA secure less than 3 per cent. of the vote; in the north of Ireland, where they secure a slightly larger proportion, but nowhere near the majority of the nationalist vote; and in Great Britain, where virtually no one gives Sinn Fein-IRA any comfort—we should be saying that we do not want to have to retain these powers for long. We believe that there should be a commitment on all sides to create the necessary conditions, come to terms with history, put right what is wrong and ensure that there is no return to violence.
5.11 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Those of us who will oppose both the timetable motion and the Bill will undoubtedly be criticised for being "soft on terrorism".
Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Hear, hear.
Mr. Barnes: Our record shows, however, that we have taken a strong stand against paramilitary activity from any source, and any form of violence and intimidation on the part of any group. Having opposed the actions of the IRA and Sinn Fein in particular, I am by no means flavour of
180
the month in "Republican News". Although there is clearly a distinction between my views and those of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), we are united in the struggle against violence and intimidation. We are joint presidents of a group called New Dialogue, which espouses such principles. I cannot merely wish to give succour to IRA-Sinn Fein; I must have other reasons for arguing in this way.
Several justifications have been advanced for the timetable motion. First, it has been pointed out that the recess is about to begin, and that speedy action must therefore be taken. Secondly, it appears that some hon. Members are in possession of information that is not generally available, and that some terror—we know not what—is just round the corner. If we do not grant the powers, we shall be criticised for failing to act, but we also have a duty as democrats to study and understand the different positions involved, and to act only when we are convinced that there are strong reasons for acting.
The argument about the recess strikes me as nonsensical. We are in control of our own timetable and our own procedures. If it is so urgent for the Bill to be passed before Easter, we can still consider it fully tomorrow and on Thursday, if we delay the recess. Our other commitments, which supposedly mean that we must dash away, cannot be as important as the Bill is agreed to be by hon. Members on both sides of the House. According to the Government, it is so important that it must be rushed through; but others have argued that it is so important that the House must be able to examine and debate it in detail. I believe that the arguments for the timetable are wholly inadequate, and can easily be surmounted.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled four amendments. I am not sure what they will do if those amendments are carried. Are they still saying that they will oppose the timetable motion? I support the amendments, because if they were carried and the motion were subsequently carried as well, we would at least have an opportunity to do certain things—but they are only bits and pieces. As was suggested by the thrust of the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), we should vote against the motion.
It has been said that we shall not have enough time to deal with the whole range of amendments. Moreover, in Committee we are entitled to debate clause stand part as well as amendments. I strongly object to the powers to stop and search pedestrians that are contained in clause 1. Other powers, such as the power enabling police as well as customs officers to search freight, strike me as entirely sensible, and I consider it right for us to discuss the possibilities. If it were possible for us to defeat the motion that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, we might be in a different position; but we need time for consideration. If a major section of the Bill were suddenly lost, we should have to give proper scrutiny to what remained. Pushing measures through so hastily constitutes a serious interference with parliamentary procedures and democracy.
Where has the Bill been? Has it been lying around in the files gathering dust? The Home Secretary suggested that it had not. That means that it was cobbled together at the last moment to deal with some crisis, which means that there is an even greater case for a proper, detailed investigation in the House: civil servants and others may

181
not have scrutinised it sufficiently during the drafting process. We need time, and we need to defeat the timetable motion.
5.18 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: Legislation that is made on the hoof is invariably poor and defective. I assure the Home Secretary that I do not want to be blown up, either at Easter or at any other time; my constituents do not want to be blown up, and I am sure that he does not want to be blown up either. In fact, my constituents are probably more likely to be blown up than the Home Secretary, as was demonstrated by the cowardly attack that caused the explosion in the east end. Neither my constituents nor I can travel around in bullet-proof, chauffeur-driven limos.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that those who opposed the timetable motion or the Bill would be accused of being soft on terrorism, I heard a sedentary "Hear, hear" from one of the limo-occupiers on the Government Front Bench. That is a monstrous suggestion.
I do not want my civil liberties to be blown up either. I cannot agree to the speedy process because, frankly, it is leading the way to repenting at leisure. We are asked to put on the statute book legislation that is not temporary. We all know how the PTA came about. I would not mind what was going on if the Home Secretary told us that the measures would be implemented only for a set period and we could see an end. If measures needed to be passed urgently before Easter, I could understand the point made, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire that we do not have to go into recess. Easter does not start until Good Friday. I assume that that is the period that we are talking about. There is not a great deal of important business tabled for tomorrow, and Thursday we are in recess. Why can we not take more time?
Reasonable people will have to be convinced by the Bill. If the Home Secretary can make a good case, why does he have to sacrifice and undermine it by ramming the Bill through the House and the other place? That is why I am uneasy about it. I would like to hear more about the reasoning behind the Bill and have more time to consider it. When dealing with civil liberties, we should not be so ready to be stampeded. There is a whiff of panic in the air, and that gets me. I always feel that the terrorists are winning when we turn ourselves inside out, brush aside all our normal procedures, ram things through, override arguments and deride people who have a contrary point of view. We imprison ourselves, demean our institution, and the terrorist wins when we do such things in the Houses of Parliament.
I cannot agree with the motion. I want far more safeguards, and I want to hear more and have the chance to have a go at the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said yesterday that the powers of the police would be extended under section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
"to enable them to stop and search pedestrians",
and he added:
"The police are fully aware that this new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35-6.]
182
I say hear, hear to that.
I repeat that I want to know whether the power will be monitored. Although I understand that it will, will it be monitored according to skin colour? I know what will happen in the east end where I live: Afro-Caribbeans and Asians will be stopped. As far as I am aware, the IRA does not have any people of Afro-Caribbean or Asian descent in its ranks. I do not know that, but I am probably on certain ground in suggesting it, and I want to know whether such safeguards will be written into the Bill. We should be given time to contemplate such matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, the timetable motion is to suit our convenience. Why can we not talk about the Bill on Thursday? If the measures are that important, surely we must give them more consideration; then people would be convinced not only that we were taking the matter seriously but that we were taking our own liberties and rights in the House seriously. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I shall oppose the guillotine motion and support the Liberal Democrats in the Division Lobby.
5.22 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: All rushed legislation is bad, and rushed legislation on terrorism is particularly bad because, once again, it allows the terrorist to set the political agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made that point very effectively.
As I understand it, the Leader of the House is asking today—it has been talked about over the past day or two—for very specific powers as an addendum to the prevention of terrorism Act. I accept that the Bill is not part of the PTA, with its exclusion orders and its tendency to round people up, question them and then release them without charge. We should not confuse the two, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to make that point.
I say to the Leader of the House that the case for the Bill and the motion is quite simple and bald. He is telling the House, and through the House the nation, that the Government have judged that there is a very real threat over the next couple of weeks, and that that threat arises from the ability to carry bombs more easily than before. I cannot help but believe that that judgment arises very understandably from the fear that something that happened on one of the London buses some weeks ago will be repeated. That is a very real and understandable fear, and if the Government presented their case that way, there would be greater understanding of their position.
When the Home Secretary tries to rush such legislation through, he has to have the support and, as it were, the confidence of the House. I must be critical, and I shall measure my words as best I can. I do not think that the Home Secretary has done that well over recent years. I have said on many occasions that I think that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have acted in relation to Northern Ireland with considerable statesmanship. I have to say that that statesmanship feeling is lacking in the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has made the point on many occasions—and he is right—about the transfer of prisoners. It would not be appropriate to go down that road now, but I shall note, and the House will note, that after the hunger strike the previous Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher,

183
introduced in Northern Ireland changes in the prison service that met many of the hunger strikers' demands. That was done to end hunger strikes.
When the Home Secretary seeks the confidence of the House, he must acknowledge that, fairly or unfairly—perhaps I am being unfair—he is seen as being a Home Secretary who, in the Cabinet, has dragged his feet on the peace process. That may be unfair, but he is clearly perceived as having done that, and at times he almost boasts of it in a macho way. Of course people think of the Tory party's Maples memorandum and the Government's attempt to try to divide the Labour party. Perception is not reality, but the Home Secretary must know that in politics, to coin a phrase, perception is nine tenths of reality. The Home Secretary is not perceived as someone who carries confidence as either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have done if they had asked the House for such powers.
I think that the Home Secretary could carry the House with him. The Bill would not be a bad part of what I consider to be generally a bad Act. The Bill is not a renewal of the sus law, and if I get the opportunity to say that later, I shall do so. The safeguards in clause 1 are clear in terms of time and place, and only a senior officer can permit certain things to happen. They are not ideal or what I would want, but if the Government judge that there is a danger in the coming weeks and that the police need the powers for that purpose, we can listen to them.
I say to the Home Secretary, please, if he wants such confidence from the House of Commons and if we are to win the battle, for all the reasons that a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out about the dangers of rushing in to meet a terrorist threat—which pleases the terrorists, because they see the British people rushing around abandoning their democratic procedures to get legislation through to deal with the problem that they have created—we have to be rather more sophisticated than we are being at times at present.
I also say to the Home Secretary that I am willing to start again after today. I have made my points today and I think that they are very important. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes them on board and that in future he will have no difficulty in carrying the House if he feels that the police need specific powers to deal with a specific crisis for a period.
5.27 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said earlier, and as I made clear in the House yesterday, Parliament has always, and rightly, been very reluctant to allow its normal time scales and procedures to be bypassed. Hasty legislation all too often turns out to be ill drafted and unclear. That is why the House has been jealous in guarding its procedures, which ensure due consideration of any measure. The procedures include a strong convention that two clear weekends should elapse between the tabling of a Bill and its Second Reading, and that there should also be a period for reflection between Second Reading, detailed consideration in Committee, Report and Third Reading.
Those procedures are important in respect of any Bill, however trivial. They are doubly important in respect of Bills that affect an individual's liberty and the public's safety. We all acknowledge, as the right hon. Member for
184
Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said earlier, that the procedures should be foreshortened only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Last Thursday, the Home Secretary asked to see me to seek the official Opposition's co-operation in agreeing the Bill and in getting it through the House today on a guillotine. He gave me the reasons why he had been persuaded of its necessity and why, in his view, it was necessary to pass all its stages by Easter. After our discussion, I told him that I would need to consult my colleagues and that we would let him have our decision by Monday. In the time available, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and I consulted as many colleagues—in the shadow Cabinet and outside—as we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I sought and received additional security briefings on Monday morning. We then came to the collective view that, although of course we were concerned at the short notice that we had been given, the proposed Bill was a responsible and appropriate reaction to the threat of which we had been made aware.
I told the Home Secretary this, and I also sought from him—and later gained—safeguards additional to those in the draft Bill. We can discuss these safeguards further on Second Reading and in Committee, and we will be able later today to discuss in detail the contents of the Bill. But in coming to a conclusion about the necessity for the guillotine, my colleagues and I examined most closely the powers in the Bill—particularly those in clause 1. We examined how far clause 1 extended the existing section 13A, and we looked at the attitude that we had adopted—as well as the Government—when clause 13A was debated in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We discussed the reasons for the extension and, above all, why it was needed to introduce the extension, along with the other powers, with such speed.
I shall deal with the issues in turn as they affected our judgment on whether the guillotine was necessary. First, we looked at how far new section 13B, in clause 1, would extend the current powers under section 13A. The proposed new section will put the searches of pedestrians on the same basis as searches of vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friends that there are more safeguards for pedestrians than there are for vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that outer body searches are all that are allowed, and not strip searches.
The power is more circumscribed than that for vehicle occupants, and includes a requirement that if a chief police officer requires the power for more than 48 hours, he must get the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's approval can last initially for a further 26 days. No prosecution of any offence arising under the powers can take place without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in addition, we have secured safeguards on monitoring. A regular report on the exercise of the powers will also be made to Parliament.
Mr. Madden: What is the difference between the stop-and-search powers that have been in operation in the past month in the City and the Metropolitan police area

185
and those proposed in the Bill? How many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related crimes as a result of such searches in the past month?
Mr. Straw: I cannot answer the second question because, with great respect, I am only the shadow Home Secretary and not the Home Secretary.
Mr. Tony Banks: It's only a matter of time, Jack.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that sedentary intervention from the Back Benches with his usual good humour.
I must leave the second question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for the Secretary of State to answer. On his first question, the police currently have the general power to stop and search people with reasonable cause, but they must have reasonable cause before they can effect a stop and search—they cannot develop the reasonable cause while the search is taking place. In addition, the police have the power—under what is now section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, following the 1994 addition—to stop and search vehicles, what is in vehicles and what is in articles carried in vehicles. They can then require the occupants—both passengers and driver—to get out of the vehicle, and they can then carry out body searches of those occupants. At the moment, the police can search pedestrians, but only their bags—they cannot search their outer garments, hats or shoes. Proposed section 13B provides for the search of outer garments, hats and shoes of a pedestrian—a limited power, if my hon. Friend thinks about it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Home Secretary, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, where Scotland is concerned, mentions of "the Secretary of State" in the Bill refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Home Secretary?
Mr. Straw: I did not discuss that matter with the Secretary of State but, for these purposes, "Secretary of State" means the Home Secretary in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West that—as far as I am aware—the current legislation and the Bill contain no power in respect of cyclists. But I note that one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends is to extend the stop-and-search powers to cover cyclists. I find that slightly surprising, but no doubt the reason will emerge during our discussions.
Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the purposes of that amendment was to make sure that the Government got the Bill right? Vehicles are referred to in the Bill, but it is not certain whether that covers cycles. If it does not, it illustrates the way in which one does not always get things right by rushing through legislation. Could I press my hon. Friend on one of the key issues? Does the new power conform to the European convention on human rights? As I understand it, a suspicion is needed to justify a search under the terms of the convention.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation about the additional powers to stop cyclists,
186
and we will look at the amendment with interest. He also asked whether the Bill is consistent with the convention that we signed in the early 1950s on human rights in Europe. I assume that it is consistent, because the powers in respect of section 13A have been on the statute book for nearly two years, and I do not think that they have been subject to challenge. In the eyes of the convention, there cannot be any distinction between carrying out an outer body search on an occupant of a vehicle and carrying out an outer body search on a pedestrian.
When the draft Bill was given to us at the end of last week and we had to decide whether it was reasonable to agree to the timetable, one of our main concerns was whether any of the powers contained in clause 1 could conceivably be regarded as a reintroduction of the old sus law. This is a little-known fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I used to be one of the world's experts on the sus law. I earned much of my income as a very junior member of the Bar by defending a number of innocent people and—I must say—a number whom I subsequently found out were certainly not innocent against charges of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
I must tell my hon. Friends that there is no way in which these powers—limited and circumscribed as they are—could conceivably be compared to sus. Let me explain why. Under the 1824 Act, sus created an offence of simply being a suspected person—a person or a suspected thief was the phrase used—loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence. As the police used to say, feeling one car door was not enough, but feeling two was enough to secure a conviction. Moreover, a person's previous convictions were adducible in evidence by the prosecution to prove the offence of intent, even though the arresting officer had not known of those previous convictions when he made the arrest.
The law was a wonderful piece of machinery available to the police basically to pick up anybody whom they did not terribly like. This caused hyge concern. I was concerned about it when I was defending many of my clients—whether they turned out to be innocent or not. I managed to secure the acquittal of most of them. But the offence caused great concern and anxiety, especially in the black community. It was entirely right that in 1981, following various reports into the sus law, including a report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the House abolished sus and has had nothing to do with it since. There is no way in which the power under section 13A or the power under section 13B could conceivably be compared with sus.
Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend; I am sorry, I should say my hon. Friend. He will shortly be my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will he?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, because we shall win the next election.
The point at issue is this. There will be a designated area and, within that area, a constable in uniform may stop any pedestrian and search him. If a pedestrian refuses to be stopped and searched, he will have committed an

187
offence. If that person is stopped and refuses to do what the policeman says, it will be an offence per se. That is the concern.
Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I will say more in a moment about the important balance between civil liberties and public safety.
First, the search that would be permitted under section 13B would be less onerous than the search that the House requires of any visitor every day of the week. That is a matter of fact. Secondly, if one has a power, one has to have some means of enforcing it. One cannot just say, "By the way, we would like people to submit to searches, but people who happen to be carrying bombs may be let off." Such people could say, "Sorry, officer, we do not like this." There has to be some means of enforcement and that has to be by way of an offence. In this case, it will be an offence at level 5. Moreover, no one can be prosecuted for this offence except with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is pushing the point about a parallel with sus. The sus laws existed in the days before the Crown Prosecution Service and did not require the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions or even of the chief solicitor for the area. The station inspector laid the charge and would be up the steps to the court the next morning. The chances were that a person would not be represented, not even by someone of my lowly status, as it was then, and would almost certainly be convicted, especially if the stipendiary knew who the person was. That was one of the major differences, and the many safeguards under the Bill make the provision wholly different from the sus law.
The second issue in deciding whether we would support the guillotine motion was our reaction to the original powers contained in section 13A. As some of my hon. Friends have said, when the clause was debated in Committee in February 1994, we probed the matter, as we had a duty to do, but it was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), without any opposition from any member of my party or of any other party, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, that we supported the inclusion of what became section 13A in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
The third issue we had to weigh up was why the extension of powers was needed now. In making our judgment, we are obviously in the hands of those on whom we impose heavy responsibilities for the safety of the public—the police and the security forces. But we should not substitute their judgment for ours. Instead, we have to make our own judgments on the basis of the best evidence we are given. My hon. Friends and I listened to the advice offered by those concerned and we formed a judgment that we should accept that advice.
Another issue at which we looked in making a judgment on whether we should accept the guillotine motion was what happened on the only previous parallel occasion—the introduction of the initial prevention of terrorism Bill in November 1974. The Bill passed through all its stages in 17 hours. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who raised the issue, that it is true that there was no guillotine
188
motion on that day. However, there was—I have the debate here—an agreed business motion which required every stage of the Bill to be completed without the House adjourning. Moreover, my hon. Friend may care to look at the length of the 1974 Bill and the amount of time that was taken. If he looks at the length of this Bill and the total time available now, he may note that there is marginally more time available, clause for clause, on this Bill. The powers in this Bill are far less onerous than the powers in the principal Bill in 1974.
Mr. Beith: Bearing in mind the precedent of 1974, what is to stop us following that procedure and not adjourning the House until we have given proper consideration to the Bill? Even if the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to agree to that, why is he resisting the amendment, under which it is proposed that we should have another three hours so that the House can have sufficient time to deal with the detailed points he mentioned?
Mr. Straw: I have read the whole of the 1974 debate and I have read the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, in which he fully supported the prevention of terrorism Bill. I think that he may have been slightly confused about what I said from a sedentary position during his speech. He said that there was a difference about something and I said that I had noticed that there was a difference between a principle and a Liberal. I merely put that on the record.
Whether to deal with this Bill by a guillotine motion or by an agreed business motion was a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I think that he took account of the fact that Easter was approaching and felt that this was an easier and tidier way in which to secure the business here and in the other place. It is a matter of fact that in November 1974, no holiday was pending, unlike now.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the usual channels were being used, why did the hon. Gentleman not seek the agreement of the Leader of the House by saying that the Opposition would support the Bill provided there could be agreement among all the parties on a business motion that gave adequate time—even if it was necessary to sit through the night—to the satisfaction of both sides?
Mr. Straw: Discussion in these situations are usually led by the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State, with each of the parties. At no stage, as I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, have the Liberal Democrats come to us to seek discussions. I know that we made approaches to them. Other things could have been agreed, but we, in the circumstances, do not have a complaint about the guillotine motion. I fully understand that the Liberal Democrats do; we have to take a different view.
I now come to the central issue of our debate, which is the balance between concern for individual liberty and the safety of the public, a matter that has been raised by many of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I found it interesting to read the debate in November 1974 on the prevention of terrorism Bill. On any basis, that Bill introduced far more serious and extensive powers than this Bill, including exclusion orders and many other powers that were

189
described, at the time and subsequently, as draconian. Achieving the balance between civil liberties and public safety is difficult. However, I was particularly struck by the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the debate on 28 November 1974.
In fully supporting the prevention of terrorism Bill on that occasion, my hon. Friend said that
"we have a right to protect the lives of our constituents … We must therefore look for advice to the police, the people to whom we give the power and duty to protect us. We must consider what we can legitimately give them in extra powers so that they can protect us. But we must not forget that those powers are such that normally we would not like to bestow them."
My hon. Friend raised yesterday the issue of police powers. In 1974, he went on to say:
"The police have given their advice"—
to the then Home Secretary—
"and my right hon. Friend has responded to it. In so doing, what he has done is the least he could do."
Dealing with the difficult issue of the balance between civil liberties and public safety, my hon. Friend said:
"It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699-700.]
My hon. Friend got the balance there exactly right.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right about what I said in those circumstances. At that time, I thought that I was doing the right thing. Applying the same criteria that he has adumbrated, I would now reject what was being done. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for that Bill, given its effects on our legal system and the injustices that it has brought.
Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will come to it later, but we have to judge what will happen in future. It would be easy to run a country on the basis of hindsight. We must judge what may happen and balance difficult issues.
Some of my hon. Friends may argue that the threat in 1974 was greater than it is now—but how do we know? We know for certain that the Canary wharf bomb could have easily killed or maimed many more people than were killed or injured in Birmingham in 1974. We know that the Aldwych bomb could have killed—and was almost certainly intended to kill—many more people than the terrorist who ended up being killed. We also know, as the Home Secretary told the House yesterday, that the Provisional IRA is using public transport and secreting devices in overcoats, partly to evade the searches that can be conducted under existing prevention of terrorism Act powers. Our best estimate is that it could all happen again—and shortly. In that situation, I believe that we are right to be cautious, take the powers and accept the guillotine.
Of course, all my colleagues and I would have preferred much more time than has been allowed. However, in this situation, and on the information with which we were confronted, we believe that the Bill's response is proportionate to the threat and that the guillotine, although it is to be regretted, is also acceptable.
190
Like too many hon. Members, I have witnessed the terrible carnage, death and injury that terrorist outrages can cause. We have to balance our rightful concern for the liberty of the subject with the need to protect the public. No civil rights can be exercised from the graveyard and few can be exercised from a hospital bed. In the long run, the only way to end the prospect of terrorism from within the British Isles is by the process of negotiations to which we have given our full support. While the IRA maintains its campaign of violence, we must take appropriate and responsible measures to reduce its effects, as far as that is possible. For those reasons, we shall not stand in the way of the timetable motion and do not accept the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats.
5.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I regret that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke at great length without explaining why the Opposition support a guillotine which means that the Bill will go through all its stages in one day. Many of us would accept his judgment, as I do, that he has been given information emphasising the need for urgent action. However, he did not explain why we have to have a truncated parliamentary procedure which does not allow us to examine and probe the Executive as to what is intended. I regret that fact, and I regret having to say it because no doubt the Whips will be noting, "unhelpful intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock". I want to be clear that on this one issue I am unhappy because I should have thought that Her Majesty's Opposition would at least have said that we needed two days to deal with the Bill.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend spoke at length, but I will give way to him.
Mr. Straw: I wish just to clarify my hon. Friend's point, with which I tried to deal in my speech. One thing that we considered carefully was the precedent set by the last Labour Government—not a Tory Government, but a Labour Government—in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974. On that precedent, the simple arithmetic shows that, clause for clause, more time is being allowed for this Bill than was allowed for that one, even though this one's powers are, on any analysis, less extensive than those proposed in the 1974 Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and we have to start to reassert the capacity of Back-Bench Members to examine proposals. That is our duty. I do not care what happened under past Labour Governments. People may wish to consider what will happen under the next Labour Government, because some of us are not going to be mere sheep.
This procedure is wholly inadequate. In August 1914 and September 1939 there was need for urgent legislation, but more time was made available to examine it than has been given to this. Those were more serious situations than this, though I accept what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about their having information which underlines the need for urgency.

191
My argument with them is that the action being taken is too urgent. It is not a price worth paying that we should curtail the proper examination of legislation.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackinlay: No, I will not give way.
Not all the police representative bodies have been consulted. The Ministry of Defence Police Federation wrote to the Home Secretary this morning saying that it had not been consulted. I regret that. Will the Home Secretary say whether the chief police officers of all forces have been consulted? I assume that the request to which he referred came from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but other chief police officers not in ACPO should have been consulted as well.
Documents were not available for hon. Members fully to examine the legislation in time. No one could suggest that the majority of hon. Members could have had the opportunity to read the Bill and consult the obvious people with whom they would have liked to discuss it, such as members of the police forces, the police federations and political and civil liberties groups. We have not had time to understand the legislation. If anyone here were to pretend that there has been time, I would dispute it.
Mr. Allason: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult someone, he should consult two of my constituents who are still in hospital after the Aldwych bombing. Understandably, they feel strongly, as do my constituents who know those victims, that anything that can be done to avoid a repetition must be worth while.
Mr. Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say that things could be misunderstood. I remind him that this motion is not the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he may discover my attitude to the Bill. This is a timetable motion. Surely he can understand that distinction.
People may misunderstand what we are discussing and there are some who would deliberately mislead them. I am arguing that the House should give proper consideration to legislation rather than bouncing it through ill considered. I pay tribute to the Clerk's Department, which could not cope with all the amendments. That is no criticism of the Clerk's Department. The amendments were not available in draft at the Vote Office until about 1 pm today. It is a charade to suggest that we have been able to study the documents and give them adequate consideration.
My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to the Committee stage. As he knows, there is not going to be a proper Committee stage. We shall be able to vote on Government amendments, but not on any which might have been tabled by other hon. Members. That is wrong. It shows how this place is run by the Executive, regardless of the views of Back Benchers, who might have been able to improve the legislation. That would have been in the interests of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I ask him to consider that. It is
192
wrong to assume that the Home Secretary has all the wisdom in this matter. If we are to earn our money, we should be able to improve the legislation.
I also believe that the Bill is badly drafted. May I also suggest, before Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill has some hybridity? I will explain why I think that, and I should be grateful if the possibility could be considered in advance of Second Reading. It is because on the face of it, the Bill does not provide for the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and other such bodies.
I have tabled amendments, but they will not be voted upon because there will not be time. In fairness, however, I must add that the Home Secretary was courteous enough to have a word with me on the subject earlier today. I took that seriously, and appreciated it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assured me that there was no need for an amendment relating to those other police forces because the reference to "police" on the face of the Bill covered them adequately. If that is so, however—if the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong and that of the Home Secretary is correct—other bodies, such as the privatised police forces, the Northern Ireland airports police and the port of Tilbury police, are also covered as, indeed, are the Epping Forest keepers and the Royal Botanical Parks police. I do not believe that Parliament intends such forces to be included.
With regard to hybridity, if we are to incorporate under the Bill the jurisdiction of privatised police forces, as the Home Secretary argues, I draw the attention of the House to "Erskine May", which says that
"a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class"
is hybrid. Clearly, if the information that the Home Secretary supplied to me is correct, the Bill will extend powers to private forces, which in my view raises the question of hybridity.
If there is time, I shall wish to press to a Division my amendment to the guillotine motion. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has rightly sought to extend the period of debate on the Bill, and my amendment would ensure that we would at least have the right to vote on amendments tabled by Back Benchers. It would not, alas, provide for the various amendments to be discussed, but we would at least have the opportunity to vote on them. I venture to suggest that some of them would improve the Bill and add to its quality—to the satisfaction of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay.
Surely it is worth spending a few more hours in the Chamber to demonstrate that we have at least been able to deliberate on the Bill and to consider it in full measure.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman add one more reason to his litany of good reasons why there is no justification for taking all the stages of the Bill in one day? The objectives sought by the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) could be perfectly well served if we spread our work over two days, or overnight. If amendments are tabled, as they can be, at any time before the end of Second Reading, which will be some hours from now, people will have absolutely no chance to take them away and check objectively whether they are

193
valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, and whether advice has been taken. That exactly replicates the worst sort of practice, in which legislation is steamrollered through by Government majority without any chance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of amendments put forward by either side of the House to any part of the Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay: I agree. There was a recent precedent, when we were discussing some of the representations on railway privatisation. Others as well as myself raised the subject of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. I was scoffed at by those on the Treasury Bench, and there was not a great deal of interest in other quarters either. None the less, amending legislation was subsequently needed; I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that as a matter of fact. The powers of the British Transport police had been overlooked by the civil servants, and Ministers had decided to listen to the civil servants rather than to the hon. Member for Thurrock. Extra legislation was needed. The thing was botched; that is a matter of fact.
We are in real danger of doing a disservice to the public, and to the people who have had their liberties grossly infringed by becoming the victims of bombings, if we do not give the legislation proper consideration. That sets a dangerous precedent, so I implore hon. Members to pause and reflect on the fact that we should be seen to sacrifice a few more hours of time in this place, as is our duty, to demonstrate that we have been able to probe and to understand the points that the Home Secretary makes on Second Reading.
As would happen in Committee on any other Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to explain the detail of the legislation. That is not unreasonable. There might then be concord and agreement. But I am not prepared to go along with parliamentary choreography between the occupants of the two Front Benches simply to get the Bill through. It is wrong in principle, and it is extremely unhealthy for democracy.
If such a thing ever happens again—I suspect that in the life of this Parliament other ideas will be conjured up and attempts made to bounce them through quickly—we should ensure that as well as Privy Councillors and Front-Bench Members being consulted, Back-Bench Members and Members from minority parties should be able to table their considered amendments and to feel that they have had their day in court—in the high court of Parliament—to explain and defend their position, or to be satisfied on behalf of their constituents.
I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that if there is time—which there probably will not be—we shall be able to extend the facility of being allowed to vote on amendments to the Bill by supporting the amendment that I hope to move later to the timetable motion.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has raised some important and pertinent matters. I hope that they will not be allowed to drift into the sand, which is always a danger in this place. As regards hybridity, which my hon. Friend
194
mentioned, will it be possible for the Clerks to offer advice to Madam Speaker and for her, at an appropriate stage in our proceedings, to offer the House her advice on whether my hon. Friend's views are correct? It is important that we have Madam Speaker's advice, rather than relying on the Executive, because it is the Executive who may have got us into this mess in the first place.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had to leave the Chamber during the debate, and when I came back at about 4 o'clock I did not intend to speak. However, I now want to lay down one or two markers. I listened to the explanation by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about the distinction between the original legislation involving the vagrancy Acts and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of order supplementary to that raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Before he continues, I must ask him whether that was correct.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not speaking on that particular point.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Then I must deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. My understanding is that all Bills are scrutinised for hybridity before they appear in this place. I am sure that in the light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), further scrutiny will be given, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any difficulty.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, because I was one of the Members involved last night in trying to table amendments, and I saw the great pressures to which the Table Office was subjected by the way in which the Bill and the other amendments became available at such short notice.
I ask you again, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the matter could be fully investigated, because I have considerable doubts about whether the Clerks had a proper opportunity to consider any aspect of the Bill, let alone its hybridity. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Clerks will offer their considered advice to Madam Speaker, and that she in turn will offer her advice to the House, in a ruling at an appropriate stage of our proceedings, so that we can all be satisfied as to whether the Bill has been properly and fully considered with a view to hybridity, and whether it is proper to proceed on the basis on which we are being invited to proceed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made the point that no doubt, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Thurrock, scrutiny will again be given. I do not think that we can take the matter further at this point.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I drew attention to the fact there could potentially be 17 debates

195
in two hours. We inadvertently misled the House, because the latest selection of amendments shows that there are 23 separate issues to be decided in under two hours. If Divisions are to be called on more than four of those issues, it will clearly be impossible to debate all those issues. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to examine the situation once again, as it is now bordering on the farcical. We are being asked to debate issues, and there is clearly not enough time to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The whole purpose of a debate on the timetable is to raise such matters.
6.10 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) draw a distinction, and I think that what he said sounded very convincing. I am not a rebel—in the sense that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I do not suggest that I shall be marching through the Lobbies under a Labour Government in any way other than the way the Whips want, in normal circumstances—
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Sign here.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My view has always been very simple: when we want to argue such matters, we argue them out in the parliamentary Labour party or privately with Ministers. Sometimes one puts the boot in privately as well, because that is how to sort out issues of major controversy. My view is that, whenever possible, one should seek to support one's Government.
I find what is happening tonight very worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was elected as a Member of Parliament at the same time as I was, in 1979. He can remember incidents over the years which have concerned us, particularly in civil liberties debates. The problem is that a Labour Member's mailbag is not just about housing, Inland Revenue, social security and third-world cases—it is often littered with letters from civil libertarian lobbies, because members of such lobbies always come to Labour Members to put the case for civil libertarian positions.
Mr. Simon Hughes: That is not quite true.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It may be that they go to Liberal Members as well, but they always come to Labour Members. My party has a very proud record on civil libertarian positions, and what we are doing today will not convince the civil libertarian lobby outside the House. They will wonder what Labour was doing.
Mr. Straw: I, too, receive such letters, and I reply to them as best I can. If my hon. Friend wants one paragraph to use in replies to his constituents, I offer him this one. Again it comes from the speech made on 28 November 1974 by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—in support of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—and exactly picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He said:
196
"I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—, [Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.]
That seems to express exactly the dilemma that we face. Of course we are concerned about civil liberties, but we are also concerned about the safety of the public.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would have no trouble at all in including that paragraph in every response that I send to my constituents. The question is simply whether this Bill should go through today. This is not a case in which we are trying to delay the legislation or in which many of us disagree fundamentally with the legislation: we simply believe that there is a lack of opportunity to scrutinise it fully.
Scrutiny is not merely for the benefit of hon. Members; it is also for the benefit of people who study Hansard. There will no doubt be students in the future who want to consider what happened in the House of Commons when this Bill was passed, particularly if the Bill has a wider impact and affects groups other than those that the Home Secretary has in mind. People in the future might say that it was wrong for us simply to treat this legislation in an abbreviated procedural form because in doing so we denied the wider population the right to know what was in hon. Members' minds when they considered it.
If it is true that there are 20-odd amendments—
Mr. Tony Banks: There are 23 amendments.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If there are 23 amendments which should have been considered, surely the House could have spent 24 hours considering them. I say that as someone who is, in principle, supportive of what is going through the House. I am not opposed to what Labour Front Benchers are doing, but I am worried that we shall stand accused at some future stage of not meeting the expectations of a civil libertarian lobby outside the House, which—if I may put it bluntly—expects a little more of my hon. Friends.
6.14 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for their support for this timetable motion. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for saying that they will not stand in the way of the Bill and for their confirmation that they will not vote against the timetable motion.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and some other Opposition Members suggested that we should proceed at a slower pace, and he indicated why he would oppose the motion. I accept that he would like more time to consider the Bill's provisions, but there is an urgent need for them.
In his remarks, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed managed both to minimise and to exaggerate the nature of the provisions. He minimised them when he said that they are simply technical provisions and that the police already carry out the activities provided for by the

197
Bill. There may be some argument about that in relation to the two provisions for which there are currently common law powers, but those common law powers—the powers to impose a cordon and to impose parking restrictions—are uncertain. The point does not apply to this legislation because it does not apply to the other three extra powers contained in the Bill.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman for Berwick-upon-Tweed was exaggerating the proposals' significance when he embarked on his comparison between them and the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974. I endorse the analysis made by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the size of that Bill as compared to the size of this Bill and his conclusion that such an analysis would reveal that more time was available for consideration of the provisions of this Bill than there was for that Bill.
There is, however, a further point that is of infinitely greater importance. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974 was genuinely breaking new ground and really did involve new matters of principle that had not previously been considered by the House. It was put before the House as a new response to an unprecedented threat, and the House had to consider it on that basis. These powers do not fall into anything like that category and there is no new question of principle raised by this Bill.
If we examine the power that has given rise to the greatest controversy— the power to stop and search pedestrians—it is to fill a lacuna in the law whereby the police have the power, when a senior police officer has designated a particular area for a particular time, to stop and search the occupant of a vehicle or to stop a pedestrian and to search his bag, but whereby they do not have the power to search a pedestrian's jacket pocket. As we all know, it is extremely easy to fit inside that jacket pocket a device that may be small but whose effect is immensely potent and could cause enormous damage. I have said that the power to search fills a lacuna, so I believe that it is impossible for any hon. Member in any part of the House to suggest that any real question of principle is involved in the provision of that power, which represents a modest extension.
Mr. Tony Banks: My question might be more appropriate for Second Reading, but, in the event of that power being exercised and statistics being kept, can the Home Secretary tell me whether they will be kept on the basis of ethnic origin? Will we know the skin colour of the person who has been stopped?
Mr. Howard: All the monitoring provisions that currently apply under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will apply under the Bill. Monitoring, including ethnic monitoring, will take place, so I believe that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are wholly met.
Dr. Godman: I have a number of concerns about the Bill, one of which is that, at first glance, I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has offered us an incorrect interpretation of the role of the procurator fiscal in criminal investigations and proceedings. That needs to be looked at again.
Mr. Howard: I confess that I venture into Scottish law with a good deal of trepidation. If the hon. Gentleman would care to provide us with more detail of his concerns, outside the Chamber if he likes, about the role of the procurator fiscal, I assure him that we will certainly look into the matter.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed that no new principle is involved in clause 1 as it relates to section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Does he also agree that the substance of clause 1 can be found in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and that therefore its basic principle has been debated by the House every year since the 1991 Act came into being? That confirms my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that clause 1 will implement nothing new in principle.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. All the powers, save one, in the Bill have been in existence in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, so they are certainly not new in any sense to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is a lawyer and he knows as well as I do that one of the most controversial matters ever to come before the courts has been the detailed legislation on stop and search and related powers. They have been the subject of a great legal argument, much controversy and many legal appeals. Instead of spending six hours in total debating a Bill of several clauses, many of which contain many subsections, and many groups of amendments, what is the argument to stop the House of Commons of the United Kingdom from taking a further 12 hours or 18 hours, if that is the will of Parliament, to complete its considerations? What is the argument against us using the time between now and the recess to the full and sitting through the night, as we have done on many occasions in the past, to make sure that the legislation is properly scrutinised?
Mr. Howard: That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he introduced the timetable motion: it is a question of balance. We want the powers in the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We believe that they have a part to play in the more effective prevention of terrorism and that they have the potential to save life. In those circumstances, I believe that it is incumbent upon the House to proceed with all due dispatch and to deal with the matter expeditiously, so that it can be considered in another place before the Easter recess, and so that the police can have those powers available to them.
Mr. Beith: The police have been raising this matter for ages.
Mr. Howard: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said from a sedentary position that we have taken ages. He said earlier that the Bill had been gathering dust on the shelf at the Home Office for a long time and suggested that the powers had been asked for years ago. That is not the case. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, Ministers came to a conclusion about the need for those powers last week. In fact, Ministers came to a conclusion about that on Thursday.

199
I sent a message out from the meeting at which that decision was made to invite the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Blackburn and the spokesmen for all the other Opposition parties to meet me on that day so that I could communicate to them at the earliest opportunity the decision that the Government had reached and the way in which we hoped to proceed. We proceeded at the earliest possible moment. I may have explained that in slightly less detail in my statement yesterday, and I am happy to supply hon. Members with that greater detail today.
Mr. Beith: The one question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered is: when did the police first ask him for those powers?
Mr. Howard: I specifically explained that yesterday. In the course of the discussions that I had with the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb, the need for those additional powers evolved and was identified.
Mr. Mackinlay: When?
Mr. Howard: There was no precise moment. The discussions continued with the police in parallel with discussions that I was having with ministerial colleagues. Opposition Members may shake their heads in disbelief, but I fear that that only reinforces and confirms their utter ignorance of the processes of government. I have been endeavouring to adopt a non-partisan approach to the debate.
Mr. Beith: It is a struggle.
Mr. Howard: Yes, sometimes it is a struggle, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Such is the history of how matters evolved. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members that I contacted the spokesmen for the Opposition parties at the earliest possible moment that I could have done after Ministers had reached a decision, and I came to the House at the earliest possible moment thereafter.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have just one more question on the matter. Will the Home Secretary say clearly0 to the House when the police first discussed the matter with him? We have reason to believe that it was some significant time before the Canary wharf bomb. Those matters may have been discussed more recently, but it is understood that they have been under discussion between the police and the Home Office for many months. Is the Home Secretary denying that, and if so, will he do so at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House?
Mr. Howard: The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb. That is right.
Mr. Hughes: And before?
Mr. Howard: The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bombing—
Mr. Hughes: Not before?
Mr. Howard: Not before the South Quay bomb. I had discussions about the powers with the police after the bomb. That is when they took place. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Banks: To hear this Home Secretary talk about being non-partisan is very scary. The Home
200
Secretary keeps on talking about "my discussions with the police", so will he tell us, if he has not already done so, which particular police officers were involved and which organisation?
Mr. Howard: I will not identify particular police officers, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I discussed those matters with the senior police officer who has particular responsibility within the police service for dealing with the terrorist threat. That is the appropriate person with whom to have such discussions.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he discussed these matters after the South Quay bomb. Can he tell the House whether representatives of his Department and his officials discussed those powers with the police before that bomb? That is point behind hon. Members' questions. Those powers were an issue before the bomb and were the subject of discussions with his Department, if not with him or his junior Ministers.
Mr. Howard: Obviously, I have to be careful in what I say at the Dispatch Box. To my knowledge, discussions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not take place. The discussions to which I referred—which took place between me and senior police officers charged with the responsibility of combating terrorism—did not emerge from discussions at official level. To my knowledge, the discussions were not the culmination of previous discussions at official level—the discussions evolved during my discussions with the police officers. That is the most complete answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
Mr. Madden: I ask the Home Secretary for some facts on which we may be able to form a judgment about the need for the additional powers. First, will he tell us— over whatever is the most convenient period— how many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland, where stop-and-search powers have applied for many years, as he has just confirmed? Secondly, how many people have been arrested and charged in the City and in the Metropolitan police area under the existing stop-and-search powers in the past month?
Mr. Howard: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that those questions are more precisely related to the need for the powers—which I hope we will be discussing later this evening. He was courteous enough to give me notice that he wished to ask a question of that kind and later in the debate I shall do my best to provide as much information as I can in relation to that point.
We were discussing the limited nature of the stop-and search-power, which has been the most controversial of the powers that the Bill provides. I make no claim to the kind of expertise in the sus law to which the hon. Member for Blackburn laid claim—Icannot match his expertise in that field. However, I feel that he gave the House a clear and absolutely compelling analysis of the differences between this power and the sus law. They are completely different. It is completely misleading to suggest to the House, and far more to people outside the House, that the Bill in any way brings back the sus law. It is a completely

201
different and much more limited power, hedged around with safeguards that were acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman.
It is quite clear that there is a need for the powers—and I think that even many hon. Members who spoke in opposition to the timetable motion acknowledged that. The need for these powers is urgent. As was said by a number of contributors to the debate—otably in a powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) —the greatest civil liberty to which our constituents aspire, and the civil liberty which we in this House should do most to protect, is the civil liberty not to be blown up by a terrorist bomb and not to be shot by a terrorist bullet.
The police need these powers as a matter of urgency to more effectively protect those civil liberties of our constituents. It is on that basis that I commend the timetable motion to the House.
6.33 pm
Mr. Beith: I remind hon. Members that the choice before them is whether to debate this matter on the basis on which each group of amendments will receive no more than five minutes' debate, which will not allow time for Divisions, or whether we will have an additional three hours in which to ensure that the powers are on the statute book well within the timetable outlined by the Home Secretary. The choice before hon. Members is not whether they deny the police powers that will save lives, but whether we work out these powers carefully enough to ensure that they are helpful, and that civil liberties are safeguarded, and have an additional three hours—no more—to do so. That is the subject on which I now invite hon. Members to support me in my amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 261.]

Division No. 92]

[18.33 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Livingstone, Ken

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Loyden, Eddie

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Barnes, Harry

McGrady, Eddie

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Mackinlay, Andrew

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McNamara, Kevin

Bennett, Andrew F

Madden, Max

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maddock, Diana

Burden, Richard

Mahon, Alice

Canavan, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Chidgey, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Pike, Peter L

Cohen, Harry

Rendel, David

Corbett, Robin

Salmond Alex

Corbyn, Jeremy

Sedgemore, Brian

Cunningham, Roseanna

Skinner, Dennis

Dafis, Cynog

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Tyler, Paul

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Wallace, James

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Wareing, Robert N

Gerrard, Neil

Wise, Audrey

Godman, Dr Norman A

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Mr. Simon Higel Jones

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Nigel Jones.

202

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Fabricant, Michael

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Alexander, Richard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Fishburn, Dudley

Amess, David

Forman, Nigel

Arbuthnot, James

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forth, Eric

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fowler, Rt hon Sir Norman

Ashby, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

French, Douglas

Bates, Michael

Gale, Roger

Batiste, Spencer

Gallie, Phil

Beggs, Roy

Gardiner, Sir George

Bellingham, Henry

Garnier, Edward

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gillan, Cheryl

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Body, Sir Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorst, Sir John

Booth, Hartley

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Boswell, Tim

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bowis, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

Brandreth, Gyles

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brazier, Julian

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Bright, Sir Graham

Hannam, Sir John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hargreaves, Andrew

Brown, M (Brio & Cl'thorpes)

Harris David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Hawkins, Nick

Burt, Alistair

Hawksley, Warren

Butcher, John

Hayes, Jerry

Butler, Peter

Heald, Oliver

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Robert

Cash, William

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Horam, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir john (Ravensbourne)

Coe, Sebastian

Hunter, Andrew

Congdon, David

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jenkin, Bernard

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Jessel, Toby

Couchman, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cran, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Key, Robert

Davis, David (Booth ferry)

King Rt Hon Tom

Day, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knapman, Roger

Devlin, Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

Duncan Smith, Iain

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dunn, Bob

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Dykes, Hugh

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Leigh, Edward

Elletson, Harold

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lidington, David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luff, Peter

Faber, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

203

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

MacKay, Andrew

Spencer, Sir Derek

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Micheal (S Worcs)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spink, Dr Robert

Major, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Malone, Gerald

Sproat, Iain

Mans, Keith

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marland, Paul

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marlow, Tony

Steen, Anthony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stephen, Michael

Merchant, Piers

Stem, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Allan

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Streeter, Gary

Moate, Sir Roger

Sumberg, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Sweeney, Walter

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Sykes, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thomason, Roy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steve

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Tracey, Richard

Ottaway, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Paice, James

Trend, Michael

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Trimble, David

Patten, Rt Hon John

Trotter, Neville

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Pickles, Eric

Walden, George

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Waller, Gary

Powell, William (Corby)

Ward, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Waterson, Nigel

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Watts, John

Richards, Rod

Wells, Bowen

Riddick, Graham

Whitney, Ray

Robathan, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Widdecombe, Ann

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wilkinson, John

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Willetts, David

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wilshire, David

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Yeo, Tim

Shersby, Sir Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Noes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Derek Conway and

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.
Main Question put:—
The House divided:Ayes 256, Noes 44.

Division No. 93]

[18.47 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Amess, David

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Arbuthnot, James

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Allason, Rupert (Torboy)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

204

Ashby, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

French, Douglas

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gale, Roger

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Gallie, Phil

Bates, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Batiste, Spencer

Garnier, Edward

Beggs, Roy

Gillan, Cheryl

Bellingham, Henry

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Beresford, Sir Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gorst, Sir John

Body, Sir Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Booth, Hartley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Boswell, Tim

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowis, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Brandreth, Gyles

Hannam, Sir John

Brazier, Julian

Hargreaves, Andrew

Bright, Sir Graham

Harris, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hawkins, Nick

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Hawksley, Warren

Burt, Alistair

Hayes, Jerry

Butcher, John

Heald, Oliver

Butler, Peter

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Cash, William

Horam, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clappison, James

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hunter, Andrew

Coe, Sebastian

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Congdon, David

Jack, Michael

Conway, Derek

Jenkin, Bernard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Jessel, Toby

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

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

Key, Robert

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, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Devlin, Tim

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

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dunn, Bob

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Dykes, Hugh

Leigh, Edward

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Elletson, Harold

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lidington, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lord, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Luff, Peter

Evennett, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Faber, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fishburn, Dudley

Major, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Malone, Gerald

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Mans, Keith

Forth, Eric

Marland, Paul

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Merchant, Piers

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Mills, Iain

205

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sproat, Iain

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Moate, Sir Roger

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Steen, Anthony

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Stephen, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stern, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Allan

Nelson, Anthony

Streeter, Gary

Neubert, Sir Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Sweeney, Walter

Nicholls, Patrick

Sykes, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Paice, James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thurnham, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Pickles, Eric

Tracey, Richard

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Trend, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trimble, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Trotter, Neville

Powell, William (Corby)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rathbone, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Richards, Rod

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Riddick, Graham

Waller, Gary

Robathan, Andrew

Ward, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waterson, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Watts, John

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Wells, Bowen

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Whitney, Ray

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Whittingdale, John

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wiggin, Sir, Jerry

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wilkinson, John

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Willetts, David

Shersby, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Sims, Roger

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wolfson, Mark

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Wood, Timothy

Spencer, Sir Derek

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spink, Dr Robert

Mr. Simon Burns and

Spring, Richard

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Loyden, Eddie

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Barnes, Harry

McGrady, Eddie

Beth, Rt Hon A J

Mackinlay, Andrew

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McNamara, Kevin

Bennett, Andrew F

Madden, Max

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maddock, Diana

Burden, Richard

Mahon, Alice

Canavan, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Chidgey, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Pike, Peter L

Cohen, Harry

Rendel, David

Corbett, Robin

Salmond, Alex

Corbyn, Jeremy

Sedgemore, Brian

Cunningham, Roseanna

Skinner, Dennis

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Tyler, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Wallace, James

Godman, Dr Norman A

Wareing, Robert N

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wise, Audrey

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Simon Hughes and

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading
1—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.
(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Conclusion of proceedings
2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time.—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above.—

207

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

208

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Business Committee
6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
Supplemental orders
9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.
Recommittal
11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
6.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I gave notice to the House yesterday of my intention to introduce the Bill, I spoke of my anger and sorrow that the emergency powers continue to be needed, but they are needed to defend and protect our citizens from terrorists who seek to dominate, disrupt and destroy our peaceful way of life. The Bill provides additional practical powers to strengthen the ability of the police to protect the public against the threat from terrorism.
The House—and those whom we represent here—was shocked and appalled by the way in which the IRA signalled its return to violence on 9 February. Its actions that night, resulting in death and injury, shattered the hopes of the British people that the peace might be a lasting one. The door to peace nevertheless remains open. A date has been set for all-party talks. The necessary steps to establish the elective process for entry into those talks are under way. Sinn Fein-IRA has yet to seize the opportunity to take part, but the peace process will go forward—with or without that organisation.
We continue to hope for the best, but we must prepare for and guard against the worse so that we can deal effectively with whatever may come. We continue to face a serious threat from terrorism. The need to maintain our existing defences is beyond question. That is why three weeks ago I asked the House to renew the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, but I now believe that we need to do more.
I have kept in close contact with the police since the South Quay bomb. I was determined to ensure that they had all the powers that they needed to combat terrorism and protect the public. I have concluded that additional powers are now necessary. The Bill will provide those powers.
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the prevention of terrorism Act. Each will clarify and strengthen the powers of the police, reinforcing their ability to protect the public against the IRA and other terrorists. The Bill will enable the police to stop and search pedestrians for articles that can be used in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts; search non-residential premises for evidence that will be of value to a terrorist investigation; search unaccompanied freight in ports; cordon off areas to look for a bomb or to collect forensic evidence after a bomb has been found or
210
has exploded; and impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to vulnerable sites, such as Government buildings.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there circumstances other than those involving Northern Ireland in which the Home Secretary can envisage the powers to which he has just referred being used?
Mr. Howard: The purpose of the powers is to enable the police to combat all terrorism effectively. It is conceivable that a terrorist threat from another source, related to another matter, could cause the police to regard the exercise of those powers as desirable. I would certainly not wish to exclude that possibility.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What is proposed, albeit in limited circumstances, is a stop-and-search power. Those of us who voted for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—I served on the Standing Committee that considered PACE—feel that the balance of power is too much in favour of the criminal. If my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to consider a stop-and-search power in the current circumstances, is it not time to reconsider PACE, bearing in mind the fact that we are 10 years on and that the powers in that measure need to be reviewed? He could then invite the Labour party to join us on that as well.
Mr. Howard: That is no part of today's proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not join him in speculating about the possibilities that he has attempted to put before me.
Mr. Max Madden: Perhaps this is an opportune moment for me to ask the question of which I gave the Secretary of State's office notice this morning and earlier in today's proceedings. How many people in the City and the Metropolitan police area have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related offences under the existing stop-and-search powers? How many people in Northern Ireland, where stop-and-search powers have applied for some years, have been arrested and charged with and convicted of offences related to terrorism?
Mr. Howard: I do not have the figures for Northern Ireland at present and I am not certain that I shall have them today. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them as soon as they are available.
The hon. Gentleman has asked a series of detailed questions about the use of the existing section 13A powers by the Metropolitan police. The figures are as follows: in the five Metropolitan police areas, there have been 1, 746 vehicle stops under the power; there have been 8, 142 vehicle stops within the Heathrow perimeter; there have been 1, 695 searches of vehicles within the Metropolitan police area and 6, 854 within the Heathrow perimeter; 2, 373 persons have been searched as occupants of a vehicle within the Metropolitan police area and 40 within the Heathrow perimeter. That has led to two arrests under the prevention of terrorism Act and 66 other arrests. I hope that I have been able to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, at least in part.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The use of stop-and-search powers in Northern Ireland has diverted would-be terrorists from their task. In addition, people have been apprehended and weapons have been found.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his analysis. The number of arrests does not present the whole picture. The value of the power extends far beyond the number of arrests. Those who have experience of its use, such as those whom the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and his colleagues represent in the House, are fully aware of the value of that power in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Home Secretary be a little more explicit in his reply to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)? The hon. Gentleman asked about further extending PACE and the Secretary of State replied that he felt that it was not part of the Bill and that therefore he could not reply specifically. Is he ruling out for the rest of this Parliament the recommendation that the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention?
Mr. Howard: I have no plans at the moment to go along the road that my hon. Friend invited me to travel with him, but in the context of today's debate I am not ruling in or out other changes to the criminal law and our system of criminal justice. I certainly agree with the general point made by my hon. Friend that the balance in our criminal justice system has tilted much too far in favour of the criminal and away from the protection of the public. We have taken a number of measures to remedy that in the past few years and I have plans, which I shall announce shortly, further to improve that balance. I have no plans to introduce the particular remedy that my hon. Friend suggested.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary told us that two arrests were made under the stop-and-search powers in the PTA. Were charges laid and, if so, what were they and were there any convictions?
Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. I am sure that he has been listening attentively to the debate, so I remind him of my exchange with the hon. Member for Belfast, South, which clearly reinforced the proposition that the value of the powers is not simply to be derived from an examination of the statistics.
Each of the new provisions will make a difference. Each is designed to ensure that the police will be better equipped to protect and safeguard the public, and to combat terrorism. I have, as I said yesterday and earlier today, discussed my proposals with Opposition spokesmen. I welcome the support of the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I very much welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of the need to act quickly.
Mr. Tony Benn: New section 13B(2) suggests that searching may be carried out when there is a suspicion of the instigation of acts of terrorism. Would "instigation" include written material containing political objectives which, it might be argued before a court,
212
constituted an instigation to terrorism? What does the phrase mean? "Instigation" has a political flavour of a wholly different character from the other acts referred to.
Mr. Howard: Whether the possession of written material might constitute evidence of instigation would depend on the nature of the written material; in the end it would be a matter for the court to determine. It would clearly have to be more than political propaganda, which would not amount to an instigation to terrorism. But there could be written material that showed that someone was involved in encouraging others to commit terrorist acts, or something of that kind. That might well involve the instigation of terrorism—
Mr. Benn: But instigation has many meanings. If someone writes a pamphlet, or has pamphlets on him, containing the argument that Britain should not be in Northern Ireland, and if that pamphlet were distributed, might it be held, in the Home Secretary's view, that the very presentation of the arguments in the pamphlet would instigate some people to terrorist acts? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be clear about that.
Mr. Howard: I can be perfectly clear about that example. Of course advocacy of a particular status for Northern Ireland would not involve instigation to terrorism—that is the expression of a political view. I do not know whether it will reassure the right hon. Gentleman—it may or may not—to learn that this is not a new phrase designed specifically for this Bill. It is time-honoured language, used in the prevention of terrorism Act in a different but similar context. As the House would expect, we seek to follow and reproduce the language in the PTA to the fullest possible extent.
I turn next to the detailed content of the Bill. Clause 1 fills a lacuna in the existing powers under section 13A of the prevention of terrorism Act. Section 13A was added to the Act by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It currently allows a constable to stop and search any vehicle, its driver and any passenger in it. He may also stop any pedestrian and search anything he is carrying for articles of a kind that could be used in preparing, commissioning or instigating terrorist acts. But he cannot search the pedestrian for anything which he or she may have concealed about them—for example, in a jacket pocket.
The operation of the existing stop-and-search powers has led the police to believe that an additional power to search pedestrians would be of real practical benefit. I accept that. Bombs and incendiary devices do not need to be very large to kill or destroy. A typical device may be no bigger than an audio cassette. I have seen examples of what has been found, and I must tell the House that it is perfectly possible to carry one or more of these devices in pockets without an observer being any the wiser. But these things are not just carried in pockets. In Northern Ireland, explosives and other material have been found in shoes; and guns and other weaponry can easily be concealed under a shirt or jacket.
Mr. A. J. Beith: If, under the terms of this clause, a constable carries out a search of outer clothing and finds nothing but becomes suspicious about the behaviour of the person, would he, under

213
existing powers, then be able to proceed to examine the person's shirt pocket, which could equally well accommodate the item being looked for?
Mr. Howard: Not under these powers; but once a constable entertains suspicions relating to the person whom he is searching, the powers under PACE come into play, and the usual search powers are available to him: he can search the person in the way the right hon. Gentleman has described, or take the person to a police station.
Clause 1 accordingly inserts new section 13B into the PTA, giving the police power to stop and search pedestrians in a designated area. Clear safeguards will apply, as in section 13A. Searches will be allowed only within an area authorised by an assistant chief constable and only for a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, authorisation of the exercise of the new powers must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the authorisation having been given. If that confirmation is not forthcoming, the authorisation will lapse. The Bill further provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to cancel the authorisation and/or if he wishes, to substitute a shorter period during which the powers will be exercised.
Mr. David Trimble: I wonder whether the procedure whereby areas must be specified before the powers become exercisable is not unduly restrictive. Under section 13A, the procedure has been used only after incidents have occurred, which suggests closing the stable door after the event. Such measures may be of general reassurance to the public, but they do nothing to prevent serious incidents from occurring. Do we not really need powers of this nature to become operative before incidents occur, not after them?
Mr. Howard: We do, and these powers would so apply. The reason why thus far they have been used only after the event is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, that they came into force only after the ceasefire was declared and have been used only since the South Quay bomb. But that is no sure guide to how they will be used in future. I would expect them to be used in advance of a terrorist outrage when there is intelligence that such an outrage may be committed in a particular area. Therein lies the real necessity for these powers—not just to be used after an outrage but in anticipation of one, thereby enabling it to be prevented. That is what the powers are designed to achieve.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment ago the Home Secretary referred to the role of the Secretary of State. Will he confirm that, where Scotland is concerned, he is talking about the Secretary of State for Scotland—except perhaps when he is absent and his role may be taken on by the Home Secretary?
Were senior Scottish police officers consulted on these matters?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Home Secretary would usually give the authorisation in England and Wales, and the Scottish Secretary would give it in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, there
214
will be times when the Secretary of State is not available and it is appropriate for some other Secretary of State to act in his place.
As for consultation, I said earlier that my discussions had been with the senior police officer responsible for countering the terrorist threat in Great Britain. I have no doubt that he reflected the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) as well as those of the rest of the police service.
Once authorisation has been given, a police officer will be able to stop any pedestrian and search him and anything he is carrying for terrorist devices or other material. The search will be a rub-down search. The officer may ask the pedestrian to remove his outer coat, jacket, footwear, gloves or headgear in public to facilitate the search.
To enforce the new power, clause 1 also creates offences of failing to stop when asked to do so and of wilfully obstructing a constable in the exercise of the new powers. These mirror the offences in section 13A and will carry the same penalty—on summary conviction, up to six months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. Prosecution for either offence will proceed only by or with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I see no specific reference in clause 1 to a warrant to enable a police officer to use the stop-and-search powers in relation to people, yet in clause 2 there is a specific reference to a warrant from a justice of the peace to enable the police to search non-residential premises. Does that mean that people are less important than non-residential premises?
Mr. Howard: No, it does not mean that. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for just a moment, he will understand that it would not be practicable to expect a police officer to ask a magistrate for a warrant to search the outer garment of someone he encountered in the street in an area where a terrorist outrage was anticipated. On the other hand, it is perfectly practicable for the police to go to a magistrate if they wish to search premises for bomb-making equipment or a lorry used in the course of an outrage. That is the reason for the distinction between the two clauses.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Home Secretary clarify two points? First, was the Association of Chief Police Officers consulted, did ACPO ask for the powers or did the senior police officer dealing with terrorism ask for the powers? Secondly, if a uniformed British Transport police officer is travelling between railway stations—and he is not in the jurisdiction of railway property—and is in one of the designated areas, will the powers extend to him or her?
Mr. Howard: On the second question, the Bill does not extend the power of British Transport police officers to act outside the places where they are entitled to act under existing powers, but the Bill will give them the enhanced power to stop and search pedestrians if the places in which they are entitled to act are within a wider area designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill.
On the first question, I said earlier that the need for the powers evolved during discussions that I had with senior police officers in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb.

215
I had a number of such discussions when reviewing the security situation. My recollection is that in the course of those discussions I asked an officer whether he was satisfied that the police had all the powers they needed. That is my best recollection of the way in which the conversation developed. The need for the powers evolved and was identified. Thus we find ourselves here today.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The proposals, which are very limited in scope, have clearly been requested by the police, especially those dealing with terrorism. Is not the deterrence of terrorist acts and the preservation of life worth a little inconvenience?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members who earlier expressed the view that the greatest civil liberty is to live one's life free of the threat of terrorist bombs and bullets speak for the nation. I am sure that that is the view of our constituents.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make some progress. I am conscious that we have little time.
Mrs. Clwyd: I wish to ask for clarification on a point. Will the searches of women be carried out by women police officers?
Mr. Howard: I cannot possibly give the hon. Lady that assurance. If a police officer, in an area designated for the purposes of clause 1 and where a terrorist outrage is believed to be imminent, encounters a woman whom he may have no particular reason to suspect but whom he needs to search to see whether she is carrying a bomb or some other device, it is unrealistic to suggest that he should not do so because a woman police officer is not immediately in the vicinity. I hope that the hon. Lady, on reflection, will see the complete impracticality of her suggestion.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. We have limited time and I must make some progress. [Interruption.] I do not suppose that Opposition Members would thank me if I took all the time for the Second Reading of the Bill.
The police are well aware that the new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. Clear guidance will be issued to police forces to ensure consistent and careful operation. The hon. Member for Blackburn said yesterday that Parliament should receive regular reports on the operation of the new stop-and-search powers. I readily gave that assurance. The hon. Gentleman also asked about monitoring. Again, I have given the assurance that the operation of the stop-and-search powers will be monitored, just as the existing section 13A powers are under the relevant PACE code.
Mrs. Wise: A pedestrian may not know that the area is a designated area. If she refuses to be searched in a
216
designated area, she will be committing an offence—but she will not know that she is doing so. If I were walking along the street and a police officer said that he wanted to search me, my instinct would be to say no, but I might be committing an offence. What safeguards are there for people in those circumstances? In the event of complaint, it would be the pedestrian's word against that of the police constable. Clause 1 seems to be an invitation for harassment, which worries me.
Mr. Howard: I shall try to allay the hon. Lady's anxieties. In the situation that she envisages, the police officer would tell the woman concerned that she was in an area designated by a senior police officer to enable the police to ask her to stop to be searched. The police officer would tell the woman that if she refused to comply with the request, she would be arrested because she would have committed an offence. The officer would explain clearly to the pedestrian that the area had been designated, the significance of that and the consequences of failing to comply with the officer's request. If the hon. Lady ever found herself in that position, I hope that she would, in the circumstances, comply with the request.
Clause 2 relates to searches of non-residential premises. As hon. Members know, the police sometimes receive reliable intelligence—for example, that explosives are concealed in a garage in a particular area of London or that a lorry carrying home-made explosives has been left in a lorry park near a motorway intersection. Such information is of clear importance and needs to be investigated, but often the intelligence received is not sufficient to identify precisely the garage or lorry park in question. It is currently impossible to obtain a search warrant to enter all relevant premises and examine them.
The new search power in clause 2 will enable a magistrate—or a sheriff in Scotland—to issue a warrant for the police to search a list of premises. The police will not be required to say in which of those listed premises they believe they will find the material. A warrant may be issued only on the application of an officer of at least superintendent rank. Any search of premises named in the warrant must be made within 24 hours of the warrant being issued.
Clause 3 will enable examining officers at ports to search unaccompanied freight. At present, the police may stop and examine individuals coming through ports and, in the course of examining them, they may search their baggage and their vehicles for anti-terrorist purposes. Customs officers can search goods that have come from outside the United Kingdom, but police officers cannot, at present, search cargo that is not accompanied by an individual. Clause 3 will allow them to do so.
With trade increasing and up to 10, 000 items of freight coming through west-coast ports each day, the police cannot and will not search all of them. But spot checks and checks following intelligence received should do much to deter and disrupt terrorists' plans and the restocking of their armoury. That is the only one of the powers that is not currently available in Northern Ireland and the Bill will therefore extend that power to the Province as well as to Great Britain.
Clause 4 will enable the police to cordon off an area and restrict access while they look for a bomb or while they collect forensic evidence following the discovery of a bomb or an explosion. The police already have limited

217
powers under common law to impose cordons, but the extent of their existing powers is uncertain. Clause 4 will provide a firm statutory basis and will remove that uncertainty. It will ensure that the police can exclude people from a cordon for their own safety and for the safety of others, and it will ensure that they can keep a zone sterile until they have completed any forensic examination of the scene.
The new power will be exercised initially for a period of up to 14 days and will be capable of renewal for up to a further 14 days. However, past experience suggests that most cordons will be kept in place for less than two weeks. The new power will be subject to the authorisation of an officer of at least superintendent rank. However, in an emergency it may be invoked by any constable and then confirmed by a superintendent or officer of more senior rank.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Home Secretary spoke about the common law. If the Bill is challenged in Europe, can the Home Secretary revert to the common law principle that the police have the right to cordon off certain areas and search them?
Mr. Howard: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance because the Bill provides that its powers are additional to existing powers. In the event that the hon. Gentleman anticipates, which I hope will not arise, common law powers would still be available for use.
Mr. Mackinlay: I do not think that the chief officer of the Royal Parks constabulary is of superintendent rank. Who would retrospectively confirm an urgent action that had been taken by royal parks officers? Does the "urgency" power that is mentioned in clause 4 extend to ports police forces, which are privately owned and controlled? Northern Ireland airports and the ports of Tilbury, Teesside and Felixstowe all have private police forces of sworn constables, but those forces certainly do not have anybody of superintendent rank in their structures.
Mr. Howard: The officer would be the superintendent of the police force in whose area the royal park, for example, was situated. If there were any question of retrospective authorisation, that superintendent would be responsible for it. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Mackinlay: What about ports?
Mr. Howard: Exactly the same consideration would apply. Authorisation would be by the superintendent of the force within whose area the port was situated.
The schedule sets out the powers that may be exercised by the police inside the cordon. These include power to search premises within the cordon for any device or other terrorist material and to collect any forensic evidence found. Offences are created of failing to leave the cordon when required to do so and of breaking the cordon and obstructing a constable in the exercise of any of his powers within the cordon. Prosecution will proceed only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As an additional safeguard, a defence is provided for those who can prove that they have lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for their actions.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How will the search powers apply inside and outside a cordoned area? I understand that outside such an area the police have to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, which occasionally takes some time. Is putting a cordon around an area a short cut so that they do not have to apply for a warrant?
Mr. Howard: I understood the hon. Gentleman's question to relate to the power to search premises within a cordon. As the cordon will be set up only in circumstances of some urgency, I understand that the power to search premises within it will not require a warrant.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is on an important point. In speaking to clause 4 he spoke specifically in terms of the possibility of bombs, explosives and so on, but the clause is not that limited. It relates to the preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It is not as finely defined as the Home Secretary suggests. Therefore, the point that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would not necessarily apply.
Mr. Howard: I make no apology for the fact that the police should be allowed to search for material that might help to bring to justice those who made the bombs or who might be prepared to use weapons, and not simply to look for bombs or bullets. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it would be reasonable to allow the police to look only for bombs or bullets, that is not a view that I share.
Mr. McNamara: That was not the point that I made. My point was that, normally, one would need a warrant to search premises, but for a cordoned area a warrant is not needed. [Interruption.] I am sorry that I have an effect on my hon. Friends. Designating an area could be seen as a short cut to a mass search of premises. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made.
Mr. Howard: I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the circumstances that we are considering. We are considering circumstances in which the police are endeavouring to find a bomb or evidence about the identity of those who were responsible for planting a bomb. The police will wish to search for any evidence that will assist them in those objectives, and it is right that they should have the power to do that. That is why the power is so framed.
The Whip reminds me about the length of time for which I have been speaking. I must seek to make more progress.
Clause 5 will give the police the power to impose temporary parking restrictions on roads or parts of roads in response to a general threat to vulnerable targets such as Government buildings, financial centres, major transport facilities and so on. Again, the police have powers under common law, but there is uncertainty as to their extent and the length of time for which they can be used. The powers of the police in this area require statutory underpinning.
The power in clause 5 will be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable or equivalent ranking officer. It will be exercisable only for a stipulated

219
period of up to 28 days. There is no intention to prohibit loading or unloading, so business should be little disturbed. Offences will be created of failure to remove a vehicle when asked to do so and of parking in breach of a prohibition or restriction. Again, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required for any prosecution, and a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse has been provided.
Mr. Bennett: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I must finish my speech.
Clause 6 provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent to any prosecution for the offences created to enforce the powers given in clauses 1, 4 and 5. Clause 7 deals with the territorial extent of the new powers. Clause 3 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. All the other provisions in the Bill apply only to Great Britain, since these powers are already available to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The measures in the Bill are sensible and practical. They are subject to clear and careful safeguards. I referred earlier to the concerns expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for Blackburn about the exercise of the new power to stop and search pedestrians. I have given him assurances that Parliament will receive regular reports on the operation of that power, and that its exercise will be monitored. I have considered whether putting this in the Bill would provide any additional safeguard, and I have concluded that that is not necessary. PACE code A will apply to new section 13B of the prevention of terrorism Act as it does to existing section 13A. I am glad to take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances that I gave yesterday.
These measures will be of real practical benefit to the police in protecting the public against the threat of terrorism. The need for them is immediate. The police deserve the support of the House in their fight against terrorism. I hope that the House will give them that support. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.39 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: In August 1994, the Provisional IRA gave notice that it had agreed to a ceasefire, and Sinn Fein gave notice that it had agreed to take part in a process leading to a negotiated peace in Ireland. Both Sinn Fein and the IRA left the impression that they were fully committed to a democratic approach to politics. On 9 February this year, the Provisional IRA ended the ceasefire, unilaterally and without notice.
It was a large bomb which announced the withdrawal of the Provisional IRA from the peace process—a grotesque reminder of the organisation's ambiguous approach to participation in that peace process and in democratic politics. A number of people were killed by the Canary wharf bomb; many more were injured or shocked, and millions of pounds of damage was done to homes and businesses. The people and the area have still not recovered from the deep trauma of that bombing. It was followed by the explosion of a bomb on a bus at the Aldwych—a bomb which happened to kill only the perpetrator of the proposed outrage, but which could easily have caused scores of injuries and deaths in central London.
220
We need to remember that the resumption of violence by the Provisional IRA, and that alone, prompted the introduction of the Bill and our support for it. Any additional powers, such as the powers contained in the Bill, are bound to cause some inconvenience to innocent members of the public, but we consider that that inconvenience is vastly outweighed by the need to secure public safety.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Given all that the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, and given his welcome bipartisan approach, does he not feel somewhat embarrassed by the nit-picking approach of many of his hon. Friends—particularly that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who said that, if stopped by a police officer and asked to agree to a search, she would refuse? In the light of recent events, is the hon. Gentleman not even more embarrassed by the fact that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) agreed to appear on the platform at a Sinn Fein conference? Does he not feel that the party Whip should have been withdrawn from his hon. Friend, as many Conservative Members—including me—demanded?
Mr. Straw: I am not embarrassed by the concerns of my colleagues.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes you are.
Mr. Straw: With respect, I will speak for myself. I would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman if I were embarrassed by those concerns, but I am not in the least embarrassed. I recognise them, but I do not share them, and I hope to persuade some of my hon. Friends that they are misplaced. As for the question about my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), it has already been made very clear that the Labour party did not approve of his speaking on a Sinn Fein platform, and he has apologised for so doing.
Mr. Clive Soley: Just to make sure that hon. Members do not become too party political, may I remind Conservative Members that theirs was the party that talked to the IRA, and also flew the IRA around in RAF helicopters at public expense? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) should be a little more careful about whom he accuses.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend knows a good deal more about the details. He is absolutely right: we need to be very careful before trying to score partisan points in a debate such as this. Nevertheless, it is true that the British Government negotiated with the IRA for a long time before admitting it: indeed, while they were negotiating, they publicly denied it. We have never made too much of a point of the fact that—perhaps for good reasons—the House was misled about what was going on.
As I have said, we are satisfied that the powers in the Bill are proportionate to the threat. Let me make it clear, however—especially to my hon. Friends who are anxious about those powers—that, when we were asked to support the Bill, my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I, along with colleagues, went to great lengths to examine the proposals, and to judge for ourselves whether the powers were necessary. We decided that,

221
given the history of the sus law—with which, as I explained during the debate on the timetable motion, I happen to be particularly familiar—and the anxiety about the disproportionate number of black people, for example, who are arrested under the ordinary stop-and-search powers, we would have to give careful consideration to the provision of any further search powers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent vehicle searches in London in connection with the PTA, a disproportionate number of cars with either black drivers or black occupants, or both, have been stopped? That suggests that the police target the black community to a disproportionate extent when they have the power to stop and search vehicles. Can my hon. Friend give any guarantee that the police will not do exactly the same with black pedestrians if the power in the Bill is given to them?
Mr. Straw: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I recall that, according to a parliamentary answer given on, I believe, Friday of last week, some 60 per cent. of 160, 000 people who were stopped by the police in the Greater London area last year—not under powers connected with the PTA, but under general powers to stop people on reasonable suspicion—were black or of Asian origin. That obviously gives cause for concern.
The police have their own explanation. They say that the same proportion of people are arrested following stops of black people as are arrested following other stops. I am very concerned about the issue, however, and feel that we should examine it carefully. Perhaps, in time, the Commission for Racial Equality should investigate it. We must ensure that every citizen is treated in exactly the same way, regardless of skin colour. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that thorough undertaking. One of the reasons why I raised with the Home Secretary, almost immediately, the need for explicit monitoring of the way in which this power is used—including ethnic monitoring—was my concern about the possibility that a disproportionate number of black people could be stopped and searched.
Mrs. Wise: In view of Conservative comments, does my hon. Friend agree that a woman walking in an area that was familiar to her, unaware that it had suddenly become a designated area, would be entitled to be distinctly startled and suspicious if approached by a male police officer who wanted to carry out a rub-down search? Is it not reasonable for female Members to express some concern about that aspect of the proposals?
Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The point is raised in an amendment that I have tabled, along with some of my hon. Friends.
In his statement yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he expected the police to undertake such searches with—I think—circumspection and sensitivity. That will have to happen. It is essential for proper guidance to be given to the police about the circumstances in which the searches are conducted, and—as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—for them to be properly monitored.
222
As I said earlier, I believe that anyone who looks carefully at the nature of the additional powers conferred by clause 1 cannot fail to conclude that those powers do not involve any gratuitous erosion of the liberty of the subject. Although they are important, they do not differ in character from powers that were placed on the statute book in 1994. Let me point out to my hon. Friends that, when section 13A of the 1989 Act was discussed during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—in our debates on clause 62 of the Bill—although we raised a number of probing points, we did not challenge the principle behind section 13A; nor, as far as I am aware, did any of my hon. Friends raise any question about it on Report.
We supported the need for those powers relating to searches of vehicle occupants. If it is appropriate in the limited circumstances of the PTA for the occupant of a vehicle to be subject to an outer-body rub-down search, I do not fully understand the argument that that is not an erosion of civil liberties—so small an erosion of civil liberties that none of my hon. Friends raised any question about it when it came up in February 1994—but stopping a person who happens to be outside a vehicle in exactly similar circumstances and giving them an outer-body rub-down search is a major erosion of civil liberties. Frankly, that argument does not hold.
The second argument is whether there is any parallel between the power under section 13B and the old sus law. Although I went into that point in detail during the debate on the timetable motion, it is worth repeating one or two points about the sus law. The sus law was based on section 14 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which made it an offence to be a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence. The offence was risible. The law enabled any pair of police officers not only to charge somebody but to convict them if they did not like the person's face or what they appeared to be doing.
All that was required was that first, the offender committed one act that gave rise to a suspicion, and, secondly, the offender committed another act that gave rise to him being a suspicious person loitering with intent. It required only that someone felt one car door, and then felt another. There needed to be no separation in time for an offence to be committed. I am not saying that if two door handles were felt it would not arouse suspicion in the mind of anybody watching, but there could easily be a perfectly good explanation. Under the sus law, however, simply feeling two car door handles amounted to the offence.
Moreover, under the sus law—this is unique as far as I am aware in English criminal law, save when someone puts their own character into evidence—an individual's previous convictions, if any, were adducible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was a suspicious person and likely to have developed an intent to commit an arrestable offence. It was the most outrageous offence and open to patent abuse, but on any analysis, there is no parallel whatever between the sus law and the commission of an offence under section 13B.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I give way to a man whom I know to be an even greater expert than me on the sus law.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I deny that, but what I do not deny, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not deny,

223
Is that a Conservative Government abolished the Vagrancy Act after it had been on the statute book through years of the Labour Government.
Mr. Corbyn: The Tories introduced it.
Mr. Straw: I cast my mind back to who was in power in 1824. I was expecting some parallel to be drawn not only with the sus law but with the six Acts introduced in 1819 to suppress all kinds of political activity. I am glad that such a parallel has not been drawn. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is right that the change was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1980. We supported that Act. It was deeply liberal, and I am glad to have it on record that he supported it, as did the liberal Home Secretary. We will ensure that it is well known to the electors of Folkestone and any other constituency in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears during the general election campaign that he is guilty of replacing the sus law with something more liberal.
Mr. Howard: I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I dare say that I would have supported the Bill if I had been in the House at the time, but I was not.
Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Member for Burton, who usually speaks for the Home Secretary, was, I think, in the House, and is certainly guilty of that piece of liberality—soft on suspected persons.
Mr. Madden: I regret to interrupt the jovial encounter, but may I ask my hon. Friend to consider the realities of someone who, say, late on a Saturday night when the pubs and clubs are spilling out, has the misfortune to find himself or herself in a designated area and is stopped and searched by a police officer in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)? That person would be stopped for no good reason, according to him or her. If they refused, they could find themselves imprisoned for six months or fined £5, 000. There is very little difference in practice between what we are discussing and the sus law, which we are all glad ended some time ago. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the practice of the police and the security services in recent years to keep known terrorists who are in possession of explosives under surveillance while they drive for hundreds of miles around the motorway network in this country? There was of course the famous case of someone—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are traditionally reasonably short. The hon. Member's has gone on for well over a minute.
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two or three questions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could answer them.
Mr. Madden: I was merely asking my hon. Friend to contrast that practice with what is mere guesswork.
Mr. Straw: Let me try again. On any analysis, there is no parallel between this power and the sus law. The sus
224
law made it an offence to be a suspected person loitering with intent. A person did not have to be searched for anything; he just had to be there. If the police suspected somebody, a well-known old lag for example, or one who looked dodgy, one had only to do two things, such as brushing against a car door, that in the police officer's view aroused a suspicion and then aroused the view that one was a suspicious person. Those were the two limbs of the offence. The police officer did not have to know necessarily about a person's previous convictions, but when the case went to court, those previous convictions could be brought up, just to bang home the point that the person was suspicious and was loitering with intent. The result was that the person would be fined or imprisoned. I cannot begin to understand how that offence has any parallel with a situation in which for their own good reasons—
Mr. McNamara: For no good reason.
Mr. Straw: For good reasons that are related to the suppression of terrorism, the police decide to stop and search a number of members of the public and to conduct rub-down body searches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, "No good reason." Of course we examined carefully the provision that a police officer in such limited circumstances, operating for a limited time, and within a designated area, does not have to show reasonable cause in order to stop someone and search them. I work on the basis, however, that the police do not search people randomly. They will have an operational reason—they might not have to justify that reason in court—to use the power. That is obvious, and that operational reason is related to the suppression of terrorism.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has been talking about the power's selective use and the Home Secretary has talked of its limited use. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible to stop and search everyone coming across Westminster bridge, for instance, if Westminster were a designated area?
Mr. Straw: In legal theory, that is true. The police could stop and search everybody coming over the bridge, but there is an issue of proportion and practicality. Police resources are not unlimited. They have plenty of other things to do.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. One has to work on the basis that the police are making their judgments about how best to deploy their resources in order, in this case, to suppress terrorism. They will not randomly scatter their resources, and will make their own judgments about where they think searches are best held.
A number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall deal rapidly with some of the other points that made us believe that the powers were justified and proportionate. First, the Secretary of State explained that there are closer restrictions on the use of the power related to pedestrians than those relating to vehicle occupants. A senior police officer can activate the power for 48 hours only, before he must get the approval of the Secretary of State. Secondly—this applies to the other power contained in the measure—there can be no prosecution without the

225
consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thirdly—this is important in relation to monitoring—any person who has been the subject of one of those searches can gain within 12 months a written notice that he has been searched under the powers and not under, for example, the reasonable suspicion powers under other criminal justice measures. Fourthly—a matter to which the House's attention has not been drawn—there is an important limit on the physical extent of the searches that can be made. The Bill states:
"Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves."
Mr. Harry Barnes: There are four women Members in the House. How would the measure apply to them in connection with the wearing of jackets?
Mr. Straw: As I read the Bill, somebody wearing an outer jacket—
Mr. Barnes: How would the measure apply to the four hon. Ladies in the Chamber?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I am not going to speculate on what the four hon. Ladies are wearing underneath their jackets. I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation. But if he is asking whether it would be reasonable for a police officer to require someone to remove their jacket if they were wearing nothing underneath it, the answer I think would be no. That would mean that the search had become an intimate body search and would have to be dealt with under separate powers.
Mr. Barnes: It is a serious point. The legislation may be drafted in such a way that it is quite appropriate for men, but it must also apply to women. We can see that the hon. Ladies in the House are not wearing coats that could be removed by an officer under these powers, but are wearing different forms of dress. Would those count as jackets or not? How much clothing can be removed from a woman in those circumstances?
Mr. Straw: The clause says:
"Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves."
If a woman were wearing a jacket with nothing underneath it, she could justifiably claim that it is unreasonable to expect her to remove that jacket.
I make this point to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Sometimes, in Standing Committees, we feel that our job is worthless. We grind away, tabling amendments that we think fall on deaf ears. Having spent 17 years in opposition, I must say that that has often been my experience, and that of some of my hon. Friends. No one could have spent longer in opposition continuously than me and those of my hon. Friends who came to Parliament with me on 3 May 1979. But that impression is untrue. On 30 January 1996, some of my hon. Friends—including the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—tabled an amendment to
226
the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The amendment proposed that an equivalent power to the one we are discussing today be included in the Bill, and said:
"this is not to be construed as authorising any person conducting a search under this section to require a person being searched to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket, headgear or gloves."
Despite the persuasive powers of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, the amendment was not accepted, but—somehow or other—the view of the Opposition has filtered through the ether and has been reflected in section 13B(4), or clause 1 of the Bill. We can hardly complain that an important safeguard that we asked for in respect of the Northern Ireland legislation has now been included in the legislation for Great Britain.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Has my hon. Friend received a mirror-image assurance from the Government that they will now extend that measure to the powers exercised in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Straw: I have not discussed that matter, but the Minister may wish to comment on that when he winds up.
The Secretary of State has dealt with both the additional safeguards that I suggested ought to be brought in, and I am grateful to him for what he said. We accept that those do not need to be written into the Bill, since monitoring will be triggered under the other statutory powers that he has announced. He has made it clear that the House will be notified regularly of the use of the powers.
The last thing that I want to say in respect of the search powers—I shall repeat a point that I made during the debate on the timetable motion—is that the nature of searches that we are requiring people to be subject to under section 13B is no different from the searches that we require daily of people visiting the Palace of Westminster. They are almost exactly the same.
Mr. McNamara: When did my hon. Friend last have to take his shoes off when entering the Palace?
Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is perfectly possible for people to be asked to do that. People coming to visit us in the Palace are subject to checks by electronic machinery. To my certain knowledge—I see it almost every day in the entrance to 1 Parliament street—guards who think that they have seen someone suspicious going through then subject that person to an outer-body search. What is more, those checks have been put in place for the safety of hon. Members, and the Palace would be extremely dangerous were it not for them.
I do not find it convincing to compare the number of searches with the number of arrests. I do not have the figures, but I suspect that following the hundreds of thousands of searches that have been carried out of visitors to the Palace of Westminster, scarcely one arrest has ever been made. But by God, if those searches had not been carried out, not only would there have been a need for arrests, but a number of bombs would have been placed within the Palace of Westminster. We know that that is true, and we do not need to look in a crystal ball to know that. In 1979—when security was not as good as it is now—Airey Neave, in a terrible outrage, was blown up as he left the car park. That is the reality, and the idea that there is some arithmetical connection between the

227
number of searches carried out and the number of arrests made as a result is, frankly, one that I do not properly comprehend.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We must also remember that a bomb was brought into, and detonated in, this House, causing damage to Westminster Hall.
Mr. Straw: I was not in the House when that happened, but I remember it. I have no doubt that—as the IRA has decided to resume its bombing campaign—were it not for the searches that have been reintroduced far more rigorously, hon. Members, members of staff and the public within the Palace would be vulnerable to terrorist outrages.
Mr. Barnes: The Palace of Westminster could presumably be included in an area in which searches were taking place, so people could be searched outside as they arrived here. Yet the public do have rights of access to the Palace. Will the legislation in any way interfere with those rights? Will a special provision be operated around the Palace, as people might be subject to two searches?
Mr. Straw: Frankly, that is a matter for the Secretary of State to answer, and I invite him to do so when he winds up. From my reading of the Bill, I do not think that it makes any difference to the normal right of access of members of the public to this building, expect when it comes to the first of the four remaining parts of the Bill—if there is a cordon.
I now pick up a point that exercised some of my hon. Friends. I work on the basis, again, that the police will not suddenly throw up a cordon for the hell of it; they will do so for a reason. What is more, although, under the schedule, certain search powers are triggered where there is a cordon, a cordon can be permitted only in very specific circumstances. The circumstances, which are spelled out in clause 4, are:
"If it appears to a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so in connection with an investigation into the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which this section applies".
That is a very specific circumstance in which either there has been an act of terrorism or the police have every reason to believe that there might be one.
Nobody can argue with the parking restrictions proposed in the Bill nor with the proposal that it should be made—
Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while it may be reasonable to restrict parking, there is a problem in requiring cars to be moved? Will he get assurances that someone who is not in a fit state to drive a car is not required to move a car from outside his house?
Mr. Straw: That is a matter for the police. However, I say this to my hon. Friend. I was present—my hon. Friend has raised this matter tangentially—at the Old Bailey when the bomb went up in 1973. The bomb had been placed in a Cortina which was parked outside the Old Bailey. If parking restrictions such as those in the Bill had been in force and if the threat had been anticipated, that bomb would not have gone up. Of course the police must take account of the fact of a driver being disabled, but in
228
circumstances in which a cordon is being erected or parking restrictions are being enforced in anticipation of a bomb going off, the overriding concern must be the safety of the public.
I shall now deal with non-residential dwelling search warrants. It seems perfectly reasonable to make it easier for the police to get search warrants and it should certainly be made easier for them to search unaccompanied cargo. Such searches can currently be undertaken by Customs and Excise but not, apparently, by the police.
As I said earlier in my speech, and as I said yesterday, the Bill has been prompted solely by the unilateral resumption of terrorism by the Provisional IRA. If it had not ended the ceasefire and if it had not killed people, there would be no need for the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) yesterday raised an important question about what happens if the ceasefire is resumed and there is an end to the violence which is deemed permanent. I was asked that question on the "Today" programme this morning. It seems obvious that if we arrive at a situation where a judgment has been made by the Government and the Opposition that there is a permanent ceasefire and that a peace process is well in hand, there is no need for these measures. I repeat that the measures have been triggered only by the fact that the IRA decided to end the ceasefire. We have, however, tabled a probing amendment which would give a power to the Secretary of State to abrogate the proposed new sections if and when we arrived at the happier situation where there was a working assumption of a permanent peace.
We regret the necessity for the Bill, as I believe the whole House does, but we are satisfied that it is needed and we will not impede its passage today.
8.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seizes every opportunity to distance himself from my political views, so I make the point as objectively as I can that I believe that many commentators will applaud his position and the points he has made. I hope that few will dissent from joining in that applause.
On 14 March, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was speaking in the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, he made this point:
"Governments cannot shrink from deciding whether to take the measures necessary to protect the public from terrorism."-[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1133.]
Conservative Members agreed with him unreservedly.
In his statement yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that he had discussed with senior police officers
"whether there were any additional powers which would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public."
Conservative Members would have criticised him if he had not held such discussions. My right hon. and learned Friend continued by explaining that his proposals, which constitute the Bill, were
"designed to meet the real needs that they"—
senior police officers—
"have identified … they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]

229
Conservative Members would have condemned the Home Secretary if, the real needs having been identified, he had not sought to implement them, and without delay.
We agree with the Home Secretary because, by any criterion of judgment, Government and Parliament should give the highest priority to ensuring that the police have the powers that are needed to safeguard the public from terrorist activity. I hear the argument of those who object that the Government are moving with excessive speed and unseemly haste. It is understandable that those arguments should be made, but I do not believe that they should carry the day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), in his speech on the guillotine motion, stressed that everyone was reluctant to see the guillotine being used. It is not a desirable state of affairs, but given the wider circumstances, we argue that it is the lesser of evils.
In the light of intelligence reports and having ascertained that there are weaknesses in our anti-terrorist legislation, it would be irresponsible and indefensible for the Government not to accelerate through Parliament, by timetabled debates, the measures that are necessary to increase public safety. Likewise, it would be irresponsible of the House to oppose those measures.
It is a proven fact that, during the 18 months of the so-called ceasefire, the IRA not only maintained but improved its operational capability. It recruited, trained and targeted; it further researched and developed improvised weapons; it raised funds to maintain its structures and to enhance its capabilities; and, most significantly, it actively prepared for the resumption of violence. It is, therefore, scarcely surprising that intelligence reports confirm that the IRA is even more active now than it was during the so-called ceasefire. There is every reason for urgency and the Government are right to respond with urgency.
Nor should we overlook a second, albeit lesser, on-going reality—the continuing threat from international terrorism and the need to combat it. Successive prevention of terrorism Acts have been designed to respond to threats from sources other than Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism. The slaughter of the innocents over Lockerbie stands as a bitter reminder of that reality. Less than two years ago, the Israeli embassy and Balfour house were attacked. Last year, 50 per cent. of extensions of detention related to international terrorism. The continuing need for effective and updated legislation is self-evident. Such legislation is essential to enable a free and open democratic society to protect itself against terrorism.
Some hon. Members and others oppose the Bill on the ground that it infringes civil liberties. On the civil liberties theme in general, I counter-argue that they fail to grasp some essential truths. First, as we have heard, the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from counter-terrorist legislation but from those who believe in the bomb and the bullet and put that belief into practice. Secondly, almost all Governments of free, open, democratic societies have found it necessary to assume greater powers when confronted by people prepared to exploit freedom in their bid to destroy it and deny it to others. Thirdly, our emergency powers seek to maintain a delicate balance. In certain circumstances, they may inconvenience and restrict some people, but they contain
230
checks and balances that minimise that and provide some safeguards. Fourthly, our counter-terrorist legislation seeks to protect the overwhelming majority from the smallest of all minorities and the evil that it would inflict. The majority understands and accepts the limitations and restrictions demanded by such legislation. Above all, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, it is right to err on the side of caution in such matters.
On the specific measures in the Bill, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, there are no new questions of principle. Its principles have been in the public domain for years and have been debated many times. Many people would be surprised to learn that they do not already exist in law. Clause 1 gives power to the police to stop and search the outer garments of pedestrians if an authorisation has been given by a senior police officer, to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and compensates for a deficiency in the 1989 Act. That power already exists under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is also contained in the new edition of that Act. Given the terrorist threat, it does not undermine civil liberties but promotes them by making it safer for us all to move about our towns and cities.
Clause 2, which enables the police on a warrant to search one or more non-residential premises for the artefacts of terrorism, infringes no civil liberty. It is common sense that the power should be available. Both powers have been well tested in Northern Ireland. The House has approved them there many times. Sadly, they are needed throughout the United Kingdom.
Clause 3, which enables an examining officer to search unaccompanied goods which have arrived in or are about to leave the United Kingdom, is likewise a highly desirable power for the police. One may say that they should have had it many years ago. There is nothing unreasonable or genuinely controversial in those three clauses. The deterrent factor is prominent. The knowledge of their existence is likely to deter terrorist activity. The same applies to clauses 4 and 5. If, in the judgment of senior police officers, practice and experience have shown that the powers and precedent of common law are insufficient and a statutory basis is deemed desirable for cordoning areas and controlling parking, so let it be. There is no valid objection to that.
In the light of the proven threats from the IRA and international terrorism, the Government are surely right to introduce those measures. They are right to do so with urgency and through timetabled debate. The measures are necessary and reasonable. They do not constitute an unacceptable threat to civil liberties and those who claim that they do are simply wrong. I greatly hope that the House will overwhelmingly accept and endorse the Bill.
8.24 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will not be subject to proper Parliamentary scrutiny, and whose powers may prove to be counterproductive and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I was flattered that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted so extensively from my speeches when the Act first went through. I am proud that

231
he has read my words and found them comforting. I recall that my hon. Friend fought the 1983 general election on a manifesto that supported full restoration of trade union rights, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, unilateral nuclear disarmament and nationalisation of industries that had been denationalised. Doubtless his speeches during the campaign while that was Labour party policy reflected those views.
I understand that there is a possibility that my hon. Friend has changed his mind on those matters. He may have done so for a variety of reasons, such as that he would not be sitting on the Front Bench if he had not. However, I do not challenge his good faith in changing his opinions, because we should be able to realise that we have made mistakes. The mistake that I made was not listening to my friend Tom Litterick, who was then a Member of the House, when the original legislation was going through and he said that we were reacting in panic. He said that we were prepared to do almost anything to protect the Irish population and stop Irish people from being attacked in factories and on the streets, having their windows put in, being thrown through the doors of clubs and being subject to abuse as a terrified British population sought scapegoats in the place of the people who had perpetrated that terrible crime in Birmingham. As a result, all people were being tarred with that odour—if one can be tarred with an odour.
People can take courses of action and change their minds. I have changed my mind about the prevention of terrorism Act for the reasons that I have given over the years. I believe that the balance in this legislation has gone the wrong way. It has been counter-productive. That was shown by the great trawls of the Irish population in London in the 1970s and early 1980s. People were picked up just because they were Irish, taken away, questioned and released without charge. I know how it alienated a whole generation of people who came to this country to be law abiding. They wanted to be good citizens and to work. They wanted to make a way for themselves and their families. It alienated them from the forces of law and order because they thought that they were being unfairly treated and singled out.
I believe that two powers that were contained in that legislation, exclusion orders and the power to detain a person without access to a magistrate for up to seven days, were wrong. I still believe that they are wrong. I have changed my mind.
I have changed my mind also about the Birmingham Six. On one occasion when I was arguing in favour of not renewing the Act, I said—I freely admit this—that the Birmingham Six had been caught by ordinary police methods. That was before all the horrible evidence about how they had been treated came to light. However, where people have been caught, they have generally been caught not by virtue of those powers, but by normal good police work. As that is so, we must look carefully at the sort of powers that we are giving.
I now leave my "Apologia pro Vita Sua"—and, in retrospect, one for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn too—and turn to the reasoned amendment. We have already dealt with at length, so I shall not repeat to the House, the arguments about the time provided to discuss the Bill and the manner in which it has been introduced. Those arguments stand on the record.
232
However, I shall take up one point—the claim that less time was given for discussing amendments when the original Act was passed than has been allowed with this Bill. That is not the case. Less time was in fact taken up, but there was no limit on the time that could have been used—whereas here there is a specific and direct time limit for dealing with matters connected with the Bill.
My second point arises from the issue that I raised before—the danger of alienating a generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn says that the proposed powers are very different from the sus laws. Indeed, judging by the way in which he describes the sus laws, that is correct; nobody doubts it. However, the phrase "the sus laws" has come to have a meaning different from the precise meaning that my hon. Friend used. It was associated with the arbitrary stopping and searching of people.
Clause 1 asks us to support the arbitrary power to stop and search people in a designated area, without giving any reason. My hon. Friend says that the police—because we can all trust the police—would not dispose of their people in an arbitrary fashion to behave in that way. I wish that that were true. I am sure that it would be true when the original decision was taken, but it would not apply to the individual bobby on the beat who took part in the searches.
We know from the cases that come up in the London metropolitan area how such powers have been used. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has already drawn the attention of the House to the disproportionate number of black people in cars who are stopped within the cordons that already exist—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already accepted.
Mr. Straw: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with some care. If his arguments about section 13B are so strong, they must also have applied to section 13A, which raises exactly the same issues with respect to the occupants of vehicles. So could my hon. Friend explain why, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was before the House under the usual procedures—its passage took not one day but four months—he raised no objections on any occasion to section 13A?
Mr. McNamara: The answer is simple: examples have now been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North of the way in which section 13A has been used and abused.
Mr. Straw: There is no evidence whatever that section 13A has been abused. The figures that I gave, and those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred, relate to powers contained within ordinary criminal justice legislation, which give the police the power to stop and search people on reasonable suspicion. I have not been made aware—nor, I believe, has my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—of any evidence of abuse of that power. Indeed, it has been used on only one occasion—following the Canary wharf bomb on 9 February.
Mr. McNamara: I take my hon. Friend's point, but let me carefully explain that we do have evidence that where there has been reasonable suspicion, most people who

233
have been stopped have been people of Asian or Caribbean background. Within a designated area the police have the power to stop and search people without rhyme or reason. The Home Secretary can, if he wishes, prevent that from happening—but, judging by past evidence, that is unlikely to happen. That is what happens with reasonable suspicion.
Secondly, and more important, young people are the ones who will be stopped—perhaps coming back from a dance or out with their girlfriends or boyfriends—and be subjected to a search. We know from our experience in Northern Ireland that those stop-and-search powers have had an alienating effect on the attitudes of young people from both communities and in both areas to the forces of law and order.
We are creating exactly the same phenomenon that followed the trawls that took place under the terms of the original legislation. We are therefore in a dangerous position. Regardless of the operational reason for the exercise, the ordinary bobby on the street, acting with such powers, may use them to pick up specific people for other reasons. When the Home Secretary was asked yesterday about whether, if evidence of other crimes were found, it would be used, he said yes. Given the proposed powers, the temptation for the police to go in that direction is well understood, and I believe that it would be followed.
Mr. Alun Michael: I think that my hon. Friend is getting confused. He has referred to people being stopped not under the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 but under those in other legislation. So far as I am aware, the powers in the 1994 Act were seen as reassuring, rather than the reverse, by people in London. My hon. Friend alleged that young people would be stopped and subjected to searches, but there is no suggestion that that has happened as a result of section 13A, which was added to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. On what basis does he make that suggestion? He seems to have plucked it out of the air.
Mr. McNamara: On the basis of what has happened in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend should be aware of that. Under the stop-and-search powers in Northern Ireland, it is young people who have been stopped.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has confirmed that he is getting confused. When we debated what is now the 1994 Act, we raised precisely those issues. I asked during our debates on that Act how we could be reassured that those powers would not be used disproportionately on people from ethnic minorities and on young people. We were given reassurance, and protections were built in. The provisions before us today share the protections and provisions of the 1994 Act, precisely because we raised those issues.
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the point that I am making arises from legislation in Northern Ireland, and the effect of the stop-and-search power. That power has not existed in Great Britain, which is why it now appears in the Bill, and why I am drawing the attention of the House to the defect, and its likely consequences.
234
Finally, I shall deal with the right to establish a cordon. I do not believe that anybody can argue about the other matters in the Bill—the parking restrictions, the power in respect of non-residential buildings, and the power to search non-accompanied cargo. However, a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and the Opposition Chief Whip says that the power in question is designed
"to enforce a cordon around a bomb warning area."
It is true that that is part of the power contained in the Bill, but the power goes far wider than that.
Nobody could possibly object to giving the police or anybody else power to establish a cordon around an area where there was a suspected explosive device or to establish one afterwards to protect people or for necessary forensic work to be carried out. But the power goes far wider than those purposes and is
"in connection with an investigation into the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism"
to which the Act applies, and it can be in relation to any political violence.
Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I simply do not begin to understand my hon. Friend's arguments. Is he seriously suggesting that if the police believe that there has been
"the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism"—
which, I remind my hon. Friend, usually results in a loss of life, maiming of innocent people and serious damage—the police should not be entitled to put a cordon around an area for their protection and to further their investigation into who has committed the act?
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend should have listened very carefully to what I said. I said in particular that if there had been a bomb or a device that was likely to go off or had gone off, a cordon was necessary to protect people. I argued that we were examining not just the issue of explosives or immediate danger to limb; the Bill provides a far wider power, and many other powers follow from it, such as authority for searches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked the Home Secretary how, if there is a cordon, we can be certain that it will not be abused by the police and used to avoid getting a warrant to enter premises. The fact is that that necessity can be contravened.
I believe the power goes far beyond the limitations stated by the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in their letter to us. The problem is that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I are at cross-purposes, with occasional interjections from the Home Secretary, but we do not have time to explore the matters in detail. Ultimately, my hon. Friend and I may be ad idem on these issues, but the argument that is being made is rather slipshod. The Bill's powers are far wider, far stronger and go far deeper than has been suggested in this debate, and the Bill merits far more consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that some of the powers in the Bill may be contrary to the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked specifically about that point and was told that, should the statute be ruled out by the convention, common law

235
would still prevail. I was under the impression that common law could be ruled out by the convention, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that answer satisfactory.
The point has been made that the Bill is a codification of powers. The Government are very uncertain about their position, however, particularly in relation to the provision on cordons. Paragraph 10 of the schedule states:
"The powers conferred by this Schedule are additional to any other powers which a constable has either at common law or under or by virtue of any other enactment and are not to be taken to affect any of those other powers."
The Government have suggested that there is some uncertainty about the position in common law. It is their intention to codify it, but, just in case they have gone too far and limited it too much, they intend to maintain the position in common law. That is not good legislation, and it shows the slipshod way in which this matter has been dealt with.
We have been told that the need for the legislation suddenly transpired between last Thursday's Cabinet meeting and today. I do not think it all adds up. I think that much of the legislation has to do with the Government's being in two minds about the issue. The Government have not mentioned an Easter scare or the general security situation, other than references to the continuing threat from the IRA—which is real and live, and which I would not dispute for a moment. It has in fact been my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench who have expressed the need for urgency in supporting the Bill.
Labour Front Benchers have urged on us the belief that something is likely to happen over Easter. We have been told that it will be on our consciences if a life is lost that could have been saved had we passed this legislation. But we were told that the IRA planned, prepared and placed its South Quay bomb months before the announcement of the ceasefire breakdown. That must have been done months in advance. The IRA's planning ability—for which it receives credit from the Government—makes one wonder whether, if there is a major incident this weekend, this legislation will have any effect.
There are now cassette-type bombs that can be carried in coats, but we cannot subject people to intimate searches. If an area is designated, that may prevent people from going into the area, but it will not prevent incidents involving cassette-type bombs from happening elsewhere. I find that argument very strange. If I felt that the power to cordon areas would be effective and that it was necessary and not likely to lead to harassment of individuals or groups—having particular regard to the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) about women and searches and to the technical point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), which might cause problems—I might be prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
I have not been convinced by the Government's reasons for the necessity of this legislation. I do not think that the House should be pressurised into passing a far-reaching measure affecting civil liberties, which is concerned not only with the Irish situation but with terrorism generally, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out. The Bill will not merely affect London or the home counties; it could apply in Bradford, Leicester or Hull,
236
where an area could be designated. These powers could be abused because there are no reasonable grounds for considering their operation, not even any semblance of judicial review. The person who has to be satisfied in all these cases will be the same person who felt that the powers were necessary—the Home Secretary. I do not think that it adds up.
8.48 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: The assumption behind the rather long and rambling speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the police have called for the improvements in the anti-terrorist legislation in order to harass ethnic minority groups or anybody else is too ludicrous for words. The legislation is framed specifically to combat terrorism. It bears no relationship to any law that used to exist and which was used to harass ethnic minorities or anyone else.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is always at his best when he agrees with us. I seem to remember, however, that when he last agreed with us about the prevention of terrorism legislation that we debated the other day, he ended up abstaining when it came to the vote. I did not hear him say tonight that he intended to vote with us. I hope that we can have some suggestion from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that all his hon. Friend's good, supportive words for the Bill mean that the Labour party will vote with the Government on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North once again floated the kite—rather more of a hare—that the terms of the European convention on human rights will be opposed to the Bill. A lot of people here do not care too much what the European Court of Human Rights or the European convention on human rights say about the Bill, but I can reassure him that any legislation that a nation state considers to be important and necessary for the curtailment of terrorism is not opposed by the European convention on human rights.
Legislation does not stop terrorism, but if it gives the police necessary powers, it can help to prevent some terrorism. If it becomes easier to catch terrorists and put them out of harm's way, that can help to deter them.
Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that when we dealt with the PTA about three weeks ago, the Government had to move an amendment because they had been found to be in breach of the European convention?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: All I can say is that I do not suppose for one moment that the Bill is likely to fall foul of that convention. Even if it did, I do not suppose that anyone in the country would think it at all wrong for us to maintain our position in the face of whatever ruling might be imposed upon us by a foreign court that is not subject to the kind of pressure to restrict terrorism as that faced by us and the rest of the British people.
The House must consider whether the Bill gives the police powers that they do not already have, and powers that they need, and whether the public will be content with such legislation, even if it does mean some inconvenience to honest, decent law-abiding citizens. Quite frankly, I think that the public will be astonished to learn of the lacunae that have caused the Bill to be

237
[Sir Ivan Lawrence]
introduced. They will be astonished to discover that the police can stop and search any vehicle, driver, passenger or even pedestrian if he or she is carrying a bag, but that they are not allowed to search that person's coat, jacket, shoes or other item for articles connected with terrorism. The British people will want that power to be given to the police, and they will want that power to be given to them now, before it is too late.
The British people will be astonished that the police do not have the power to search non-residential premises, given that they have the right to search residential premises. It is obvious that terrorists can hide away bombs and other articles connected with their miserable trade in lock-up garages under railway arches. The fact that we do not have a law to enable the police to search such premises adequately will be astounding to ordinary people in our society. They want the police to be given that power, and they want them to be given it now.
The public will also be astonished that the police do not have the same powers as customs officers to search unaccompanied container lorries left at ports.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is astonishing.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, it is. People will want the police to be given that power now, before it is too late.
The public will also be astonished to learn that the police are not able to cordon off an area while they are looking for a bomb or to impose temporary parking restrictions outside Government buildings and royal buildings. I thought that the police had always had such powers, and it is amazing for us in Parliament, and just as amazing to people outside, to learn that they do not have them. The people will want the police to have those powers now, before it is too late.
If those powers do not exist now, surprisingly and astonishingly, they need to exist, and I am sure that the public will give full-hearted support to them. After all, the protection of citizens and visitors to our country—tourism is an important part of our industry and trade—from death and mutilation is one of the clearest responsibilities of Parliament and has been recognised as such by all responsible parties in the House.
Despite his denial, it must be very embarrassing for the hon. Member for Blackburn that between 30 and 40 of his supporters do not believe that those additional powers are necessary. They would like us to take so long discussing them, day after day, or week after week, or month after month, that the terrorists could get on with exploiting the lacunae in the law in order to bomb more of our territories.
Certain Opposition Members argue that the threat to the civil liberties of the individual outweighs the threat to the civil liberties of the entire nation. That majority, however, has a right to feel safe and to be safe. An Opposition amendment calls for the word "reasonable" to be inserted instead of "expedient"; another that the word "pedestrian" should be followed by the words "or cyclist"; another states that
"a constable shall be regarded as in uniform only if his identification number is clearly visible";
238
and another states:
"any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.".
That is all interesting stuff, but not when we are dealing with terrorists who blow people and their property to pieces. I accept that those amendments may be important to some Opposition Members, but they are not important to most people in this country.
I am concerned about civil liberties. All my legal life has been dedicated to them and I do not take any lectures from anyone in the House about the need for civil liberties. But there are civil liberties and civil liberties—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is getting angry. I wonder why, if he is so supportive of the Bill.
Mr. Michael: This is a pathetic speech.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I can understand the hon. Gentleman being irritated that so many of his colleagues—between 30 and 40 of them—intend to divide the House against the Bill because they think that it is unnecessary. I can understand him being embarrassed. As I said, there are civil liberties and civil liberties, but some civil liberties are more important than others. The civil liberty of the individual's right not to be searched is one thing, but the right of the British public to walk freely in the streets without bombs is the greatest of civil liberties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has said, it is difficult to see why some Opposition Members can complain that the Bill will infringe civil liberties. The stop-and-search powers can be used only in limited areas and only for 28 days, and then only with the authority of the chief constable or an assistant chief constable. A prosecution can be brought only if the Director of Public Prosecutions says so. Non-residential searches can be carried out only with a magistrate's warrant, if it has been applied for by a superintendent, and it can last for only 24 days. We know that these provisions are useful and that they can work because they work in Northern Ireland—and the only one that has not applied to Northern Ireland will now be applied under the legislation.
The public have a right to expect more protection—and they have a right to expect it now. The police, on our behalf, have a right to expect these powers—and they have a right to expect them now, because they are at the front line of our defences.
I feel sorry for hon. Members who lead for the Opposition because their colleagues have asked questions such as: why are so many people being stopped and so few people being charged? They have a blind spot about the fact that if these pieces of legislation are in place, they are a deterrent to the kind of terrorism and activity that goes on. There is a much more practical side to these provisions than interference with the civil liberties of individuals.
Mr. Gerrard: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Time is short because his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made a long speech.

239
Who will be most unhappy when the legislation is passed? That question can be answered in only one way: the terrorists. That justifies the legislation.
Let us pray that one day there will be no terrorism and that the need for these powers will disappear. We shall then be able to withdraw the powers when we come to debate the prevention of terrorism legislation, as we do every year. I look forward to that day, and it will come more quickly if we have this legislation. At the moment, we live in sad and dangerous times which make this legislation necessary. Hon. Members must support it: if they do not, they will be betraying the people of this country who sent them to this place.
9.1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) expressed astonishment on behalf of the public that all of the powers in the Bill are not already on the statute book. He is a practising lawyer, he is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and he is prominent in his party. The Government have been in power for 17 years and they have introduced criminal justice legislation and prevention of terrorism legislation every year, including a Bill three weeks ago. It is therefore a bit much for the hon. and learned Gentleman to express astonishment that these powers are not on the statute book. It has taken the Home Secretary a little time to make up his mind whether the legislation is desirable and he has left the House with almost no time at all to work out whether it is desirable.
I start from the assumption that the IRA is likely to plant a bomb at any time, an assumption that I continued to hold during much of the ceasefire as I am very suspicious about its intentions. None of our security forces should be varied simply because ceasefire discussions are in process; they should be varied only when we perceive that the security threat has diminished. That is the background against which I judge this legislation. I therefore think it quite reasonable that the police should seek to clarify the powers within which they carry out searches, cordons and other activities referred to in the legislation. I insist that, for the most part, these are things that they do now but which they need greater clarity to do.
In the limited time available to us in Committee, we have to ask: does the legislation achieve that purpose? Does it do so with unnecessary restriction on civil liberties? Could it be improved so that it serves its purpose better or so that it places less limitation on civil liberties? Could there be more effective safeguards? Because we believe that the police are right to seek more effective powers and that the Bill represents a reasonable attempt to do that—give or take improvements that we might make—Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill; we shall not abstain.
I refer to the specific features of the Bill. The stop-and search-power is restrictive—it needs to be authorised for a given area and it is limited to 28 days. The worry is that it is not related to the belief that any individual being searched is carrying materials likely to lead to a terrorist act. When one creates a cordon or tries to deal with a situation in which one expects a bomb to be brought into an area, one has to search a large number of people who one knows very well are not likely to be carrying it. One has to carry out a general search in those circumstances. It is important to be clear that one does that only if there
240
is an apprehension that a bomb is likely to be brought into the area, on the basis of intelligence information or something of that kind. General searching would not otherwise be justified.
There are then powers for a general search of non-residential premises on a magistrate's warrant. Such searches must be exercised with care as it would be seriously counter-productive to lead an entire community to believe that it is being targeted because a warrant is issued to search every garage in the area. On the whole, the public are very supportive of that type of activity—indeed, they are pleased to see the police making a careful check—but the power might be counter-productively used in some circumstances and should therefore be exercised with care.
Obviously, something should be done to give powers to deal with goods on an aircraft or ship not carried by a passenger, but some of the provisions are slightly worrying. For example, subsection (2) of clause 3 creates an offence of seeking
"to frustrate the object of … a search".
I can imagine the fury that would be generated in the luggage collection area of an airport if passengers were unsure whether their luggage had been delayed by the baggage handlers, the airline or a security firm searching it on behalf of the police. I have seen irate people complain vigorously to airline staff in those circumstances. If they are then told, "Any more cheek like that and you will be charged with seeking to frustrate the object of a search," relations between the police and public might be impaired. I am therefore worried about the formulation of that offence.
There are also anxieties about precisely who in Scotland is authorised to use reasonable force in seeking to carry out a search. It appears on the face of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will wish to refer to this if we are allowed to reach that point in Committee—that persons who are not police officers will be authorised in Scotland to use reasonable force when carrying out a search. That will include persons who are not trained in the restrained use of force, and it needs to be clarified.
Clause 4 and the schedule, which deal with cordons, are very sweeping. They allow cordons to be maintained for 14 days, and on extension for 28 days, which is far more than one is accustomed to in these circumstances. Police cordons are usually of fairly short duration. They present problems, and must be handled carefully.
A school party from my constituency came down to London and visited me the other week, when there was a bomb in the west end. They were in a café having a cup of tea. They were all evacuated from the café6, but the teacher had great difficulty persuading the police—indeed, I believe that she did not succeed—that she should be allowed to collect one of the girls, who had gone to the toilet. So they were faced with the possibility of all being evacuated from the café, leaving one bewildered girl in the toilet of an empty café in a strange capital city, with no one from whom to find out where to go. Those powers need to be exercised with considerable care.
Dr. Robert Spink indicated dissent.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who claims to be a parliamentary private secretary, shakes his head. Does he not realise that young people and children are especially vulnerable in such circumstances?

241
The provisions about parking appear obvious and sensible for most people, but we must consider the position of someone who might be required to move a car when he would be placing himself in danger, or believed that he would be placing himself in danger, in order to do so. If a police officer tells someone, "Go and move that car because we think that there is a bomb in the car next to it," the person concerned is in a position to say, "I would rather see my car go up than go up with it." The use of that power needs to be clarified, as does its use in relation to disabled people.
It is not clear what other police forces are involved. I was surprised that the Home Secretary appeared to say that every private police force in the country, including those run by private enterprise organisations such as ports, will be brought within the ambit of the Bill. It does not say so on the face of the Bill. Indeed, the only definition of police officers in the Bill is in clause 5, which refers to police officers
"of a force maintained for any other police"
force area. That does not sound to me like the Tilbury docks police or even the Royal Parks constabulary.
Those are illustrations of the problems of dealing in haste and without a proper Committee stage with a very technical Bill. That is why we should have more time and why the Committee stage should have been set out with time for each clause. We nevertheless believe that the Bill should have a Second Reading and we shall vote accordingly. We will therefore vote against the amendment declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
9.7 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Both the Bill and the procedures that we are using raise two separate issues, and there are two distinct ways of looking at both. One can either look at those issues in a detached philosophical way and have a debate about the theory of such things as civil rights, or one can look at them in a personally involved way and have a debate about how to protect innocent people.
I make no apology for looking at the Bill in a personally involved way, because I feel personally involved. Along with all others in the House and outside the House who are caught up in Northern Ireland affairs, it crosses my mind from time to time that I too might be a terrorist target. It is hardly surprising, when someone thinks like that—and thousands of people do—that such people feel personally involved and, when it comes to debates of this type, place public safety first, before all other matters.
I also feel involved on behalf of my constituents. Hon. Members should remember that Spelthorne residents have seen terrorism at first hand. They have seen mortars fired from the edge of a housing estate in Stanwell on to the runways of Heathrow airport and they have seen mortars fired from outside my constituency into the part of the airport that is located within it. Thank God none of those mortars exploded. It is hardly surprising that my constituents also feel personally involved and seek to put public safety first in the debate.
I shall give the House another example of my constituents' involvement in the debate. Only last week, when a group of children and teachers from an infant
242
school in my constituency came to Downing street to receive an award and to celebrate and enjoy themselves, worried parents sought reassurance from the head teacher about the terrorist threat in Whitehall. It is hardly surprising that my constituents feel personally involved in the situation and want to see public safety put above all other considerations. It makes the protection of life and limb a prime duty of the House at all times and a particular duty when considering the legislation tonight. Therefore, I approach every part of the Bill and of the procedure with that in mind.
If one feels personally involved in an issue such as this, it colours how one looks at philosophical issues such as civil liberties. I shall explain how I approach it and how I believe that my constituents deal with the question of civil liberties. I am proud to live in a liberal democracy; I am proud that our society is founded on the rule of law and is underpinned by a belief in the supremacy of individual human rights. I defer to no one and I shall take lectures from no one regarding my commitment to those fundamental principles: the most fundamental of which is the individual right to life—the very principle that the terrorists challenge at every turn.
If we believe that, we dare not overlook one of the weaknesses of the high-minded, principled approach. If societies use such principles to run their normal affairs, they find it very difficult to handle those who seek to undermine the fabric and the principles upon which the societies are based. The people who seek to undermine those principles often view those very principles as a weakness. Therefore, they treat them with contempt and they do not accept, as the rest of us do, that we should be bound by a common respect for civil liberties and for human rights.
I believe that that is the practical challenge confronting those who wish to philosophise—as we have heard tonight—and who want to focus on general civil liberties. Terrorists do not respect civil rights. That fact is evidenced by the spate of murders that occurred in Northern Ireland over Christmas. On those occasions, we are told that Sinn Fein-IRA decided to conduct investigations, but it did not tell anyone what it discovered—there goes the first civil right. Sinn Fein-IRA then decided to act and to behave as judge and jury based upon its investigations. It gave the people whom it decided to judge not a moment in which to defend themselves nor any right of appeal—there go more civil rights. Sinn Fein-IRA acted as the executioner as well as the judge and the jury, giving people no chance for redress or to be heard before they were murdered. Where is the civil liberty in that action? How can we treat people like that in the same way as we treat others going about their daily lives?
I judge that those evil people place themselves outside normal society and deny themselves the privileges that membership of such a society confers on the rest of us. The vast majority of those whom I represent willingly accept that if effectively dealing with those evil people involves the temporary inconvenience of the rest of us or the temporary interruption of some of our rights, so be it. That is the public view. We are quite prepared to pay that price to maintain life and limb.
I turn briefly to the two issues that are raised by the business before the House—the need for five new powers and the speed of enactment. Let me deal first with the five new powers. I suspect that there is little need to say much

243
more because every twist and every turn has been explored by the exchanges between Labour Members and it ill becomes me intrude on the private grief of the Labour party as it tries to sort itself out.
I judge that four of the five powers do not raise significant civil liberties issues. In regard to searching freight, customs officers do it and I am amazed to discover that the police cannot. Setting up cordons and placing restrictions on parking are probably covered by the common law, as I understand it, but if they are not, they should be placed on a statutory footing—we are not seeking to change anything, only to clarify it. As for searching premises, it is a nonsense if, after a terrorist has killed himself in a bomb explosion on a bus, the police are entitled to search his home and the homes of his friends, but do not have the power to search the non-residential premises where terrorist weapons and explosives may have been stored. If that is the position, the quicker we sort it out, the better.
Only the fifth power—the searching of pedestrians—needs a little more exploration. Anybody who has witnessed what, sadly, we see every day of the week—the vehicle and occupant searches in the streets around the Palace of Westminster—will know only too well what is involved. It is entirely proper that we should spend a moment or two asking ourselves whether we want to inflict that experience on pedestrians as well as on the occupants of vehicles.
I conclude quite simply that given the sophistication of today's terrorist and the ability to conceal items in a coat or jacket pocket rather than in a vehicle, and given the loopholes in the law that have been identified, it is total nonsense to contemplate continuing to allow the police to search vehicles and their occupants, but not to search pedestrians. I understand only too well the concerns that have been expressed by Labour Members, but I am reassured—as I understand are Labour Front-Bench Members—by the safeguards that have been spelt out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and others. Given those safeguards and the current position, I believe that the fifth power is indeed necessary.
Finally, let me turn to the legislative haste. It would help to reassure the House if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), could say a little more about the reasons for that haste. As someone who is closely involved in Northern Ireland affairs, I suspect that the explanation for that lies in the confidential security briefings given to a select and privileged few and not shared with the remainder of us. Can my hon. Friend confirm that inquiries following the Canary wharf and Aldwych bombs led directly to the Bill? Although I do not want or expect anyone to give us the full details in public, it would help the House if my hon. Friend could confirm that the new security information that has come to light in the past few weeks has made it imperative that we act before Easter.
It gives me no pleasure to support this Bill, nor do I enjoy using procedures of this sort. But I have absolutely no doubt where my priorities lie. They are these: to seek the safety and security of the innocent citizens of this country, and to put them above all else. Faced with a clear, renewed threat from those who are prepared to kill and maim in the furtherance of their twisted ideology, faced by evil people who despise democracy and who are prepared to treat civil liberties with contempt, and faced
244
with clear advice that extra powers are needed now, I arrive at the simple conclusion that this House has no choice but to act swiftly and decisively.
9.20 pm
Mr. David Trimble: As has been said a number of times today, we in the Ulster Unionist party will be supporting the Bill. Most of it applies to England and Wales, but we particularly welcome clause 3, which extends to Northern Ireland. The terms of clause 3 remind me of the incident in the summer of 1994, just before the ceasefire, when a large bomb was intercepted at Heysham, en route, we believe, to London—possibly to Canary wharf. It was larger than the one that went off in Canary wharf on 9 February. That clearly underlines the need for the relevant power to be clarified.
The power already exists for Customs and Excise to search goods in transit, but the Bill clearly gives the police in all parts of the United Kingdom the power to act too. That is wholly appropriate.
Although we support the Bill, we take the view that, if anything, it does not go far enough. There is a need for more comprehensive legislation on a UK basis. That becomes apparent when we reflect on what happened with the bomb at Canary wharf. While we cannot know for certain—there is an element of supposition in what I am about to say—the signs are that the bomb that went off there was constructed by a small team in the IRA based on what it calls its GHQ units, with persons drawn from its England department—people located in the Republic of Ireland, some of Northern Ireland origin but all domiciled in the Republic and operating from there.
The bomb was made by a small, tightly knit group composed of these elements and then loaded on to a truck which had been the subject of some engineering work in the Republic. It was then run through Northern Ireland, southern Scotland and England to London, where it was primed and put in position.
Bearing in mind this sequence of events and the fact that there was no intelligence warning before the bomb went off, there are certain questions that need to be asked. First, why was there no intelligence warning? Part of the answer lies in the way in which the IRA operated. It did not involve people domiciled in Northern Ireland because it rightly believed that, were it to do so, the security forces in Northern Ireland would have got wind of what was going on. So it operated purely inside the Republic, where the Irish police missed what was going on. We have reason to believe that they missed it partly because they had ceased surveillance of key IRA personnel during the ceasefire in response to the act of faith on the part of the Irish Government that the ceasefire would be permanent. That led to a relaxation of vigilance.
There are lessons to be drawn from this. The bombers ignored the administrative and legal boundaries in the United Kingdom. The bomb went off in London but started its life south of the border in the Republic of Ireland; and its movement through the United Kingdom involved not just Northern Ireland and Scotland, but I know not how many police force areas in England and Wales. That is a reason for us to reconsider why we have so many administrative and legal boundaries.
There is not much sense now in maintaining a separate anti-terrorist code in Northern Ireland and one in the rest of the United Kingdom. The terrorists do not recognise

245
those boundaries and we should not be limited by them. That underlines the reason for a single Act covering Northern Ireland. When I suggested that in my question on the statement yesterday, the Home Secretary rightly referred to the Lloyd review, but the review's terms of reference direct it to consider the legislation that would be necessary on the basis that the peace was permanent. We now know that the peace is not permanent, so the existence of the Lloyd review may not be a good reason to fail to consider what is needed by way of comprehensive legislation throughout the United Kingdom.
I bear in mind also the valid point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) a couple of years ago when the first major bombs occurred in London. The right hon. Gentleman called for a single Cabinet Minister to be responsible for the anti-terrorist drive throughout the United Kingdom. We need to reconsider that point.
The circumstances of Canary wharf again underline the need for effective surveillance, especially in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic's capability is limited, partly by lack of resources. I notice that recently, after the middle eastern bombs, the United States Government have made available substantial sums of money to enhance the capability of the Israeli Government in bomb detection and surveillance. That is an interesting precedent. I know that the United Kingdom Government have in the past offered similar assistance to the Irish Government which, for a variety of reasons, they have refused. Perhaps one might suggest to the Government of the United States that they might make an offer to the Irish Government that they could not refuse. Such an approach might be fruitful.
Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that his latter comment is given added force by the fact that the Government of the Irish Republic have recently had to move so many police officers to the border to prevent the smuggling of cattle as a result of the BSE scare and, therefore, their need for financial and other assistance from the United States is even greater than it was 10 days ago?
Mr. Trimble: That is an interesting comment by my hon. Friend and it could give rise to a number of comments about the exertions of the Irish authorities to ensure that their cattle are not affected in comparison with their comparative lack of exertion to protect the lives of human beings in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to win support from people in this country, it is important that he understands that attacks of that type on the Irish are totally counter-productive, not least because the Irish Government and the Irish people spend more per head of the population on the fight against terrorism than the British people. The Irish Government do that not least because they have put immense effort into trying to defeat terrorism that was born and bred in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point that I was making. I think his comment was quite inaccurate. I hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow to see what I have said. If he considers
246
Hansard carefully, he will see that it was not accurate of him to characterise what I have said as an attack on the Irish people. When he makes the point about the involvement in anti-terrorist activity and the greater burden on the resources of the Irish Government, that merely reinforces the point that I made earlier about the need to enhance their capability. If the Irish Government are not prepared to accept assistance from the United Kingdom Government, perhaps they would accept assistance from other sources.
Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: No, I shall not give way again because time is limited. I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's point and, having done that, I shall continue.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that during the so-called peace and truce there was mortar bomb testing in County Monaghan and nobody was apprehended for it?
Mr. Trimble: Yes, indeed.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: No, I will not. I am sorry, but time is limited and the winding-up speeches must begin shortly. I have given undertakings in that respect which I shall struggle to maintain.
However, I wish to make one final comment about the Irish Republic which is interesting in this context. Comment has been made about infringement of civil liberties, and people have mentioned the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. At the moment in the Irish Republic, what is called the right to silence is being widely questioned at many levels in southern society, and restrictions on that right similar to those that were introduced here may be applied there. The Home Secretary may be interested to learn that the Irish Government propose to introduce a power to detain suspected drug traffickers for up to seven days. If the Irish Government have found a way to reconcile that with the European convention on human rights, the Home Secretary might like to follow their example so that we shall no longer need the Brophy derogation.
Since the Aldwych bombing in which the bomber was killed, there has been a pause in IRA activity here. That incident undermines the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who said that security force action provoked people and led them to join the IRA. I wonder how that happened in connection with an inhabitant of the small town of Gorey in County Wexford, who was not subject at any time to oppressive behaviour by the British or Irish security forces. However, that is by the way.
The pause since the Aldwych explosion may be due to the fact that finds of explosive material have disrupted the IRA's capability and it needs time to sort out whatever led to the premature explosion and to restock with equipment. However, there are signs that the pause will end. I understand that IRA units in Northern Ireland which have been restive because of inactivity since the declared end of the ceasefire are being told by their leaders that the violence will continue in London first and that they

247
will then endeavour to provoke loyalists in Northern Ireland, thus leading to a more general resumption of violence. Consequently, greater vigilance in the nation's capital will save lives not only in London but perhaps in Ulster. That is an added reason for our support for the legislation.
Of course we say to those involved in loyalist organisations that, no matter what the provocation, they must show utter and complete restraint. Nothing should be allowed to divert the security forces from the need to maintain order. What happened at Canary wharf and at the Aldwych and other circumstances underline the need to protect not only the targets here but to go to the source and consider ways and means by which we can be more effective in preventing bombs being moved from the areas where they are constructed.
9.31 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: In their contributions, most hon. Members sought to deal with the Bill sensibly and reasonably. The only exceptions were the partisan comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and the ill-judged contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), which must have been particularly embarrassing for the Home Secretary, who has not been partisan in dealing with the measure.
I have sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire): that fear and concern is shared by his ordinary constituents. I have shared that experience because a grandmother attended my surgery last week to ask whether it was safe for her grandchildren to have a day trip in London. We need to offer as much reassurance and protection as we can to ordinary people who have such fear.
I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that we must take care because balance is required in providing new powers to the police and other authorities. Our case is simply that we are satisfied with the restrictions that were put in place by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and which apply here. I was greatly involved in the Committee that scrutinised that measure. I seem to have been kept busy on many Bills introduced by the Home Secretary over the past few years. He will know that each of those Bills was carefully scrutinised and challenged in Committee. We try to explore the Government's intentions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, in examining the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill we were satisfied, following discussions, that it struck the right balance between the exercise of its powers and the limits that were placed on them to prevent their misuse by the police. That is different from the conditions that existed under the sus laws, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a thoughtful contribution about the problems across the different parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. His speech went well beyond the scope of the Bill. The House will have to return to what he said in due course, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path now.
What underlies our debate is that people throughout Great Britain have been shocked and appalled by the return to violence. Without that, we should not be faced
248
with our current serious dilemma—the balance between protecting civil liberties in a free society and protecting the safety, liberty and rights of innocent members of the public. We have sought to get that balance right, which is why we support the Bill.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman said that he supported the Bill. Will he therefore condemn the 40-odd Opposition Back Benchers who wish to defy him? Does he not agree that their defiance would send a very unfortunate message to those who want to be protected from terrorism, and could constitute an invitation that might be little short of disastrous?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady should not follow the partisan line taken by her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. I think that the public will understand what is happening today perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has made our position absolutely clear. If there is any embarrassment, it has been created by petty partisan contributions such as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are always hon. Members on both sides of the House who raise issues that are different from those raised by Front Benchers, but important points have been raised, and assurances sought, by Opposition Members who have engaged in a reasonable debate, and it is to their points that I seek to respond.
In general, the Bill clarifies the law and expands on certain aspects of the 1994 Act, rather than introducing draconian new powers. I was surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), which seemed rather confused. His speech on 28 November 1974, which was referred to earlier, made exactly the point that I am making about the need for strong measures balanced with appropriate safeguards. In his speech today, he predicted that young people would be stopped and searched. I see no justification for that prediction in the Bill as it stands, or any indication that—as he seemed to suggest—members of ethnic minorities have been stopped and searched to a disproportionate extent as a result of the provisions of the 1994 Act. There have been other provisions, and on occasion the police have used their powers in a way that has seemed to affect young people or ethnic minorities disproportionately; that is appalling when it happens, but it does not appear to have happened as a result of the 1994 Act, and I do not think it likely that it will happen as a result of this Bill.
Hon. Members have expressed realistic fears about the way in which police powers may be misused unless the right protections are built in. The police need genuine, meaningful powers to intervene when necessary, and those powers must be protected by mechanisms to preclude their misuse. That is what we want; it is what the police want; it is what the public want; and, I believe, it is what the Home Secretary wants, because that is the sort of point on which he has given us assurances. The public have a right to expect the Home Secretary and the House to get the balance right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the powers of non-territorial police forces. I am always slightly unsure how to refer to them—whatever phrase is used seems to leave someone out—but an example is the powers of the British

249
Transport police between stations, rather than on railway property. We drew attention to that anomaly during the passage of the Bill that became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and sought to correct it, suggesting that the British Transport police should have the powers of a constable but should exercise them in the support of the local police, or under the supervision of the local police, in such circumstances. That anomaly is not a matter for this Bill, but it must be tackled at some point.
My hon. Friend also referred to the parks police and others. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. My understanding is that the Bill's powers are in the hands of the territorial forces, headed by the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the City of London police and chief constables of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and not by specialised forces. In general it seems inappropriate for specialised forces to have such powers. I make that point in particular because, in debating the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, we found that the long list of police forces included such organisations as the Barnet dog catchers. If we extended the powers beyond the territorial police forces, we would therefore get into difficult territory. It would help if the Home Secretary would clarify the powers.
A number of points appropriate to Second Reading were made by a number of my hon. Friends in the debate on the guillotine motion, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists. I hope to reassure them by supplementing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
Let us consider the powers in the Bill. Clause 1 confers the power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them. It extends only to the searching of outer garments. Surely that is not a massive and draconian extension of the powers available to the police.
I can understand how, on first reading the Bill in isolation from the legislation that it amends, my hon. Friends could have come to a different conclusion, but if they read the Bill, the earlier debate and the legislation that it amends, I cannot see how they can conclude that the power is extreme or draconian. It is also subject to the limitations in the existing legislation.
Clause 2 refers to the search of non-residential premises. We all know from our constituencies that garages are often built in rows. It is unreasonable under the present legislation that permission has to be given to search individual premises when there is a more general fear about the use of a collection of premises. That power is hardly major and draconian either.
Clause 3 relates to unaccompanied goods arriving in or about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland. With the decline of the capacity of the powers of customs to deal with many cargoes coming into or going out of the United Kingdom—we have certainly seen worrying signs of that in places such as Cardiff Wales airport—it is surely right that the powers, to which clause 3 refers, should be strengthened, as the Bill proposes.
Clause 4 gives the police power to establish a temporary cordon in a police area. The requirements mirror some of those in previous legislation because they require a senior officer to decide that it is expedient to make use of the powers. Clause 4(3) limits it to applying to acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
250
On the leaving of vehicles on particular premises, I am reminded of sitting in my office, which was then in Old Palace yard, and seeing the van that was used in Parliament street to attack No. 10 Downing street. We are not therefore talking about things that have never happened. Nor are we talking about things that are remote from our experiences in the House. It is reasonable that there should be such powers to tackle danger on occasions when there is seen to be danger.
We have tabled amendments that may encourage the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to reassure us about the sensitivity with which the powers will be used and of the Home Secretary's expectations of the way in which the police will exercise them. It is surely in the best interests of the public and of the police that the powers are exercised reasonably, rationally and with sensitivity, and every chief police officer would agree with that. The chief officers with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I have discussed the issues certainly agree with that in relation to this Bill and other terrorism measures.
I assure my hon. Friends who have expressed concern about the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I are no less concerned than they are that the limitations on the liberty of the individual and of the public should not be constrained any more than is necessary to give the police the powers that they need to protect the public against those who have no respect for civil liberties or the rights of the individual. In that balanced way, we believe that we are right not to place obstacles in the way of the Home Secretary as he seeks to speed through the House a measure that makes reasonable additions to the powers of the police in dealing with these matters.
9.45 pm
Mr. Howard: We have had a constructive and helpful Second Reading debate. As I have made clear, these are clear and practical measures—they are not revolutionary, but they are necessary. The police believe that and I do so too. If it is too optimistic to hope that all quarters of the House believe it, I hope that at least the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will do so.
My aim has been to meet the real needs of the police, as they have been put to me in my discussions with them in the wake of the South Quay bomb. I have also been careful to consider what safeguards are needed to prevent the risk of misuse, and the combination of authorisation by senior officers, limitations of duration and geographical extent and annual scrutiny and renewal of the rest of the Act provide the necessary assurance. We all recognise that the stop and search of pedestrians is the most sensitive issue, so the power is subject to confirmation or alteration by the Secretary of State.
We have endeavoured to strike the right balance between the powers necessary for the police to do the job that we ask them to do and the freedom of the citizen to go about his business without interference. I hope that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will agree that we have got the balance right. I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who, in a robust speech, rightly identified the important part that these powers can play. I am sorry that I missed some of the other speeches, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth

251
(Mr. Michael) that the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a number of points to which we will have to return in due course, but they are not for this evening.
I was grateful for the attitude taken to the powers by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is important—as I have urged before on many occasions—that as united a signal as possible goes out from the House to show that we are resolved to meet the terrorist threat. I believe that the greater the extent to which we can achieve that unity, the more impressive the signal will be. It is therefore somewhat disappointing that we have not been able to achieve complete unity in our deliberations.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but I understand that he repeated some of the points that he made in his speech on the timetable motion and in interventions on my speech and on those of other hon. Members.
I understand that these powers inevitably give rise to concerns. They are, in common with all the powers that we take under the prevention of terrorism Act, exceptional powers. They are powers that are needed exceptionally to meet an exceptional threat.
We recognise that in some instances the legislation gives powers to the police that go beyond what they would require or would be given by Parliament in the normal course of their duties of maintaining law and order and combating crime. We have always recognised that; it was recognised from the outset of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out rather effectively, that point was recognised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North during debates on the need for the powers in the original substantive legislation.
Even though people have not always maintained the same position over the years in relation to this legislation, there has been a wide measure of support for it. Against that wide measure of support—against that background—we have introduced the Bill this evening. Although concerns continued to be expressed during our deliberations, even those who expressed them recognised that some attempt has been made to insert the necessary safeguards to try to ensure that the powers are exercised responsibly.
Mr. Beith indicated assent.
Mr. Howard: I am glad to see a nod of assent to that proposition from the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech I was sorry to miss. I understand that he said in that speech that he would support the Bill on Second Reading.
We are still somewhat on tenterhooks to know what attitude the official Opposition will take when we go into the Division Lobbies, if there is a Division on Second Reading, because we do not quite know whether the Labour party will abstain or vote in favour of the Bill in that event.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: We would like to know.
Mr. Howard: Indeed, as my hon. and learned Friend points out, we would like to know.
252
I have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Blackburn on more than one occasion this evening; I hope that I have not embarrassed him unduly by doing so. It is difficult to see, in the light of his speech and the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, how Labour could do anything other than come into the Lobby with the Government if there is a Division on Second Reading. I do not believe that any other course would remotely make sense.
Mr. Mackinlay indicated assent.
Mr. Howard: If hon. Members are still weighing up how to vote and what action to take at that point, they may derive some comfort from the nods given to that proposition by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and others who clearly agree that the only approach consistent with the observations made by the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Cardiff, South and Penarth is to vote with the Government, if we have a vote on Second Reading. I am sure that there will be a vote and I think that there is unanimity about the proposition that I have just advanced. I see, however, no vigorous nods of assent from the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and they show no great disposition to answer the question posed by me and my hon. Friends.
I was sorry to have missed the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I am sure that I would not have shared the view of the speech by my hon. and learned Friend that was expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Although the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I are old sparring partners, even I draw back from taking issue with him about the contents of a speech that I did not hear. I shall not take up the cudgels with the view that he expressed, although I am certain that if I had heard my hon. and learned Friend's speech I would not have agreed with the hon. Gentleman's strictures.
The Government's job is to safeguard the ability of law-abiding citizens to go about their business in peace. The terrorist strikes directly at that prime responsibility. It must be our duty to take every reasonable measure to frustrate the terrorist's plans and to bring him to justice. As has been said, that may sometimes mean some inconvenience to the public, which we all regret. There can be few people who would object to some occasional inconvenience if that is the price of tightening the screw on terrorists who threaten disruption. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) earlier and I endorse it.
Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best guarantee that the House has that these powers will be exercised responsibly is the sheer professionalism and training of the British police service? The public have every right to expect a professional approach to the exercise of the powers.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His point is very important because it illustrates that some of the concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition are somewhat remote from reality and have not given credit to or taken into account precisely those qualities of

253
[Mr. Howard]
the police to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The police would have nothing to gain from exercising the powers with anything other than the circumspection and sensitivity to which I referred when I made my statement yesterday. The police have exercised the powers that are available to them under the prevention of terrorism Act with that circumspection and sensitivity. They are entitled to some praise and credit from the House for the way in which they have exercised those powers. I am certain that they will exercise the additional powers, if they are granted by Parliament, in the same way.
The Bill will not prevent all acts of terrorism, but if it prevents one it will have been worth putting on the statute book. If it disrupts terrorists' plans, it will be worth while. If it strengthens the hand of the police in protecting the public and bringing terrorists to justice, it will be welcome to every law-abiding citizen. I ask the House with some confidence to give it a Second Reading.
Question put, that the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 244.

Division No. 94]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McGrady, Eddie

Barnes, Harry

McNamara, Kevin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Madden, Max

Bennett, Andrew F

Mallon, Seamus

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Pike, Peter L

Cohen, Harry

Sedgemore, Brian

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Skinner, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Wise, Audrey

Lewis, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Neil Gerrard and

Loyden, Eddie

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Alexander, Richard

Burns, Simon

Alton, David

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carttiss, Michael

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Chidgey, David

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Clappison, James

Bates, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Batiste, Spencer

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beggs, Roy

Coe, Sebastian

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Congdon, David

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Couchman, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Body, Sir Richard

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

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Booth, Hartley

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Boswell, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bowis, John

Devlin, Tim

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Brandreth, Gyles

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brazier, Julian

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bright, Sir Graham

Dunn, Bob

254

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Elletson, Harold

Maddock, Diana

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Maginnis, Ken

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Major, Rt Hon John

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Mans, Keith

Evennett, David

Marland, Paul

Faber, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fabricant, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Merchant, Piers

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mills, Iain

Forman, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Forth, Eric

Moate, Sir Roger

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

French, Douglas

Moss, Malcolm

Gallie, Phil

Nelson, Anthony

Garnier, Edward

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Nicholls, Patrick

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gorst, Sir John

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

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Paice, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Hannam, Sir John

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hargreaves, Andrew

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Harris, David

Pawsey, James

Hawkins, Nick

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hawksley, Warren

Pickles, Eric

Heald, Oliver

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hicks, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Rendel, David

Horam, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Robathan, Andrew

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hunter, Andrew

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jack, Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Sims, Roger

Key, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

King, Rt Hon Tom

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Soames, Nicholas

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Spencer, Sir Derek

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

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spring, Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sproat, Iain

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Leigh, Edward

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Steen, Anthony

Lidington, David

Stephen, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sumberg, David

McCrea, The Reverend William

Sweeney, Walter

MacKay, Andrew

Sykes, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

255

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Watts, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thomason, Roy

Whittingdale, John

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wilkinson, John

Trimble, David

Willetts, David

Trotter, Neville

Wilshire, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Walden, George

Wolfson, Mark

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Wood, Timothy

Wallace, James

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. Roger Knapman and

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 18.

Division No. 95]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

Alexander, Richard

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Alton, David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ashby, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Duncan Smith, Iain

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dunn, Bob

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bates, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Beggs, Roy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

Body, Sir Richard

Faber, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fabricant, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle Of Wight)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forman, Nigel

Bowis, John

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forth, Eric

Brandreth, Gyles

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

French, Douglas

Burns, Simon

Gallie, Phil

Burt, Alistair

Garnier, Edward

Butcher, John

Gillan, Cheryl

Butler, Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Cash, William

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Chidgey, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clappison, James

Grylls, Sir Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coe, Sebastian

Hannam, Sir John

Congdon, David

Hargreaves, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Harris, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hawkins, Nick

Couchman, James

Hawksley, Warren

Cran, James

Heald, Oliver

256

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hicks, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Rendel, David

Horam, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Richards, Rod

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hunter, Andrew

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jessel, Toby

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Sir Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Sims, Roger

Kirkhope, Timothy

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

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

Soames, Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spink, Dr Robert

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spring, Richard

Leigh, Edward

Sproat, Iain

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Stanely, Rt Hon Sir John

Lidington, David

Steen, Anthony

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stephen, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stern, Michael

Luff, Peter

Stewart, Allan

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Streeter, Gray

McCrea, The Reverend William

Sumberg, David

MacKay, Andrew

Sweeney, Walter

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Sykes, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maddock, Diana

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Maginnis, Ken

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Thomason, Roy

Major, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mans, Keith

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marland, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Trimble, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trotter, Neville

Merchant, Piers

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walden, George

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Moate, Sir Roger

Wallace, James

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Waller, Gary

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Ward, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Moss, Malcolm

Waterson, Nigel

Nelson, Anthony

Watts, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wells, Bowen

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Whittingdale, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Norris, Steve

Wilkinson, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Willetts, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wilshire, David

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Page, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Paice, James

Wolfson, Mark

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tellers for the Ayes:

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Pickles, Eric

Mr. Roger Knapman.

257

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McNamara, Kevin

Barnes, Harry

Madden, Max

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Mallon, Seamus

Bennett, Andrew F

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Canavan, Dennis

Sedgemore, Brian

Cohen, Harry

Skinner, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wise, Audrey

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

Loyden, Eddie

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

McGrady, Eddie

Mr. Neil Gerrard.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
Considered in Committee.

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
  Clause 1

    POWER TO STOP AND SEARCH PEDESTRIANS
    10.22 pm
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 36, page 1, line 6, after '(1)' insert—
    `Subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (11) or otherwise,'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 47, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'cause' and insert 'obtain the approval of'.
    No. 48, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'State' to `given' in line 16 and insert 'before it is'.
    No. 52, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    '(11) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers contained in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used.'.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. The purpose of amendment No. 36 is to provide the type of reassurance that we have sought in supporting the legislation as to the way in which the powers will be exercised. I hope that the Minister will welcome that opportunity, as the amendment addresses some of people's understandable concerns about the way in which such legislation may be used.
    It is always possible to misuse legislation, but Parliament's intention must be clear, as must the safeguards that are built into the various Acts to which I referred during Second Reading. Amendment No. 36 would make the power outlined in clause 1 exercisable, subject to guidance issued by the Home Secretary. Clause 1 extends the powers already available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to the searching of pedestrians, and contains also the narrower power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them.
    258
    Amendment No. 36 acts as a hook for amendment No. 52, which says:
    "The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used."
    The amendment raises a number of important issues, including the matter of consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Chief police officers and superintendents, who often oversee operational matters and are sensitive to the needs of the area in which they have oversight of police officers, are increasingly sensitive about the downside of certain powers and the dangers when those powers are perceived by members of the public as being used in an inappropriate way.
    It seems to me that chief police officers, superintendents of police and the police generally will welcome an assurance from the Home Secretary that it is his intention to consult them and to listen to them about the ways in which the powers contained in the Bill are used. The amendment would also give him the power to issue guidance on the sensitivity that should be shown in the use of the powers in section 13A as well as their extension in the Bill. Finally, the amendment would allow the Home Secretary to give clear guidance on the circumstances in which the powers should be used.
    The Home Secretary has stated—in the Chamber today and yesterday and in seeking to win support for the Bill—that it is his intention that the powers should be used firmly when they are needed, but with sensitivity and in a balanced way. It is important that we achieve that balance. We all want the police to act as quickly as possible when there is a threat to public safety or when certain suspicious circumstances require police action, but we also want the powers to be used in such a way that they are not brought into disrepute and that doubt is not cast on the way in which they are used.
    That is slightly at odds with the earlier comment by one of my colleagues that the powers of the police are used with a great deal more sensitivity than was the case some years ago. For instance, the Metropolitan police exercise the power to stop and search people a great deal more sensitively than used to be the case. As one who worked in an area with a high proportion of ethnic minorities—the docks area of Cardiff—I have seen a positive development in the sensitivity with which the police try to understand the motivation of those who live in the communities in which they serve and seek to maintain law and order. That is a welcome development, over a period of time, and it should be encouraged. We believe that it should have the weight of the Home Secretary behind it, and I hope that we shall receive such an assurance about the use of the powers in the Bill as a result of the debate that I am introducing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made some references—to which the Home Secretary responded yesterday—to the monitoring of the way in which the powers are used. The Home Secretary referred specifically to the way in which the powers are used in relation to people from ethnic minorities. I said earlier that I do not believe that it has been a problem in respect of the powers introduced in the 1994 Act and I do not believe that it will be a specific problem in respect of the Bill, but it has been a problem in the past, when powers

    259
    to stop vehicles entering the City of London, as well as those being used in certain communities in London, gave rise to a great deal of concern, particularly among young people and the black community.
    We believe that the amendments to the 1994 Act and the parallel provisions extending powers in the Bill have the right sort of safeguards. They require instigation by senior police officers, and accounting to the Home Secretary for the use of those powers. That provides reassurance. However, wider reassurance will be forthcoming if the Home Secretary's promises in relation to monitoring are spelt out in the debate.
    It is important to get the balance right. We must provide the powers that the police need to be able to tackle the threat of terrorism and to act before things happen; but we must also ensure that the relevant powers are exercised in the most balanced way possible, so that the public can be reassured about the intentions of Ministers and the House.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Soley: The issue of guidance is important. The question has always been about more than civil liberties, important though they are. It is also about the way in which we respond to terrorist incidents. The last thing that we want to do is turn London into a mirror image of Belfast. Hon. Members need to remind themselves that that is one of the aims of terrorism. It is therefore important that the powers be used cautiously. That is why I oppose the use of the powers in too widespread an area.
    I am not clear, after reading the Bill, whether it is intended that the defined areas would be very limited. For instance, the Metropolitan police, at a senior level, could decide that the whole of the Metropolitan police area should be such a defined area. Searches could then be carried out anywhere in that area. I assume that the same would apply to the West Midlands police or other police forces.
    If the powers are to be used at all, they should be used in a more confined way—which is what I assume the Home Office intends. I presume that it does not want a blanket approach to an area the size of London if that can be avoided. If the police believe that a terrorist is transporting a weapon between two points in central London, those areas should be cleared and duly defined. That is entirely understandable, but using the power in a blunderbuss fashion will present an image to the world of London becoming like Belfast during the worst of the violence.
    I urge the Government to look closely at the matter. The guidelines would be very useful if they stipulated that the areas concerned were to be as small as possible. Only three conditions stop this power being a sus law: the geographical confinement, the chronological confinement, and the necessity for authorisation by a senior police officer. Loosening the restrictions and allowing the boundaries to encompass an entire police force's area—although I would understand that in principle—will, I sincerely hope, not be the practice.
    Mr. Canavan: If my amendments Nos. 47 and 48 were accepted, a person giving an authorisation under this proposed section would have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State before that approval was given.
    260
    Clause 1 as it stands would enable an assistant chief constable to authorise searches within a designated area for a specified time of up to 28 days. Within that area, police officers would then be able to stop pedestrians and search them and any baggage that they might be carrying. Authorisation of the power to search pedestrians would require confirmation within 48 hours by the Home Secretary.
    I firmly believe that the prior approval of the Home Secretary would be an advantage. In an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, I asked why there was no need for a warrant before the issue of the authorisation by the senior police officer. I am afraid that I did not get a satisfactory explanation. I understand that, under the provisions of the Bill, a senior police officer can simply give an oral authorisation—it does not even have to be in writing in the first instance. I find it strange that the police are able to issue such authorisation without any approval from a magistrate by way of a warrant or without any approval being expressed by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or any of the junior Ministers and senior civil servants in the Home Department or the Scottish Office, as the case may be.
    At present, the authorisation would be the decision of the senior police officer. I understand that that senior officer would have to be the chief constable, a deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary when replying will be able to tell us how the Government envisage that working in practice. How has it worked in practice already in Northern Ireland, where such powers have already been implemented? Does the Home Secretary envisage a situation in which a police officer or police officers on the spot may observe an incident or situation and consider that some emergency powers may be needed to deal with it?
    In such circumstances, would the police officer or officers then telephone or radio the headquarters? Presumably, the chief constable or the deputy or assistant chief constable would then decide, in the light of the circumstances, whether the authorisation was necessary. If he considered it to be necessary, presumably he would issue the authorisation. Then, and only then, would he be required to communicate with the Home Office or with the Scottish Office.
    In this day and age, when communications are very fast and when a Minister or a senior civil servant is on duty who can, if necessary, get the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland out of bed in the event of an emergency, I do not see why there should not be at least some obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State and to seek his approval. I admit that perhaps my amendment is too strongly worded because it would require the chief constable to obtain approval, but the Bill does not even contain an obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with either the Home Office or the Scottish Office.
    If the spirit of my amendments were accepted by the House and by the Government, that would be an improvement on the provisions. The sooner the Home Secretary is informed about such matters and his approval sought, the better. I am not saying that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland are paragons of virtue or that they are adequate protectors of

    261
    human rights, but at least they are accountable in some way to Parliament and my amendments would give the Bill a greater degree of parliamentary accountability. I commend them to the Committee.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Many people will wake up tomorrow morning and feel alarmed, dismayed and let down that the Labour party in Parliament has connived in such a fashion at the passing of the Bill. At the heart of many people's concerns will be the stop-and-search proposals in the clause. The Government and my Front-Bench colleagues have argued that the proposals are quite different from the provisions of the sus law and from existing stop-and-search provisions. But, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law in that they give the police the power—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech in my own way. I have no doubt that my speech will not be supported by the Home Secretary; I should be alarmed if it were.
    The proposals will give the police arbitrary powers to stop and search people on the basis of wholly subjective judgments. The old sus law was perhaps the issue that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and me to come into politics, and I have no stomach now in 1996 for voting for any measure that in any way brings back legislation which as a young person I campaigned against.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is wholly wrong in suggesting that a power with such safeguards to stop and search someone in the street is in any sense comparable to the sus law. As she knows, the whole point about the sus law, apart from the fact that there were no safeguards about arrests, was that it led to the commission of an offence for which people were either routinely fined or imprisoned. There is no suggestion whatever of that happening to someone who just submits to what amounts to an outer body search that is no more onerous than the search that, every day, some visitors to the Palace of Westminster have to endure.
    Ms Abbott: I understand what my hon. Friend says and his motivation for saying it, but these provisions are very similar to those under the sus law. If somebody who looks like my hon. Friend and someone who looks like my brother, my cousin or my son walks past a policeman in the City of London, I know who that policeman will stop and search. It is the arbitrary and subjective nature of the judgments that the police will necessarily make under such powers that give rise to the concern of many people.
    As a very young woman down from Cambridge, I and many other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, fought long and hard to have the sus law scrapped. It is sad that at this time of night, under a grotesque, truncated procedure, we are proposing to bring it back in some shape or form.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady might direct herself with advantage to a speech during proceedings on the timetable motion by an expert on the sus law. If she does that, I think that she will reconsider her remarks.
    Ms Abbott: In my field I am an expert on the sus law. When the police are given these powers—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady may be an expert on the sus law, but the amendment is not about that; it is about guidance and the hon. Lady should address that.
    Ms Abbott: I shall return to the issue of guidance. Guidance is important because, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law. The group in society who suffered under the sus law will suffer under the proposals because, in every case and in every situation where the police are given such powers, we know the sort of judgments that they make. That is why I support the amendment. At the very least it would offer some guidance or some check or monitoring of the activities that will take place under the clause.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, many people will feel let down that the Labour party has connived at the passing of the clause. Many of us do not believe that the police need such powers in practice. I am arguing for the limited guidance provided in the amendment because I believe that some Opposition Members need to understand something: although it is impossible to out-Howard the Home Secretary—as I am sure he will be flattered to hear, there is no political position to the right of him—if we continue to connive at legislation of this nature, even with the guidance in the amendment, the Home Secretary will simply move further and further to the right. He will entrap us in legislation that is increasingly ill thought out and illiberal, and all that we shall have done is let down our natural supporters for no electoral gain.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a disgraceful speech, which paid no attention to the earlier debate on the timetable motion. [HoN. MEMBERS: "She was not here."] I do not believe that the hon. Lady was present for that debate.
    Ms Abbott: I watched it on television.
    Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Lady had watched it on television she would have heard what was said, and would not have said what is contradicted by the evidence. What has happened in the 15 years since the sus law went will not be overcome by clause 1, regardless of whether it is amended. I view this as a probing amendment, and look forward to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to say.
    We should recognise that those who need protection from terrorism are ordinary people—the sort of people whose husbands were killed by bombers in South Quay. Some people—not just the IRA but, potentially, other terrorists—are dedicated to turning women into widows and children into orphans. As the hon. Lady will have seen if she was watching the earlier debates on television, in some parts of the United Kingdom many of these provisions are already effective. We must ask ourselves, as many did in the earlier debates, whether we should exclude Great Britain from powers that are available to the police in Northern Ireland. That does not seem to me to be bringing back the sus law.
    People in their cars can be stopped and searched but those getting off a bus cannot. Given the events that proved fatal to a person at the Aldwych, should we ignore

    263
    the lessons? Should we not allow the police to stop someone getting off a bus? The House should realise that ordinary people throughout the country—whatever the colour or their skin, eyes or hair—support such a move. There is no reason to believe that the Bill would bring back any of the harmful effects of the sus law.
    I believe that we can trust those on both Front Benches. If both sides are willing to say that they see good reason for these measures, with or without extra guidance, other hon. Members must oppose them with good reason. What we heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was not good reason but prejudice. In some contexts, prejudice works in the wrong way. Changes are needed in the police services, for instance. I believe that the colour of people's skins still affects the number of times they are stopped—for example, most people who are stopped on Vauxhall bridge are black, and I do not think that that is right. I do not believe that skin colour should determine whether someone joins the police, enters Parliament, goes to prison or is in or out of work. All that needs challenging. The Bill's provisions are not like that, however, and I feel that the hon. Lady's speech featured the worst kind of stereotyping.
    Ms Abbott: I do indeed have a prejudice. I have a prejudice against my party's following the Home Secretary down an increasingly ill-thought-out and illiberal path.
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Lady has done enough damage to her own case by her own words.
    Mr. Bennett: I want to ask the Home Secretary for a little more information about the guidance which, I think, he has promised to issue. It is important for him to understand that, sadly, in this country, the natural reaction of too many people, especially young people, is not to assist the police but either to ignore them or to turn a blind eye to their activities. It is very important that the Home Secretary ensures that the clause does not increase alienation.
    I put to the Home Secretary the difficult circumstances of people who commit a minor crime by carrying in their pocket an illegal substance—soft drugs of some type—about which most people, and certainly nowadays the police, do not get particularly excited. The problem is that, often, when the police officer decides to search such an individual, that person becomes extremely frightened about the fact that that illegal substance is in his pocket and perhaps behaves in a very silly way. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear in the guidance that, although the police cannot ignore the fact that they have come across that substance when they carry out the search, such a discovery will be considered sensibly.
    It is clear that in some parts of the country, when individuals are found to have small quantities of drugs that are clearly for their personal use, the police use their powers of caution sympathetically. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is important that the guidance is put across sympathetically, otherwise it will create alienation among a group of young people who are already not particularly sympathetic to the police. I hope that the Home Secretary's guidance not only does not condone
    264
    illegality but does not put something very minor in the same category as the very serious issues with which we are dealing.
    Mr. Corbyn: On the issue of guidance, the methods of searching and the methods that will be used to stop people, I hope that the Home Secretary realises that there is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said about the perception of many young people, especially young black people in London, of the police and police powers. I, too, was part of the campaign to get rid of the sus law and I remember very well how that law worked. Large numbers of young black people were stopped, in some cases charged and in some cases convicted, but often simply stopped, intimidated and harassed while going about their normal lawful business in their home areas. Many people expressed to me last night and today the fear that giving the police unlimited powers of stopping and searching on the streets of London would lead to a return to such a feeling among young people towards the police force in London.
    Three weeks ago, I had occasion to cross Waterloo bridge by car late on a Friday night—at about 12.30 or 1 o'clock in the morning—when a major stop-and-search operation was going on. Police cars were everywhere, armed units were standing on each side of the bridge, people were being questioned, not very many of whom were crossing the bridge on foot, most cars were being looked at and many were being stopped. As I drove past—I was not stopped—I noticed that more than half the people in the cars who were being questioned were black. Late at night on the streets of London, young black people in cars tend to get stopped and questioned and their cars tend to be searched. That tendency is later reflected in prosecution figures, and so on.
    This morning, I was at the Camden Irish centre where its manager told me—I believe him—that young Irish people, many of them poor, and unfortunately homeless in London, feel harassed by the police when they are looking for somewhere to live. They are looking for a home, a room. The manager said—I believe him—that the reintroduction of police powers to stop and search people on the streets will lead to an unwarranted intrusion into those people's lives. He felt that large numbers of them would be stopped over the next few weeks when the power is introduced because London is, of course, a designated area. One must link the measure to the prevention of terrorism Act. Will the Home Secretary explain this point to me—if a young person is stopped one night under the stop-and-search procedure and the police officer decides that there is something suspicious about him, do the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 disappear? Do the provisions of the PTA—including the power to take that person into custody, hold him for 48 hours without access to a solicitor and, on the authority of the Home Secretary, hold him for up to seven days without a solicitor—then apply?
    For far too long, constituents have rung me up over the weekend to tell me that they do not know what has happened to a son or daughter who was due to come over from Belfast or Dublin or who was travelling around. After a Kafkaesque series of telephone calls, one is able to elucidate from somebody that that person is being held under the provisions of the PTA. Thousands of people have been held under the provisions of the PTA in the

    265
    past 20 years. Very few have been prosecuted as a result, but none has forgotten the experience of being taken into a police station and told that he or she has no rights of access to a solicitor or advice. That is the fear that large numbers of people—particularly within the Irish community in London—have about this draconian legislation.
    Mr. Howard: I shall begin by giving the House the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I certainly intend to issue guidance on the use of these powers following consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. While that is in preparation, I shall issue immediate provisional guidance, and I will also advise the police that the relevant PACE code for stop and search should be applied to all stop-and-search provisions in the Bill. The police have told me that they will apply the PACE code voluntarily until the new provisions are formally brought within its scope. I hope therefore that that assurance satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary answer the point that I made concerning what happens to a person who is subsequently arrested under the provisions of the PTA? Do the PACE provisions disappear or do they remain in force? In other words, does a person have access to a solicitor for the stop and search if necessary, despite what might happen under the provisions of the PTA?
    Mr. Howard: I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later, but since he has raised it again, I shall deal with it now. These provisions make absolutely no difference to the interrelationship between the provisions of PACE and the existing provisions of the PTA. If a person is arrested under the provisions of the PTA—because there is a suspicion that he is engaged in the terrorist activities specified in that Act—obviously all the provisions of the PTA apply. If, on the other hand, he is arrested under the provisions of PACE, that Act will apply. That has been part of our law, at least since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was put on the statute book. It is not affected in the slightest by the provisions of the legislation.
    I turn now to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The guidance to which I have just referred will, I believe, be sufficient to ensure that there is no need for the Secretary of State to grant initial authorisation for the use of the powers. The use of the powers will be triggered by immediate operational reasons, so I believe that it is right that the decision to use them should be made by a senior police officer. The need for the Secretary of State to confirm that authorisation within 48 hours and the prior issue of the guidance to which I have referred are adequate safeguards.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the area that will be designated by the police will vary according to the circumstances. It is not something in respect of which I would wish to limit the discretion of the police. There may well be circumstances, such as those identified by
    266
    the hon. Gentleman, where the police have specific intelligence that is closely related to a specific location, which will enable them to use their designation powers in a limited area.
    On the other hand, there may well be a general terrorist alert which will not be specific to a particular area and which will cause the police to designate the whole of their police area for the purpose of using these powers. Indeed, it could be—and has been—the whole of the Metropolitan police area. I do not propose to issue guidance that would inhibit the discretion of the police in the way in which they exercise their designation power. I believe that they will use common sense in their approach to the matter and that, if there is no need to designate the whole of their area, they will not do so. That is an entirely proper matter to be left to the police and I see no need to inhibit their discretion in the guidance that I propose to issue.
    11 pm
    I do not propose to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I have nothing to add to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), with which I entirely agree.
    The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what would happen if the police, in the exercise of their powers under the Bill, came across evidence of what he described as a minor crime being committed. That will be dealt with by the police, using their discretion, in the way in which they would normally deal with evidence of the commission of such crimes. I do not believe that they should approach these matters in a different way because they happen to come across evidence as a result of the use of the powers that they have been given under the Bill.
    The police have discretion in how to proceed in relation to such matters generally. Sometimes they regard it as appropriate to issue a caution and sometimes they regard it as appropriate to prosecute. The police are perfectly capable of exercising that discretion generally. I see no need to inhibit that discretion by virtue of the fact that they will have come across the relevant evidence in the exercise of the powers that the Bill will confer on them.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not the Home Secretary perceive that there is a problem, especially for young people? If a young person knows that he has an illegal substance in his pocket, if an attempt is made by a police officer to stop and search him and if he refuses, resists or does a bunk, under the Bill he will be subject to a fairly serious penalty. However, the likelihood is that, if young people are searched and a substance is found, they will be subject to a much more minor penalty.
    Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman does the younger generation an injustice. Most young people, if they were stopped by a police officer and told that the area in which they were present had been designated by a senior police officer as an area in which special powers were available to the police because there was a terrorist threat in that area, would readily understand the position and would not react as the hon. Gentleman suggests. His characterisation of young people does them a serious injustice.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I want to follow up my earlier point, with which there was a good deal of sympathy.

    267
    There may be a provision for stopping and searching people because there are reasonable grounds to suspect that terrorist activity is around and, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, young people may have on them a substance that would not otherwise have been discovered. I am thinking of drugs, for example, and I am not suggesting theft. That substance might not normally have been discovered or the people involved might not normally have got more than a caution.
    Could my right hon. and learned Friend draw to the attention of ACPO the possibility that if police officers exercising powers for one serious purpose discover something that normally would not draw a great deal of attention, it would be wise for the organisation to issue its own guidance? The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I leave her speech out of account for the moment—referred to the fears about the Bill. Such guidance may stop us ending up with an analysis showing that young people, most of whom are black and some of whom may be involved with illicit substances, find themselves at the wrong end of powers that are directed at potentially far more serious crimes.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I will not give the police such guidance. First, I do not believe that they need it. They are perfectly capable of exercising their discretion in the normal way. Secondly, I believe that it would send a most unfortunate signal on how the Government regard the use of illicit substances. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I have no intention of issuing such guidance.
    I think that I have dealt with all the points that were made during the debate. I hope that it will be possible for the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Falkirk, West not to press their amendments.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for indicating that he will provide the sort of guidance that we seek and that he will seek sensible advice to ensure that the use of these powers commands support and does not run into the problems that hon. Members who have criticised the provisions have feared. In the light of his assurances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'necessary'.
    No. 17, in clause 4, page 6, line 5, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.
    No. 18, in clause 5, page 6, line 31, leave out `expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.
    Mr. Bennett: This is a probing amendment that refers to the use of word "expedient", which I think occurs three times in the Bill. I should like the Home Secretary to explain why he chose to use the word "expedient" rather than "reasonable". Much legislation uses the term "reasonable". There is reasonable evidence that the courts
    268
    and the police know how to interpret it, but the word "expedient" is rarely used legally. Apart from anything else, it is a fairly emotive term.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) got me two dictionary definitions of "expedient". "Chambers" defines it as:
    "profitable or convenient rather than fair or just".
    That is not especially helpful. The "Shorter Oxford Dictionary" defines it as:
    "Useful or politic as opp. to right or just".
    Two of that word's uses in the Bill refer to a senior police officer, who may well be able to follow the guidance easily. It would be better to use words that have been used in previous legislation and are well understood rather than introducing a new and emotive word. I am especially concerned about its use in clause 4, which is dealt with by amendment No. 17, where it refers to the use of a cordon. There, it is not a senior officer who must interpret it, but, in certain circumstances, a constable. There is more difficulty with that. Earlier in the debate the need to get a warrant to search premises was mentioned. Once a cordon has been put round, there is no need to get a search warrant. I well understand that if a cordon is set up because there is a suspicion that there is a bomb in the area, it would be stupid to have to get a search warrant.
    However, the power is not restricted to the point at which there is immediate threat of injury to individuals; it goes wider than that. I can imagine that a police constable might feel it expedient to put a cordon around a group of buildings so that he and other officers could search them, rather than going through the rather more complicated process of getting a warrant.
    Will the Home Secretary explain why it was necessary to put an emotive term such as "expedient" in the Bill rather than picking something much better understood and, in my view, more reasonable—the word "reasonable"?
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: In my dictionary the first three words used to define the word "expedient" are "wise, prudent, advisable". That seems to me perfectly sufficient. I also checked on the definition of the word "reasonable", which was "rational, acceptable, proper, sufficient". I think that to be wise, prudent and advisable is just as good as that.
    Mr. Canavan: I support amendment No. 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but, with respect, I think that my amendment No. 39 is even better.
    The Home Secretary has claimed that the powers in the Bill are necessary in the campaign against terrorism. If they are all that necessary, the Bill should state that they cannot be used unless their use is a matter of necessity rather than of expediency. My amendment therefore proposes that the word "expedient" be replaced by the word "necessary" so that an authorisation could not be issued unless it appeared to a senior police officer that it was
    "necessary to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism".
    Mr. Howard: I was immensely attracted to the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for

    269
    Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and I am sorry that I have not followed his example and looked up the dictionary definitions of the words. The truth, as is usual in such matters, is much more mundane. The reason for the presence of the word "expedient" in the Bill has, I confess, nothing to do with the attractive definition to which my hon. Friend referred. The word appears in the Bill because it is the word used in the existing section 13A and elsewhere in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is tried and proved, and has stood the test of time.
    Contrary to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), "expedient" is far from a new word. As I said earlier in our proceedings, in framing the additional powers we have sought to follow as closely as possible the approach in the existing prevention of terrorism Act. The use of that word is an example of that approach.
    In resisting the amendments for that reason, I do not, of course, want to give the impression that chief police officers will be able to use the powers either unreasonably—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—or unnecessarily—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The police are well aware of the need to exercise the safeguards with sensitivity and care, and as an additional safeguard, authorisation of the use of the new stop-and-search powers is subject to the Secretary of State's confirmation. Any unreasonable exercise might be open to challenge by judicial review.
    In my view, therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, unreasonable and undesirable, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I shall not press the amendment at this stage, although I am disappointed that he still has not replied to my question about whether the power could provide a short cut in order to avoid the need to go to a magistrate for a warrant. In view of the shortage of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out from second "for" to "the" in line 17.
    This is a probing amendment. I do not understand why subsection (2) should not merely state that a constable may stop a pedestrian and
    "search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism."
    I do not understand why the words
    "for a purpose connected with"
    are necessary because I should have thought that the intention behind the subsection was already clear. That is why I suggest that the other words should be deleted. Why have they been included?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): There is a straightforward explanation and reason for their inclusion.
    270
    I do not propose to accept the amendment because the power to search pedestrians will be based on the existing power to search passengers in vehicles. The clause, as drafted, mirrors the existing section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which has proved to work well. We therefore see no reason to adopt a different formulation, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On that basis, we ask him to accept the current wording and to withdraw his amendment.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. McNamara: I accept the explanation that has been given. It reveals one of the problems caused by the procedures governing the passage of the Bill: because we have been able to study it for only such a short time, we have been unable to refer to what has gone before. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, leave out lines 19 to 21.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
    "on any particular person or in any thing carried by any particular person.".
    No. 35, in page 2, line 46 at end insert—
    "on any particular person or in anything carried by any particular person.".
    Mr. Canavan: The amendment would delete subsection (3) of clause 1, which states:
    "A constable may exercise his powers"—
    to stop and search people—
    "whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles"
    of a kind that could be used for a purpose, as stated in subsection (2),
    "connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism."
    Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the sus laws. I am not an expert in those laws because they do not apply to Scotland, but I assume that the word "sus" is short for suspicion or suspect. I assume that the draconian sus laws were used to stop and search, and possibly apprehend, people simply because they looked suspicious.
    The power proposed in the Bill is even worse, because the constable does not even need grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of a particular kind. In the absence of grounds for suspicion, that officer can still stop and search a person.
    What articles has the Minister in mind? Presumably they are items such as guns and trigger mechanisms for setting off bombs. How has similar legislation operated in Northern Ireland, where it has been on the statute book for many years? I hear from some of my contacts in Northern Ireland that the exercise of that power has not been very successful and that its use or abuse has alienated large sections of the community. Can the Minister offer us an attempted justification for those powers by citing experience of their operation in Northern Ireland? What has been discovered on the person of pedestrians as a

    271
    result of police searches? What acts of terrorism and other terrible crimes have been avoided as a result of the powers that have been given to the police?
    The powers in the Bill are wide ranging. If this subsection is not deleted, the powers will be so wide that, within a designated area, a police officer in uniform could stop anyone going about lawful business, irrespective of any suspicion. The powers are far too comprehensive—in fact, they are so wide ranging that they could be counter-productive and they could alienate large sections of the community.
    Earlier, I said that in the campaign against terrorism it is essential to have good relations between the police and the community. If there is a poor relationship between the police and the community, or if large sections of the community distrust the police, the police will not get the intelligence and the support from the community that they require in the campaign against terrorism.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of terrorism. If he is looking for those who will supply the police with information, he must look at terrorists and not at those whom he believes may be offended if they are wrongly stopped and searched by the police. In that respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused as to the source of intelligence in the first place.
    Mr. Canavan: No, I am not confused at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in the campaign against terrorists it is absolutely essential to alienate them, as it were, from the community so that they do not get any direct or indirect support from it. The use and abuse of draconian powers could make a large number of people, particularly young people, feel that they are being harassed and intimidated by the police—in fact, such powers may act as a recruiting measure for some of the terrorist forces. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to see that happen.
    My modest amendment—which would remove subsection (3)—would help in that situation. It would be obligatory for the police officer who is considering stopping and searching a person to have grounds for suspecting the presence of the articles referred to in the clause.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: By analogy, the fears of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) are misplaced. I know that he is a pedagogue of great distinction, but I do not know whether his background is in science. In one part of his speech he sought to prove a negative—that cannot be done.
    I refer to the power of a police officer to stop someone in a vehicle and to ask them to undertake a breath test. During my time at the Department of Transport there were 1 million breath tests and not a single person who was stopped complained—not one. In such a case, people's livelihoods may be at stake, so one should not worry too much about leaving these powers in the Bill.
    If we require a police officer to believe that an individual has a specified article on them or in their outer garments, we will lose the whole purpose of the provision. We allow a person who is in a vehicle to be searched, and the same sort of provision should apply to a person who is not in a vehicle. Otherwise, the message is given to
    272
    someone who wants to commission, or take part in the preparation of, or commit a terrorist offence that they only have to get out of their vehicle and the police, in effect, cannot touch them. That strikes me as peculiar. If people are not offended by the powers that the police have with respect to vehicles, they should not be offended by the powers that the Bill would give the police with respect to pedestrians in Great Britain.
    The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked how many times material had been found on pedestrians in Northern Ireland. That is an interesting question, but it should not determine what happens now. We were given a clear warning by the events of the Aldwych, let alone by what may have been part of the preparation for the South Quay bomb, which would not necessarily have all come on the low loader. We should learn from the experience that people have suffered and try to ensure that we fill the gaps in the powers of the police.
    Mr. Beith: Amendments Nos. 6 and 35 appear in my name. I do not accept that we should delete subsection (3), so I have suggested the addition of some words for clarification.
    We are trying to make it possible for a police officer to carry out a general search in circumstances where, because of the threat of terrorist action, it seems advisable to ensure that no one can enter an area in possession of something with which they might commit a terrorist act. Therefore, we propose to remove from a police officer the need to have a specific reason to believe that the person whom he intends to search is carrying something; otherwise it is not a general search. Of course, he is carrying out the search only because someone above him in the hierarchy has reason to believe that a terrorist offence may be committed in the area; otherwise he would not have authorised the general search.
    That is why I have suggested that we should free the police officer from the obligation to have grounds for suspecting the presence of articles on any one of the people whom he decides to search. The object is to ensure that the absence of intelligence information suggesting that a particular person has something in his possession does not preclude an officer from carrying out a search that is based more generally on intelligence that something may be afoot in the locality.
    I have suggested this wording because it would bring to bear that precise obligation in clause 1—that none of this should happen unless it is suspected that a terrorist offence may be committed and that someone is carrying such material about with them, but that an officer need not have reason to believe that every person he searches might be in that position. My wording assists that understanding of the provision. It may be technically unnecessary, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the intention of the clause.
    We are now more than halfway through the time allocated for the Committee stage. Hon. Members have been brief and succinct in their speeches, but the fact that we are still in the middle of the amendments on the first clause and that we have many more clauses to discuss shows that we have been set an impossible task tonight.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: In relation to amendment No. 5, relating to clause 1(3), one of the difficulties about the operation of this type of power is

    273
    that one must try to understand on what basis a person is stopped and searched. If it is not on the basis of intelligence that would automatically lead to suspicion, it is either a random search or not.
    The first question we should ask is, what does "random" mean? Is it every fifth car, every second car, every tenth car? What is it? Is it just taking the opportunity of establishing a presence in that area, through which those who are or may be carrying illegal weapons might move very quickly? From the experience of the north of Ireland, the people involved in such activity are adept at reading the random situation.
    The second, more important, question is, at what stage after a vehicle or person has been searched does the random element translate into suspicion? There is a rake's progress in relation to that. Those who are young are much more likely to be searched than those who are not young. For those who are young and have other young people—especially young men—travelling in their car, the possibility of being searched increases substantially. I see it happen every day of the week where I live: one can be sure that the cars carrying young men from building sites will be pulled over to the side of the road and that they will be searched. It is not simply young people travelling together who are likely to be stopped and searched: people with Irish accents will almost certainly be subjected to the powers in the legislation. I pose this relevant question: if a man and his wife were driving in their car and four young Irishmen who had just left work on a building site were driving behind them, which car would be most likely to be subjected to a search without any reasonable suspicion?
    11.30 pm
    Leaving aside Irish accents, what about those young people who are a different colour? A constable may be tempted to apply the powers in the legislation not because there is reasonable suspicion regarding any element of terrorism, but because of other factors pertaining to the community. There is the potential for a combustible and very dangerous situation. The stop-and-search power and the power to detain have caused the most problems of all those which apply in the north of Ireland. The generation subjected to those powers—young people who have never known a time when such powers did not exist—is most susceptible to the terrorist propaganda. In many instances, they have suffered at the hands of this sort of legislation and they have turned towards terrorism—or at least acquiesced to terrorism—as a result.
    Mr. Trimble: I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be erring in drawing his comparisons, as the circumstances in south Armagh may not be quite the same as those in London. The social and political attitudes evinced by the populations of those two areas may be different also. He may not have heard the figures that were given earlier in the debate regarding searches conducted under section 13A—and the provision is an extension along similar lines. We were told that under that section 8,000 vehicles had been searched with scarcely any complaints. The hon. Gentleman's fears may be a little overdone.
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that the same attitudes do not apply in south Armagh
    274
    and in London—and long may that remain so. However, I assure the House that this sort of legislation is the surest way of promoting and creating a similar reaction in London. Year after year and decade after decade, I have been struck by the idea that we are lucky in the north of Ireland because sooner or later we shall be in a position to abolish that sort of emergency legislation. However, we should not imagine that the residual effects will not be felt in this country. The biggest single danger—to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention—is that the legislation will be exploited here for various social reasons, including race, colour and class. I see it every day. We are lucky because, sooner or later, when we have the good sense to reach an agreement, there will be an end to the conflict in the north of Ireland and there will be an end to the emergency provisions Act. We shall then have the opportunity to make sure that Britain does not have to live with such legislation as its residue never leaves: once the need for it is created here, it will remain—that is one of the greatest dangers in clause 1.
    I see the legislation working every day. I drove to the latest proximity talks—or preliminary talks, as they were called—along exactly the same road, through exactly the same checkpoint in exactly the same car for seven days running. This is where the random element comes in: on each occasion every other car was waved through, but mine was stopped. I was asked, "What is your name, sir?" Very courteously, I gave my name. I was then asked, "Where are you going, sir?" Very courteously, I told them where I was going.
    Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman was very wise to keep away from trouble.
    Mr. Mallon: I am a mature person, not a young person who might be susceptible to that. If that can happen to someone such as myself, of mature age and, I hope, a little sense, what combustible circumstances will be created among young people day in and day out?
    I know from personal experience that Provos have been created by that very piece of legislation. I know it because I know them. I have talked to them. I knew them before they were Provos. I talked to them in prison after they became terrorists and I know the reasons that triggered—if the House will forgive the pun—their reactions. There were two factors, one of which was the power to stop and search. In any circumstances, a body search is a humiliation. In a public place, it is even more of a humiliation. Under the terms of the legislation, to have someone remove one's shoes, jacket and outer clothing is a double humiliation. That is how the searches will be carried out and that humiliation produces a reaction. The reaction will express itself differently here: it will produce racial and social tension in places such as Kilburn, where the Irish population will be saturated with searches. Once the police are given such powers without recourse even to reasonable suspicion, the whole integrity of the law will be diminished, and when that happens, society in general does not have the protection of that law.
    Mr. Corbyn: I hope that the House has taken note of what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the effects of a stop-and-search policy. I strongly support amendment No. 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) as it addresses a double problem in the measure.

    275
    First, the police will be protected from any complaint about a totally erroneous and harassing stop and search because they do not have to provide any evidence whatever of the need to stop and search somebody. Secondly, the meansure will create the utmost anger and ill feeling within the Irish community. A young Irish person living in London, perhaps working with one or two others on building industry jobs and driving around London in a Ford Transit van, will find himself constantly being stopped and harassed as soon as the police hear his accent. I have met many people who are very angry at the attitude of the police. As soon as they hear an Irish accent enunciated by a building worker, that becomes the ground for investigation, complaint and demanding to see documents. This new power gives the police carte blanche to stop people for no obvious reason.
    Even if the legislation is designed to elicit the co-operation of the community in achieving its purpose, I believe that it will operate in exactly the opposite way. It will not be just Irish building workers and people with Irish accents who are stopped. Under the legislation, the police do not have to give any reason for stopping someone. So next it will be young black people walking along the street whom the police may or may not like, or whom the police may suspect of something else, or to whom the police may want to give a hard time; they will be stopped and searched and there will be no comeback for them.
    Mr. Trimble: They have a remedy at law.
    Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman expresses his opinion from a very sedentary position—he is sitting on the floor. My reading of the amendment suggests that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West would provide a remedy in the law, but the legislation itself ensures that there is no such remedy, as the police do not have to give reasons for stopping and searching people.
    Surely in a civilised society which believes in due process, the police have to have a reason for doing something. I hope that the House will therefore heed my hon. Friend's view, well supported as he was by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who has explained exactly how such powers can alienate an entire community and have effects that are the opposite of those intended.
    Ms Abbott: I support the amendments, especially amendment No. 5. At the heart of my concern about the Bill is the giving of fresh powers to the police to stop and search people at random.
    Subsection (3) states:
    "A constable may exercise his powers under this section whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles"
    for the commission of acts of terrorism. That process is wholly subjective and arbitrary. We have heard from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the consequences of such legislation for community relations in Northern Ireland. His experience cannot be bettered. What is more, just as that type of arbitrary power to stop and search has poisoned relations between young people and the authorities in Northern Ireland, so it will poison relations between young people and the authorities in London.
    276
    It will not do to say that there are not many complaints, or that young people will understand. All that we know about the exercise of such powers is that they create tensions, hostility and resentment. If this House really wants to fight terrorism, we must all accept that, ultimately, the job is one of winning hearts and minds. We shall not win them by giving the police arbitrary powers of this kind which, all the evidence tells us, inevitably lead to friction between the police and the community, especially young people—whatever their colour.
    Mr. Kirkhope: This has been a useful debate, but I am rather disappointed at some of the negative remarks made by several hon. Members. One has only to listen to the views of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to realise that, much as we may not wish to have these powers and much as we may restrict them, they are shown to be effective in Northern Ireland, and we believe that they will help us in the fight against terrorism on the mainland as well.
    I must also tell hon. Members that the safeguards for the powers mean that the analogy suggested by the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who tried to link the Bill with the old sus laws, does not work. They must realise that the Bill contains tight restrictions, including specified areas, specified circumstances, the approval of a senior police officer and a time limit.
    11.45 pm
    Amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), would have the effect of removing clause 1(3) which, as we have heard, will allow the searching of a pedestrian by a constable
    "whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles"
    that could be used for
    "the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism."
    As has been mentioned, the Bill as drafted mirrors the existing provision in section 13A(4) of the PTA, which allows a constable to search vehicles, their occupants and the bags of pedestrians without specific grounds for suspicion. It would plainly not make any sense for the similar powers in the Bill to be operated in completely different ways. As I have said, the existing stop-and-search powers in section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) 1989 are subject to close safeguards and so will the new stop-and-search power be.
    I mentioned the authorisation of a senior police officer, in this case an assistant chief constable. In addition to the existing safeguards, the new powers to search pedestrians will lapse after 48 hours if the Home Secretary does not endorse them. By requiring grounds for suspicion, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, amendment No. 5 would seriously weaken a critical part of the provision: the deterrent effect. I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are aware of the importance of that and, indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to it earlier. Removing the deterrent effect would have a serious impact which we believe would be very unfortunate. A terrorist cannot be allowed to know that he can walk down the street with inconspicuous devices in his pocket without any

    277
    possibility of the police giving him even the most cursory search. It is essential that the police are able to take steps to prevent attacks carried out by terrorists, whether on foot or in vehicles.
    Ms Abbott: The Under-Secretary of State has commented on a number of interventions by hon. Members, but I hope that he will not complete his remarks without commenting on the speech made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who, from his experience of his part of Great Britain, made the interesting observation that precisely such provisions had created terrorists.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has his views on the subject, and I have listened to them with great care. Perhaps what he was saying—and I do not agree—was that once such powers are put in place, they will never be removed. That is, in my view, an especially negative comment. Our hope is that these powers will be removed, that we shall have peace and that we shall not need the powers to curb or deter terrorism. Unfortunately, we need to do that now and we have to make the powers as effective as possible.
    The only people who would benefit from amendment No. 5 are terrorists, who would be able to walk the streets with impunity. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. As for amendments Nos. 6 and 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), they would add nothing to the meaning of clause 1. On a simple point of logic, since the power is to be available and should be available regardless of suspicion, it does not seem to matter on what that suspicion could or should centre. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Canavan: I should like to respond briefly to the Minister's disgraceful comment that the only people who would benefit from my amendment would be terrorists. That is absolute nonsense. Many people going about their lawful business, going to and from work, going shopping, visiting relatives or even going to their own residences will suffer at the least a great deal of inconvenience or possibly worse with harassment by the police because of the legislation. My amendment would have provided at least some benefit to those innocent people.
    I do not want to waste precious time by pressing the amendment to a Division. However, I certainly do not wish to withdraw it because the Minister has not made a logical argument against it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—
    '(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, "in public" shall include any public highway and any other area accessible to the public.'.
    My colleagues and the Committee will recall that clause 1 (4) states:
    "Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves."
    278
    Earlier, we had an interesting debate about when and in what circumstances a jacket might be removed from a lady. The amendment has been moved to understand whether "in public" includes what is contained in the amendment or whether it has some other meaning.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The term "in public" includes any public highway or any other area accessible to the public. I hope that that short response assists the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Straw: It assists me mightily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 8, leave out—
    'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or'.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'or both'.
    Mr. Canavan: The amendment would delete the reference to a prison sentence. Under the Bill as it stands people could be sent to prison for up to six months simply for failing to stop when required to do so by a constable exercising his powers under the clause.
    There are already far too many people in our prisons and far too many anomalies in our judicial and penal systems. Many people are sent to prison simply for not paying fines and others, strangely, receive non-custodial sentences although some of them have committed serious crimes, including violent crimes and sexual abuse of children and so on. It would be unfair if people who had committed offences that were not nearly as serious as some of those to which I have referred were sent to prison for up to six months.
    For example, someone might be in a hurry to get to work and might not know that the surrounding area had been designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill, perhaps during the night or early in the morning. That person might brush past a policeman, and refuse to stop in order not to be late. A woman might refuse to be searched by a male police officer. The Home Secretary said earlier that it was perfectly permissible for a male officer to subject a woman to a search; some women—perhaps even most women—might object strongly to that. I think that it would be unjustifiable for people caught up in such circumstances to be imprisoned for up to six months.
    Mr. Kirkhope: The penalties provided in new section 13B mirror those provided in respect of offences committed under the existing section 13A. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the penalties are excessive, or that they should be changed. If a person fails to stop for a search, or obstructs a constable, that will immediately give rise to suspicion that he may either be carrying terrorist or other prohibited material, or deliberately be causing a diversion to divert police resources from the real bomber. In such circumstances, I think it entirely proper to leave it to the court to decide whether a prison sentence is appropriate.

    279
    I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who clearly feels strongly about the issue; but I feel strongly about it as well, and I think that, while the conclusions reached by the courts are a matter for them, the penalties should be those that we have proposed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
    'and in any case not later than 24 hours after it has been given orally.'.
    Clause 1 gives the police power to make an order that can last for 48 hours, but must then be confirmed by the Secretary of State or lapse. The person giving the authorisation must ensure that the Secretary of State is informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, that it has been given. We believe that a time limit should be placed on what is reasonably practicable: we believe that the information should be given not later than 24 hours after the authorisation has been given orally. We are saying that the power can operate for a day, but after that the Secretary of State must be informed. That does not mean that the power cannot exist for another 48 hours. The Secretary of State will not be prevented from deciding when the matter should be dealt with, but the amendment imposes a duty on the police authority to ensure—to overcome the suspicions felt by many of us—that the police inform the Secretary of State of the action that has been taken within 24 hours.
    Mr. Kirkhope: There is obviously a clear operational need for the police to be able to respond quickly to intelligence or discoveries of terrorist activity. That is why the stop-and-search power can be invoked orally. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, the amendment would require a stop-and-search operation that had been authorised orally to be confirmed in writing within 24 hours.
    The police would not want—nor would they have any reason—to delay written confirmation of the powers. A number of bombs and false alarms on the same day might make it very difficult to obtain written authorisation without taking a senior officer away from critical operational duties at that time. For that reason, we cannot afford to impose an inflexible and rigid 24-hour limit.
    12 midnight
    Furthermore, under clause 1(8), a person giving an authorisation for the use of the power must inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable, and, as I said a little while ago, if the authorisation has not been confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of its issue, it will lapse. I do not therefore believe that there is any need for the amendment.
    The same powers for oral authorisation, followed by written authorisation as soon as is reasonably practicable, are also being provided for in section 13A stop-and-search powers by clause 1(6). In the circumstances, the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.
    Mr. McNamara: What has been said makes the amendment necessary and practicable and the Bill should be amended. It is not too much of an imposition on the police to require that within 24 hours of taking such an extraordinary power they should inform the Secretary of State of what they have done.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Madden: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    '(11) For the purposes of this section any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.'.
    We have been given the impression throughout the proceedings that pedestrians who are stopped and asked to undergo a search will be required to do so only by a single police officer in standard uniform. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is very likely that police officers will be in groups and wearing protective clothing when stops are made. I am also sure that he appreciates that such protective clothing would often obscure the officers' numbers. The permanent and provisional guidance to which the Home Secretary has referred should therefore urge police officers in all circumstances to give their warrant number to the person who is being stopped and searched.
    Taking into account the comments of several hon. Members, it would be very helpful if the guidance also ensured that, so far as is reasonably practicable, a woman police officer were always included in the group of officers undertaking such stops and searches. That would certainly allay some hon. Members' anxieties.
    Lastly, we hope that the powers will be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I hope that that will also apply to Sikhs who wear turbans, because any request for a Sikh to remove his turban—particularly in a public place, as envisaged in the Bill—would cause grave offence. I hope that the guidance will emphatically urge police officers not in any circumstances to request a Sikh to remove his turban.
    I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment, as no amendment has so far been accepted by the Government. This is a reasonable request that should be accepted by the Minister. If a pedestrian is stopped in these circumstances, the least he should be given to allay any anxieties is the warrant number of the officer concerned. That is a basic requirement, and I hope the Minister accepts that.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that what I have to say will reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I certainly understand his concerns, and we are completely at one in thinking that the new powers will need to be applied carefully, sensitively and appropriately. I believe that that will be done, but perhaps I can take my reassurance further.
    I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will be aware that the new powers will be subject to PACE code A—the code of practice covering the stop and search of persons—in the same way as the police powers under section 13A are now. He will also know that PACE code A requires a constable to give the person concerned his name, warrant or other identification number and the name of the police station to which he is attached before carrying out any search. The constable is also required to explain the object of the search and his authorisation for undertaking it.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked whether the powers applied to constables in uniform, and he will see that clause 1(2) of the Bill
    "confers on any constable in uniform the power".

    281
    He also mentioned a matter that has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—namely, the question of having women officers available when women are to be searched. I must repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this; in operational terms, we cannot guarantee that. There is probably a preference within the police that—where it is possible and appropriate—a woman constable should be involved when dealing with women, but I cannot give a guarantee or an assurance in the circumstances.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is to some extent reassured by the nature of the obligations that exist under PACE code A and to which reference is made in the Bill. Because of that full information, I hope he will agree that his amendment is not necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    '(12) If, following the exercise of the powers contained in section 13A above or this section a person is arrested and charged with an offence other than an offence under this Act or otherwise connected with terrorism, the fact and nature of the initial exercise of stop and search powers shall be made known to the court.'
    The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) touched on such reassurance to some extent. Indeed, he went rather further by suggesting that the police should not prosecute for less serious offences that are discovered as a result of powers used to try to detect or prevent terrorism. The Home Secretary rejected that general approach, and I believe that there are some difficulties with it, as I think the hon. Member for Eltham would acknowledge.
    Our amendment would require simply that the court should be aware when evidence arises from the exercise of the powers provided in the Bill. The court would, therefore, be able to take that fact into consideration if appropriate. Magistrates or judges would be well able to take a balanced view and to make a judgment on whether the circumstances were appropriate and should affect the disposal of the case before them.
    The amendment would certainly put the matter on the record. It would supplement the promises already made by the Home Secretary about monitoring the use of the provisions and it would ensure that the knock-on effect from using the powers was transparent. That would offer reassurance to people because one cannot misuse a power or smuggle in prosecutions if one tells the court the nature of the circumstances in which evidence has been garnered. The amendment would have no detrimental effect on the police or the prosecution service in terms of ensuring that a breach of the law was brought before the court, but it would ensure, through transparency, that there was reassurance for those who fear that the provisions might be misused.
    I have said that I do not fear misuse of the Bill. There is always a danger that the police will misuse their powers or go beyond them; it happens from time to time. It is regrettable when it happens and we need to have safeguards in place to avoid the misuse of powers as far as possible. That is in the best interests of the public and the police, who need the powers to do their job properly.
    282
    I hope that the Minister will accept that we are suggesting a proposal that provides an element of transparency, but that would not downgrade the ability of the police to use evidence that is gained as a result of the exercise of the new powers. That transparency would reassure those who fear the possibility of misuse of the powers. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the approach that will be taken on the matter.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has put the case fairly, as he acknowledged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did in responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), with inadequate reinforcement by me.
    I go back to my roads experience to argue against the point that I made earlier. I am aware that the police find that when they stop people in vehicles for one reason or another, a high proportion of offences is detected at certain times of night, many of which are not linked to the reason for stopping the vehicle in the first place. A good point has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Having said that, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken a purist position. If one is trying to protect the vulnerable, whether or not they have been involved in an offence, one needs to be careful about the impact. Equally, I do not agree with the purist view, taken by some Labour Members, that the police should be able to charge people only if they have stopped them with a particular offence in mind. The culture within the police, within the courts and within the Crown Prosecution Service, therefore, needs to be not just accepted, but worked for.
    Obviously I would like people not to commit offences in the first place, whether major or minor, but one needs to do more than to hope. I have had experience of the police doing their duty well; that is normal for police officers. However, like many hon. Members, I have come across the odd occasion when police officers have not done the right thing. For example, there have been cases of trumped-up charges of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, whether in a police station or elsewhere. This is not the right time, or Bill, to go into those issues, but I hope that those who will consider what to do with information that has been gained under this provision will exercise proper discretion, as I hope that they always do.
    12.15 am
    Mr. Mallon: I am in favour of this wise amendment. I knew that I would find something about which I could agree with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If, as it must be, the operation of these powers is to be assessed, this surely is one of the ways in which it can be done. Ultimately, it is probably the only way.
    I am not able to furnish the figures because of the speed with which we had to come here and prepare for the debate, but if the Minister were to examine the figures for people charged under the emergency provisions Act in the north of Ireland, he would find that, in the past four years, well over 80 per cent. of cases involved charges in connection with parking motor cars in a place designated as illegal from a security point of view. It is essential that an amendment such as this is accepted so that an assessment can be made of how such legislation is operating.

    283
    Having said that, we shall find that it is a two-edged weapon. Inevitably, a substantial number of non-terrorist cases will be established as a result of this anti-terrorist legislation. The case will be made that such stop-and-search powers should be part of the usual arrangements because of their very success. Even accepting that element of it, the legislation must be assessed by Parliament when that is required by Parliament. It must be assessed by the Home Office at all stages and it must be assessed so that the public can be reassured that it is being used in the proper way. I support the amendment.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I appreciate the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and by the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). However, it is hard to understand how a person could be dealt with in a court without the original stop and search being made clear in the prosecution evidence. It would be up to the court to decide whether such evidence was admissible in any particular case. The amendment's purpose is met by existing arrangements. Despite all the persuasive and interesting arguments, it is not necessary. For that straightforward reason, I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister needs to take a little more note of the issues that have been raised. It is important in practice—we will keep an eye on this—that reassurance is offered that the powers will be used for the intention for which they were given by Parliament, and not abused. That is why we tabled the amendment. The Minister and the Home Secretary have acknowledged the importance of that, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate. A marker has been put down and in the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 20.

    Division No. 96]

    [00.20 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Butler, Peter

    Amess, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Ashby, David

    Clappison, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Bates, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Conway, Derek

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Couchman, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Cran, James

    Boswell, Tim

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

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bowis, John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Day, Stephen

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Burns, Simon

    Devlin, Tim

    Burt, Alistair

    Darrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Butcher, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    284

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dunn, Bob

    Merchant, Piers

    Elletson, Harold

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Faber, David

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Fabricant, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Moss, Malcolm

    Forman, Nigel

    Nelson, Anthony

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Gallie, Phil

    Norris, Steve

    Garnier, Edward

    Page, Richard

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Paice, James

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Gorst, Sir John

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hannam, Sir John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Harris, David

    Richards, Rod

    Hawkins, Nick

    Riddick, Graham

    Hawksley, Warren

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Heald, Oliver

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hicks, Robert

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Spring, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stephen, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Stern, Michael

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sweeney, Walter

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Thomason, Roy

    Knapman, Roger

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Trimble, David

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Viggers, Peter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Waller, Gary

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ward, John

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Leigh, Edward

    Watts, John

    Lidington, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Lord, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Luff, Peter

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    McCrea, The Reverend William

    Wolfson, Mark

    MacKay, Andrew

    Wood, Timothy

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Maginnis, Ken

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Mr. Richard Ottaway and

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Gary Streeter.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Barnes, Harry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Mallon, Seamus

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Salmond, Alex

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Livingstone, Ken

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Loyden, Eddie

    Mr. Max Madden and

    McGrady, Eddie

    Mr. Dennis Canavan.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without amendment, pursuant to Order.
    Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), just gave a seriously misleading report—and he had much difficulty in reading it. He said that the Committee had gone through the Bill. Is it not the case that the Committee has been allowed to consider only clause 1 of the Bill?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It may be a point of comment, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.33 am
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have had a long, constructive and extremely interesting debate. I recognise that some hon. Members have not had as much time as they would have liked to consider each and every clause of the Bill in detail. However, I believe that we have been able to debate the principal points at issue. In addition, the assurances that have been given on the genuine concerns that have been raised should go far to allay any anxieties. Some hon. Members have deep-rooted reasons for opposing the Bill, and clearly we have not been able to satisfy their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that we have established to the satisfaction of hon. Members the urgent need for these powers in the face of the terrorist threat. We need to give the police these additional powers if they are to do their utmost to give the people of this country the protection from terrorism that they deserve.
    Mr. Beith: I shall give the Home Secretary the opportunity to allay another point of concern. I refer to proposed paragraph 4A(5) of schedule 5 to the 1989 Act. Are the persons employed by a police authority for the assistance of constables—who are given power under the Bill, if necessary, to use reasonable force for the purpose of performing these functions—civilian employees? Are they people who have been trained to use reasonable force? Have Scottish chief constables been consulted about, and given approval for, the use of civilians, using reasonable force for the performance of those functions?
    Mr. Howard: The intention of proposed paragraph 4A(5) is to allow persons who are not constables to exercise the paragraph 4A powers. Sub-paragraph (5) provides a similar power in Scotland to that provided in England and Wales by paragraph 4A(3), and it is intended that people in the category identified by the right hon. Gentleman will have the powers to which he referred. I believe that the police will exercise discretion and common sense in seeking the assistance of people who
    286
    come into that category. I do not believe that that need give rise to any serious or deep anxiety on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary was asked a specific question about consultation with Scottish chief constables. He has manifestly refused to answer it. Will he now kindly do so? Has there been consultation with Scottish chief constables on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Will the Home Secretary kindly address the point?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has now asked an entirely different question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman has now asked a question about consultation.
    Mr. Mackinlay: The answer is no.
    Mr. Howard: No, the answer is not no, if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself from his sedentary position.
    As I said earlier, I discussed these matters with the senior police officer in this country who has responsibility for directing anti-terrorist operations, and Home Office officials discussed the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. These powers have therefore been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I believe that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has the opportunity of considering these matters with ACPO Scotland, he will find that its members are as desirous of these additional powers as are their counterparts in England and Wales.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
    Mr. James Wallace rose—
    Mr. Howard: I give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Ewing: This is an interesting exchange. Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a record of the meetings that were held with representatives of the Scottish police superintendents and Scottish police officers? This appears to be a sign that there is now an attempt to apply the prevention of terrorism Act UK-wide. If that is to be the case, surely we need much more substantial debates, and we certainly need to know the response of police officers in Scotland.
    Mr. Howard: I must correct, in one minor detail, what I said a moment ago. I am told that I said that Home Office officials discussed the matter with ACPO Scotland.
    Mr. Wallace: You did.
    Mr. Howard: I should have said Scottish Office officials, because it was Scottish Office officials who were engaged in those discussions with ACPO Scotland.
    I confess that I do not entirely follow the drift of the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We have made clear from the outset the way in which the

    287
    powers are to be exercised and the territorial areas to which they apply. The main prevention of terrorism Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland; there are different provisions in Northern Ireland. As I made plain from the outset—in my statement yesterday—all the powers save the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be confined to Great Britain under the Bill, but the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. There has been no doubt about that; I made it clear from the outset.
    Mr. Wallace: I wonder when the Home Secretary last read the 1993 report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland—specifically, paragraphs 47 to 51, which relate to the use of civilian employees in the police force—which clearly categorises what is appropriate for civilian employees and what is not. What training has been made available to civilian employees so that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, they may exercise the powers that the Home Secretary has given them under the proposed paragraph?
    Mr. Howard: I freely confess to the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report of the inspectorate in Scotland. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The police will have every opportunity to ensure that, in exercising the powers, they do not seek the assistance of those who have not received the appropriate training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the police are extremely careful about the need to train anyone with particular responsibilities. That applies as much to those who assist the police in discharging those responsibilities as to anyone else. I think that I can confidently make that assertion and give that assurance, even without being familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to display his ignorance of the situation in Scotland in the absence of any Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench to advise him of what he should know already?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Howard: I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not responsible for the police in Scotland: that is why I have told the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. I shall now resume the points that I was making.
    Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary says, quite rightly, that he is not responsible for the police in Scotland. However, the legislation to which we are being asked to give Third Reading includes clauses that relate specifically to Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you recollect any Bill coming before the House containing provisions for which there was no Minister responsible on the Treasury Bench? Is that not a serious dereliction of duty by the Government?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat that it is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.
    Mr. Phil Gallie rose—
    Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall content myself with making this observation: none of those hon. Members who have risen to proclaim the extent of their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland deigned to come into the Chamber during the former proceedings. They were not present during the Second Reading of the Bill, during the discussions about the timetabling of the legislation or during any of the considerations in Committee. If they were serious in their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland, they would have been present for those discussions.
    Mr. Wallace: We never reached it.
    Mr. Howard: It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that, because we reached that stage in the Second Reading debate.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I see from the entrance of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that our points of order are having some effect. Is it in order for the Home Secretary, who has no responsibility for Scotland, to make those allegations when we manifestly did not reach the parts of the Bill that hon. Members from Scotland wished to discuss as a result of the Government's timetable motion?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: As I have explained before—it seems to be slow sinking in—the Chair has no responsibility for those matters.
    Mr. Howard: The points of order are just as bogus as the concerns that Opposition Members are expressing. They know perfectly well that whatever is capable of being raised on Third Reading could be raised on Second Reading.
    Mr. Beith: I did.
    Mr. Howard: I am not talking about the right hon. Gentleman; he does not represent a Scottish constituency and I am excluding him from my remarks. I refer to the hon. Members for Moray, for Orkney and Shetland and for Banff and Buchan, who have risen in the past few minutes and whose concern is every bit as bogus as their interventions and points of order.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who at least has been present for most of the debate.
    Mr. Mallon: Lest there be any invidious distinction drawn, the Minister will agree that the fifth section of the legislation applies to the north of Ireland for the first time. Should not the Minister responsible for security in the north

    289
    of Ireland be in the Chamber—at least out of courtesy to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—or did the Home Secretary prevent that out of consideration for us?
    Mr. Howard: There was no need for any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve in the Northern Ireland Office to be here. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points during the debate and they were all answered, so I do not believe that he has any cause for concern.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom appreciate that he has brought to the House legislation that is necessary to fight terrorism? The threat to the country is from the terrorists, not the police. Listening to some of the speeches tonight, one might wonder who was the threat. To me and the vast majority of people, the terrorists are the threat, the police should have the legislation to deal with them and the Home Secretary has introduced that necessary legislation.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Much of the debate in the House tonight has had an air of unreality which would have astonished our constituents. Had they been present during our deliberations and heard some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Back Benchers and some of the fanciful questions that were raised about what would happen if the police sought to exercise some of the search powers that the Bill provides, they would have been absolutely astonished by the approach of certain Opposition Members.
    Of course, on this occasion I exclude those who spoke from the Labour Front Bench. They made responsible speeches in which they supported the legislation. It is a pity that they were not able to carry through what they said by joining us in the Division Lobby and showing that they supported the Government in introducing the legislation not only by their words but by their votes and their deeds.
    The Bill is an important measure. It will give the police five important new powers with which to safeguard the public and tackle the threats posed by terrorists. As has been generally agreed, its provisions are sensible and practical. They contain clear and effective safeguards to ensure that they are used carefully and sensibly and only when operationally necessary.
    I believe that those powers will make a real difference. It is essential that they are put in place immediately so that they start to make that difference as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.
    12.47 am
    Mr. Straw: When the Home Secretary asked for our support for the Bill last Thursday and we gave it consideration, we concluded that we should support it on the merits of the case and not on the prospect that he would be able to maintain a conciliatory tone throughout the debates.
    The Home Secretary said that we should be judged not only by our words but by our deeds. If he reflects on our deeds in securing the passage of the measure, he will realise that not only our words but our actions in
    290
    collaborating with the Government have ensured that the measure has rightly secured a relatively easy passage through the House.
    Earlier this evening, we exposed a liberal flank in the Home Secretary. Although he was not a Member of Parliament in 1981, he would have supported the liberal measure to abolish the sus laws and replace them with something altogether softer and more liberal. Reading the Evening Standard just a moment ago in the Tea Room, I discovered that the Home Secretary has been infected with liberalism to an even greater extent. He is now seeking to emulate the distinguished former Liberal Prime Minister of the last century, William Gladstone. I read in the Evening Standard that yesterday Soho sleaze was
    "laid bare for the Home Secretary".
    He apparently spent yesterday evening, no doubt in preparation for today, strolling down the streets of Soho—doubtless seeking to save souls. He said, unusually employing a double negative redolent of the Scott report, that it was an area
    "I am not totally unfamiliar with".
    He went on to add hastily:
    "I come here to go to the cinema, the theatre or the restaurants",
    and added—no doubt before being searched—
    "I think the police do a very good job."
    We are glad to recognise that some forces of liberalism are taking over the Secretary of State, and that, as a result, he has readily accepted the need for safeguards to be written into the operative clause of the measure, clause 1.
    We have considered the Bill with great care. We believe that, although the powers are important, they do not raise any major issue of principle. They are squarely based on the powers taken in 1994 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act; and I remind my hon. Friends that not a single Member of the House voted against clause 62 of that Bill or spoke against it. Labour Front Benchers supported it; we thought it an important addition to the anti-terrorist laws; and we believe that the powers in the Bill, especially clause 1, fill a gap in the legislation that needed filling.
    None of this would have been necessary but for the fact that the IRA unilaterally decided to end its ceasefire on 9 February, and subsequently killed and maimed many people and caused millions of pounds-worth of damage to shops and businesses. It is our fervent hope—and that, I believe, of all hon. Members—that the IRA will re-establish its ceasefire and that there will follow a process to secure a permanent peace. But so long as that peace is a more distant prospect than any of us would wish, it is important that these measures reach the statute book. I am glad tonight that by words and deeds we have assisted their progress.
    12.51 am
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is important, as far as possible, to maintain a bipartisan approach to these issues. If that means that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave way to Labour representations when these issues were discussed, that was well worth while. Agreement requires compromise, and if serious points raised in those discussions are reflected in assurances given, or in the Bill itself, the whole House will welcome that.

    291
    It is worth remembering that this Bill amends the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and allows the police, and sometimes others, additional powers to prevent and investigate acts of terrorism. The provisions for searching those out of vehicles are merely broader than those in the original Act. The narrower powers in the original legislation to stop pedestrians and to search anything carried by them have been extended now to allow them to be searched, within reason. This wider power has been adjudged necessary. The events in London in February showed the need for it, and I have no doubt that is why the police suggested the change in discussions with the Home Office.
    The rest of the Bill is probably not controversial. Clauses 2 to 5 and the schedule have not troubled anyone in the House unduly. What we have not heard yet is whether some of these powers already exist in the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has told me semi-privately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Semi-privately?"] He talked to me just now when I was sitting in front of him. If in these debates we could be told what powers already exist in the Republic, we would sometimes discover that some hon. Members are raising fears that do not amount to fears in the 26 counties of Ireland. The same applies to some of the other countries in Europe. That is a useful context in which to put the Bill and that may reduce the temperature of the debate. It is easy in the House to get involved in great arguments of principle when no issue of principle is involved.
    My final point is related to a telephone message I received from someone who chose to be anonymous and who asked why I was speaking for the people of Ireland. Although my Irish links are not as great as some people's, it is possible to repeat what people in Ireland say. They, whether secular or Church, partisan or non-partisan, say that they reject violence. Democracy is about debate, decision and defeat and not always about debate, decision and victory. Democracy is about being willing to abide by the views of the majority whether in Parliament or in the country.
    Time and again, people have rejected violence in a country that has one person, one vote. That applies in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and that should allow people to follow the agreement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach—be that the Downing Street declaration or further agreements—that the nations of these islands will work together for the benefit of the people. That requires giving support to the police services in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. My personal view is that the most important approach is not just police action but what the people do. I make one plea as the Bill moves on to another place: anybody who is concerned to reduce violence should tell Sinn Fein and the IRA, and the paramilitaries on the other side, to end the violence now, because it will not do any good. Crosses on ballot papers matter more than crosses in the cemetery. Democratic countries cannot be expected to give way to violence, because it is not the way forward.
    12.56 am
    Mr. Benn: This is a thoroughly bad Bill, which has been rushed through with indecent haste, and my hon. Friends who have voted against it will be shown to have been right.
    292
    One argument against the Bill has not yet been put—that the Bill will not contribute in any way to the ending of violence in Northern Ireland. I have sat in this place a long time and I have heard Ministers from both parties present Bills. I was in the Cabinet when the troops were sent in, and that was going to solve the problem. Partition was going to solve the problem. Stormont was going to solve the problem. Direct rule was going to solve the problem. Power sharing was going to solve the problem. Diplock courts were going to solve the problem, as were strip searches, supergrass trials, CS gas, and detention without trial. None of the policies pursued by successive British Governments, in line with the sort of speech that we heard tonight, has contributed to peace in Ireland.
    The fighting ended, not as a result of anything that came from Ministers but because Albert Reynolds, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and a former Member of the House, Gerry Adams, persuaded the IRA to stop fighting in the hope of getting talks going. That was what ended it. The police measures and the Sinn Fein ban did not bring about what everybody in the House wants—an end to the killing. I will not go further into that question because I am not a believer in scapegoats, but I do not believe that the Government made it possible for that to proceed.
    It is worth reminding the House of certain events during the ceasefire. First, the mythology was propagated by some people that there was an attempt to get the north forcibly into the south. Nobody thinks that the Six Counties can be forced into the south. The Republic does not want the Six Counties. Does the House think that the south wants the Ulster Unionists sitting in the Dail? Of course it does not. We are talking about what was set out clearly in the Hume-Adams-Reynolds proposal—that the people of the island of Ireland would resolve their own future.
    The second consequence of the ceasefire was that the two communities in the north got together—thank God. The communities have a lot in common, because there are many problems there that have not a sectarian basis but an economic or class basis. That has been an important development.
    The third development was the involvement of Dublin. Although I know that some of my hon. Friends and the Ulster Unionists do not like it, the British Government cannot move without Dublin, which now exercises a sort of unofficial condominium with the British Government over the Six Counties. I welcome that.
    President Clinton got in on it too. The authority of the British Government, who have always protested that they are the sole authority in Northern Ireland, was eroded because their policies failed, and an initiative came from within Ireland itself to bring about peace. I have long believed that the solution to this problem is to be found in the termination of jurisdiction. I have introduced many Bills, and I believe that that is what will happen.
    British Government power cannot be enforced in Northern Ireland. Of course, I fully understand why the Unionists want that. They want the support of British troops when they get into trouble with their nationalist colleagues in the north. That is what the whole thing is about and the Unionists have played a significant part in preventing the talks from being held.
    One of the factors that will ultimately persuade the British people—who, if opinion polls mean anything, have been in favour of a British withdrawal for 25 years—

    293
    is that our liberties and not just the liberties of the people in the north are going. The Bill touches on our liberties and it will persuade more people in Britain that our liberties and their liberties go side by side and that we must find an answer by talking and not by fighting.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Benn: We are under a terrible guillotine and I do not want to take too much time.
    Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Ulster Unionists.
    Mr. Benn: I was not alluding to the hon. Gentleman personally. I am trying to make a point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Maginnis: I am not sure whether I should call the right hon. Gentleman Aesop or one of the Brothers Grimm. I have listened to his fairy tales for the past five minutes. He is very entertaining although he is not very realistic. He should consider what happened in London when what was referred to as the ring of steel was placed around the City to prevent terrorist activity. Was not that widely accepted and welcomed and did it not serve a useful purpose? The right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues are nodding.
    Mr. Benn: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to the Victoria tower and pulls out the 1641 Act of Charles I for dealing with the rebels in Ireland. [Interruption.] This legislation is of Charles I proportions.
    What I am saying may be unpopular but many predictions come true. The House cannot and has no right to govern Northern Ireland. It is not that the south wants to take over the north, but the problem must be resolved within that island. Until we recognise that fact, all the police powers that the Home Secretary can think up—and I have no doubt that given a bit of time he will think up some more—will fail to solve the problem. So far, none of them has achieved the objectives that were in the minds of those who advocated them.
    1.3 am
    Mr. Beith: The notion that the IRA does not wish to use the bomb to force people to accept what it could not get them to accept politically is plain naive and plain stupid. It has been trying to do that consistently for years and we have had to use all sorts of means to try to prevent it. Trying to change the political context in which the IRA is waging its war is obviously crucial to the whole issue. If police operations had not been mounted against terrorism, more people would have died and more would have been maimed.
    It is necessary to have legislation. We may disagree about its precise content, but it has been important to have appropriate measures on the statute book. In that spirit we supported the Bill's Second Reading although we were critical of the procedure by which it was considered. The police were right to seek clarification of their powers and, in some respects, an extension of them. We supported the
    294
    proposal that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill because the Committee examined that clause and considered amendments to it. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, however, were not discussed in Committee, and nor was the schedule. Most of the Bill has never been examined in Committee. A simple illustration of the problems that we would encounter arose when, along with others, I sought to raise the position in Scotland. No Scottish Office Minister attended the Committee: Scottish Office Ministers must have been told that the intention was not to reach the parts of the Bill relating to Scotland.
    There is still the puzzle about who are the civilians who will be allowed to use force in the exercise of functions set out in the Bill. It is difficult to understand what powers we shall unleash if we give untrained civilian staff the right to use force in the context of a Bill such as this. That is one of many details that have never been examined. It does no service to the police or the public to enact legislation in this undigested, unexamined form, relying wholly on a few parliamentary draftsmen and officials in the Home Office and hoping that they got it right in the first place. Past experience suggests that that will not be the case.
    We should have examined the Bill properly, but we have not. The Home Secretary cannot expect us to support the Third Reading of a Bill almost all of which has not been examined in Committee.
    1.5 am
    Mr. Mallon: Only three weeks ago, we spent three hours debating the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. During that debate, the Home Secretary gave no indication that there had been a request or a demand for additional powers such as these, or that he was thinking in terms of such powers.
    One question remains unanswered. Was the Bill drafted after the renewal of the Act, and was whatever information the Home Secretary is privy to available to him before the renewal of the Act? Was the Bill ready and waiting to go, and was it held back—for whatever reason—until the night before Parliament was due to rise for the recess? That is crucial. Until we know the answer, it will be difficult to avoid the suspicion—a reasonable suspicion, in my view—that the way in which the Bill has been presented is a cynical exercise, and that its provisions could have been considered during the renewal of the PTA. It is for the Home Secretary to clarify the matter. In the circumstances in which the Bill has been presented, I think that he owes it to the House to tell us whether the Bill was drafted before the debate on the renewal of the PTA.
    I have another question. We have often heard the accusation from some parts of the House that the terrorism at Canary wharf emanated from the Republic of Ireland, that the bombs were assembled there and brought from there and that the bombing resulted from activities in the Republic.
    Mr. Maginnis: Yes.
    Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. If he is right—the Home Secretary seems to think that he is on most occasions—did the British Government share their intelligence with the Irish Government in relation to the need to present the Bill tonight?

    295
    Those two questions require answers. If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is right and the accusation has been made against the Republic, surely the Home Secretary had a duty to inform the Irish Government of the security danger that existed within the Republic, which—if the hon. Gentleman is right—might stem from the Republic. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State must answer those two questions to avoid the reasonable suspicion that the way in which the Bill has been presented is an act of cynicism.
    1.9 am
    Mr. Corbyn: The debate is a complete travesty of parliamentary democracy and of the scrutiny of legislation by the House of Commons. It is less than 34 hours since the Home Secretary told the House that he was going to introduce the Bill, since when we have rushed through a very serious Bill without proper consideration, examination or debate. It was only because of the protests made yesterday and this morning by a considerable number of hon. Members that we were able to table and discuss amendments.
    The Bill builds on bad legislation known as the prevention of terrorism Act, which has resulted not in the prevention of terrorism but in many Irish people—so far as Great Britain is concerned, they are mainly in London—being stopped, searched, held for up to seven days without access to a solicitor and, in most cases, then released. They have never forgotten the experience. The Bill gives the police powers in designated areas to stop and search people at random and there are apparently no rights for people who are wrongly treated as a result of it.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has pointed out, the House has discussed—in my experience of almost 13 years—dozens of various security measures that were supposed to bring an end to the problem in Ireland. They have not done so. The only solution can and must be political. I would have found it far more credible if the House had instead spent more time debating the need for the development of the peace process, all-party talks, constitutional change to end the Unionist veto in Northern Ireland and long-term peace. We would serve people far better by doing that than by passing legislation that will alienate many people in London and other cities in the country, particularly the young. We ought to be considering the peaceful future that could be attained.
    The Bill brings only discredit to the House of Commons. It is an aberration of any democratic process. I hope that the House will reject it, but I recognise that that is very unlikely. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the near future to repeal the Bill, the PTA and all the other illiberal, uncontrollable legislation that has passed through the House.
    1.12 am
    Mr. Bennett: The main aim of terrorists is to destroy the democratic process, and over the past 12 hours we have played into their hands. We have shown them a travesty of the democratic process. It is appalling that the Government did not take time to ensure that the Bill could be discussed properly. We are told that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to have published the Bill last week when they decided to go
    296
    ahead with it. At least then people outside the House would have had a chance a read it, comment on it and suggest amendments via Members of Parliament. But no, the Government chose not even to publish a rough draft until yesterday. The Bill itself was published only today. We just about managed to debate clause 1 in Committee, but failed to debate properly another six clauses and a schedule.
    I made it quite clear in the debate on the guillotine motion that if the Government had said that emergency legislation was needed for a week or two, after which the proper democratic process would be observed, they might have been able to justify it. To want to implement permanent legislation in such a way is absolutely appalling. When they behave in such a way, the Government play into the terrorists' hands because they demonstrate that things are unfair and unjust.
    I would have liked the opportunity to put one or two questions, especially on parts of the Bill that we did not have the chance to consider in Committee, some of which I would certainly have supported. I would have asked the Secretary of State for some reassurances, especially on the powers to search non-residential buildings. The police should be entitled to search premises such as lock-up garages without having to seek a warrant, but following any search they must ensure that lock-up garages and other premises are left secure so that the owner can return to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us in the short time remaining whether he will give some guarantees that those assurances can be built into the guidance.
    The proposed right of police officers to inspect goods at ports seems very sensible, and it is amazing that we have left that to customs officers, but there is a power to detain goods for up to seven days, and some of the goods that can be detained are date-sensitive and perishable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State could have assured us that the guidance will place a duty on the police to ensure that goods held for inspection are released as soon as possible.
    Finally, I wish to refer to the banning of cars from particular areas—again, a perfectly sensible proposal. But if we are trying to ban vehicles from areas around public buildings, it may be easy to do that at night when there are no cars around. It is clear that it is intended to use the power in residential areas, and that causes a greater problem. People in many areas are entitled to park outside their homes, but they may not be in a fit state to drive their car away when asked to do so by a police officer. Again, the Secretary of State could have informed us what provisions are proposed to meet such a situation.
    Those are the sort of matters on which we should have asked the Government for assurances. Instead, we have had the farce of legislation being rushed through with little or no time for hon. Members to make reasonable points and to ask the Government for guarantees. Such behaviour plays into the hands of the terrorists.
    1.16 am
    Ms Abbott: I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. On behalf of all my colleagues who will also be doing so, I must say how much we resent the cheap argument that anybody who criticises the way in which the Bill has been pushed through, or anybody who criticises any detail of the Bill, is in some sense soft on terrorism or is giving aid and succour to the people who

    297
    blow up men, women and children. In my constituency, we could hear the Canary wharf bomb go off, and I resent—as do my colleagues—the implication that in some sense we do not take the matter seriously and are soft on terrorism.
    I shall vote against the Bill because the way in which it has been pushed through Parliament shows contempt for our procedures and for the electors whom we are supposed to represent. I shall also vote against the Bill because I cannot accept giving the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. Those of us who were present in the Chamber for the debates on amendments to clause 1 heard the heartfelt speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He spelt out the consequences of similar legislation in Northern Ireland for the relationship between young people and the police. The Bill will have exactly the same negative repercussions on young people on the mainland as it did in Northern Ireland.
    The Home Secretary asked what our constituents would think if they could hear the debate today. If my constituents had heard the debate, they would have thought, "If the legislation is so important, why are the Government so adamant about not giving sufficient time to debate it?" If my constituents—black, white, Asian or whatever their ethnicity—aged under 21 could have heard the debate, they would have understood, as Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends failed to understand, the concerns that I expressed about giving police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. They would have understood that point, and it is a shame that the House did not.
    I shall also oppose the legislation because I dislike the cynical motives of the Home Secretary in promoting it. I believe that when the history is written of 20th-century Home Secretaries, the present one will go down for many things. He will go down in history as the agitprop Home Secretary—a Home Secretary who ruthlessly promoted legislation purely for the purpose of making propaganda.
    One of my and my colleagues' fundamental objections to the Bill is that we do not believe that it is only in the past 72 hours that the Home Secretary has discovered the need for it. We do not believe that it gives the police powers to do things that they could not already do without let or hindrance. We believe that the Bill has been promoted cynically as a means of propaganda and to allow Conservative Members the chance to paint this party and my Front-Bench colleagues as soft on terrorism.
    My hon. Friends and I believe that promoting legislation for those purposes demeans the House and demeans the parliamentary process. I shall be proud to vote against the Bill tonight. I suspect that when people look back, they will believe that those of us who were prepared to vote against the Bill did the right thing.
    1.20 pm
    Mr. Howard: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on Third Reading has made up in the sharpness of its controversy for the relative absence of controversy in our proceedings hitherto. I was particularly interested in the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which I thought encapsulated his entire political career. He put up an Aunt Sally and then
    298
    knocked it down. He suggested that the new powers would not achieve peace in Ireland. Of course that is right; we have never put them forward on that basis.
    I have never suggested that the purpose of the powers was to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and an end to the terrorist campaign in Great Britain. I would like to see peace achieved and I would like to see an end to the terrorist campaign—we are pursuing that objective through other means. The purpose of these powers is much more limited. It is to give our constituents the protection that they deserve from terrorist attacks. That is why our constituents have sent us here. If there is one thing that they care about more than anything else, it is the need for protection against terrorist outrages. That is what our constituents want—young as well as old. They would understand the police's need for the additional powers. That is why the powers are necessary, that is why the powers are urgent and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 13.

    Division No. 97]

    [1.21 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Amess, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Arbuthnot, James

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Ashby, David

    French, Douglas

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Garnier, Edward

    Bates, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Beggs, Roy

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Booth, Hartley

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Boswell, Tim

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bowis, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Harris, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butler, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Carrington, Matthew

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clappison, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Congdon, David

    Key, Robert

    Conway, Derek

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knapman, Roger

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Cran, James

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

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

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Leigh, Edward

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lidington, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lord, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Luff, Peter

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Dunn, Bob

    McCrea, The Reverend William

    Elletson, Harold

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Faber, David

    Maginnis, Ken

    299

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Merchant, Piers

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Spring, Richard

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Steen, Anthony

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stephen, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Streeter, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thomason, Roy

    Openheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Paice, James

    Waller, Gary

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Watts, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Richards, Rod

    Willetts, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Wolfson, Mark

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wood, Timothy

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Mr. Simon Burns and

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Mr. Richard Ottaway.

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    Mallon, Seamus

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Livingstone, Ken

    McGrady, Eddie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McNamara, Kevin

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

    Madden, Max

    Mr. Dennis Canavan.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

A41 (Aston Clinton Bypass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
1.32 am
Mr. David Lidington: In a few hours' time my constituents in the village of Aston Clinton will wake up to the rumble of lorries and the roar of cars passing through their small village. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the long wait that those villagers have had for a road improvement first promised them in 1937, and to press on my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads the case for the Aston Clinton bypass to be given the highest possible priority, within what my constituents and I accept is inevitably a finite road budget in any one year.
The A41 at Aston Clinton has always been a major road, right back to Roman times when, as Akeman street, it was one of the highways of Britain. As a trunk road, it now divides the village, with most of the homes and the village school on one side of it, while most of the public amenities—the church, the post office, the village hall, the sports and social club, the recreation ground and the bus stops to the nearest town, Aylesbury—are on the other. The trunk road is continuously fronted by homes, public houses and a school; all are exposed to noise and fumes. Some of the older houses have windows less than 2 yd from the edge of the carriageway. A large number of private driveways and garage paths give access directly on to the trunk road which, as my hon. Friend can imagine, causes problems of additional congestion. About 15 minor roads and lanes join the A41 during its course through the village.
The congestion on the A41 is a long-standing problem and was recognised as such in the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry in 1990, who said:
"there is already traffic congestion and accidents occur."
The plight of the people of Aston Clinton has been made much worse since the opening of the Berkhamsted and Kings Langley bypasses in 1993. Aston Clinton is now the only village on the A41 without a bypass between Aylesbury and the M25.
Since the opening of the Berkhamsted and Kings Langley bypasses there has been a 19 per cent. increase in average daily traffic flows through Aston Clinton, equivalent to 24,700 vehicles per day according to the most recent figures that I have obtained, and a 20 per cent. rise in peak flows, equivalent to 2,300 vehicles each hour at peak times in each direction.
The proposed bypass scheme has a long history. Back in 1937, the A41 at Aston Clinton was recognised as inadequate and a scheme was proposed to widen the road to three lanes. That was approved by the then Government under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935, but nothing was done. In 1956, the then Minister of Transport agreed that predicted traffic flows meant that a bypass was needed rather than mere road widening, and Buckinghamshire county council was instructed by the Government to prepare a scheme. Two years later, in 1958, draft orders were published, but they were never confirmed.
No action was taken until the 1970s, when the Department of Transport again investigated routes both north and south of the village; none was developed.

301
By 1981, the Aston Clinton bypass was included in the reserve list of road schemes in the Government White Paper entitled, "Policy for Roads: England 1981", and the start of works was assumed to be from 1986 onwards—I emphasise that the year was 1986.
In 1982, the Department of Transport asked Buckinghamshire county council to carry out a fresh investigation of alternative routes. In 1987, the then Minister finally announced the preferred route for consultation. The Department then said that according to its programme
"construction would start towards the end of 1989."
The Department added:
"This may be optimistic. We will do our best."
In May 1988, the Department said that the estimated start date would be early 1990, with completion likely in 1992, at about the same time as the Kings Langley and Berkhamsted bypasses were then expected to be completed.
In the autumn of 1989, draft orders were published and in April and May 1990 a public inquiry was held. The inspector at that inquiry completed his report quickly and dated it 3 July 1990. It was not until 12 months later, on 19 July 1991, that his report and the letter announcing the ministerial decision were published. In a press release dated 22 July 1991, my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Chope, said:
"Work on the A41 Aston Clinton bypass in Buckinghamshire could begin as early as next year."
By April 1993, however, the Department was saying that the earliest that work could start would be in 1994–95. By December 1993, that start date had slipped to 1995. In 1993, however, some progress was made when orders were issued. The issue of supplementary orders required a further public inquiry in November 1994 and its report and decision were published in July last year.
Much to the relief of my constituents, the Government's review of their road programme during the latter part of 1995 led to the Aston Clinton bypass being kept within the Government's overall road programme. Indeed, it was singled out for mention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his press statement, which accompanied the release of details of the Government's trunk roads programme.
The history of this is important. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to understand why my constituents are impatient and why they have become cynical over the years about reassurances from the Department of Transport that never seem to be translated into action. It is true that part of the delay has been occasioned by genuine objections which needed to be discussed and properly considered.
My constituents in two small villages—Buckland and Drayton Beauchamp—face the loss of tranquillity in their village environments when the Aston Clinton bypass is eventually built. It was right for their objections and counter-proposals to be fully considered. However, some of the residents of the villages are now saying to me that if the bypass has to be built, we should get on with it as quickly as possible. At least then the blight on their homes would be removed and compensation arrangements could begin to be sorted out. Within Aston Clinton the great
302
majority of people and organisations strongly support the bypass scheme and agree with the inspector's conclusion of 1990 that the need for the bypass is urgent.
All the elected representatives of Aston Clinton have given strong support to the bypass scheme. In particular, County Councillor Bill Chapple, the local ward councillor, has been unstinting in his campaign for the bypass to be built as quickly as possible. He has been supported by the district councillors, Don Evett and Gavin Chapman, by Aston Clinton parish council and by the Aston Clinton Residents Association.
In conclusion, I remind hon. Members of the submission of the Department of Transport to the public inquiry in 1990. The Department said that the bypass represented good value for money, that it would remove about 75 per cent. of the traffic from the A41 through the centre of Aston Clinton and that it would reduce accidents. This is a good and a worthwhile scheme. My constituents have been waiting for it for a long time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Transport will see their way to giving it the highest possible priority within their programme.
1.42 am
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has been a strong and persistent advocate of the A41 Aston Clinton bypass. I reassure him that there is absolutely no doubt about the importance of the scheme, which is why it remained firmly in the main programme after the thorough review of the programme that I conducted last year.
The section of road between Aylesbury and Tring Hill is the last section of the A41 to be improved to dual carriageway standard between the M25 and Aylesbury. The new bypass will have grade-separated junctions to the north of Aston Clinton from the A41 Tring bypass to a proposed at-grade roundabout on the existing A41 to the west of Aston Clinton—a length of about four miles.
The road in question already suffers from congestion; slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and create more harmful emissions; Aston Clinton, in particular, suffers from noise and fumes; the congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry and increases the cost for consumers; local journeys are made more difficult; and even simple errands—such as visiting the shops, getting to work or dropping the children off at school—take more time. With further forecast traffic, the situation will become worse—and we cannot hope that the traffic will disappear.
My hon. Friend has made it abundantly clear—here today, previously in correspondence and many times in the Lobby—that he is increasingly concerned about the volume of traffic on the A41. I am well aware of this. As he said, there have been increases of approximately 19 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the annual average daily traffic flows and peak hour traffic flows on the A41 at Aston Clinton since the opening of the Berkhamstead to Kings Langley bypass.
The relief brought to the village as a result of the bypass will be substantial. We estimate that traffic flows will fall by more than 70 per cent.—which would mean some 14,000 vehicles a day being taken away from people's homes and schools. This will undoubtedly

303
improve the quality of life for those who live and work in Aston Clinton. Moreover, the bypass is estimated to save more than 500 personal injury accidents and about eight lives over 30 years.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, much of the delay has been in overcoming objections and completing statutory procedures. Some procedures remain to be completed. The public inquiry in November 1994 heard objections to draft supplementary orders implementing modifications to the scheme, which were recommended following the original inquiry in 1990. These modifications, which included measures to minimise the impact of the new road on the environment of St. Mary's church in Drayton Beauchamp, will be the subject of orders that will be made later this summer.
304
There will follow a six-week period when those orders are open to challenge but, following completion of these statutory procedures, the road will be ready for start of works and the start of works will depend solely on the availability of funding. I cannot give any guarantees of when that will be, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the scheme will be the nearest to the starting line that it could possibly be and I think that, after hearing what I said about the merits of the scheme, he will understand that nothing would gladden me more than to be able to find the resources, to allocate them to the scheme and to let his constituents have the bypass that they have supported so strongly and for which they have waited so long.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23645]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am arranging for a list of regulations which have been repealed or amended to date to be compiled and placed in the House Libraries. This will also include examples of the savings to business. Details of regulations still to be amended or repealed will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  EDS Computer System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23728]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are none.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24233]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office and its agencies have not entered into any out-sourcing arrangements with the EDS computer system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24236]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 750, if he will give a breakdown of the figure of £30,100 for official hospitality by his ministerial office and related agencies. [24445]
  86
  Mr. Willetts
  The figure of £30,100 given in my answer of 14 December represented expenditure on official hospitality by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies—excluding HMSO—for the period 1 April 1995 to the end of November 1995. It was made up of £14,800 expenditure by the Cabinet Office—excluding the Prime Minister's Office—£4,000 by OPS agencies and £11,300 by the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 693, for whom the two dinners at Lancaster house were held; how many people attended; and what was the cost in each case. [24428]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Deputy Prime Minister hosted the dinners in question in order to discuss a range of competitiveness issues with a mix of senior public and private sector representatives. Seventeen people attended the first dinner, at a cost of £1,118.36. Eighteen attended the second, at a cost of £1,163.41.

  The Deputy Prime Minister has also hosted one other lunch at Lancaster house, and a dinner at another venue, for a total of 22 people, from a similar range of backgrounds and to discuss other issues relating to national competitiveness, at a total cost of £1,204.53.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minster to what extent(a) he and (b) his office has a role in the co-ordination of answers from Ministers to parliamentary questions tabled by hon. and right hon. Members. [23778]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  As Chairman of the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy, I have in place procedures for co-ordinating the handling of linked parliamentary questions put to a number of departmental Ministers and parliamentary questions put to one Government Department where the subject matter is of wider interest to the Government as a whole. In each case, it is for the departmental Minister to take responsibility for the answer. The co-ordinating procedures are designed to secure consistency and efficient handling of those questions which extend beyond the field of responsibility of individual departmental Ministers.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his role in the framing of answers to parliamentary questions to other Government Departments. [23719]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  My role is confined to those cases where the subject matter of a question put to another Government Department cuts across the responsibilities of several Departments including my own, or has been brought to the attention of the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy, which I chair, as a matter of wider interest to Government as a whole. In such cases, the lead Department would liaise with the Committee, and with other interested Departments, over the terms of the answer. In each case, it is the departmental Minister who has responsibility for the final answer.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Enforcement Agents Review
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of civil enforcement agents. [24699]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The discussions referred to in my written answer of 29 June 1995,Official Report, column 741, have now concluded. Following careful consideration of the proposals which emerged from these discussions, I believe that the best way of achieving a proper and professional service for creditors and debtors lies in a package of initiatives specifically focused on the areas of concern identified in the course of the review.

  I therefore intend to implement a range of measures that will increase creditors' access to enforcement by the sheriffs while increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the county court bailiff service for those who continue to use it. At the same time, my Department will be working with other Government Departments and relevant bodies to modify and strengthen the certification procedure for other bailiffs and to ensure that redress is both available and accessible for those aggrieved by the actions of private bailiffs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Council
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [24012]

  Mr. David Davies
  The answer is as follows:

  SUBJECT: MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR APRIL 1996

  1. The following Councils are scheduled:

  12 April: Transport (informal)

  12 April: Ecofin (informal)

  13 April: Transport (informal)

  13 April: Ecofin (informal)

  13 April: Social Affairs (informal)

  18 April: Tourism

  22 April: Fisheries

  22 April: General Affairs Council

  23 April: General Affairs Council

  23 April: Consumer Affairs

  23 April: Culture (informal)

  24 April: Culture (informal)

  24 April: Telecom (informal)

  25 April: Telecom (informal)

  29 April: Agriculture

  30 April: Agriculture

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  12/13 April: Transport Council (informal)
  —Need to complete infrastructure network as defined in Community documents and the respective legal and financial instruments
  —Means for transferring traffic from roads
  —Transport and the environment
  88
  —Harmonisation of conditions for transport activities
  12/13 April: Ecofin Council (informal)
  —Discussion of European Monetary Union:
  relationship between participating and non-participating countries;
  German proposals for a stability pact;
  technical and legal issues posed by the introduction of the euro
  —Discussion of economic situation in the EU:
  initiatives to deal with unemployment (Santer's confidence pact)
  —Taxation (discussions of Commission paper)
  13 April: Social Affairs Council (informal)
  —Agenda not yet available.
  18 April: Tourism Council

  "A" Points
  — As advised by council secretariat
  "B" Points
  —1992 tourism action plan: evaluation report (debate)
  —Proposal for a council decision establishing a new tourism action plan (debate) (possible item)
  —Council resolution on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation in the field of tourism
  —Commission green paper on tourism (debate)
  22 April: Fisheries Council

  "A" Points
  —As advised by council secretariat
  "B" Points
  —Quota flexibility
  —Drift nets
  —Technical measures in the Mediterranean
  —Presentation of multi-annual guidance programme IV
  —Research
  — Aquaculture statistics
  —Third countries (possible item)
  —Fish fees (possible item)
  22/23 April: General Affairs Council
  —Agenda not yet available
  23 April: Consumer Affairs Council

  "A" Points
  — As advised by council secretariat
  "B" Points
  —Proposal for directive on indication of prices of consumer products (political agreement)
  —Proposal for directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (orientation debate)
  —Commission action plan on consumer access to justice (presentation by Commission and exchange of views)
  —Council conclusions on priorities for consumer policy
  —Open debate on Commission communication on priorities for consumer policy
  —Proposal for directive on sale of goods and consumer guarantees (Commission presentation)
  —Proposal for directive on rate of charge of consumer credit (Commission presentation)
  23/24 April: Culture Council (informal)
  —Agenda not yet available
  24/25 April: Telecom Council (informal)
  —Agenda not yet available

  89
  29/30 April: Agriculture Council

  "A" Points
  —As advised by council secretariat
  "B" Points
  —Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime
  —Price fixing
  —Bananas
  —Oilseeds for non-food uses (possible item)
  —Geographical designations
  —Plant health: solidarity and responsibility (possible item)
  —Veterinary and fish fees (possible item)
  —Pesticide maximum residence levels (possible item)

  Government Code and Cypher School
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current location of the Government code and cypher school(a) original decrypts of German army and air force Enigma traffic and (b) SMA original decrypts in the Japanese military attaché; series. [23841]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government communication headquarters—GCHQ—released reports based on Government code and cypher school decrypts of wartime German army and air force messages to the Public Record Office in January 1996 under reference HW5. Reports based on decrypts of Japanese military attachémessages were released in April 1995 under reference HW10. In many cases, the original decrypts were destroyed when the reports were issued, or soon after, and the Public Record Office has stated that it has no requirement for GCHQ to release the few original decrypts that still exist.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to release original Government code and cypher school Enigma decrypts to the Public Record Office. [23842]

  Mr. Rifkind
  GCHQ has already released to the Public Record Office—PRO—a considerable amount of Government code and cypher school signals intelligence and related documents, including the reports based on Enigma decrypts which were passed to Churchill from 1941 onwards. GCHQ is continuing to review its records from the second world war and earlier, with the aim of releasing as many as possible. The answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman earlier explained that the few remaining decrypts are not required by the PRO.

  Colombia
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's assessment of the human rights situation in Colombia; and if the UK will be raising the issue of human rights in Colombia at the 52nd UN Commission on Human Rights; [23823]

  (2) what measures he intends to take to address the human rights situation in Colombia at the UN Commission on Human Rights. [23824]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We take a close interest in the human rights situation in Colombia. The Colombian Government are making efforts to improve the situation, but the high level of violence, the guerrillas, narco-traffickers and unauthorised actions by the security 90
  forces cause problems. At the UN Commission on Human Rights, the presidency will deliver a statement on behalf of the European Union reviewing the human rights situation in several specific countries, including Colombia.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, columns 409–10, on how many days the D2 building in Brussels was used for plenary sessions in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [24104]

  Mr. David Davies
  The European Parliament held plenary sessions in Brussels on 12 days on 1995 and will meet there on 16 days in 1996. The D2 building also contains offices and committee rooms and is in continuous use.

  BBC World Service
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to review the proposed reductions in the BBC World Service's grant for 1997–98; and what representations he has received in support of the proposed reductions. [23816]

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount to be made available as grant in aid for the BBC World Service in 1997–98 will be considered along with all the other Government expenditure, during the 1996 public expenditure round, later this year.

  The Government receive many representations in support of reduced public expenditure generally, but are not aware of any specifically relating to the BBC World Service.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23657]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 19 March,Official Report, column 112, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines on broadcasting issued by the St. Helena Government. [23573]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  These guidelines are a confidential internal document drawn up by the Government of St. Helena for use in the Government broadcasting service. It would not, therefore, be
  91
  appropriate to place them in the Libraries of the House. Media arrangements in St. Helena are under review by the St. Helena Government.

  Cuba
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with Governments in the Caribbean region about the United States Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. [24108]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have discussed the issue with the Mexican Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary expects to discuss it with Governments in the region when he visits later this month.

  Travel Immunisation Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of the travel immunisation service. [24182]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health today.

  Government Communication Headquarters
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a meeting between the chair of the Government Communications Staff Federation and civil service unions is permitted under the conditions laid down in CCHQ general notice—GN100/84. [24395]

  Mr. Rifkind
  GCHQ general notice GN 100/84 was superseded on 20 December 1995 by another notice, PCN 12/95, which, in accordance with my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on that day,Official Report, columns 1191–92 relaxed the restrictions on trade union membership at GCHQ while still upholding the Government's concerns regarding the protection of national security. Like GN 100/84, PCN 12/95 places no constraints on a meeting between the chairman of the Government Communications Staff Federation and the civil service unions.

  Commonwealth Co-ordination Division
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are currently in post in the Commonwealth co-ordination department; and what are their grades. [24217]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are seven permanent staff in the FCO's Commonwealth co-ordination department. Their grades are as follows, with home civil service equivalents in brackets: diplomatic service grade 4 (HCS5), DS5 (HCS7), DS7 (HEO), DS9 (EO), DS 10 (AO), S2 (personal secretary) and executive assistants (no equivalent). Prior to the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the Departments's staff increased by some 50 per cent. to handle the United Kingdom preparation for those meetings.

  Ms Louise Stack
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make representations to the Spanish Government about their failure to implement the terms of the treaty between the United Kingdom and that country on the transfer of convicted prisoners in the case of Ms Louise Stack.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no bilateral treaty between Spain and the UK on the transfer of convicted prisoners. We are not aware of any failure by the Spanish authorities to observe the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons in the case of Ms Louise Stack.

  Ms Stack was released from prison in Spain on conditional liberty on 26 March.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zanzibar
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Zanzibar. [24587]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have decided that, in present circumstances, we should not continue with our programme of development assistance to Zanzibar. This reflects our concern about the way in which the outcome of the Zanzibar Government elections in October 1995 was handled, and disturbing reports of post-election political polarisation and harassment of some sections of the community. We do not believe that the current environment is conducive to the effective implementation of a development programme. This decision does not preclude the resumption of further assistance to Zanzibar when circumstances have improved.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive copies of the first annual report of the global environment facility; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [24589]

  Mr. Hanley
  Copies of the first annual report of the global environment facility have recently been received. A copy has been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Zambia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Zambian Government about future elections, with particular reference to the banning of individual candidates; and if he will make a statement. [23913]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have made clear to the Government of Zambia our concern about possible amendments to the constitution which would exclude the leader of the main opposition party from standing for the presidency in the elections due later this year.

DEFENCE

  Joint Headquarters
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the role of the permanent joint headquarters. [22308]

  Mr. Portillo
  The permanent joint headquarters, which I shall formally open tomorrow, will enhance the ability of the three armed services to plan for the conduct of joint operations and to carry them out, including command of the new joint rapid deployment force when it is deployed.

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces' contribution to peacekeeping operations world-wide. [22309]

  Mr. Soames
  There are some 10,500 ground troops with the NATO peace implementation force in Bosnia, supported by 1,200 other personnel. We are also making important contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on Britain's position in the UN Security Council of reducing the United Kingdom's defence spending to the European average. [22311]

  Mr. Portillo
  Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of over £4.5 billion per year. This would have a gravely damaging effect on our armed forces and on their ability to carry out operations, including those carried out under the auspices of the UN Security Council.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be made to mark the last visit of the royal yacht to Cowes; and if he will make a statement. [22320]

  Mr. Soames
  Events to mark the last visit of HYM Britannia to Cowes have yet to be decided.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom will retain its independent nuclear deterrent. [22321]

  Mr. Soames
  We shall maintain a minimum independent nuclear deterrent for as long as is necessary for this country's security.

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will now restore to the Gaelic Athletic Association the full use of its ground at Crossmaglen. [22322]
  94
  Mr. Soames
  Crossmaglen Gaelic Athletic Association club has full use of its pitch and other facilities. A small proportion of the club's land is held under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and forms part of the joint police and Army base in Crossmaglen. This will continue for as long as the security situation demands.

  Art Collection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to recover missing parts of his Department's art collection; what new security measures are in place to avoid further losses; and what plans he has to commission new art works to replace those lost from his departmental budget. [22324]

  Mr. Artbuthnot
  We will continue to make every effort to recover missing works of art by a renewed search of our buildings.

  Works of art are safeguarded by securing the rooms in which they hang, asking staff who occupy those rooms to verify that the rooms are safe and by inspections by staff responsible for works of art.

  We have no plans at present to commission new works of art.

  Exports
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the British defence industry in export markets. [22325]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  British defence equipment manufacturers continue to enjoy success in the export market. In 1995, they won contracts worth about £5 billion, giving UK an estimated world market share of 19 per cent.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the British defence industry's performance in export markets in the last three years. [22329]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Over the last three years—1993 to 1995—UK defence equipment export orders have been worth almost £17 billion.

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making to increase the number of aircrew in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. [22326]

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force do not currently serve as aircrew. The RAF has, however, conducted trials to assess the feasibility of recruiting and training volunteer reservist aircrew. The trials were conducted on the Hercules aircraft at RAF Lyneham, and the Wessex helicopter at RAF Benson. The trials were completed earlier this year and the RAF is currently assessing the results.

  Nimrod Reconnaissance Aircraft
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to make a decision concerning the replacement of the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft. [22327]
  95
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We expect to award a contract for the RAF's replacement maritime patrol aircraft in the late summer.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of disposal of the atomic weapons establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff, subsequent to closure. [22328]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There will be no further defence requirement for the Cardiff factory after 1997. Prior to the decision to close it, an assessment was made of the associated costs and benefits. The former consist mainly of severance payments and decommissioning costs. The benefits to my Department will be felt in terms of reduced annual expenditure.

  RAF Manpower
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total manpower of the RAF in 1990; and what is his estimate of the strength of the RAF by the end of the decade. [22330]

  Mr. Soames
  The total strength of the RAF on 1 April 1990 was 89,685. The estimated strength for 1 April 1999 is some 55,500. Both figures include personnel undergoing training.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has held with English Nature regarding the return of runways at Greenham Common to heathland. [22331]

  Mr. Soames
  The removal of concrete from the runways at Greenham Common and the restoration of heathland was agreed between officials of my Department and English Nature prior to the commencement of work.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about recent changes to the structure and functions of the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down. [22332]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The function of the chemical and biological defence establishment remains unchanged. It provides Her Majesty's Government with advice on the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons and carries out research to ensure that the United Kingdom's armed forces are provided with safe and effective protection. Since 1 April 1995, CBDE, with the chemical and electronic systems sector, has been a division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. On 1 April 1996, CBDE is being renamed the protection and life sciences division. At the same time, it will be expanded to include the centre for human sciences based at Farnborough, which will incorporate the defence radiological protection service based at Alverstoke. The mission for the new division will be to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to protecting the human being in military environments and optimising their military effectiveness.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [22334]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are negotiating in good faith a comprehensive test ban treaty with the aim of establishing an effectively verifiable treaty commanding universal adherence as soon as practicable.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure equal opportunity for women in the armed forces. [22305]

  Mr. Soames
  There are very few roles in the services which are closed to women and the armed forces are committed to ensuring equality of opportunity for women, consistent with the need to maintain combat effectiveness.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21457]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractor or supplier and his employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. Compliance with health and safety regulations is a legal requirement for the contractor or supplier. My Department has a corresponding obligation to notify contractors if work to be performed involves the use of dangerous articles of substances.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [22899]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Supermarine Spitfire Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department intends to take to celebrate the diamond jubilee of the first flight of the Supermarine Spitfire aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [23071]

  Mr. Soames
  In response to requests from event organisers, RAF aircraft, principally from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, are involved in a number of civil events marking the historic achievement of the first flight of the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire.

  Guatemala (Training)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department has had in the military training of Guatemalan Government armed forces in Guatemala. [23193]
  97
  Mr. Soames
  We have had no involvement in the military training of Guatemalan armed forces in Guatemala, but have provided assistance with English language training.

  Exercise Arid Thunder
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nation was the sponsor of the Arid Thunder exercise. [23441]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom sponsored Exercise Arid Thunder 95–96.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by each squadron involved in Exercise Arid Thunder; and how many(a) BL755 and (b) other weapons were dropped by each squadron during the exercise. [23538]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of sorties flown and BL755, 3 kg and 14 kg practice bombs dropped during Exercise Arid Thunder, by squadron, was as follows:

  Unit

  Sorties

  BL755

  3 Kg PB

  14 Kg PB

  13 Squadron

  93

  139

  50

  —

  14 Squadron

  95

  140

  —

  22

  17 Squadron

  131

  137

  75

  30

  617 Squadron

  115

  140

  37

  38

  Tornado Aircrew (Live Weapons)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many live BL755 weapons RAF Tornado aircrew are required to drop each year in order to maintain combat-ready status. [23449]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no specified number of live BL755 weapons which Tornado aircrew are required to drop in order to maintain combat-ready status.

  Remotely Piloted Vehicle (Llanbedr)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the remotely piloted vehicle authorised to fly in the Llanbedr danger area on 6 January 1995 was recovered; and what were the times of take-off and landing of the aircraft. [23439]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your question about a remotely piloted vehicle flight in the Llanbedr danger area on 6 January 1995. Llanbedr is a Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) site and hence part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  The Jindivik remotely piloted aerial target launched from the DTEO site at Llanbedr on 6 January 1995 was recovered; its take-off time was 1024 hours and its landing time was 1055 hours.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Submarine Flotilla
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for the support of the submarine flotilla. [23447]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since the announcement in October 1993 of the Government's intention to sell the royal dockyards, a series of separate negotiations has been conducted with Babcock International Group for the proposed sale of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc and with Devonport Management Limited for the proposed sale of Devonport Royal Dockyard plc. Negotiations have also proceeded with DML on the related issue of the construction of facilities at Devonport for the refitting and refuelling of nuclear submarines, project D154.

  I am pleased to say that, today, my Department signed two heads of agreement with DML and its shareholders. The first, in respect of the proposed sale of DRD plc, covers the general principles which would apply to a sale agreement. The second, for the provision of nuclear refuelling and refitting facilities at Devonport, places on the contractor whose project manager will be Brown and Root (UK) Ltd., the responsibility for delivery of facilities that are licensable, operable and fit for purpose, whilst providing ample opportunity for industry to compete for work at the sub-contract level. A key issue in the negotiations has been the risk transfer and the contractor has accepted to bear an unprecedented proportion of the risk. The agreements must now be converted into binding contracts.

  My Department is today issuing a memorandum of information to the trade unions about the position as regards the future management arrangements for Devonport Royal Dockyard, and will then initiate a formal process of information and consultation.

  Negotiations are at an advanced stage with Babcock International Group on the proposed sale of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc. The outcome will be announced as soon as possible. Short-term extensions to the current contracts in operation at both Rosyth and Devonport dockyards, which would otherwise expire on 5 April 1996, are being arranged to cover the period of further negotiations. The Government have confirmed, subject to reasonable prices, a programme of refitting work for Rosyth for Royal Navy vessels stretching to the year 2006, and to include two aircraft carriers and a substantial number of other major war vessels.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John. D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots are employed at each of the two United Kingdom sovereign bases in Cyprus. [23681]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 29 February, there were 1,240 Greek Cypriots and no Turkish Cypriots employed in the western sovereign base area. In the eastern sovereign base area, there were 577 Greek Cypriots and 306 Turkish Cypriots employed.

  Auxiliary Oil Tankers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place contracts for new auxiliary oil tankers; when the ships are intended to enter service; what
  99
  specification is planned in terms of speed and endurance; how many helicopters will be carried; whether the ships will carry dry stores or weaponry; what order of cost is envisaged; what consideration was given to the use of the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement. [23582]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  An invitation to tender was issued on 2 February 1996 for up to two auxiliary oilers for order around the turn of the year. The first vessel is expected to enter service in early 2001. The specification will meet the latest environmental safety standards and provide a capability for replenishment of warships with fuel and a limited range of solid stores while under way and the operation of a single Merlin-sized helicopter. A speed in excess of 18 kts is required and the ship will possess a limited self-defence capability to allow it to operate with front-line naval forces in peace and war; it will also be able to receive the Phalanx close-in weapons system. The private finance initiative was judged to be inappropriate for the operational role envisaged for these ships. Costs cannot be provided as they are commercial-in-confidence at this stage in the competition.

  Tornado Accident (Germany)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what height above ground level the Tornado involved in an accident in Germany on 10 May 1991 was found to have been flying at the commencement of the manoeuvres which led to control loss. [23440]

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft's final manoeuvre was a level turn, which it entered at a height of 1,075 ft above ground level.

  Weapons Ranges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those weapons ranges in the United Kingdom where delivery of live BL755 weapons is authorised. [23448]

  Mr. Soames
  No RAF weapons ranges in the United Kingdom are cleared for the delivery of live BL755 munitions, although the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation's range at West Freugh is cleared for the release of BL755 for trials purposes.

  Gas Pipeline
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the sequence of events and the meetings and correspondence which preceded Premier Transco digging the Scotland-Northern Ireland gas pipeline in 1995. [23984]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 6 February 1996,Official Report, columns 121–23.

  Key Personnel (Travel)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the air transport of key personnel travelling together to minimise the risk of loss. [24129]

  Mr. Soames
  Our policy remains that a judgment must be made in each case to assess the very remote possibility of a flying accident against the operational and other advantages that this form of travel provides.

  Munitions Dumping (Solent)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 512, if he will place in the Library documents which relate to the dumping of surplus munitions in St. Catherine's Deep off the Isle of Wight or other small-scale munitions dumps in the Solent. [23982]

  Mr. Soames
  No. Complete records of munitions disposal are no longer available and St. Catherine's Deep, although shown on hydrographic charts, may have had only limited or emergency use, if at all. There is no surviving evidence of other munitions dumps in the Solent.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will survey the St. Catherine's munitions dump for reasons of public safety. [23983]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to survey St. Catherine's Deep. Current scientific evidence indicates that munitions dump sites present no significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment, if left undisturbed.

  Bedenham Jetty
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 510–11, if he will list the purposes for which Bedenham jetty was used after 1966. [24220]

  Mr. Soames
  Bedenham jetty has been, and continues to be, used to transfer armament stores between the storage and maintenance depot Gosport to RN ships, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and between other armament depots by naval armament vessels.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the current offset adviser and international finance adviser at Defence Export Services Organisation, (b) the companies from which they are seconded, (c) the duration of their appointments and (d) the bonuses to which they are entitled. [24078]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The current offset adviser is Mr. Barry Teidman, a civil servant and not a secondee. The international finance adviser, Mr. Miles Faulkner is a fixed-term appointee and is also not a secondee but his previous company was Trafalgar House. Mr. Faulker was originally appointed on 1 April 1992 and his appointment has been extended until 31 March 1997. Both are eligible for any performance-related pay awards which may be agreed for their grades, but no specific bonuses are attached to the posts.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the net cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation in each year from 1988 to the present. [24079]
  101
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The net cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation for each year from 1988 was as follows:

  Year

  Net cost of DESO £ million

  1988–89

  (12.23)

  1989–90

  (15.99)

  1990–91

  (17.63)

  1991–92

  11.05

  1992–93

  11.89

  1993–94

  16.02

  1994–95

  10.94

  1995–96 (estimated)

  16.81

  In the years 1988–89 to 1990–91, receipts exceeded costs because the proceeds from sales of surplus equipment were not disagregated to the services concerned.

  Permanent Secretary (Visits)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the visits outside Britain made by the permanent secretary to his Department on official business within the last 12 months indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [24191]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1 April 1995 the permanent under-secretary of my Department has made the following overseas visits:

  Date

  Country

  Purpose

  28–30 April 1995

  Germany (Munich)

  Attend conference organised by the Ditchley Foundation

  29 August–3 September 1995

  Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)

  Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) followed by conference

  19–20 October 1995

  Belgium (Brussels)

  Visit to UK Delegation and International staff at NATO HQ

  14–15 January 1996

  Germany (Oberammergau)

  Keynote address to NATO Defence Planning symposium

  2–4 February 1996

  Germany (Munich)

  Attend Wehrkunde conference on security issues

  27–March 1996

  Pakistan (Islamabad)

  Co-chair inaugural meeting of the UK/Pakistan Defence Cooperation Forum

  14–15 March 1996

  Bosnia/Croatia

  Visit to UK personnel deployed with IFOR

  War Memorials
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the names of service personnel killed in Northern Ireland can be placed on local war memorials in Great Britain. [24370]
  102
  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no objections to the names of service personnel killed in Northern Ireland being inscribed on dedicated memorials.

  Departmental Purchases
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Army has a very urgent requirement for 55,500 rounds of 30 mm AFV TP-T (Practice) L18A2 ammunition as listed as future purchase number ART 2A/10 in MOD contracts bulletin volume 10, number 112 dated 21 February; and if he will make a statement. [22256]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The annual training requirement for the 30mm AFV TP-T practice round was expected to reduce following the introduction of the new discarding sabot reduced range round in 1995–96. Changes in the production timetable of the DSRR have resulted in the need to train with the TP-T round instead and, therefore, to replenish stocks earlier than expected.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which forces there is a requirement for eight electronic support measure/direction finding stations as listed as tender number ISIS2A/017 in MOD contracts bulletin, volume 10, number 12, dated 21 February; and if this requirement is to replace existing equipment. [22257]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The requirement for the equipment specified in tender number ISIS2A/017 in MOD contracts bulletin, volume 10, number 12 dated 21 February, is to support the Army's activities in Bosnia as part of the NATO implementation force. The equipment to be provided is intended to meet the operation requirements of the deployment to Bosnia and is not intended to replace any existing Army equipment.

  Future Attack Submarine
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what assumption for an in-service date for the future attack submarine tender number NSM13C/60167 in MOD contracts bulletin, volume 10, number 12, dated 21 February was issued in respect of pre-feasibility concept studies for the combat system. [22258]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The future attack submarine, currently the subject of concept studies, is intended to replace the Trafalgar class submarines early in the next century.

  Matrix Churchill Trial
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussion he had with Alan Moses QC before the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial. [22392]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None. Mr. Moses's only contact with the Department was in order to review MOD papers which may have been relevant to the case. Details are set out in Sir Richard Scott's report.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or

  103
  amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23651]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The MOD is not a regulator of business and has not therefore identified any such regulations. My Department continues to play a full role in the deregulation initiative by focusing efforts on relieving unnecessary administrative burdens on suppliers, streamlining contracts procedures, and improving communications with industry.

  Quantock School
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 982, if he will make a statement about the review of pastoral care arrangements at Quantock school carried out by the Service Children's Education Authority; if he will place a copy of its findings in the Library; and what arrangements have been made to convey the findings of the SCEA to parents of service children at the school. [24206]

  Mr. Soames
  Two Office for Standards in Education-qualified SCEA staff visited Quantock school on 21 February 1996. Based upon their observations, it is SCEA's view that pastoral and guidance arrangements at Quantock school are entirely adequate with no obvious areas of concern. SCEA will continue to advise service parents in the normal way that Quantock school is suitable for attendance by service children.

  SCEA staff visit independent schools by invitation to assess pastoral care arrangements for service children; they have no statutory right of access. Visit reports are therefore written on the understanding that they remain for internal use only.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the introduction of dental charges for civilian staff, their dependants and the dependants of service men overseas. [24544]

  Mr. Soames
  We intend to bring practice in regard to dental charges overseas into line with that in the United Kingdom. Hence we have decided to introduce, with effect from 1 June, charges for dental treatment provided by overseas service dental establishments and by civilian practices in overseas locations without service facilities, to UK-based civilian staff, their dependants, and the dependants of service personnel. Charges will be in line with those fees currently charged to NHS patients in the United Kingdom. Normal exemption rules will apply. Additionally, dependants of gurkhas serving in Hong Kong will be exempt from these charges, as will service dependants who are serving and residing in Hong Kong, and UK-based civilians and their dependants who are also serving and residing in Hong Kong.

  Service Personnel (Pay)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current levels of pay for both the highest and lowest paid service personnel; what were the rates in real terms in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [22608]
  104
  Mr. Soames
  The rates of pay for the highest and lowest paid personnel for May 1979 and April 1996 are as follows:

  May 1979

  1 April 1996

  Five-star (Field Marshal etc.)

  24,936.00

  124,640.20

  Junior entrant (under 17)

  1,766.60

  5,438.50

  In the period since, the retail prices index, which is the recognised comparator for real-terms pay increases, has increased by 177.9 per cent. Meanwhile, pay for the most senior officer has risen by 399.8 per cent. whereas pay for junior service personnel has increased by 207.9 per cent. These figures indicate that all service personnel, including junior entrants who have yet to attain adult status, are now better off when compared with the RPI, than they were in 1979.

TREASURY

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rate of return on(a) manufacturing in the United Kingdom and (b) other industrial and commercial enterprises producing goods and services in the United Kingdom for each year since 1970. [22961]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on United Kingdom rates of return for(a) manufacturing industrial and commercial companies and (b) all industrial and commercial companies is available from the Office of National Statistics' central shared database and is published in the ONS's first release (95)136, "Profitability of UK companies". This is available from the Library of the House.

  VAT (Political Parties)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise investigations there have been during each of the last five years, and this year to date into the VAT returns made by(a) the Conservative research department and (b) the Labour research department. [23130]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under Customs care and management of the tax and their duty of confidentiality, it is not the policy of the Department to divulge information of this kind relating to individual registered entities.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be; [23611]

  (2) which of the 1,000 regulations identified for appeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which (a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or

  105
  amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23644]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I refer to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to my hon. Friend on 1 April 1996, Official Report, column 18.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23629]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying directive.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage and number of unemployed in each EU country at the latest date for which figures are available. [24029]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on both the level and rate of unemployment in each EU country can be found in labour force survey results, published by the statistical office of the European Community—SOEC. Unpublished data relating to 1994 are given in the table below. More up-to-date estimates of the rate of International Labour Organisation unemployment, not the level, in each country can be found in the SOEC's monthly "Unemployment Bulletin" which is available in the House of Commons Library; the estimates for December 1995 are shown in the table.

  ILO unemployment numbers and rates in EU countries

  December 19951 Rate(Per cent.)

  Spring 19942 Number(000)

  Rate(Per cent.)

  Spain1

  22.2

  3,760

  24.3

  Finland

  17.0

  —

  —

  Ireland

  14.6

  206

  14.6

  Italy

  12.6

  2,560

  11.3

  France

  11.6

  3,149

  12.7

  Belgium

  10.3

  400

  9.6

  Sweden

  9.7

  —

  —

  Greece

  9.4

  368

  8.9

  Germany

  8.6

  3,427

  8.7

  United Kingdom

  8.6

  2,741

  9.7

  Portugal

  7.3

  319

  6.7

  Netherlands

  6.7

  517

  7.2

  Denmark

  6.1

  222

  8.0

  Luxembourg

  4.0

  6

  3.5

  EU total

  10.9

  17,676

  11.4

  Sources:

  1 SOEC monthly unemployment bulletin. All figures refer to December 1995 except the Netherlands (Nov 1995) and Greece (July 1994). Figures for Austria are not available.

  2 SOEC labour force survey results. Figures refer to the results of the spring labour force survey in the listed countries.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the unit value of United Kingdom exports of manufactures for each quarter since 1974, the weighted average unit values for the main manufacturing countries less the United Kingdom and the index of United Kingdom competitiveness measured against those countries. [22966]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  Where available, the unit value indices data are published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". A measure of relative export prices is published in table 2.15 of "Economic Trends". Both publications are available on the central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty's Government plan to introduce to the intergovernmental conference on openness; what response has been made to the Swedish Government's proposals for right of access to official documents; and if he will place in the Library a copy of all proposals submitted by EU member state Governments and received by him to the IGC on openness. [23818]

  The Prime Minister
  We are committed to greater openness in the European Union and have already supported a number of proposals to achieve this. We are considering our policy on openness in the intergovernmental conference, including how to respond to the Swedish ideas for a treaty right of access to official documents. We have already placed in the Library material from other Governments setting out their policy at the intergovernmental conference, including on openness.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22607]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22609]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  No. 10 Downing Street (Receptions)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates on which the receptions were held for(a) the 45th winter ball and (b) the 46th winter ball. [24272]

  The Prime Minister
  A reception was held at No. 10 Downing street for the 45th winter ball on 7 November 1994.

  The reception for the 46th winter ball was not held at No. 10 Downing street.
  107
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions and the dates on which they took place which were held at No. 10 Downing street since November 1990 where the costs have been met by(a) the winter ball, (b) the City and Industrial Liaison Council and (c) any of the regional industrialists councils which raise funds on behalf of the Conservative party. [24271]

  The Prime Minister
  Two functions have taken place where the costs were met by the winter ball. These were on 8 December 1993 and 7 November 1994. There have been no functions where the costs have been met by the City and Industrial Liaison Council or any of the regional industrialists councils which raise funds on behalf of the Conservative party.

  Intelligence and Security (Committee Report)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what action he proposes to take on concerns prompted by the Ames case and tainted intelligence referred to in paragraph 32 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Cm 3198; [24294]

  (2) pursuant to paragraph 35, what action he proposes to take on significant lapses in the procedures for the briefing of Ministers as referred to in paragraph 32 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Cm 3198. [24295]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of reply to the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee at the front of the report in which I said:"In the light of what your report said about the Ames case, and as you suggested at our meeting, I have myself reviewed the evidence given to you. I feel satisfied that Ministers were adequately briefed on this case and that, on the evidence so far available, damage to United Kingdom interests was not great. But these are serious issues and I look forward to seeing your conclusions following your further investigations into these matters."

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23612]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 1 April, Official Report, column 18.

  Banned Drugs
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will add gamma hydroxy butyrate to the list of banned drugs. [21963]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: This substance is not currently under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but I am asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to give the matter further consideration.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forms of political extremism are taken into account when applications for British citizenship are considered. [23843]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In cases where the grant of British citizenship is discretionary, all aspects of an applicant's activities that might be relevant to the requirement that he is of good character are taken into account.

  Prisoners (Mandatory Drug Testing)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners over the last 12 months have tested positive for using class C drugs as a result of mandatory drug testing; and if he will make a statement. [23828]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question regarding the number of prisoners who have tested positive for using class C drugs in the last 12 months.
  Between February 1995 and January 1996 there were 186 random test results positive for benzodiazepines, the group of class C drugs for which tests are made. Results for February 1996 are not yet available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners over the last 12 months have tested positive for using class B drugs as a result of mandatory drug testing in(a) England and (b Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23710]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who have tested positive for using class B drugs in England and Wales during the last 12 months.
  In English prisons, between February 1995 and January 1996, there were 2400 random test results positive for cannabis, amphetamines and barbiturates, the class B drugs tested for. The two Welsh prisons which began testing in December have had 17 positive random test results for class B drugs. Results for February 1996 are not yet available.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what negotiations have taken place between Premier Prison Services Ltd. and the Prison Service since the contract was signed, to alter(a) the catchment areas and (b) the courts from which prisoners are drawn; what decisions were made as a result of those negotiations; and on what dates; [23243]
  109
  (2) to alter the terms under which particular prisoners can be transferred out of Doncaster; how many prisoners have been transferred under renegotiated terms; for what reason; and on what dates. [23244]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about what negotiations have taken place between Premier Prison Services Ltd and the Prison Service since the contract was signed to alter (a) the catchment areas; (b) the courts from which prisoners are drawn; and (c) the terms under which particular prisoners can be transferred out of Doncaster. You also asked what decisions were made as a result of those negotiations and how many prisoners have been transferred under renegotiated terms; for what reason and on what dates.
  There have been no negotiations and no change to the catchment area and therefore no change to the courts from which prisoners are drawn.
  No change has been made to the transfer arrangements. Doncaster prison is a local prison and its function, as with other local prisons, is to hold prisoners who are remanded into custody and to ensure they are taken to courts in the catchment area for trial purposes. After conviction and sentence Doncaster prisoners, in common with other similar prisoners held in local prisons, are allocated to a training prison establishment, as vacancies arise.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the complement of full-time and part-time staff by grade employed at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster on the first day of every month since December 1995; what proportion of the staff costs were met by the Prison Service under the terms of the contract with Premier Prison Services Ltd; and what proportion were met by the company. [23241]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 A. J. Person to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 April 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 complement of staff at Doncaster prison.
  The table below shows the complement of full-time and part-time staff (excluding sub-contractors) employed at Doncaster prison on the first day of each month since December 1995.
  With the exception of the three Prison Service personnel at Doncaster prison, all staff (excluding sub-contractors) are employed by Premier Prison Services Ltd and funded through the contract fee paid by the Prison Service for the management of Doncaster prison. The deployment of these staff by grade is a matter for the company.

  Month

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  December 1995

  449

  14

  January 1996

  449

  18

  February 1996

  449

  18

  March 1996

  449

  18

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the complement of full-time and part-time staff employed at Her Majesty's prison,110
  Doncaster on 20 June 1994; and what was the complement of full and part-time staff by grade on 20 March. [23242]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. George Howarth, dated 2 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about staffing levels at Doncaster prison on 20 June 1994 and 20 March 1996. The complement of full and part-time staff at Doncaster prison was as follows:

  Date

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  20 June 1994

  356

  0

  20 March 1996

  449

  18

  The grading of staff is commercial-in-confidence under the terms of the relevant contract.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account(a) the present and (b) the planned future funding formulas for the police take of levels of unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [23114]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police funding is distributed by means of a population-based formula. In common with the formulae for other locally delivered services, the police funding formula also takes account of a number of socio-demographic variables including unemployment. In both 1995–96 and 1996–97, less than 1 per cent. of police funding will be redistributed on the basis of unemployment indicators.

  Special Constables
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the number of special constables in each division; and how many hours have been worked by them each month during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available. [23160]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not possible to break down the figures for hours worked into monthly periods. For April 1994 to March 1995, the latest period for which the total figure is available, special constables in the Metropolitan police worked a total of 407,102 hours. The number of special constables on each division is given in the table.

  Division

  Number of Specials

  1 Area

  Belgravia

  5

  Notting Hill

  7

  Brompton

  21

  West End Central

  31

  Charing Cross

  30

  Paddington

  11

  Marylebone

  11

  111

  Division

  Number of Specials

  Fulham

  10

  Hammersmith

  27

  Area Headquarters

  3

  Total

  156

  Male

  109

  Female

  47

  2 Area

  Golders Green

  24

  West Hendon

  29

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  42

  Wembley

  23

  Kilburn

  15

  Harrow

  59

  Ealing

  29

  Southall

  15

  Tottenham

  17

  Hornsey

  17

  Islington

  16

  Holloway

  16

  Kentish Town

  14

  Holborn

  13

  Hampstead

  11

  Area Headquarters

  2

  Total

  342

  Male

  229

  Female

  113

  3 Area

  Enfield

  36

  Edmonton

  45

  Chingford

  31

  Leyton

  22

  Ilford

  40

  Barkingside

  60

  Stoke Newington

  11

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  47

  Limehouse

  16

  Forest Gate

  24

  Plaistow

  27

  Havering

  56

  Dagenham

  50

  Bethnal Green

  32

  Area Headquarters

  3

  Total

  500

  Male

  311

  Female

  189

  4 Area

  Peckham

  11

  Walworth

  8

  Southwark

  8

  Stock of police houses at 31 March 1992–1995

  Police authorities

  Total stock 31 March 1992

  Total stock 31 March 1993

  Total stock 31 March 1994

  Total stock 31 March 1995

  Avon and Somerset

  361

  350

  346

  281

  Bedfordshire

  115

  112

  107

  101

  Cambridgeshire

  191

  250

  154

  150

  Cheshire

  145

  144

  142

  141

  City of London

  74

  73

  65

  63

  Cleveland

  8

  8

  7

  6

  Cumbria

  223

  222

  239

  201

  Derbyshire

  169

  144

  119

  92

  Devon and Cornwall

  224

  206

  139

  106

  Dorset

  181

  165

  159

  158

  112

  Division

  Number of Specials

  Lewisham

  22

  Catford

  15

  Bromley and Orpington

  66

  Greenwich

  29

  Plumstead

  22

  Bexleyheath

  54

  Epsom and Sutton

  57

  Croydon

  47

  South Norwood

  33

  Area Headquarters

  4

  Total

  376

  Male

  253

  Female

  253

  5 Area

  Brixton

  7

  Streatham

  42

  Wimbledon

  40

  Kingston

  58

  Twickenham

  54

  Hounslow

  28

  Chiswick

  16

  Spelthorne

  20

  Heathrow

  19

  Hillingdon

  49

  Vauxhall

  19

  Battersea

  24

  Wandsworth

  36

  Wapping

  22

  Area Headquarters

  2

  Total

  436

  Male

  270

  Female

  166

  Plus one chief commandant and one deputy chief commandant based at New Scotland Yard.

  Police Stations and Houses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police stations and (b) police houses, per police force there were in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [23113]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of police stations is not collected centrally. Information on police houses is available only for the last four years and is set out in the table. Further information on the number of police houses is published annually in "Police Statistics" by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, copies of which may be found in the Library.
  113

  Stock of police houses at 31 March 1992–1995

  Police authorities

  Total stock 31 March 1992

  Total stock 31 March 1993

  Total stock 31 March 1994

  Total stock 31 March 1995

  Durham

  78

  67

  53

  47

  Dyfed-Powys

  200

  197

  187

  178

  Essex

  361

  350

  353

  347

  Gloucestershire

  174

  171

  165

  150

  Greater Manchester

  372

  357

  340

  308

  Gwent

  68

  68

  52

  44

  Hampshire

  400

  385

  314

  267

  Hertfordshire

  463

  446

  433

  423

  Humberside

  135

  135

  125

  118

  Kent

  484

  482

  479

  478

  Lancashire

  276

  269

  256

  182

  Leicestershire

  84

  83

  72

  64

  Lincolnshire

  133

  118

  109

  85

  Merseyside

  105

  101

  86

  77

  Norfolk

  86

  84

  81

  81

  Northamptonshire

  142

  137

  135

  121

  Northumbria

  290

  289

  288

  287

  North Wales

  348

  340

  276

  223

  North Yorkshire

  352

  348

  286

  249

  Nottinghamshire

  84

  76

  74

  70

  South Wales

  266

  255

  197

  153

  South Yorkshire

  91

  87

  78

  69

  Staffordshire

  206

  179

  120

  73

  Suffolk

  139

  129

  122

  96

  Surrey

  453

  452

  455

  453

  Sussex

  520

  517

  510

  507

  Thames Valley

  612

  612

  611

  611

  Warwickshire

  143

  122

  135

  133

  West Mercia

  240

  206

  182

  151

  West Midlands

  421

  416

  403

  399

  West Yorkshire

  141

  135

  126

  109

  Wiltshire

  163

  162

  123

  108

  Metropolitan police

  2,628

  2,403

  2,181

  1,930

  Total

  12,348

  11,852

  10,884

  9,890

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will write to police forces reminding them of the list he has already circulated, compiled by the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club, which provides the names of individuals with expert knowledge who may be well equipped to identify dogs which may be suspected as being covered by section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and what assessment he has made as to whether reference to such individuals could(a) save public money and (b) reduce distress. [24205]

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on the list of individuals prepared to give advice as to whether a particular dog appears likely to fall within section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was set out in the Home Office circular issued in February 1994 to all police forces in England and Wales. It remains extant and we have no evidence to suggest that police forces generally are unaware of the guidance contained in the circular.

  Decisions from whom to seek advice in this regard is an operational decision for the chief officer of police. Clearly, the early identification of whether a dog is covered by section 1 of the 1991 Act should be of benefit to all concerned in a case.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now review the 114
  effectiveness of the transfer of the convicted prisoners treaty between the United Kingdom and Spain; [24387]

  (2) how many British citizens convicted abroad, in countries with whom the United Kingdom has treaties on the transfer of convicted prisoners, have been returned to the United Kingdom to complete their sentences in the last five years, listed by country; [24391]

  (3) with which countries Her Majesty's Government have agreed arrangements for the transfer of convicted prisoners to complete their sentences in their country of residence and, by country, the date upon which such arrangements came into effect; [24393]

  (4) how many foreign nationals, convicted in courts in England and Wales, have been returned to their country of residence to complete their sentences under the terms of treaties on the transfer of convicted prisoners, in the last five years, broken down by country. [24392]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Her Majesty's Government are a party to two international agreements allowing for the repatriation of prisoners to serve their sentences in their own countries. The main international agreement is the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, which was instituted in 1983. At present, there are some 31 other countries that conduct repatriation under this scheme.

  There is also a Commonwealth scheme for the transfer of convicted offenders to which five other countries are signatories. The United Kingdom also has bilateral

  115
  agreements with Egypt and Thailand. The countries party to these agreements, and the dates on which they came into force for each country, are listed in the table.

  Repatriation between the United Kingdom and Spain is governed by the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons and its procedures. There are no plans to review these arrangements.

  Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons

  State

  Commencement

  Austria

  1 January 1987

  Bahamas

  1 March 1992

  Belgium

  1 December 1990

  Bulgaria

  1 October 1994

  Canada

  1 September 1985

  Croatia

  1 May 1995

  Cyprus

  1 August 1986

  Czech Republic

  1 March 1993

  Denmark

  1 May 1987

  Finland

  1 May 1987

  France

  1 July 1985

  Germany

  1 February 1992

  Greece

  1 April 1988

  Hungary

  1 November 1993

  Iceland

  1 December 1993

  Ireland

  1 November 1995

  Italy

  1 October 1989

  Luxembourg

  1 February 1988

  Malta

  1 July 1991

  Netherlands

  1 January 1988

  Norway

  1 April 1993

  Poland

  1 March 1995

  Portugal

  1 October 1993

  Slovak Republic

  1 January 1993

  Slovenia

  1 January 1994

  Spain

  1 July 1985

  Sweden

  1 July 1985

  Switzerland

  1 May 1988

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1 July 1994

  Turkey

  1 January 1988

  Ukraine

  1 January 1996

  USA

  1 July 1985

  Commonwealth scheme for the transfer of convicted offenders

  State

  Commencement

  Canada

  September 1993

  Malawi

  August 1992

  Nigeria

  August 1992

  Trinidad and Tobago

  July 1993

  Zimbabwe

  December 1991

  Bi-lateral agreements with the United Kingdom

  State

  Commencement

  Egypt

  9 November 1995

  Thailand

  June 2 1991

  The number of prisoners repatriated abroad and the number repatriated to this country in the last five years are given in the following tables.
  116

  Prisoners sentenced in the United Kingdom and transferred abroad

  Total number of transfers over the past five years: 61

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Belgium

  1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  2

  —

  —

  6

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  France

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Holland

  4

  8

  1

  4

  1

  Italy

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  United States

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17

  18

  9

  5

  12

  Prisoners sentenced abroad, transferred into the United Kingdom Total number1 of transfers over the past five years: 53

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Belgium

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Czech

  Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Finland

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  France

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Holland

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Spain

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Thailand

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  United States

  —

  —

  2

  5

  6

  —

  Total

  0

  6

  9

  11

  17

  10

  1Although the majority of those repatriated here are British citizens, the United Kingdom will accept non-citizens who have close family ties in this country and meet immigration requirements. Figures held centrally refer only to the total number of repatriations and do not distinguish between British citizens and non-citizens.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners currently serving prison sentences in Great Britain have requested a transfer to prisons in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic; [23543]

  (2) what is his policy on the transfer of Irish prisoners from gaols in Great Britain to prisons in Northern Ireland. [23544]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The policy governing the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions, including those between England and Wales and Northern Ireland, was set out in a statement on 23 November 1992,Official Report, column 476.

  Any request by a prisoner in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be transferred to one of the other jurisdictions either permanently, to serve the rest of his or her sentence, or temporarily to foster family ties, will normally be approved, provided that (1) the prisoner would have at least six months left to serve in the receiving jurisdiction before his or her date of release at the time of making the request; (2) the prisoner was

  117
  ordinarily resident in the receiving jurisdiction prior to the current sentence; or his or her close family currently reside there and there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is the prisoner's firm intention to take up residence there on release or to receive visits; and (3) both Departments concerned are reasonably satisfied that the prisoner will not, if transferred, disrupt or attempt to disrupt any prison establishment, or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to security. A request that does not meet these conditions may nevertheless be granted where there are strong compassionate or other compelling grounds for transfer.

  A permanent transfer may, however, be refused if it is considered that the prisoner's crimes were so serious as to make it inappropriate that he or she should benefit from a substantial reduction in time left to serve, if that would be a consequence of transfer.

  Requests will be considered on an individual basis. To facilitate the orderly movement of small numbers of prisoners between jurisdictions, the timing of each transfer will be subject to operational and security considerations in the sentencing and receiving jurisdictions.

  Temporary transfer, where granted, may be for a period of up to 12 months, with requests for extensions of this period considered on a similar basis. Temporarily transferred prisoners will be expected to comply fully with such regime requirements as the receiving Secretary of State may stipulate. Failure to agree to do so either in making the request or after transfer will normally justify refusal of the request or the immediate return of the prisoner to the sentencing jurisdiction.

  As of 27 March, 18 requests for transfer to Northern Ireland and 70 requests for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland made by prisoners in England and Wales were under consideration. In addition, three requests for transfer to Northern Ireland made by prisoners in Scotland were under consideration. No requests for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland have been made by prisoners in Scotland.

  Euro 96
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's preparations for Euro 96. [24264]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has developed plans in conjunction with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Football Association, the Home Office, the Department of National Heritage, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Transport, the Football Licensing Authority and the Football Trust. A group comprising representatives of these various bodies meets regularly. Ad hoc discussions with other agencies have also taken place.

  There will be a national police co-ordinating centre in central London with links to eight regional centres being set up in the same areas as the football stadiums hosting the matches. Representatives from the police forces of each of the participating nations will be present to assist with dealing with any problems that may arise in respect of the visiting fans.
  118
  Key features of these plans include the use of modern technology to transmit images of those involved in any disorder quickly to the regional centres; the use of closed circuit television at the stadiums to contain incidents before they can get out of hand; and the use of police intelligence officers or "spotters" to assist in the identification of known hooligans. Any persons intending to cause disruption will be identified and dealt with swiftly.

  A European working group has been established to help with the development of the policing plans. We are confident that, with the great amount of effort being put into this competition, Euro 96 should prove to be an enjoyable and thrilling event for the hundreds of thousands of spectators who are expected.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Affairs Department if he has asked Europol to assist in the measures to tackle football hooliganism in the EU. [23736]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Neither the remit of the Europol drugs unit nor the Europol convention extend to football hooliganism. However, the United Kingdom's good practice guidelines that were adopted by the European Union on 19 March emphasised the importance of European police co-operation and contained measures for promoting this.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many substantive asylum appeals have been heard since 10 November 1995 involving appellants from (i) Nigeria and (ii) Bosnia in which appeals were allowed by special adjudicators or in which his Department decided to withdraw from the appeal. [23513]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Reliable information for the period could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were subject to detention under the Immigration Act 1971 for more than 28 days at any time during 1995. [23514]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To provide the information requested would involve disproportionate cost. The most recent available information was given in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 20 February,Official Report, columns 101–102.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from(a) Somalia, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Iran, (d) Iraq, (e) Bosnia, (f) Croatia and (g) the former Yugoslavia are in the backlog of undecided asylum applications in his Department; and how many of these applications from each country have been waiting more than two years for a decision. [23510]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  An estimated breakdown of those asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 December 1995, by year of application, is given in the table.
  119

  Asylum applications from selected nationalities awaiting an initial decision as at 31 December 1995, by year of application

  Applications outstanding1

  Year of application1 2

  Number

  Per cent.

  1995 Per cent

  1994 Per cent

  1993 Per cent

  1992 Per cent

  Pre-1992 Per cent

  Afghanistan

  550

  100

  50

  15

  15

  10

  10

  Former Yugoslavia3

  5,405

  100

  15

  15

  20

  45

  5

  Iran

  1,010

  100

  25

  25

  15

  20

  15

  Iraq

  700

  100

  35

  20

  10

  15

  20

  Somalia

  2,085

  100

  50

  10

  10

  10

  20

  All nationalities

  69,650

  100

  30

  20

  15

  15

  20

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Approximate estimates rounded to nearest 5 per cent.

  3Includes Bosnia and Croatia which are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the asylum appeals withdrawn in 1993, 1994 and 1995 were(a) withdrawn by his Department and (b) withdrawn by the appellant; and in how many of the latter cases the appellant had been granted leave to remain on grounds not raised in the appeal. [23512]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Fifty asylum appeals were withdrawn in the period August to December 1993—the period in 1993 after the Asylum Act 1995–255 in 1994 and 1,000 in 1995. Information on the reasons for withdrawal could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Omar Bakri Mohammed Fostok
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about the political activities of Omar Bakri Mohammed Fostok born in 1958 in Aleppo, Syria. [23735]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received eight letters about Mr. Omar Bakri Mohammed Fostok. It would be contrary to our normal practice to disclose the details of them.

  Immigration Application Forms
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the use of application forms compulsory for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [24591]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have today laid an immigration rules change which will make the use of application forms for a variation of leave to enter or remain compulsory from 3 June. I have placed copies of the forms I have prescribed in the Library. The scheme will not cover applications under European Community law or applications for asylum. The immigration and nationality department has been operating a voluntary trial of application forms since June 1995. Experience of the trial has shown that the forms enable us to provide a more efficient service to genuine applicants at a cheaper cost to the public purse. A more efficient system will also improve the immigration control.

  European Common Visa List
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the European common visa list. [24592]
  120
  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have today laid a statement of changes to the immigration rules which implements the European Union common visa list. With effect from 4 April, nationals of Bahrain, the Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guyana, Kuwait, the Maldives, Mauritius, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Qatar, Suriname, United Arab Emirates and Zambia will require visas to visit the United Kingdom in addition to those countries of whose nationals visas are currently required.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11400]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]:
  The information requested for the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and their agencies is listed.

  000

  Year

  Advertising

  Press and public relations

  1979–80

  1469

  2282

  1989–90

  7,863

  1,401

  1991–92

  10,567

  1,660

  1993–94

  7,814

  1,898

  1994–95

  8,088

  1,968

  1995–96 (to date)

  5,263

  1,677

  1995–96 (estimate)

  8,856

  2,078

  1996–97 (estimate)

  38,774

  2,186

  1 Expenditure not available from Departments of Economic Development and Agriculture.

  2 Covers expenditure by Departments of Finance and Personnel, Agriculture and Education.

  3 Budget for 1996–97 not yet known in Department of Education.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be taken by other Government Departments to make good the shortfall in the ACE budget. [21876]

  Mr. Ancram
  No specific measures are being taken by other Government Departments at present. However, a transitional package of £2 million to be provided by the Training and Employment Agency for ACE schemes has already been announced which recognises the immediate problems faced by organisations dealing with many of the needy in Northern Ireland and will enable them to make an orderly contraction of their operations.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the arrangements by which residents of Northern Ireland, and foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences in Northern Ireland, may apply for transfer to their home countries outside the United Kingdom to complete their sentences; and how many such transfers have been made in each of the last five years. [24390]

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

  Letter from B. R. D. White to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 2 April 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question regarding government policy in respect of the repatriation of prisoners to and from Northern Ireland.
  The repatriation of prisoners to and from the United Kingdom is governed by the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. Repatriation may be considered where the country to which application is being made is a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons or to the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders or has a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom.
  To be eligible for repatriation a prisoner must have received his final sentence for an offence which is a criminal offence under the law of the receiving country, be a national of that country or have close family ties there and as a general rule have at least six months of his sentence to serve at the time of application. Repatriation requires the consent of both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned. In considering whether to accept a request for repatriation to another jurisdiction it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to agree to a transfer where such a move would result in a substantial reduction in time left to serve.
  In the past five years no prisoner convicted of an offence committed in Northern Ireland has requested to be repatriated to another jurisdiction. No applications for repatriation to Northern Ireland have been received in the same period.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the recommendations of the third report of the Health Committee of Session 1994–95, HC 324, on breast cancer services he has implemented; and what sums he has allocated for further implementation of the recommendations. [23782]

  Mr. Moss
  Many of the recommendations are being taken forward at national level. Specific recommendations in relation to services have been considered by the cancer 122
  working group, which was established to review the current provision of cancer services in Northern Ireland and to make recommendations as to how the services can be improved for all cancer patients. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this in the near future.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the figures for breast cancer among women in each range for which figures are collated; and if he will make a statement on the incidence of breast cancer in Northern Ireland relative to other parts of the United Kingdom. [23784]

  Mr. Moss
  Information on deaths from breast cancer is detailed in the tables. This shows that the death rate is lower in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Annual average deaths from breast cancer by age in Northern Ireland 1989–93

  Age

  Average deaths

  25-30

  0.4

  30-35

  3.4

  35-40

  6.6

  40-45

  18.0

  45-50

  21.0

  50-55

  25.8

  55-60

  35.4

  60-65

  37.4

  65-70

  37.4

  70-75

  34.4

  75-80

  35.0

  80-85

  28.2

  85+

  32.2

  Total

  315.2

  Deaths from breast cancer (per 100,000 women aged 20 or over)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England

  69.4

  68.1

  64.8

  Wales

  64.9

  69.1

  70.8

  Scotland

  63.8

  62.2

  63.6

  Northern Ireland

  65.6

  59.1

  56.6

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will commission research into the incidence of breast cancer among women who have their first child after age 30 years; if he will arrange for publicity about the incidence; and what proposals he has for preventive monitoring schemes. [23785]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans at present to commission such research. Information about incidence is included in publicity for both the breast screening programme and general health promotion programmes of health and social services boards and trusts. The breast screening programme is continuously monitored in order to maintain and improve its effectiveness.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the whole-time equivalent number of NHS general medical practitioners working in each health and social services board area in Northern Ireland at the latest date for which figures are available. [24385]
  123
  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number (whole-time equivalent) of unrestricted principal general medical practitioners in contract with health and social services boards at 1 March 1996

  Health and social services boards

  Unrestricted principals (WTE)

  Eastern

  389·25

  Northern

  221·25

  Southern

  181·5

  Western

  167·75

  Northern Ireland total

  959·75

  Government Purchasing Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing the Government purchasing service of the Department of Finance and Personnel as a next steps agency. [24593]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government purchasing service of the Department of Finance and Personnel was established as an executive agency on 1 April 1996. It will be known as the Government Purchasing Agency.

  I have set a number of key performance targets for the agency to achieve in its first year. These are as follows:
  to achieve total quality through having 100 per cent. of contracts covered by service level agreements established between the
  agency and its customers meet the standards set out in the White Paper "Setting New Standards—A Strategy for Government Procurement", Cmnd 2840;
  to achieve through cost reduction and cost avoidance methods at least 3 per cent. value for money improvements in procurement spend;
  to achieve a 75 per cent. qualified procurement staff;
  to respond to 85 per cent. of requests for advice on procurement policy within one working day and the remainder within three working days;
  124
  to achieve 100 per cent. of regulated contracts conforming to purchasing regulations as monitored by University of Ulster surveys;
  to complete preparation for trading fund status by end of March 1997; and
  to establish a supplier forum with representatives of small and medium-sized businesses by September 1996, that will ensure initial business participation of at least 30 per cent.

  Copies of the framework document, which sets out the terms within which the agency will operate, have been placed in the Library, along with its first corporate and business plan.

  Ballycastle-Campbeltown Ferry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the ferry service between Ballycastle and Campbeltown will commence operation; and if he will make a statement. [23817]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. The target date for the commencement of the proposed new ferry service, set by the sponsors of the project, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and Moyle district council, is 1 May 1997, subject to the availability of the terminals at both Campbeltown and Ballycastle. The Government are considering the proposal made by the project sponsors that Caledonian MacBrayne should be allowed to operate the service and fully recognise the need for an early decision on this matter.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  EDS Computer System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24231]

  The Attorney-General
  The departments for which I am responsible have not entered into any arrangements with Electronic Data Systems.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  EDS Computer System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what out-sourcing contracts her agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should she seek early termination of the contract; and if she will make a statement. [23742]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage and its agencies have no out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what savings to date have been made by her Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment she has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if she will make a statement. [24238]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage and its agencies have no out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans there are to reduce the entitlement of private secretaries and officials in the royal households to residential accommodation in the occupied royal palaces; over what time scale; and how much accommodation will be released and in which palaces. [22103]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is envisaged that 45 private secretaries and officials in the royal household will no longer be provided with residential accommodation when the present postholders leave or retire; 12 of these occupy the following properties, which are outside the security cordons and can therefore be let commercially or sold. The date when it is assumed that the present occupants will retire are also given:

  Date

  Flat/House

  Property

  1996

  1 flat

  Royal Mews, Hampton Court

  2000

  1 house

  Royal Paddocks, Hampton Court

  1 house

  Old Barracks, Kensington

  2002

  2 flats

  Marlborough House Mews

  1 house

  Chantry Close, Windsor

  2003

  1 flat

  Marlborough House Mews

  1 flat

  Old Barracks, Kensington

  2006

  1 flat

  Marlborough House Mews

  2011

  1 flat

  Old Barracks, Kensington

  1 house

  Royal Paddocks, Hampton Court

  2016

  1 flat

  Cumberland Lodge Mews, Windsor

  The 33 properties within the security cordon will not be available for commercial letting or sale. Their future use will be determined when the present postholders leave or retire.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of those fined for failure 126
  to pay television licence fees in Wales have been imprisoned over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [23192]

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of people imprisoned by courts in Wales for non-payment of fines for television licence evasion in each of the last five calendar years, is as follows.

  1991: 2

  1992 21

  1993: 51

  1994: 49

  1995: 61 (provisional figure).

  Owing to changes in statistical analysis, earlier year figures may be understated.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total cost of prosecuting those fined for failure to pay television licences in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1992, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [23185]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is not available.

  National Armouries Collection
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff(a) lost their employment and (b) started employment in the move of the national armouries collection to Leeds. [23541]

  Mr. Sproat
  As a result of the move of a large proportion of the Royal Armouries collection to the new museum in Leeds, two staff have been made redundant by the Royal Armouries and a further 12 staff who were offered continued employment in Leeds have declined it. At Leeds, the Royal Armouries has recruited six new permanent staff and its private sector partners have recruited 259 permanent staff. The private sector partners expect to recruit a further 50 seasonal staff this summer.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the recent proposals and representations she has received concerning elderly sheltered accommodation which does not currently qualify under the television concessionary licence scheme. [23530]

  Mr. Sproat
  We receive regular representations about various aspects of the concessionary television licence scheme, both from Members of Parliament and from members of the public. However, no records are held in the form requested.

  Tourism (Fire Regulations)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has had from the English tourist industry regarding the application of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988(a) to hotels of all sizes and (b) to self-catering accommodation; and if she will make a statement on the reasons for all exceptions in these categories. [23578]
  127
  Mr. Sproat
  The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have had no representations about the application of the 1988 regulations to hotels. Hotels are subject to the Fire Precautions Act (Hotels and Boarding Houses) Order 1972, made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

  The 1988 regulations apply to furniture supplied as part of self-catering accommodation let out in the course of a business for holiday or leisure purposes. I have had a number of representations from self-catering tourist accommodation providers, but none during the past 12 months. As a result of representations about the considerable cost of compliance, the Government made, in 1993, an amendment to the 1988 regulations giving self-catering accommodation providers until 31 December 1996 to replace furniture which does not meet the fire resistance requirements, provided that the furniture has already been supplied as part of accommodation previously let.

  Sport (Administrative Structure)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received about the administrative structure for sport; and if she will make a statement. [22255]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: We have received a number of representations, notably from the Sports Council, about its reorganisation into two new councils for England and for the United Kingdom.

  Mental Patients (Television Licences)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the need to change the regulations concerning television licences for private properties housing mental patients who have been placed there by the local NHS mental health trusts; what plans she has to reconsider these regulations; and if she will make a statement. [23207]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: We are not aware of any representations on this subject, nor do we have any plans for changes to the television licensing regulations.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of a television licence fee a mental health patient has to pay if(a) a resident in accommodation eligible for a residential care television licence and (b) housed in a property which fulfils all the requirements necessary for a residential care television licence, but is not directly provided or run by a local authority or housing association. [23208]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: As from 1 April 1996, the cost of full fee television licences is £89.50 for colour and £30 for black and white. These full licence fees are payable by mentally disordered persons unless all the qualifying criteria for a £5 residential accommodation care licence are met. These criteria include detailed requirements about how the accommodation is provided or managed. This does not necessarily need to be by a local authority or housing association.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23618]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 1 April 1996 Official Report, column 18, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if she will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps she is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23635]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended, and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if she will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23653]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory. [24543]

  Mr. Norris
  The sale of the Transport Research Laboratory to the Transport Research Foundation for some £6 million was completed on 31 March.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 February,Official Report, columns 723–24, in what ways Thameslink 2000 will enhance access to airports. [24758]
  129
  Sir George Young
  The statement on 27 February,Official Report, columns 723–24, indicated that Thameslink 2000 would enhance access to Stansted and Gatwick airports.

  Thameslink 2000 is a project to enhance existing infrastructure and expand the current Thameslink network. The benefits include a significant increase in capacity, a substantial reduction in journey times, the provision of direct access to the City of London from a great number of destinations north and south of London, an interchange with channel tunnel rail link services and with the services of seven train operators and eight London Underground lines, including the Jubilee line extension.

  Gatwick airport and Luton airport are both on the Thameslink route and thus are well placed to benefit from the increased opportunities Thameslink 2000 provides. However, access to Stansted airport will not, as the statement suggested, be enhanced by the project. Direct links to Stansted, and to Heathrow, would require additional infrastructure, electrification and junction changes. These are not part of current Thameslink 2000 plans. It would be a matter for Railtrack, its customers and the franchising director to examine the case for such enhancements, and to take worthwhile proposals forward.

  Railways (Subsidy)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the provision of subsidy for socially necessary passenger railway services. [24759]

  Sir George Young
  The Government remain firmly committed to providing the subsidy needed to support socially necessary passenger railway services at broadly the present level of service provision. In my instructions to the franchising director, I have made it clear that, when setting passenger service requirements for services being franchised for the first time, he should take as his starting point the service being provided at the time. The passenger service requirements which will be incorporated in franchise agreements will set out the services which franchisees will be contractually committed to operate. The Government are committed to providing support for at least those levels of service.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues. [24786]

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to announce that light dues for 1996–97 will remain at the level set in April 1993 for the third year in succession. Accordingly, no changes to the light dues regulations are needed.

  Once again, I commend the general lighthouse authorities for their continuing commitment to the achievement of greater efficiency in their work.

  Crossrail
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the crossrail project. [24760]
  130
  Sir George Young
  I believe that crossrail has the potential to bring worthwhile benefits to London's transport system. As I indicated in my recent statement to the House on Thameslink 2000,Official Report, columns 723-24, I expect crossrail to come after the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link. That is a sensible sequence of major new rail projects for London.

  I have therefore asked the chairmen of London Transport, Railtrack and British Rail not to proceed for the time being with an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for powers to build crossrail. I have also invited the chairman of Railtrack to consider the project further with his board once Railtrack is in the private sector, in the light of the Government's continued firm policy that crossrail should proceed only as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.

  London Regional Transport (Funding)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his proposals for legislation to permit London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries use of the private finance initiative include public notification of(a) tenders for any such scheme, (b) successful contracts and their financial details and (c) maximum period of their operation; [24440]

  (2) if, in his proposals for legislation to permit London Regional Transport or its subsidiaries use of the private finance initiative, transfer of ownership to the successful bidders for any scheme or contract, of land, equipment or facilities will be permanent or for the period of the contract only; and if the period of that contract will be made public. [24441]

  Mr. Norris
  The London Regional Transport Bill does not require London Transport or its subsidiaries to publish information about their projects under the private finance initiative. Invitations to tender will continue to be published where this is a legal requirement. I understand that London Transport will normally announce the award of such contracts, giving an indication of their value and duration where this information is not commercially sensitive.

  When a contract ends, assets transferred from London Transport to the contractor at the beginning of the contract will generally be transferred to a new contractor, or will revert back to LT until a new contract can be let. Assets no longer needed by LT may remain with the contractor, and LT already has powers to make such disposals.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23649]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost, calculated to date of(a) the salvage operation and (b) the clean-up operation onshore and offshore following the Sea Empress grounding on 15 February. [24261]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about costs associated with the Sea Empress grounding on 15 February.
  The details of the costs of the salvage operation are not being collated by the MPCU as the bills for the charges which the salvors incurred are being sent directly to them.
  The cost of the at-sea clean up to date, which includes the charter of oil skimming and recovery vessels, surveillance and spraying aircraft, dispersant purchase, manpower and the hire of equipment, is £1,845,605. There are still a number of invoices yet to be received.
  Beachcleaning operations are still ongoing in a number of locations. To date the MPCU have been invoiced for a total of £1,094,356.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what attempts were made to remove oil from the Sea Empress in the period after she had grounded; and if he will make a statement. [23579]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the SEA EMPRESS incident.
  Removal of the oil from the SEA EMPRESS while she was in the entrance to Milford Haven was an option which was under continual active consideration. During the incident conditions were rarely suitable for what would have been a difficult and potentially hazardous operation. When the conditions were suitable all effort went into refloating the vessel so that she could be lightened in a safer place.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask Lord Donaldson to conduct a detailed and independent inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster. [22060]

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch is conducting a detailed and independent investigation into the cause of the grounding of the Sea Empress and the conduct of the subsequent salvage operations. Assessments are also being undertaken into the environmental effects of the pollution caused by the Sea Empress and into the effectiveness of the clean-up techniques which were employed. Consideration of the need for any further examination of the incident or its effects will be given when the findings and recommendations of the MAIB investigation and the environmental assessment are available.

  Rail Safety (Hidden Report)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to ensure the 132
  recommendations of the Hidden report are implemented throughout the rail industry. [24259]

  Mr. Watts
  As the enforcing authority for safety on the railways, the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate monitors closely the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir Anthony Hidden's report.

  A20 Roadworks, Aycliffe
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the completion and tidying up of the A20 roadworks in and around the Aycliffe area; and if he will make a statement on the proposed new car park for residents. [24242]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Shaw, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what progress is being made on the completion and tidying up of the A20 roadworks in and around the Aycliffe area; and if he will make a statement on the proposed new car park for residents.
  The tenders for a contract to complete and tidy up the A20 roadworks were returned on 29 March. We expect work to commence this month.
  The proposed new car park is a Dover District Council scheme which the Highways Agency has agreed to include in the contract subject to the Council's agreement to meet the additional cost.

  Trunk Roads and Motorways
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of external legal advice he has received in respect of the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to his proposed new agency arrangements for trunk roads and motorways. [24103]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about whether copies of the external legal advice we have received in respect of TUPE would be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  We have not considered it necessary to seek such external legal advice in relation to our new agency arrangements for the management of the trunk road network. Our policy for dealing with TUPE has been developed in close liaison with departmental lawyers. We have consistently stated that we do not consider it appropriate for the Highways Agency to comment on whether TUPE would apply when the new agencies are introduced. We do however appreciate that tenderers for the new agencies will require employee information in order for them to assess the implications of the TUPE Regulations on their bids. We are considering how such information could be made available.

  Speed Recording Cameras
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to his Department regarding the safety hazard to oncoming
  133
  drivers of the flashing lights associated with speed recording cameras when used on single carriageways, with particular reference to the A3 between Wandsworth and the underpass leading to the dual carriageway to the south and west. [24138]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Griffiths, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the hazard to oncoming drivers of the flashing lights associated with speed recording cameras on single carriageways, and especially with reference to the camera positioned on the A3 between the Tibbets Corner underpass and Roehampton Lane.
  No representations have been received about the safety hazards to oncoming drivers from the speed recording camera's flashing light at this particular location.
  A speed camera takes two shots of the rear of a vehicle if it is travelling faster than a set speed. On a single carriageway road the camera will be pointing downwards towards the nearside. Oncoming traffic will be aware of the flashes but drivers should not be blinded, even if they are looking directly into the camera because of the downward direction of the light beam and because the brightness of the beam breaks down rapidly on either side of the focus. When selecting sites for speed cameras and when positioning them, one of the main factors under consideration is the possibility that oncoming drivers may be blinded. All steps are taken to make sure that this does not happen.
  You will wish to know that I have arranged for this camera to be inspected to ensure that it is working properly.

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the normal number of tugs ordered for(a) tankers berthing at Milford Haven and (b) tankers sailing from the port of Milford Haven. [17892]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of tugs ordered will depend on factors such as the size of the tanker, its manoeuvrability and the prevailing weather conditions. I understand that the Milford Haven port authority has issued the following general guidelines for tankers berthing and leaving Milford Haven.

  Tanker deadweight (tonnes)

  Number of tugs advised

  Over 15,000

  1 or 2

  15,000–65,000

  2

  65,000–100,000

  3 or 4

  100,000–150,000

  4

  Over 150,000

  5

  Tankers under 15,000 tonnes deadweight do not generally take tugs unless weather conditions and berthing difficulties dictate.

  Substandard Tankers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers a port authority has to refuse(a) entry and
  134
  (b) loading to tankers found to be substandard; and when such powers have been used since 1966. [17894]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 6 March,Official Report, columns 213–14. Records of the use made of these powers are not held by the Department.

  Coastguard Buildings
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount paid to the HSB contractor for the care and maintenance of Coastguard agency buildings in each of the last five years. [22359]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the amount paid to the HSB contractor for the maintenance of Coastguard Agency buildings.
  PQ 1590/95/96
  The Coastguard Agency contract with HSB began on 1 April 1993. Contract expenditure for the last three years has been as follows:

  1993–94: £312,855

  1994–95: £268,759

  1995–96: £288,581.

  These figures are exclusive of VAT, and do not include payments for work commissioned outside the terms of the contract as payments made to HSB for these unforseen/emergency works also include the sub-contractors fee.

  Weather Reports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current arrangements concerning payments to Coastguard personnel from the Meteorological Office in relation to the weather readings the Coastguard personnel provide. [22358]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about arrangements concerning payments to Coastguard personnel for weather readings.
  Volunteers on selected Coastguard stations, both permanent staff and Auxiliary Coastguards, receive a retainer from the Meteorological Office for the provision of weather observations. They are trained by and paid direct by the Meteorological Office.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a study of the advantages of requiring any bulk oil tanker over a specific capacity bound for discharge at a port in the United Kingdom to be equipped with a bow thruster of minimum power related to its gross tonnage. [21138]

  Mr. Norris
  We are continually assessing the benefits of oil tanker design and specification, both within the Department of Transport and within the International Maritime Organisation, in which the Government take an
  135
  active role. Although bow thrusters can improve the manoeuvring in port, we have no evidence to indicate that they offer sufficient advantages to justify a study into whether they should be a requirement for all oil tankers entering UK ports.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of NVQs at each level have been awarded by each awarding body in each year since their introduction. [23084]

  Mr. Paice
  Due to a confidentiality agreement between the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the awarding bodies, information showing the number or

  Awards of NVQs by year and level

  Thousands

  Year to end

  Level 1

  Level 2

  Level 3

  Level 4

  Level 5

  Total

  1990

  19

  28

  8.00

  3

  0

  58.00

  1991

  45

  53.00

  7.00

  5.00

  0

  111.00

  1992

  40

  92

  13

  7

  1—

  152.00

  1993

  49

  127.00

  18.00

  8

  1

  202.00

  1994

  55.00

  144.00

  29.00

  11.00

  1.00

  240

  1995

  54

  168.00

  51

  8.00

  1

  282.00

  Note:

  1Fewer than 500 awards.

  Source:

  NCVQ.

  Bishop Challoner School
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when Bishop Challoner school entered into franchise agreements with Solihull college; and what is the current status of those agreements. [23522]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that the school entered into a franchise arrangement with Solihull college from September 1994 and that it ended in July 1995.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the head teacher and bursar of Bishop Challoner school were suspended; and if she will make a statement on the finances of the school. [23520]

  Mr. Squire
  The school's external auditors have raised concerns about the school's draft 1994–95 accounts. In the light of that, the school's governing body, on the instruction of the Funding Agency for Schools, appointed outside consultants, Robson Rhodes, to help draw up a recovery plan which will also report on the precise financial position of the school.

  The school's governing body took the decision to suspend the headteacher and the bursar on 15 February 1996 and to call in the police to investigate its concerns about some aspects of the management of the school's finances.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when Bishop Challoner school 136
  percentage of awards made by each awarding body is not available.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full NVQs have been awarded at each level in each year since their introduction; and how many awardees were mostly or wholly trained for these awards in (i) further education or sixth form colleges, (ii) secondary schools, (iii) private training providers and (iv) other enterprises. [23085]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the number of NVQ awards made at each NVQ level, broken down by year, is available from NCVQ and is shown in the following table. By the end of 1995, the total number of awards made at each level were: 262,000 at level 1; 613,000 at level 2; 126,000 at level 3; 42,000 at level 4; and 2,000 at level 5.

  Comprehensive information on the type of centre at which the awardee was trained is not available.

  applied to change its status from an 11-to-16 to an 11-to-18 years school; what objections have been received in respect of the application; when these were received; and what is the current position with regard to that application; [23519]

  (2) what has been the response of the Further Education Funding Council to the application from Bishop Challoner school to change to an 11-to-18 school. [23450]

  Mr. Squire
  The governors of Bishop Challoner Roman Catholic grant-maintained school published proposals on 28 March 1995 to make a significant change in the character of the school by changing the age range from 11-to-16 to 11-to-18 with effect from 1 September 1996. The Further Education Funding Council and Birmingham local education authority submitted statutory objections to the proposals on 4 and 24 May 1995 respectively. The proposals are currently under consideration.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was Bishop Challoner school's overspend at the time grant-maintained status was granted; and what were the financial implications of this for the local education authority. [23523]

  Mr. Squire
  The Funding Agency for Schools determined the school's annual maintenance grant for 1993–94, taking into account the financial position of the school when it became grant maintained on 1 October
  137
  1993. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Careers Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received that the careers service does not provide advice to school leavers about the opportunities for self-employment; and if she will make a statement. [23581]

  Mr. Paice
  I met representatives from the Princes youth business trust on 7 February and this matter was discussed. The Secretary of State requires careers services to provide school leavers with advice on the full range of education, employment and training options, including self-employment and the financial help available to support it. Careers services must help their clients to make decisions which are appropriate in their individual circumstances.

  Sixth Forms (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all 11-to-16 schools in Birmingham that have franchise agreements with sixth form and further education colleges enabling them to open sixth forms. [23451]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that the following 11-to-16 schools have franchising arrangements with institutions in the Further Education Funding Council sector: Selly Park girls' school, Holy Trinity Roman Catholic school, Holyhead school, Aston Manor school, Park View school, and Holte school. For an 11-to-16 school, the establishment of a sixth form would constitute a significant change in the character of the school, which would require the publication of proposals under sections 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980, or section 96 or 97 of the Education Act 1993, as appropriate.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is(a) the estimated number of pupils in maintained schools and (b) the amount allowed in the annual capital guidelines in respect of each such pupil for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97, for (1) Somerset, (2) Shropshire, (3) Devon, (4) Dorset, (5) Buckinghamshire, (6) Kent, (7) Hampshire, (8) Norfolk and (9) Oxfordshire. [23580]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is set out in tables 1 and 2 in respect of 1994–95 and 1995–96, with the pupil numbers dating from the preceding January.

  Since annual capital guidelines—ACGs—are mostly for capital work at county and voluntary controlled schools, the amount allowed per pupil is based on pupils at such schools in the local education authorities concerned, but the ACGs will have been used for specific work at particular schools, not for all schools in the LEAs. Total pupils at all maintained schools are listed separately. Estimates of numbers in maintained schools at January 1996 are not yet available on an individual LEA basis.
  138

  Table 1: Annual Capital Guidelines and pupil numbers

  LEA

  Annual Capital Guideline (ACG)

  January county and controlled school population

  ACG total per pupil

  £

  £

  1994–95

  Somerset

  3,240,000

  57,738

  56

  Shropshire

  6,990,00

  52,498

  133

  Devon

  7,961,000

  121,784

  65

  Dorset

  5,395,000

  62,217

  87

  Bucks

  6,829,000

  79,970

  85

  Kent

  15,660,000

  161,578

  97

  Hampshire

  18,583,000

  185,178

  100

  Norfolk

  3,890,000

  85,732

  45

  Oxfordshire

  3,745,000

  67,352

  56

  1995–96

  Somerset

  2,608,000

  58,597

  45

  Shropshire

  7,423,000

  53,155

  140

  Devon

  11,627,000

  124,546

  93

  Dorset

  3,340,000

  62,871

  53

  Bucks

  9,245,000

  80,147

  115

  Kent

  21,248,000

  157,204

  135

  Hampshire

  14,762,000

  187,546

  79

  Norfolk

  3,122,000

  86,063

  36

  Oxfordshire

  6,767,000

  69,041

  98

  Table 2: Pupil numbers at all maintained schools

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Somerset

  64,836

  66,129

  Shropshire

  60,830

  62,158

  Devon

  140,257

  143,538

  Dorset

  85,919

  87,981

  Bucks

  99,194

  101,378

  Kent

  232,055

  266,310

  Hampshire

  217,545

  221,186

  Norfolk

  103,705

  105,170

  Oxfordshire

  76,838

  78,806

  Post-16 Education (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about surplus post-16 years places in educational establishments in Birmingham. [23521]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not routinely collect information in this form.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the amount of funding per student attending institutes of higher education in Yorkshire and Humberside; and what was the amount in each year since 1979. [23833]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not readily available centrally—but could be requested from the relevant institutions.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on institutes of higher education in Yorkshire and Humberside of the reduction in the formula capital grant; [23835]
  139
  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact on the work of institutes of higher education in Yorkshire and Humberside with industry and commerce of the implementation of the recent budget cut. [24074]

  (3) what proposals she has to provide interim funding to higher education to cover shortfalls in funding in the current year; [23837]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the economic impact to the recent reductions in budgets for institutes of higher education; [23836]

  (5) what assessment she has made of the impact on the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside of the reductions in budgets to higher education institutes in Yorkshire and Humberside. [23834]

  Mr. Forth
  The November 1995 budget settlement confirmed the 1994 plans for higher education recurrent expenditure. Planned capital expenditure was reduced in line with capital provision in most other public expenditure programmes, reflecting the policy that capital should, wherever possible, be financed through private finance schemes.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if changes to the current system of discretionary student grants are included in the review of higher education funding. [23770]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friends have yet to finalise, in the light of comments received during consultations, the terms of reference for the national committee of inquiry into higher education, but those terms will cover student support and are likely to be wide ranging. It will be for the committee itself to decide on which specific issues to focus.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning the recent reductions in funding of higher education; and how many of these were from the Yorkshire and Humberside areas. [23814]

  Mr. Forth
  Education and Employment Ministers have received approaching 300 representations from higher education bodies and other interested parties concerning the recent reductions in funding of higher education. Around 4 per cent. were from the Yorkshire and Humberside areas.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of 18-year-olds currently entering higher education in the Yorkshire and Humberside area; and what was the proportion in each year since 1986. [23832]

  Mr. Forth
  We are unable to calculate the age participation index—API—for higher education on a regional basis as the data are not readily available. Comparable Great Britain figures are shown in the following table for the years concerned.

  Academic year

  API(percentage)

  1986–87

  14·08

  1987–88

  14·50

  1988–89

  15·10

  140

  Academic year

  API(percentage)

  1989–90

  17·10

  1990–91

  19·30

  1991–92

  23·30

  1992–93

  27·50

  1993–94

  29·70

  1994–95

  31·00

  1995–96

  30–32·00

  Figures show the number of young (aged under 21 years) home domiciled initial entrants to higher education in Great Britain expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old population. Initial entrants are those entering a full-time course of higher education for the first time.

  We do not yet have comprehensive figures on the number of full-time undergraduate students in Great Britain in the current academic year. Our best estimate is within a range based on the November 1995 Budget projection which took account of latest data available from the universities and colleges admissions services and from local education authorities.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, for the most recent years for which information is available, and for each local education authority, the expenditure per pupil, full-time equivalent, in education on(a) the total education budget, (b) the general schools budget, (c) the potential school budget, (d) the aggregate schools budget, (e) the part of the budget allocated through age-weighted pupil units and (f), (b), (c), (d) and (e) each as a percentage of (a). [24141]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with the available information when this has been collated.

  EDS Computer System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the terms of contract the Student Loans Company has with the EDS software computer system; and if she will make a statement. [24357]

  Mr. Forth
  The Student Loans Company's facilities management contract with EDS ended on 15 May 1995. Services are now provided by SHL Systemhouse Europe.

  Dance Training
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to increase opportunities for young people to have access to vocational training in dance. [23460]

  Mr. Paice
  Oversight for the co-ordination of training in the performing arts and entertainment industry, including dance, is the responsibility of the Arts and Entertainment Training Council, the recognised industry training organisation. The AETC is currently developing standards and national vocational qualifications in all sectors of the industry, including dance. The AETC has developed a modern apprenticeship framework for the industry to widen vocational education and training opportunities for young people.

  General national vocational qualifications at foundation, intermediate and advanced levels in the performing arts and entertainment are now available to be piloted at various centres from September 1996.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of her Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if she will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23652]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Correction Fluid
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she has issued concerning the use of paper correction fluid in schools. [24115]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has drawn the attention of all schools to the Health and Safety Commissions's Education Services Advisory Committee's guidance, issued in 1994, entitled "Managing Health and Safety in Schools". ESAC has also produced specific guidance for schools on the safe use of substances hazardous to health. Education employers are required to assess the risks to health, of both employees and pupils, arising from the use of such substances and to have in place appropriate precautions to control those risks. This includes the use of liquid paper correction fluid where it contains substances hazardous to health. Normal use of correction fluid in schools should not, however, give rise to significant risks to health and safety.

  The Department has also given advice in circular 4/95—"Drug prevention and schools"—on substances which are open to misuse. These include volatile substances or solvents such as correction fluid. The Department's digest of drug education resources for schools, issued last May, refers to materials which give advice about solvents. Solvents are also specifically mentioned in the references to drug education included in the national curriculum science order at key stages 3 and 4.The School Curriculum Assessment Authority—SCAA—offered guidance on related curricular matters in "Drug Education: Curriculum Guidance for Schools", also issued in May.

  Life Long Learning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources her Department has allocated to promoting the European Year of Life Long Learning; and what other measures have been taken by her Department to promote the success of this year. [24180]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has set up a United Kingdom co-ordination unit under the terms of the decision establishing the year. The unit has facilitated bids for European funding and awards have been made to 90 142
  UK organisations for a variety of projects at national, regional and local level.

  I launched the year in the UK at Edinburgh in February, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for education at the Scottish Office.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons student loans will not be available to applicants over 50 years of age; and if she will make a statement. [24181]

  Mr. Forth
  The loans scheme provides students with additional resources from the taxpayer in anticipation of their repaying that loan out of future earnings. Students over 50 generally do not have the same expectations of future earnings as younger people and they are more likely to have access to other sources of finance.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to make a decision about the proposed contractorisation of the Teachers' Pensions Agency. [24365]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe),Official Report, column 31.

  Remploy
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets Remploy has been set in its 1996–97 annual performance agreement. [24588]

  Mr. Paice
  My noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the chairman of Remploy approving the 1996–97 annual performance agreement between the Department and the company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 1996. It has been negotiated by the chief executive of the Employment Service, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The targets are:the average number of disabled people employed by Remploy Ltd. will be at least 9,400;
  the average number of disabled people employed under the interwork scheme will be at least 2,400;
  at least 175 disabled employees will move from Remploy factories to interwork having been employed there for at least one year, or from interwork or factories to open employment;
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £10,170;
  the unit cost of interwork should be no more than £4,540;
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within an operating deficit of £99 million (including reorganisation costs).

  The text of the annual performance agreement is being placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Torture Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received alleging that the ban on the sale of torture equipment to certain countries has not been complied with; and if he will make a statement. [20354]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have not received any such reports. However, the Government deeply deprecate the export of any equipment knowingly to be used as an instrument of torture and would never themselves knowingly support such activity. In cases where export licences were required, no such licence would be granted if there was reason to believe that the goods would be misused for such purposes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the allegations in the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme of Government knowledge or approval of the export of torture equipment. [20351]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I assume the programme to which the hon. Member refers is "The Torture Trail", originally screened on 11 January 1995. The Government deeply deprecate the export of any equipment knowingly to be used as an instrument of torture and would never themselves knowingly support such activity. In cases where export licences were required, no such licence would be granted if there was reason to believe that the goods would be misused for such purposes.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the offshore sale of arms and instruments of torture by British companies; what plans he has to prevent such sales; and if he will make a statement. [22293]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: I am not specifically aware of any such sales. However, in respect of goods licensable under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 the Government are considering whether to cover this issue in forthcoming public consultation on a range of export control matters following Sir Richard Scott's recent report.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department has evaluated in respect of the sale of electro-shock weapons or equipment from the United Kingdom. [22323]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am aware of allegations made in a recent television programme. The export of electro-shock weapons from the United Kingdom is controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 and there have been no allegations of any breaches of export controls. I am not specifically aware of any such sales organised off-shore by UK resident companies. However, in respect of goods licensable under the Export of Goods (Control) Order the Government are considering whether to cover this issue in forthcoming public consultation on a range of export control matters following Sir Richard Scott's recent report.
  144
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions he has acted to prevent the export of electro-shock batons in the last three years. [21542]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: With the exception of the one transhipment licence referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology in his letter of 3 August 1995 to the hon. Member in response to her question tabled on 17 July 1995, my Department has not received any applications for the export of electro-shock batons during the period in question.

  Aerospace Technology
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to establish new university-linked applied research schemes for dual-use and civil aerospace technology requirements since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23693]

  Mr. Eggar
  A joint working forum on civil and defence collaboration in science and technology—the "civil/defence forum"—was established in June 1995, involving officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Science and Technology to improve the co-ordination of dual-use civil and defence science and technology. The forum has been investigating mechanisms and potential areas for collaboration—the latter being based on technology foresight outputs—involving participants from academia, industry and defence.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to develop a national strategy for aerospace technology since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23689]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is continuing its partnership with industry to maintain a common approach to the recommendations of the defence and aerospace panel of technology foresight. The panel is continuing its work with the full support of my Department. As part of this process, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade met the Society of British Aerospace Companies and they subsequently met me and the Government's chief scientific adviser. Also, under a joint DTI-SBAC initiative, co-ordinators have been consulting DTI and industry to determine civil aircraft research and demonstration programme priorities in discrete technology areas, addressing the long-term competitive needs of the industry.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to support collaboration between the Civil Aviation Authority, industry and academics to maximise market opportunities arising for European programmes. [23686]

  Mr. Eggar
  There are a number of programmes supporting work in air traffic management and aviation safety that are of interest to the Civil Aviation Authority. These are run by European bodies such as the European Civil Aviation Conference, the European Commission and Eurocontrol. They are concerned with longer-term research and as such are some distance away from market exploitation. My Department maintains a dialogue with
  145
  the CAA and its parent Department, the Department of Transport, on research and other related issues.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what increase in funding has been made for industrial applied research in civil aerospace through the civil aircraft research and demonstration scheme since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23694]

  Mr. Eggar
  The civil aircraft research and demonstration programme supports research in aeronautics rather than space. There has been no increase in funding for industrial applied research in civil aeronautics through CARAD since the 1995 report for the technology foresight panel—published in April 1995.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what increase in funding has been made for technology demonstrator programmes for civil aerospace since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23696]

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been no increase in funding for civil technology demonstrator programmes since the 1995 report for the technology foresight panel—published in April 1995.

  Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the estimated total cost of preparing the Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996 for submission to the Deregulation Committee, broken down by(a) drafting, (b) printing and (c) costs incurred during consultation. [23639]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The cost of preparing the Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order is estimated at about £9,500, excluding printing cost, which are not available. All but about £130 of this is estimated staff costs. It has not been possible to apportion these between the consultation, drafting and printing stages.

  Vehicle Road Licence Discs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the total number of post offices and sub-post offices in Wales and (b) the number of post offices and sub-post offices currently selling vehicle road licence discs, breaking down the figures for each Welsh county and showing (b) as a proportion of (a). [22702]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I understand from the Post Office that the total number of post offices and of post offices issuing motor vehicle licences in Wales by county are as follows:

  (a) Post Offices in Wales by county

  Crown offices

  Modified sub offices

  Sub office

  community offices

  Gwynedd

  5

  12

  199

  50

  Clwyd

  5

  7

  179

  26

  Dyfed

  5

  10

  257

  63

  West Glamorgan

  4

  2

  161

  0

  South Glamorgan

  4

  5

  105

  1

  Gwent

  3

  8

  198

  8

  146

  (a)Post Offices in Wales by county

  Crown offices

  Modified sub offices

  Sub office

  Community offices

  Powys

  0

  7

  94

  30

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  8

  180

  1

  Total

  30

  59

  1,373

  179

  (b) Post Office issuing MVLs in Wales by county

  Modified sub

  Crown offices

  offices

  Sub office

  Gwynedd

  5

  12

  32

  Clwyd

  5

  7

  31

  Dyfed

  5

  10

  18

  West Glamorgan

  4

  2

  18

  South Glamorgan

  4

  5

  19

  Gwent

  3

  8

  34

  Powys

  0

  7

  8

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  8

  29

  Total

  30

  59

  189

  (b) as per cent of (a)

  100

  100

  14

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require each post office and sub-post office to sell vehicle road licence discs. [22606]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Decisions on the overall number of post offices issuing motor vehicle licences are a matter for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23656]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Cuba
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the(a) Canadian and (b) Mexican Governments regarding action in relation to the United States Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. [24117]

  Mr. Nelson
  We have been in regular contact with the Canadian and Mexican Governments concerning the US legislation.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions Her Majesty's Government have held with the EU in respect of World Trade Organisation action against the United States Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. [24120]

  Mr. Nelson
  Her Majesty's Government have been in close contact with our EU partners and the European Commission about the implications of the US legislation.
  147
  The question of its compatibility with the United States' international obligations, including those of the WTO, is one aspect which is being considered.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States Administration regarding extra-territorial aspects of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. [24121]

  Mr. Nelson
  The UK has already made a number of representations to the US Administration expressing its concern at the extra-territorial aspects of the US legislation. We shall be making further representations shortly.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action Her Majesty's Government will take to protect United Kingdom companies and individuals that are the subject of litigation in United States courts, with particular reference to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. [24116]

  Mr. Nelson
  The provisions in the US legislation which give US nationals a right of action against non-US persons allegedly trafficking in expropriated property do not enter into force until 1 August and may be suspended by the President on a six-monthly basis. We shall be pressing the US Administration to make use of this provision for suspension.

  Environmental Technology Industries
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of financial support from the Government for environmental industries for the early research and development phase of product development in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995. [24111]

  Mr. Page
  Support for research and development on technologies with a specific environmental function, under the environmental technology innovation scheme, Eureka- Euroenviron and the environmental technology best practice programmes was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  0·1

  1991–92

  0·96

  1992–93

  2·91

  1993–94

  2·95

  1994–95

  2·53

  1995–96 (estimate)

  1·72

  Total

  11·17

  The above support includes programmes operated by both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment.

  Some of the research and development supported under general DTI programmes, such as the small firms merit award for research and technology, support for products under research, Link and other Eureka activities and through the Office for Science and Technology's funding of research councils, will be relevant to the environmental technology industries.
  148
  Support for the new and renewable energy technologies and clean coal technologies was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  New and renewables

  Clean coal

  1990–91

  20·8

  13·0

  1991–92

  24·8

  4·6

  1992–93

  25·5

  4·0

  1993–94

  25·2

  7·8

  1994–95

  19·1

  7·9

  1995–96 (estimate)

  17·8

  7·0

  Total

  133·2

  44·3

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to promote defence diversification. [22313]

  Mr. Eggar
  Diversification projects can potentially benefit from a number of regional, export and technology initiatives. The Konver initiative specifically addresses the economic development of defence-dependent areas. Following the inaugural meeting of the British Konver II programme on 22 February, applications for grant have been invited for this programme, which will be worth some £200 million over the next four years.

  Technology Foresight
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to respond to the first report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–96 on technology foresight, HC 49. [24763]

  Mr. Lang
  I am publishing the Government response to the Select Committee's report today. I am pleased to say that the Government predominantly accept the recommendations made by the Committee. We are grateful for the Committee's continuing support for technology foresight.

  AEA Technology plc
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the formation of AEA Technology plc and the objectives he has set for the chairman. [24762]

  Mr. Page
  The property, rights and liabilities of that part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority known as AEA Technology were transferred to a separate company, AEA Technology plc, on 31 March. Corporate status gives AEA Technology a basis on which to build on the substantial progress it has made as a business over the last couple of years.

  I have today written to Sir Anthony Cleaver, the chairman of AEA Technology plc, setting out his objectives for the period that the company is in public ownership. The text of my letter is as follows:
  I am writing to set out your objectives as Chairman of AEA Technology plc whilst the company is in public ownership.
  As you know, the Government intends to offer AEAT for sale as a single integrated business in the course of this year. No decisions have yet been taken about the method of sale.

  149
  Whatever form it takes, I expect you and your Board to do everything possible to ensure that the sale is carried through successfully and secures maximum value for the taxpayer.
  The success of the sale depends critically on the performance of the business over the next few months. Since AEA Technology was set up in April 1994, substantial progress has been made in improving profitability, reducing costs and increasing responsiveness to customer concerns and requirements. Major changes have also been made to management systems, particularly financial systems, in order to improve the quality and timeliness of management information. The progress which has been made is a tribute to the efforts of both mismanagement and staff but it needs to be sustained. I look to you to ensure that it is sustained. In particular, the company should continue:

  (a) to promote the growth of its business with the UK private sector and in overseas markets.

  (b) to bear down on overheads, increase operational efficiency and ensure that the financial and other information available to management fully meets their perceived needs.

  (c) to improve the quality of service available to customers; and

  (d) progressively to increase profitability and its rate of return on capital employed.

  The company has gone through a period of extensive restructuring over the last two years. When complete, this will result in a more coherent, lower cost business better focused on the needs and requirements of its customers. You should, however, continue to keep the structure of the company under review and be ready to make any further organisational or management changes which might be necessary to maintain or increase its competitiveness and achieve commercial success.
  More generally, AEA Technology can help improve UK competitiveness through collaboration with other UK companies in home and overseas markets. I look to you to ensure that opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration are exploited wherever possible. You should also ensure that AEA Technology's dealings with UKAEA are carried out on an appropriate commercial basis.
  AEA Technology is predominantly a people business. You should therefore ensure that you have effective arrangements in place to incentivise management and staff and to encourage commitment to, and personal identification with, the commercial objectives of the company.
  Within the framework of the company's Business Plan, you should ensure that AEAT explores all options for exploiting its technology, including collaboration with other organisations where this is commercially justified.
  You should ensure that AEAT continues to have arrangements which secure at all times the highest practicable standards of safety in all its activities and that all relevant regulatory and security requirements are met.
  You should ensure that the company complies fully with the requirements of the Cadbury code on corporate governance and conducts its affairs in a manner consistent with the principles of financial propriety and regularity applicable to a public sector body.
  Where appropriate, specific targets in support of those aims and objectives will be set from time to time in consultation with you. I expect you to provide regular reports on progress against these targets and, more generally, on the company's performance and preparations for privatisation.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. [24761]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government completed on 31 March the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to LGC (Holdings) Ltd., a company formed by a150
  consortium lead by the chief executive, Dr. Richard Worswick, and comprising LGC management and staff, the Royal Society of Chemistry and 3i Group plc.

  The intention to privatise LGC was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 14 April 1994.

  On 10 November 1995, the consortium was selected as the preferred bidder after extensive evaluation against the Department's objectives for the sale and a wide range of quantitative, technical and financial criteria which demonstrated that their bid represented the best value-for-money option for the Department.

  The consideration will be a payment of £360,000 to the Department, to be adjusted subsequently in the light of the level of net current assets at completion. At the same time, the Department will be making a payment to the purchaser of £1.96 million to relieve the Department of the liability for (a) site separation work to allow LGC to untie from the national physical laboratory on the Department's Teddington site, and (b) building dilapidation works; the purchaser will take on the entire responsibility for the successful completion of these projects.

  In the event that the purchaser is not awarded a contract which was assumed in the bid, there will be (a) payment to the purchaser of £300,000 to forestall consequential redundancies and to enable it to develop alternative business streams, and (b) an indemnity for the cost of any such redundancies up to a maximum sum of £500,000.

  Dr. Worswick has been reappointed as the Government Chemist. Virtually all the staff in the undertaking will transfer to the purchaser.

  This represents a highly satisfactory outcome for Government and for LGC. The unique combination of the existing management and staff, the RSC, and 3i will allow LGC to forge a new future as a successful commercial enterprise, building on its existing strengths in analytical chemistry. At the same time, LGC will continue to meet the Department's needs as the centre of excellence in chemical metrology. The involvement of the RSC will help to maintain LGC's independence and impartiality which is of particular importance for the discharge of the Government Chemist's statutory responsibilities. I particularly welcome the confidence shown in the laboratory by the staff, many of whom will be investing in the new company to be operated by the purchasers.

  Crude Oil (Storage)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the minimum tonnage of crude oil as collated by Customs and Excise required to be stored at each of the United Kingdom oil refineries. [24263]

  Mr. Page
  There is no requirement for crude oil to be stored specifically at UK oil refineries.

  Oil refining companies are currently directed to hold stocks of petroleum products amounting to 75 days of their deliveries into final consumption in the previous year in three product categories specified by EC directive 68/414/EEC. Directions do not specify the location in which stocks are to be held.
  151
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the tonnage of crude oil as collated by Customs and Excise stored at each of the United Kingdom oil refineries on or about 15 January, 15 February 1996 and 15 December 1995. [24262]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not readily available in the time given and is treated as commercially confidential.

  The information provided by the oil industry does not separate oil held at refineries as opposed to other facilities. The collection of the information required would impose disproportionate costs.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the criteria on which a decision to contract out the work of the central inquiry unit of the Patent Office will be based; and if he will make a statement. [24159]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The general criterion is increased value for money through improvements in efficiency and quality of service. More specific criteria will be drawn up for inclusion in any invitation to tender.

  The overall objective is to ensure the Patent Office is in a position to withstand competitive pressures.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Patent Office management board is authorised to oppose a study into the contracting out of the work of Departments with the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement. [24163]

  Mr. Taylor
  The final responsibility for decisions on contractorisation rests with the Minister concerned. Such decisions take into account advice from the chief executive and his board.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the marketing budget of the Patent Office is accounted for by the central inquiry unit; and if he will make a statement. [24158]

  Mr. Taylor
  About 30 per cent. of the Patent Office budget for publicity and marketing is allocated to the central inquiry unit.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Coopers and Lybrand report on the Patent Office information services department will be published; what has been the cost of the report; and if he will make a statement. [24162]

  Mr. Taylor
  The report contains commercially confidential material and will not be published. The cost of the review was £49,300.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will(a) name the bidders for the London office of the Patent Office, (b) announce the date on which the contracts will be awarded and (c) list the dates on which consultation has taken place with the Patent Office unions; and if he will make a statement. [24166]

  Mr. Taylor
  The decision on the successful bidder for the management of the London front office is expected in late April and will be announced shortly thereafter. Under the 1989 arrangements for consultation on contractorisation projects, the Patent Office trade unions 152
  were consulted on the invitation to tender in January 1996. The topic was also raised with me by the trade unions during my visit to the Patent Office on 27 March.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the time scale for any study into contracting out the work of the central inquiry unit of the Patent Office; who is responsible for the study; when the contracts expire; and if he will make a statement. [24164]

  Mr. Taylor
  A preliminary study of the feasibility of contracting out the central inquiry unit is being carried out in-house. It is expected to be ready in late June.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the Patent Office steering board; and if he will make a statement. [24157]

  Mr. Taylor
  The current members of the Patent Office steering board are:

  Mr. B. G. Hilton (Chairman)

  Mr. P. R. S. Hartnack

  Mr. D. R. McMurtry

  Mr. J. R. Pryer

  Mr. D. R. Fairbairn

  Mr. B. A. Wright

  Mr. T. J. Cassidy

  Mr. M. O'Shea.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many information technology consultants are employed at the Patent Office information technology services department; who employs them; and he will make a statement. [24161]

  Mr. Taylor
  Contract staff recruited to provide specialist skills not available in-house to the Patent Office currently number 36. They are supplied by a number of companies selected through an open competition. These suppliers are:

  Abraxas Computer Services Ltd.

  Almondhall Computer Staff

  Computer People

  Cray Systems Ltd.

  DPP International Ltd.

  DP Support Services

  Eurolink Group

  Footprint Computer Recruitment

  Lorien Computer Recruitment Ltd.

  The Modus Group

  Task Force IT ServiceLine

  Visionbase Systems Ltd.

  World Systems plc.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what official notification his Department has made of a study into the contracting out of the work of the central inquiry unit of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement. [24165]

  Mr. Taylor
  The staff of the central inquiry unit and trade union representatives have been told of the decision to carry out a feasibility study of contractorisation by the Patent Office management. Members of Parliament with an interest have been informed through parliamentary questions or ministerial correspondence.
  153
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the last civil servant was recruited to work at the Patent Office information technology services department; and if he will make a statement. [24265]

  Mr. Taylor
  Two civil servants were recruited into the Patent Office information technology services department in January 1995.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the number and (b) names of the private consultants currently employed in the Patent Office.[24371]

  Mr. Taylor
  Only Coopers and Lybrand is currently employed by the Patent Office. Marketing Improvements and Logica Ltd. have recently been employed but have now submitted their final reports which are under active consideration.

  Meat Processing and Transport Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in each sector of the meat processing and meat transport industry for each county of England as of 1 March. [24100]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information at county level on employees in the "production, processing and preserving of meat and meat products"—SIC 1992 group 151—is available from the census of employment 1993 and can be accessed through the NOMIS database by the House of Commons Library. Employees in the meat transport industry are found across SIC 1992 divisions 60–63—land, sea, and air transport; supporting transport activities. However, it is not possible to identify these employees specifically.

SCOTLAND

  BSE
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cattle have been confirmed as being infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Scotland in each year from 1986 to 1995. [22934]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is as follows:

  year

  Number of confirmed case

  1986

  0

  1987

  7

  1988

  54

  1989

  208

  990

  486

  1991

  808

  1992

  1,850

  1993

  2,208

  1994

  1,326

  1995

  660

  1996 (to 25 March 1996)

  60

  154
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish the initial conclusions of the experiments on transgenic mice being administered bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [22936]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This research programme is being undertaken by Professor John Collinge of the prion disease group of Imperial college school of medicine with funding from the Wellcome Foundation. I have no information on when the initial findings will be published. I would, however refer the hon. Member to an article by Dr. Collinge which was published in "Nature" magazine—vol 378—on 28 December 1995.

  Funicular Railway, Cairngorm
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 344, if a funicular railway built by the Cairngorm Chairlift Company with money from Highlands and Islands Enterprise can be (a) operated by, and (b) transferred to, the Cairngorm Railway Company. [24131]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The extent to which a private asset whose creation was assisted from public funds could be operated by or transferred to a company other than that to which the assistance was provided would depend upon the terms and conditions of that assistance. In the case of assistance provided by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, it is a standard condition that the onward transfer of assets in respect of which financial assistance has been provided may not take place without the consent of that organisation.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23630]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Scottish Office policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. We take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive is currently being revised.

  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposal to construct the new Royal infirmary in Edinburgh as a private finance initiative project will be open to public inspection before a decision is made to award any contract in respect of it; and if he will make a statement. [23910]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: At present, the PFI proposals for the new Royal infirmary in Edinburgh are being prepared by the shortlisted consortia which have been invited to tender. Once a preferred bidder is selected, the trust intends to place on public display, at the Royal infirmary, the plans

  155
  and designs for the proposal. Extensive information about the project is already available and can be viewed at the infirmary by arrangement.

  Bids from the consortia are expected in May. The trust will assess these bids in detail before announcing the selected proposal in July. The trust will then compare this bid against a publicly funded option and present the outcome of this in a full business case, which will be submitted for approval to Ministers and the Treasury. Final contract negotiations will then take place, if the private sector bid offers superior value for money. A contract award is scheduled for the end of this year.

  Health Boards
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's contribution to local health boards to cover costs of changes in administration with particular reference to(a) signposting and (b) stationery. [23912]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Funds were made available to health boards for them to distribute to NHS trusts to assist with their establishment. No information is held centrally on how these funds were used.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the management costs as a percentage of total expenditure in respect of each local health board in Scotland separately identifying the NHS trusts within each. [23911]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The information for health boards is set out in the table. The percentages have been calculated using figures from the 1994–95 annual accounts. This is the latest year available. NHS trusts in Scotland did not separately identify management costs within the annual accounts for the financial year 1994–95.

  Health boards

  Per cent.

  Argyll and Clyde

  2·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1·5

  Borders

  2·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·4

  Fife

  2·3

  Forth Valley

  2·1

  Grampian

  1·8

  Greater Glasgow

  2·0

  Highland

  2·4

  Lanarkshire

  1·5

  Lothian

  2·0

  Orkney

  3·9

  Shetland

  3·0

  Tayside

  1·3

  Western Isles

  3·0

  Scotland average

  1·9

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much expenditure has been incurred in payments to consultants engaged in connection with PFI projects within the health service in Scotland. [23909]
  156
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Consultants are engaged to assist in PH projects following a competitive tender run by the trust or health board. The resulting agreements are of a commercial nature and the value of each is not notified to the Scottish Office. It is estimated that 2 per cent. of the capital value of a scheme is incurred in fees on a PFI project. This compares favourably with the cost of a publicly-funded procurement, and is often less, chiefly due to the fact that detailed design work is done at the cost of the private rather than public sector.

  Forestry Commission (Woodland Sales)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the number and size of Forestry Commission woodlands sold in total and for each year since 1981 in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland and the amount of income received in total and in each year since 1981 for the sales in each country; [23763]

  (2) if he will list the number, size and location of Forestry Commission woodlands sold since 1981 for which access agreements have been concluded. [23764]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Neil McKerrow, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Neil A. H. McKerrow to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 2 April 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the following questions:—

  (1) "What is the number and size of Forestry Commission woodlands sold in total and by each year since 1981 in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland and the amount of income received in total and in each year since 1981 for the sales in each country".

  (2) "if he will list the number, size and location of Forestry Commission woodlands sold since 1981 for which access agreements have been concluded".

  As the questions you raised relate to matters that are undertaken by Forest Enterprise, the questions have been passed to me for reply.
  In reply to the first question, lists of all Forestry Commission disposals for the years 1981–1995 are placed yearly in the Library of the House of Commons and contain the information on individual disposals you require. I enclose copies of these for your use.
  A breakdown of income received by country is not held centrally. However, the total receipts from sales throughout Britain are as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Total receipts £ million

  1981

  4·5

  1982

  6·9

  1983

  14·6

  1984

  23·6

  1985

  22·1

  1986

  17·0

  1987

  14·7

  1988

  13·1

  1989

  12·4

  1990

  13·0

  1991

  12·0

  1992

  14·5

  157

  Year ended 31 March

  Total receipts £ million

  1993

  9·9

  1994

  17·4

  1995

  12·1

  Your second question relates to public access agreements pertaining to woodlands sold since 1981.
  I attach a list showing details of all woodlands that have been sold with completed public access agreements. You asked for information from 1981 but the arrangements for public access agreements were only introduced in October 1991 and the list, therefore, only covers disposals since then.

  Sales with completed public access agreements as at 31 December 1995

  County/Region

  Name

  Area(ha)

  Date sold

  1993

  Wales

  Gwent

  Graig Syddi

  28

  November 1993

  1994

  NEE(E)

  Derbyshire

  Birch Wood

  24

  February 1994

  Derbyshire

  Britton Wood

  6

  March 1994

  Derbyshire

  Kings Lot and Longway Bank

  12

  March 1994

  Humberside

  Sutton Wood

  33

  July 1994

  North Yorkshire

  Gateforth East

  28

  March 1994

  North Yorkshire

  Moreby Wood

  33

  April 1994

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Nanty Ffridd (1)

  52

  1June 1994

  Clwyd

  Nant y Ffridd (2)

  23

  1June 1994

  Dyfed

  Alit y Gwydre

  14

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Court Wood

  19

  September 1994

  Dyfed

  Factory Wood

  3

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Taldrum Wood

  5

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Tan y Lan

  32

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Ty'r Dopa

  14

  April 1994

  Powys

  Castlering

  14

  June 1994

  Powys

  Granner Wood

  10

  August 1994

  Powys

  Hilltop

  5

  April 1994

  Powys

  Taylors Wood

  42

  October 1994

  Powys

  Tir y Gof

  47

  December 1994

  1995

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Foel Uchaf

  18

  July 1995

  Dyfed

  Blwch Newydd

  8

  December 1995

  Dyfe

  Cwmere

  19

  June 1995

  Dyfed

  Penfarch

  24

  May 1995

  Dyfed

  Penwenallt

  5

  November 1995

  Gwynedd

  Coed Glygyrogwen

  110

  November 1995

  Gwynedd

  Pant y Wrach Lot 3

  27

  November 1995

  West Glamorgan

  Decoy Woods

  14

  July 1995

  Scotland

  Borders

  Gala Blocks

  127

  August 1995

  Grampian

  Lochlait Wood

  90

  July 1995

  Grampian

  White Cow Wood

  444

  October 1995

  Grampian

  Wood of Wrae

  50

  November 1995

  Highland

  Rinuden Plantation

  88

  July 1995

  Tayside

  Cowden Wood

  20

  March 1995

  Total area to date

  1,488

  Total number to date

  34

  1One sale but agreements with two separate LAs.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility 158
  of his Department; of those which (a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23647]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  General Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the whole-time equivalent number of NHS general medical practitioners working in each health board area in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available. [24383]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The whole-time equivalent number of unrestricted principals in each health board area in Scotland at 1 October 1995 is as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  3,385·8

  Argyll and Clyde

  294·8

  Ayrshire and Arran

  250·0

  Borders

  76·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  114·0

  Fife

  214·8

  Forth Valley

  188·8

  Grampian

  330·8

  Greater Glasgow

  598·5

  Highland

  179·8

  Lanarkshire

  321·5

  Lothian

  494·3

  Orkney

  24·0

  Shetland

  17·0

  Tayside

  252·0

  Western Isles

  29·8

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the electorates of each of the wards in each of the new council areas in Scotland, at 16 February. [24477]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested will shortly be placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the electorates of each of the existing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland at 16 February. [24478]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not yet available centrally.

  Registers of Scotland
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Registers of Scotland executive agency to achieve in the three-year period 1996 to 1999. [24808]
  159
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have set the Registers of Scotland the following key targets for 1996–99:to reduce progressively the turnround time for sasine writs from 33 days at 31 March 1996 to 25 days by 31 March 1999;
  to reduce progressively the turnround time for dealings with whole on the land register. from 55 days at 31 March 1996 to 25 days 31 March 1999;
  to reduce unit costs in real terms by 4 per cent. against the 1995–96 target for sasine writs and 16 per cent. against the 1995–96 target for dealings with whole by 31 March 1997;
  to continue the land register extension programme and achieve the transfer of the counties of Ayr and Dumfries to the land register on 1 April 1977 and Perth, Angus and Kinross on 1 April 1998;
  for the trading fund to achieve a return of 6 per cent. on net capital employed over a three year period;
  to complete the conversion of existing land register counties to a digitised map and computer-based text system by 1 April 1997;
  to complete a full assessment of developing electronic, on-line access to the agencies databases by autumn 1996 and of the potential for linkages with other property and land databases held in Scotland; and
  to maintain at least 97 per cent. of customers expressing satisfaction with the quality of work and helpfulness of staff for all parts of the business.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wetland Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has recently received from Friends of the Earth Cymru concerning wetland areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23182]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Friends of the Earth has sent a copy of its report, "A Review of UK Compliance with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance" to the Department's European wildlife division in Bristol.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the protection of wetland areas in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [23184]

  Mr. Clappison
  As a party to the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, the UK is committed to protecting wetlands and promoting their wise use. UK wetlands are protected through a combination of site-based and policy-based mechanisms. These are described in detail in the UK national report to the sixth meeting of the conference of the parties to the Ramsar convention, and planning policy guidance note No. 9 on nature conservation, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the wetland areas in(a) England and (b) Wales which have been damaged over the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [23181]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the UK's internationally important wetlands with recorded or predicted negative changes in ecological character is 160
  included in the UK national report to the sixth meeting of the conference of the parties to the Ramsar convention, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Secondary Liquid Fuel
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what date Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution revised the standard assessment levels for heavy metals in secondary liquid fuels; [23247]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the data and analysis which formed the basis of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's decision to revise the standard assessment levels for heavy metals in secondary liquid fuel. [23245]

  Mr. Clappison
  I do not intend to place such data and analysis in the Library.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has developed environmental assessment levels for use in environmental, economic and best practicable environmental option assessments which are carried out by operators of industrial processes controlled under integrated pollution control. There are no specific EALs for particular processes or fuels.

  Draft EALs were included in the consultation document entitled "Environmental, Economic and BPEO Assessment Principles for Integrated Pollution Control" published by HMIP in April 1994.

  In the light of comments received during the consultation exercise, HMIP reviewed the overall BPEO approach together with the methodology used to set EALs.

  A revised approach to the derivation of EALs was agreed in January 1995 and amended values were published in volume III of a set of consultation documents in July 1995.

  Following further consultation, the revised guidance is due to be published by HMSO in the near future.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees are chaired by employees of the Building Research Establishment; [23098]

  (2) what has been the cost of the Building Research Establishment European standards section in each of the past five years; [23090]

  (3) what has been the cost in each of the past five years of the representation of United Kingdom interests on (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees by Building Research Establishment employees; [23094]

  (4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international standards committees employ staff from the Building Research Establishment as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee. [23099]
  161
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Building Research Establishment participation on United Kingdom, European and international standards committees, including steering committees, technical committees and working groups, is as follows:

  Standards committees

  United Kingdom

  European

  International

  Number of committees chaired by employees of the Building Research Establishment

  33

  22

  5

  Number of committees with employees from the Building Research Establishment as representatives of United Kingdom interests (excluding those chaired by BRE)

  329

  41

  17

  Number of BRE staff who are leading the United Kingdom team on European and international committees

  —

  7

  4

  The cost to the Department of the Environment of the Building Research Establishment European standards section for years prior to 1993–94 is not readily available. Since then, the cost to the DOE of the section—to support standards work—is: 1993–94 £244,000; 1995–96 £190,000 (budget). The cost in each of the past five years of the representation of United Kingdom interests on standards committees by Building Research Establishment employees is not separately identified as this is included within the research and application programme carried out for the DOE.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the total building and fitting-out cost of the large building test facility at the Cardington site of the Building Research Establishment; [23100]

  (2) what are the total estimated building and fitting-out costs of the Burn hall at the Building Research Establishment; [23102]

  (3) what has been the total cost of building 16 at the Building Research Establishment. [23103]

  Mr. Jones
  The total investment in the large building test facility at the Cardington site to date is £1.68 million. The total estimated building and fitting-out costs of the Burn hall and the Garston site is £3.49 million. The total cost of the new environmental office and seminar block at the Garston site—replacing building 16—to date is £1.52 million, excluding demolition cost of the old building: the estimated total cost of the building to completion is £3.83 million.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of research carried out for his Department by the Building Research Establishment in each of the past five years; and what is the budget for such research in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of his Department's total research expenditure. [23091]
  162
  Mr. Jones
  Expenditure on research and technical advice from the Building Research Establishment for the DOE in each of the past five years was:

  1990–91: £22.1 million1

  1991–92: £26.2 million1

  1992–93: £34.1 million

  1993–94: £34.0 million

  1994–95: £34.4 million

  1995–96: £34.6 million (estimated).

  As percentages of the Department's total research expenditure, the figures are:

  34.2 per cent.

  32.9 per cent.

  40.0 per cent.

  37.5 per cent.

  37.4 per cent.

  39.3 per cent. (estimated).

  Firm estimates for future years are not available. They will depend on the outcome of the bidding and tendering process for the DOE's programme.

  1Figures exclude expenditure by the energy efficiency office, which became part of the DOE in 1992–93.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of PA Consulting's report on the future of the Building Research Establishment; [23095]

  (2) when he expects to publish Government proposals for the future of the Building Research Establishment; [23096]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the advantages of developing the Building Research Establishment as a national construction centre. [23097]

  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered carefully the report from PA Consulting on options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. I have relayed to him the outcome of my meetings with representatives of the construction industry. He has taken into account also the views of the advisory group which oversaw the work of the consultants, of BRE management and of BRE staff who made their position known to the consultants, to his Department and to me. He has concluded that BRE should remain as a single entity because it offers a unique range of complementary skills and technologies and fragmentation would substantially increase costs to customers and reduce efficiency. He has also concluded that one of the two alternative recommendations proposed by PA Consulting sets out the right route towards BRE' s future structure. It is his view that the best future for BRE would be as part of a national centre for construction, established by the construction industry to improve industry technology, innovation and competitiveness.

  This gives the construction industry the opportunity to translate into reality its concept of a national centre for construction—NCC—which would encompass BRE and would take the form of a company limited by guarantee. This approach would channel directly BRE' s expertise towards stimulating innovation and helping the industry improve its performance while maintaining the objectivity

  163
  and independence of BRE advice. The Government are prepared to share in the funding of a study which the industry proposes to set in hand so as to put in place within six months a business plan for an NCC. My right hon. Friend would look to the industry to take account of the views of BRE management and staff and the university sector, such as that already initiated by University College London in developing this plan. He is clear, however, that delivery of a satisfactory business plan carrying industry commitment to ownership is essential within the six-month deadline if the proposal for an NCC encompassing BRE is to proceed.

  My right hon. Friend wishes to ensure that the transfer of BRE to an NCC can be implemented swiftly at the end of the six-month planning period. He has therefore put in hand work within his Department on preparations which would lead rapidly at the end of the six-month period to the implementation of the NCC plan by February 1997. As a contingency, however, against the possibility that the industry is unable to prepare a satisfactory plan within the initial six months, the Department will also prepare for sale or contractorisation of BRE to be completed by February 1997. This would be achieved through competitive tender under arrangements to maintain the independence, objectivity and authority which BRE currently provides. If no satisfactory purchaser were to emerge, a competitive contract would be let for management of BRE.

  My right hon. Friend has placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report from PA Consulting, though such commercially sensitive information as might be of use to a potential purchaser has been removed. He has also placed in the Library the report of the advisory group which oversaw the consultants' study.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the transfer of the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. [24784]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have considered carefully the report from PA Consulting on options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has relayed to me the outcome of his meetings with representatives of the construction industry. I have taken into account also the views of the advisory group which oversaw the work of the consultants, of BRE management and of BRE staff who made their position known to the consultants, to my Department and to the Minister of State direct. I have concluded that BRE should remain as a single entity because it offers a unique range of complementary skills and technologies and fragmentation would substantially increase costs to customers and reduce efficiency. I have also concluded that one of the two alternative recommendations proposed by PA Consulting sets out the right route towards BRE' s future structure.

  It is my view that the best future for BRE would be as part of a national centre for construction—NCC—
  164
  established by the construction industry to improve industry technology, innovation and competitiveness.

  This gives the construction industry the opportunity to translate into reality its concept of a national centre for construction which would encompass BRE and would take the form of a company limited by guarantee. This approach would channel directly BRE' s expertise towards stimulating innovation and helping the industry improve its performance while maintaining the objectivity and independence of BRE advice. The Government are prepared to share in the funding of a study which the industry proposed to set in hand so as to put in place within six months a business plan for an NCC. I would look to the industry to take account of the views of BRE management and staff and the university sector, such as that already initiated by University College London in developing this plan. I am clear, however, that delivery of a satisfactory business plan carrying industry commitment to ownership is essential within the six-month deadline if the proposal for an NCC encompassing BRE is to proceed.

  I wish to ensure that the transfer of BRE to an NCC can be implemented swiftly at the end of the six-month planning period. I have therefore put in hand work within my Department on preparations which would lead rapidly at the end of the six-month period to the implementation of the NCC plan by February 1997. As a contingency, however, against the possibility that the industry is unable to prepare a satisfactory plan within the initial six months, my Department will also prepare for sale or contractorisation of BRE to be completed by February 1997. This would be achieved through competitive tender under arrangements to maintain the independence, objectivity and authority which BRE currently provides. If no satisfactory purchaser were to emerge, a competitive contract would be let for management of BRE.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report from PA Consulting, though such commercially sensitive information as might be of use to a potential purchaser has been removed. I have also placed in the Library the report of the advisory group which oversaw the consultants' study.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by standard housing region the number of households accepted as homeless by each local authority in England in 1995. [23108]

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 19 March 1996,Official Report, column 137.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many waste incinerators there are in the United Kingdom; and how many of them meet European Union standards. [23156]
  165
  Mr. Clappison
  A figure for the total number of waste incinerators in the United Kingdom is not readily available. Depending upon the size of the incinerator and the type of waste being burnt, the operation of incinerators is regulated by HM inspectorate of pollution, HM industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland or local authorities.

  The EU legislation relating to waste incineration contains implementation dates by which existing units have to meet new standards. In some cases, tighter emission standards have been agreed. The implementation dates for these various standards have not yet been reached.

  Construction Research
  Mr Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure of his Department in each of the past five years and what is the budget for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 for research on construction-related matters commissioned from organisations other than the Building Research Establishment, (i) in total (ii) as a percentage of his Department's total research expenditure; and if he will list the organisations which have been commissioned to undertake such research. [23092]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Expenditure on research and technical advice on construction-related matters commissioned from organisations other than the Building Research Establishment in each of the past five years was:

  1990–91: £2.3 million

  1991–92: £2.8 million

  1992–93: £3.0 million

  1993–94: £3.4 million

  1994–95: £4.8 million

  1995–96: £6.6 million (estimate).

  A percentage of the Department's total expenditure on research and technical advice the figures are:

  13.6 per cent.

  3.5 per cent.

  3.5 per cent.

  3.7 per cent.

  4.7 per cent.

  7.5 per cent.

  Firm estimates for future years are not available. They will depend on the outcome for the bidding and tendering process for the DOE's programme.

  A list of organisations other than the BRE from which such research has been commissioned is attached.

  Association of Consulting Architects

  Association of Consulting Engineers

  Allied Steel and Wire

  Aston Materials Services

  Aston University

  British Constructional Steelwork Association

  Building Environmental Performance Analysis club

  Better Business Opportunities

  Black Horse Agencies

  Billington Osborne-Moss Engineering Ltd.

  British Precast Concrete Federation

  Brick Development Association

  166

  Brighton Polytechnic

  British Board of Agrément

  British Cement Association

  British Ceramic Research Association

  British Masonry Society

  British Standards Institution

  British Steel Corporation

  British Steel Tubes and Pipes

  British Stone Ltd.

  Building Services Research and Information Association

  Builders Merchants Federation

  Building Centre Trust

  Building Employers Confederation

  Business Round Table

  Business Strategies

  Business and Trade Stats Ltd.,

  C.C.M.I.

  Camden Consultancy

  Construct Concrete Structures Group Ltd.

  Ceram Building Technology

  Construction Forecasting and Research Ltd.

  Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers

  Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers Journal

  Construction Industry Computing Association

  Chartered Institute of Building

  Construction Industry Research and Information Association

  Construction Industry Council

  Consumer Association

  Cranfield University

  Construction Research Communication Ltd.

  Cyril Sweett and Partners

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  Dytechna Ltd.

  ECD Energy and Environment Ltd.

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors

  Fosroc

  Four Elements

  Halcrow Gilbert Associates Ltd.

  Housing Association Property Mutual Ltd.

  Haverstock Associates

  Heriot-Watt University

  Hooke Forest

  HR Wallingford Group Ltd.

  Hydraulics Research Ltd.

  Institution of Civil Engineers

  Imperial College

  Independent Thatch Consultants

  Institute of Building Control

  International Fire Consultants Ltd.

  Interlock Ltd.

  IPRA

  Jenkins and Potter

  John Ritter

  Kingston University

  Kingsway Group

  Lancaster University

  Lant

  167

  Loss Prevention Council

  Loughborough University

  Michael Slattery and Associates

  Mott Macdonald Consultants

  Napier University

  National Physical Laboratory

  NBA Tectonics Ltd.

  NBS Services

  National Economic Development Office

  National Federation of Painting and Decorating Contractors

  Open University

  Oscar Faber Applied Research

  Ove Arup and Partners

  Oxford Polytechnic

  P-E International plc

  Paint Research Association

  PF Consultants

  Poole Associates

  Prest

  Reading Construction Forum Ltd.

  RHM Technology

  Royal Institute of British Architects

  Richard Rogers Architects

  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

  Rosborough Stollard Ltd.

  Salford University

  Sandberg Consultants

  Sir Owen Williams

  south Bank Polytechnic

  South Bank University

  steel Construction institute

  Tavistock Institute

  Taywood Engineering Ltd.

  TBV Science

  Technopolis

  The City University

  The Concrete Society

  The Welding Institute

  Threshold Architects

  Touche Ross

  Timber Research and Development Association

  UCLI LTD.

  University of Bath

  University of Belfast

  University Brighton

  University of Dundee

  University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  University of Reading

  University of Sheffield

  University of Strathclyde

  University of Surrey

  University of Ulster

  University of Warwick

  W. A. Atkins (Structural)

  Warrington Fire Research

  Wimpey Environmental Ltd.

  Water Research Centre

  WS Atkins Consultants.

  River Thames
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the secretary of state for the Enviornment what(a) research and (b) consultancy has been commissioned by (i) his Department, (ii) the Government office for London, (iii) the River Thames working group and (iv) the Thames advisory group in each of the past two years on matters relating to the River Thames; and if he will list the organisation as undertaking this work and its total cost. [23093]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Research and consultancy work for the above groups on matters relating to the Thames is commissioned by the Government office for London. The following work has been commissioned in the past two years:

  Research

  Consultancy

  1994–95

  Research for River Thames Working group report

  Wootton Jefferys

  Thames strategy

  Ove Arup Partnership

  1995–96

  Survey of upriver wharves on the tidal Thames

  London Rivers Association

  The business case for a passenger transport service on the River Thames

  London First, KPMG, Steer Davies Gleave

  The total cost to the Government of this work was £146,043.

  The Government office for London has also contributed a total of £37,500 in 1995–96 towards urban design schemes for Thames-side sites in Southwark and Hounslow.

  MOD Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions have been made about the potential contribution towards the Government's target for social lettings deriving from the Ministry of Defence married quarters estate. [23101]

  Mr. Curry
  None. It is for local housing authorities and housing associations to decide how to apply their resources to create social lettings, and to consider what use they may be able to make of surplus MOD housing that becomes available in their local area.

  Housing Renewal (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning housing renewal issues in Jermyn street, Leicester. [23667]

  Mr. Clappison
  No representations have been received about housing renewal issues from the residents of Jermyn street, Leicester.
  169
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be prepared to meet representatives of the residents of Jermyn street, Leicester, and the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss housing renewal issues. [23668]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is primarily for the Leicester city council to respond to the concerns of residents of Jermyn street, Leicester, about these housing renewal issues. Accordingly, I suggest that the hon. Member contacts the city's director of housing to discuss a possible meeting.

  Prisoners (Donated Organs and Brains)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if(a) donated organs and (b) brains removed from deceased prisoners are classed as waste under the European definition of waste and require the completion of waste transfer notes under the duty of care regulations. [23666]

  Mr. Clappison
  Whether a substitute or object is waste must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. In any particular case, the key question is whether the holder of a substance or object is discarding it or intends or is required to do so.

  The Department has provided guidance on the interpretation of the definition of waste in annex 2 to DOE circular 11/94. On the basis of this guidance, the Department's view is that:

  (a) human organs removed with the intention of their being used in a transplant operation or subjected to pathological examination have not been discarded and should not be regarded as waste; and

  (b) if human organs are consigned for disposal in a process such as incineration because they have been discarded, they should be regarded as waste and would be subject to the duty of care as a controlled waste.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 February to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle),Official Report, column 640, what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract with EDS; what contracts his agencies have with EDS; and if he will make a statement. [23717]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's contract conditions enable it to terminate for breach of contract and sue the contractor for damages up to the limit permissible under general contract law.

  The Department's agencies currently have no contracts with EDS.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the additional funds made available to local authorities to cover part of the extra expenditure they will incur as a result of the withdrawal of benefits from asylum seekers will count towards the capping limit for their expenditure; if the capping limit will apply(a) to funds local authorities have to contribute to looking after the needs of such asylum seekers and (b) to funds that
  170
  will be reimbursed by the Government; and what will be the position of those authorities already at or near their capping limit. [24014]

  Mr. Curry
  The funds made available to local authorities will be by way of special grant; they will, therefore, have no impact on an authority's budget requirement and will fall outside capping. Any expenditure incurred by local authorities that is not covered by the grant will form part of their budget requirement and therefore will be subject to capping.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the budget of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will be for 1996–97 for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Scotland. [23825]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total allocation to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for 1996–97 will be £4.465 million, made up as follows:

  £ million

  (a)English Nature

  2.515

  (b)Countryside Council for Wales

  0.700

  (c)Northern Ireland

  nil

  (d)Scottish Natural Heritage

  1.250

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ecologists were employed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is the proposed number for 1996–97. [23826]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of staff with relevant scientific qualifications employed by the JNCC's support unit for the years in question are:

  Year

  Permanent

  Fixed-term appointments

  1994–95

  21

  43

  1995–96

  24

  36

  1996–97

  24

  36

  The figures for 1996–97 are for staff in post at 1 April. It is impossible to predict how this figure will alter during the year due to resignations or terminations of fixed-term appointment contracts.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the salary of the chief executive of the London Docklands development corporation is performance related; what targets are used to measure his performance; and what account is taken of the income from the sale of land. [24106]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The employment contract of the London Docklands development corporation's chief executive provides for an annual zsalary reviewable by the corporation's remunerations committee each year. Any increase proposed by the committee and supported by the corporation's board is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury. In
  171
  addition, the chief executive is eligible for a non-consolidated performance-related payment of up to 10 per cent. each year at the discretion of the committee. The targets against which the chief executive's performance is measured are set by the committee and supported by the board. Income, from whatever source, is just one aspect of over 30 benchmarks designed to assess the effectiveness of the chief executive's overall operational and financial management for the purposes of performance-related pay.

  Details of the chief executive's remunerations are contained in the corporation's published annual report and financial statements. Copies are placed in the House Libraries each year.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements his Department has made since 1992 to ensure that guidance note MS17 from the Health and Safety Executive is circulated to HSE field officers; and if he will make a statement. [23829]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Copies of guidance note MS17 have been distributed to the area offices of the Health and Safety Executive for use by field inspectors and copies have been issued to the Employment Medical Advisory Service.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess the advantage of a national registration scheme for dogs. [22550]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. Our policy is to look at the specific issues related to dogs rather than impose a national registration scheme.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23655]

  Sir Paul Bereford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the percentage increase for band D council tax for each local authority in England for the year 1996–97 relative to the year 1995–96 [24167]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 20 March 1996,Official Report, column 213.

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the review of the boundaries of Sefton metropolitan borough council to begin; and when the review will be completed. [24276]

  Mr. Curry
  I expect the Local Government Commission's review of Sefton to start later this year. The exact start date and the length of the review will be the subject of discussion with the commission, taking into account the other priority tasks which the commission has to undertake.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Health and Safety Executive is taking to examine whether the people of Thornthwaite with Padfield parish, near Harrogate, are at risk of cancer from radomes located at Menwith Hill station; what co-operation there is between the HSE and North Yorkshire health authority in this matter; when inquiries are expected to be completed; to whom the report will be submitted; and if he will make a statement. [24367]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive was contacted by Harrogate borough council in February seeking views on possible risks associated with operations at Menwith Hill and the incidence of cancer in the area. Inquiries have been initiated, including contact with the North Yorkshire health authority and a response will be made to the borough council as soon as practicable.

  Environmental Technology
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess which industries were the top five largest spenders on environmental technology in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995. [24112]

  Mr. Clappison
  Expenditure by industry on environmental technology is not available by industrial sector. In 1990, the top five spending industries on pollution control, including capital and current spending, are listed below, together with estimated amounts spent. This information is taken from the results of a research report, "A Review of UK Environmental Expenditure", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1993.

  Expenditure in 1990n £ million

  Chemicals

  580

  Energy

  550

  Metals

  450

  Food processing

  360

  Engineering

  330

  No information is available for other years. A survey is being carried out by my Department on environmental spending by industry in 1994 and the result of this study will be published in May 1996.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the new guidance on the conduct of compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement. [24586]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following consultation on the draft guidance, issued on 15 October 1995, we have today published a new departmental circular No. 5/96—Welsh Office No. 11/96—which provides guidance on the conduct of compulsory competitive tendering.

  The Department received 222 responses to the consultation exercise. Of these, 162—or 73 per cent.—were from local authorities and related organisations. Thirty-two—or 15 per cent.—were received from contractors and trade associations. Police and fire authorities submitted 12—or 5 per cent.—of the responses and there were 16—or 7 per cent.—other responses. A further 15 responses were received by the Welsh Office and 45 by the Scottish Office, in both cases predominantly from local authorities. I have today placed a list of responses in the Library of the House. Copies of the responses are held in the Department's library.

  Respondents broadly welcomed the move away from detailed emphasis on anti-competitive behaviour practices as set out in DOE circular 10/93—Welsh Office circular 40/93.

  The new guidance identifies five principles for good tendering practice which local authorities are required to apply in subjecting work to compulsory competitive tendering. These stress the need for transparency and fairness as between potential contractors, and for key decisions to be informed by market conditions.

  Local authorities are expected to provide clear account of the way in which key strategic decisions affecting the tendering process have been taken. The guidance also encourages authorities to provide reports to appropriate committees at key stages. These reports should explain the way in which strategic decisions are compatible with authorities' duty to avoid acting anti-competitively.

  The circular makes clear that local authorities should consult, where appropriate, a range of suppliers and professional bodies before making decisions about the way in which work is selected and packaged for competition. Authorities will satisfy the provisions of the legislation only where they have taken steps to ensure that their tendering practices are consistent with securing a good market response.

  The remaining principles encourage the adoption of output, rather than input, based specifications for services, require clear procedures for evaluating tenders to ensure that quality can be achieved and seek to ensure that the conduct of tendering between external contractors and in-house teams does not put any one of them at a disadvantage.

  CCT has proved itself in delivering on price and quality. Average savings of 6.5 per cent. have been achieved and the same or higher standards have been adopted in the overwhelming majority of cases. I intend that the benefits of competition are made available to all local taxpayers.
  174
  The new guidance applies immediately to those services currently subject to competition. The Secretary of State will take into account the extent to which there has been a contravention of the guidance in determining whether authorities have acted anti-competitively.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will direct the Local Government Commission to carry out the electoral reviews referred to in his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 695, to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North. [24590]

  Mr. Curry
  We are today directing the Local Government Commission to carry out electoral reviews of the eight areas where my right hon. Friend announced on 14 March that he was accepting the commission's recommendation that there should be unitary authorities. The eight areas are Blackburn, Blackpool, Halton, Peterborough—including minor boundary changes which the commission recommended and we have accepted The Wrekin, Thurrock, Warrington, and the combined area of Gillingham and Rochester-upon-Medway.

  We have asked the commission to submit its final reports by 3 December so that any new warding can be implemented in time for elections in May 1997.

  Economic and Traffic Growth
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his press release of 28 February, if he will make a statement on the link between economic growth and traffic growth and its impact on the environment; and what assessment he has made of future trends. [23452]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the answers that I gave to the hon. Member on 18 March, Official Report, column 44 and on 26 March, Official Report, column 552.

HEALTH

  NHS Management (Termination Payments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide up-to-date information on termination payments made by NHS trusts or health authorities to(a) chief executives and (b) general and senior managers including the number and amounts. [22170]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: The limited information available for 1995–96 shows that national health service trusts made four payments totalling £265,938 to chief executives and 92 payments totalling £1,930,588 to senior managers and that health authorities made 54 payments totalling £2,181,000 to general and senior managers.

  NHS (Disciplinary Procedures)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place in the Library the advice(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive have received concerning disciplinary and legal aspects of the movement of staff between employers within the NHS; [22748]
  175
  (2) what plans he has to revise disciplinary procedures within the NHS as a result of the inquiry into the former Yorkshire regional health authority. [22736]

  Mr. Malone
  Disciplinary procedures for national health service staff employed on national terms and conditions are governed by the provisions of section 42 of the General Whitley Council handbook. This agreement provides the national framework within which each health authority determines it own procedures. NHS trusts are free to introduce their own arrangements.

  Legal advice to Ministers is given in confidence. However, the general legal position is set out in paragraph 16 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC280 Session 1995–96, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued, and when, to NHS personnel on the declaration of conflicts of interest. [22742]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on standards of business conduct for NHS staff, including conflicts of interest, was issued in HSG(93)5 on 18 January 1993. On 9 August 1995 the chief executive of the NHS executive wrote to all NHS employers re-emphasising the need for NHS bodies to follow the NHS regulatory framework and observe the codes of conduct and accountability. Executive letter (96)12 issued on 16 February 1996 again reminded NHS employers of the importance of avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  NHS Authorities (Cars)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health service bodies have operated car leasing schemes within the last five years that have been contrary to regulations; how many vehicles have been involved; and what has been the cost to the NHS. [22744]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the operation of car leasing schemes of health bodies is not available centrally.

  Severance Cases
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken on cases revealed by the departmental trawl of questionable severances in the health service. [22890]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive, with the Treasury, has examined each case and action to recover moneys paid irregularly will be taken where it is feasible and cost-effective to do so.

  General Practitioners (Computers)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the secretary of State for Health how much money was paid to(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding general practitioner practices for computer hardware and software in 1990–91 and in each year since then; and how many (i) fundholding and (ii) non-fundholding practices and general practitioners there were at the end of each of those years. [23299]
  176
  Mr. Malone
  Reimbursement of the costs of computerisation in general practice are shown in the list. The amount reimbursed in 1990–91, when the scheme was introduced, includes claims for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–92. The apportionment of these costs between fundholders and other GPs is not available centrally.

  1990–91: £17 million

  1991–92: £34 million

  1992–93: £40 million

  1993–94: £39 million

  1994–95: £17 million.

  The related figures for the number of fundholding and non-fundholding practices and general practitioners are as follows:

  Number of fundholding:

  Number of non-fundholding:

  Year

  Practices

  GPS

  practices

  GPs

  1990–91

  0

  0

  9,354

  25,622

  1991–92

  306

  1,715

  8,822

  23,749

  1992–93

  587

  3,159

  8,578

  22,664

  1993–94

  1,249

  6,140

  7,869

  19,976

  1994–95

  2,066

  8,889

  7,045

  17,498

  Source:

  Information prior to 1993–94 is a mixture of enhanced GP census data (about all GPs) and regional health authority data (about GP fundholders);

  All information on 1993–94 and 1994–95 is from the enhanced GP census.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Alzheimer's disease there have been in each year since 1990. [23405]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of cases of Alzheimer's disease is not available centrally.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of staff on each spine point of the senior nurses and midwives pay spine; and what is the number of female staff on each spine point. [23730]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) staff on senior nursing and midwifery pay scales (excluding agency) by spine point

  England at September 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  Spine point

  All senior nurses and midwives

  Female senior nurses and midwives

  1

  1—

  1—

  2

  2—

  1—

  3

  2—

  2—

  4

  2—

  2—

  5

  10

  2—

  6

  10

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  8

  10

  2—

  9

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  11

  20

  10

  12

  100

  80

  13

  30

  20

  177

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) staff on senior nursing and midwifery pay scales (excluding agency) by spine point

  England at September 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  Spine point

  All senior nurses and midwives

  Female senior nurses and midwives

  14

  50

  40

  15

  100

  70

  16

  120

  80

  17

  160

  120

  18

  200

  150

  19

  190

  140

  20

  120

  90

  21

  100

  80

  22

  100

  70

  23

  40

  30

  24

  30

  20

  25

  10

  10

  26

  30

  20

  27

  10

  10

  28

  2

  2

  29

  20

  10

  30

  50

  40

  Others3

  350

  250

  Total

  1,880

  1,380

  Notes:

  1Denotes zero.

  2 Denotes 5 or fewer.

  3'Others' are those on senior nursing and midwifery pay scales who cannot be apportioned to spine points.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the establishments assessed by his Department to be leading centres of scientific excellence worldwide on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob-type diseases; what contact the Government have had with these centres in the past; and what use the Government propose to make of them in the future. [23393]

  Mr. Horam
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee regularly reviews international research into spongiform encephalopathies. The director of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit co-ordinates a European Community-funded project which brings together those working on this disease throughout Europe. We recognise the need to make full use of knowledge and expertise from a wide range of sources to extend our understanding of spongiform encephalopathies.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated on the nature of the infective agent in BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if he will make a statement. [24175]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government receive expert advice on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—the advice of which takes account of the results of all relevant research and surveillance. In February 1995, SEAC published "Transmissible 178
  Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Vaccinations
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual cost of universal vaccination of children for(a) measles-rubella, (b) bacille-Calmette-Guerin, (c) polio, (d) HIB, (e) diphtheria, (f) tetanus and (g) pertussis. [23400]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost to the Department of Health's vaccine supply budget of purchasing vaccines for the childhood immunisation programme for 1995–96 was £39 million, whilst £1.74 million was allocated to the Health Education Authority for promotion and publicity. In 1994–95, the last year for which figures are available, £53.6 million was paid out to general practitioners in immunisation target payments. Figures on the cost of health care workers administering vaccines and delivery of school based immunisation programmes such as bacille-Calmette-Guerin are not available centrally.

  Bovine Serum
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of health risks involved in the use of bovine serum for the production of vaccines for(a) human and (b) animal use. [23518]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 26 March,Official Report, column 517. United Kingdom licensed vaccines comply fully with European guidelines produced by the European Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products, "Minimising the risk of transmission of agents causing spongiform encephalopathies via medicinal products", copies of which are available in the Library. Currently, licensed vaccines do not contain any bovine material sourced from the United Kingdom. Matters regarding the production for vaccines for animals are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if serum of bovine origin is used in the production of vaccines for(a) human and (b) animal use. [23516]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker on 26 March,Official Report, column 517. The manufacture of vaccines can involve the use of foetal calf serum, but this is reduced to minute levels in the finished vaccine in line with the European Union-World Health Organisation guidelines. Foetal calf serum used in the manufacture of United Kingdom licensed vaccines is sourced from outside the UK and no bovine spongiform encephalopathy infectivity has been detected in foetal calf serum. Matters regarding the production of vaccines for animals are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  179
  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls are in place in respect of the country of origin of serum of bovine origin used in the production of vaccines for(a) human and (b) animal use. [23517]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 26 March,Official Report, column 517. Manufacturers of vaccines are bound, by the conditions of their product licence, to comply with the European Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products guidelines on "Minimising the risk of transmission of agents causing spongiform encephalopathies via medicinal products", copies of which are available in the Library. Matters regarding the production of vaccines for animals are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the(a) possible and (b) proven CJD cases being examined relate to individuals who have had (i) contact and (ii) extensive contact with (1) dogs and (2) other domestic animals. [23529]

  Mr. Horam
  The national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit has not so far identified contact with domestic animals as a possible risk factor for CJD.

  Dementia
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of encephalitis, dementia and Alzheimer's disease in(a) under and (b) over 65-year-olds in each of the last 10 years. [23426]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease is not available centrally. It is estimated that there are currently around 600,000 sufferers from dementia. Information on the number of notifications of all forms of encephalitis is not available centrally. Information on the number of notifications of acute encephalitis can be found in the annual reference volumes in communicable disease statistics—series MB2—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Solid Services Review
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference and objective of his review of social services; when he expects it to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [24135]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is working with local government interests to clarify trends in, and the factors generally influencing, social services costs, expenditure and service level and to improve the presentation of relevant data and their helpfulness to local social services authorities in their assessment of their own performance compared to national trends.

  Tuberculosis and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence per head of population of(a) tuberculosis and (b) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [23772]
  180
  Mr. Horam
  The provisional notification rate for tuberculosis—excluding chemoprophylaxis—for England and Wales for 1995 is 10.9 per 100,000 of the population (source, Office for National Statistics).

  Data to the end of 1994 on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are published in the CJD surveillance unit's fourth annual report, copies of which are available in the Library. Provisional data so far suggest that the incidence in 1995 will be lower than in 1994.

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in United Kingdom TB cases in the last 20 years. [23771]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of notifications of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom in 1975 was 12,620 and in 1995 was 6,249—provisional. This is a decrease of 50 per cent.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis occurred in the United Kingdom in each year between 1982 and 1993. [24358]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of notifications of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom is published in table 3.31 of the "Annual Abstract of Statistics". Information for the years 1982 to 1993 is set out in the 1994 and 1995 editions and is shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of notifications of tuberculosis in the UK1

  1982

  8,453

  1983

  7,795

  1984

  7,041

  1985

  6,647

  1986

  6,857

  1987

  5,745

  1988

  5,778

  1989

  6,059

  1990

  5,897

  1991

  6,078

  1992

  6,441

  1993

  6,564

  1994

  26,229

  1995

  26,249

  1Annual Abstract of Statistics. Source: Scottish Health Service Common Services Agency; Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland); and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  2Provisional.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to introduce a system for identifying and screening population groups at high risk from tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement. [24350]

  Mr. Horam
  Those population groups at highest risk from tuberculosis include close contacts of patients with infectious tuberculosis, immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis and their families, and homeless people who sleep rough or who use open access hostels for the homeless. Screening of contacts of patients with infectious tuberculosis and of new immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis is already part of United Kingdom policy. The interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis has considered how
  181
  prevention and control measures amongst high-risk groups, including the homeless, might be improved and its report on this aspect has recently been presented to Ministers. In addition, the Department of Health, working with the Home Department, is presently reviewing port of arrival arrangements for screening of new arrivals entering the United Kingdom from countries where the incidence of tuberculosis is high.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement a programme for more rapid and effective testing of infective tuberculosis cases. [24248]

  Mr. Horam
  The current programme for identification of infectious tuberculosis cases uses the best available reliable and verified tests. Patients with tuberculosis are infectious to others when they have tubercule bacilli in their sputum. There are readily available and rapid laboratory procedures for the identification of such cases—sputum smear positive. Sputum smear negative cases are generally not infectious to others. Effective laboratory tests are available for identifying such cases; however, these take longer than sputum smear positive tests and more rapid tests are currently under development.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each year since 1985, the number of cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis reported in the United Kingdom, and if they are primary or secondary resistance cases; and if he will make a statement. [24347]

  Mr. Horam
  Until recently, no system existed for the routine collection of national data of cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. Information on the general trends of such drug resistance has been maintained through the regular five-yearly surveys of tuberculosis notifications conducted by the public health laboratory service—PHLS. Information from the surveys are shown:

  Year of survey

  Number of newly notified cases of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDRTB)

  1983

  0 cases of MDR TB out of 981 TB patients surveyed

  1988

  1 case of MDR TB out of 840 TB patients surveyed

  1993

  2 cases of MDR TB out of 832 TB patients surveyed

  A special review conducted by the PHLS, and published at the end of 1993, collated information on cases of multi-drug resistance in England and Wales between 1982 and 1991. The review used information from PHLS regional tuberculosis centres, from the PHLS mycobacterium reference unit and reports from hospital laboratories to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre; figures from that study are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of case of MDR TB

  1985

  9

  1986

  12

  1987

  7

  1988

  15

  1989

  11

  1990

  8

  1991

  14

  182
  The review highlighted the need for fuller monitoring of this problem and in 1994 a surveillance scheme—Mycobnet—was established by the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre to monitor drug resistance in isolates of mycobacterium tuberculosis. Data from the first year of Mycobnet will be published shortly.

  The most important measure in preventing the emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis, including multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, is to ensure that patients with tuberculosis are fully and correctly treated. The United Kingdom's excellent record in tuberculosis control has resulted in multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in the UK remaining at low levels. To help ensure that this remains the case, as well as improving surveillance, an expert working group has been established under the auspices of the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis to make specific recommendations for the prevention and control of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current control and surveillance measures on tuberculosis in the United Kingdom. [24351]

  Mr. Horam
  National guidelines for the prevention and control of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom have regularly been produced by the British Thoracic Society. They were last updated in 1994. The measures recommended in the guidelines have been reviewed by the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis and its recommendations for best practice were recently presented to Ministers and will be published shortly.

  The three main measures for controlling tuberculosis in the United Kingdom continue to be:
  reducing the pool of infectious cases by promptly identifying and treating them;
  preventing progression to active disease in certain individuals by chemoprophylaxis;
  increasing immunity to tuberculosis through bacille-Calmette-Guerin immunisation of schoolchildren and certain high-risk groups.

  National surveillance of tuberculosis through the routine notification system has in recent years been supplemented by more detailed five-yearly surveys of notifications to give a clearer picture of trends in different population groups. Recommendations from the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis for the future surveillance of tuberculosis are currently the subject of a wide consultation exercise.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Helath what measures he intends to make adequate and appropriate treatment for tuberculosis more widely available; and if he will make a statement. [24349]

  Mr. Horam
  There are specialised chest clinics in every area supported by doctors experienced in the treatment of tuberculosis. It is the responsibility of health authorities to ensure that the provision of services is appropriate for the needs of their population.

  Sellafield (Childhood Cancer)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his response to the fourth report of his committee on the medical aspects of radiation on childhood cancer in the vicinity of Sellafield; and what further work he has asked Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to conduct on the problem. [23838]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 27 March,Official Report, columns 663–65.

  Cancer Treatment Centres
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of diagnostical practice and treatment protocols will be expected from future designated centres for gynaecological oncology services. [24257]

  Mr. Horam
  That is a matter to be agreed between commissioning authority and provider unit. Service configuration guidance for use by health authorities in their discussions with provider units is being developed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued to health authorities and trusts about the creation of designated cancer treatment centres; and by what process he intends such centres to be so designated. [24202]

  Mr. Horam
  EL(96)15 issued on 15 March gives further guidance on implementing the policy set out in the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". Copies of EL(96)15 have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to designate centres for the treatment of gynaecological cancer; and if the existence and maintenance of agreed treatment protocols will form part of the tests for such designation. [24248]

  Mr. Horam
  The designation of cancer centres or units for the treatment of gynaecological cancer is a matter for the commissioning authority in discussion with provider units. The identification of local standards, to include treatment in line with agreed protocols and guidelines, should form part of contract negotiations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to maintain a central record of oncology centres which have refused patients treatment on the grounds of lack of funds; and if he will make a statement. [24490]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for commissioning authorities in consultation with their provider units to determine the level and quality of services delivered to patients.

  Prior Options Reviews
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if work has commenced on the prior options reviews of establishments which his Department sponsors. [24542]

  Mr. Horam
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his announcement of the timetable for prior options reviews on 26 January 184
  1996, Official Report, columns 421–23, the outcome of reviews of the National Radiological Protection Board, National Biological Standards Board and the public health laboratory service are due to be reported to Ministers by December 1996.

  Work has recently commenced on the review of the National Radiological Protection Board. Views are being invited from any interested parties by means of an advertisement in "Government Opportunities" and by a direct approach to key organisations and individuals.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 521, and 19 December 1995, Official Report, columns 1149 and 1153, when the final manuscript from Professor Jick relating to third generation oral contraceptives was received by the Medicines Control Agency; and if it was included in the papers dispatched by courier at 16:00 on 11 October 1995. [22259]

  Mr. Malone
  The final manuscript of Professor Jick's study was received on 11 October 1995, after the papers were dispatched by courier. A near final version of the manuscript was included with the papers dispatched to committee members. There was no substantive change to the analysis in the final version.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1150, what new data, and from which studies, were presented to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products at its meeting on 17 and 18 October 1995. [22260]

  Mr. Malone
  The committee was presented with findings from the three new epidemiological studies relating to the cardiovascular risks of second and third generation oral contraceptives; these were the World Health Organisation's study, the transnational study and the general practice research database study conducted by Professor Jick.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1153, on which Minister's authority the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995 relating to safety concerns regarding desogestrel and gestodene was issued. [22261]

  Mr. Malone
  The then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville).

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149, when the Licensing Authority received a manuscript relating to the transnational study, and if the Licensing Authority received a final manuscript for that study. [22262]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December,Official Report, columns 1149 and 1153. The Licensing Authority has not received a manuscript relating to the transnational study from the investigators. The Licensing Authority has seen the report of the study published in the British Medical Journal on 13 January 1996.
  185
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a referral of the matters relating to combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene was made to the Law Officers in terms of paragraph 22 (i) or 22 (ii)(c) of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" of May 1992, prior to the referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products made on 11 October 1995. [23268]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not normal practice to disclose whether the advice of Law Officers has been sought in any particular case.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings have been held between the Licensing Authority and the pharmaceutical companies holding product licences for combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene since 7 November 1995; [23269]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 8 February, Official Report, columns 344-45, with which companies and on what dates the discussions regarding supply took place. [23278]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about discussions held between the s
  Licensing Authority and pharmaceutical companies is treated on confidence under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 232–44, relating to the letter of 11 October 1995 from the Medicines Control Agency, for what reasons it is not normal practice to publish such documentation. [23270]

  Mr. Malone
  The relevant documentation is considered to be a confidential communication between regulatory bodies. Such communications are not normally published because they may contain information which is sensitive for commercial reasons or relates to the formulation of policy.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149, if regulatory action with respect to clinical trials of combined oral contraceptives has now been completed; and if he will make a statement. [23273]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 February,Official Report, column 386. In the case of clinical trials, the Licensing Authority would not normally make a public announcement.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 344, whether those who made arrangements on 11 October 1995 for the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995 were made aware of the formal referral regarding safety concerns relating to desogestrel and gestodene to be considered by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 17 to 18 October 1995. [23275]

  Mr. Malone
  Those making the arrangements were aware of the requests that this issue be placed on the agenda of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 17 and 18 October 1995.
  186
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 343–44 what was the legal basis for the referral of 11 October 1995 to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. [23277]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 8 February,Official Report, columns 343–44, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995, Official Report, column 1150.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about the safe use of Femodene ED; if he will list the names of those who have made such representations; and what action he has taken in response to such representations; [24297]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the contraceptive pill Femodene ED; what medical side-effects, if any, the pill produces; what advice he has received from the manufacturer about the medical conditions where use of this pill would be inappropriate; and if he will make a statement. [24296]

  Mr. Malone
  Femodene ED is a combined oral contraceptive preparation containing ethinyloestradiol and gestodene. It is one of the seven brands of oral contraceptive which was subject of advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines in October 1995 in relation to the risk of venous thromboembolism. The advice of the CSM was based on research studies which indicated that oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, compared with other oral contraceptives. The chairman of the CSM wrote to doctors and pharmacists on 18 October 1995 and a copy of his letter is available in the Library.

  The contra-indications to use and side-effects of Femodene ED are documented in the product data sheet issued by the manufacturer and in the British National Formulary.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement to the House made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 October 1995, Official Report, column 701–11, and also, in respect of the matter of representations, to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 8 February, Official Report, column 345.

  Medicines Act 1968
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 345–46, if he will list the occasions during 1995 on which (a) the Licensing Authority, (b) the Medicines Control Agency and (c) the Committee on Safety of Medicines have taken legal action with respect to matters relating to the Medicines Act 1968; and how many injunctions have been sought relating to material relating to the efficacy or safety of medicines. [23276]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency, acting on behalf of the Licensing Authority, instigated legal proceedings in the criminal courts in respect of 35 cases in 1995 relating to enforcement of the Medicines Act 1968. No injunctions in respect of material relating to the efficacy or safety of medicines were sought during this period.

  Adoption
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the principal legislative provisions he expects to change in his proposals for re-casting the law relating to adoption; and what means he expects to use. [24449]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department published a consultative document "Adoption—A Service for Children" on 28 March; copies are available in the Library. The document includes a draft Adoption Bill and identifies some important changes to adoption law; changes will be effected through primary legislation, regulations and guidance.

  Smoking
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the proportion of people from ethnic minorities who smoke and (b) the proportion of all smokers who are from ethnic minorities. [23265]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimates of cigarette smoking prevalence in 1992 among those aged 16 and over are shown in the table. Estimates of smoking prevalence among other ethnic minority populations are not available and it is not therefore possible to produce an estimate of the proportion of all smokers who are from ethnic minorities.

  Percentage

  Men

  Women

  African-Caribbean

  28

  18

  Indian

  19

  1

  Pakistani

  28

  2

  Bangladeshi

  40

  4

  England-general population

  29

  27

  Source:

  Health Education Authority "Black and Minority Ethnic Groups in England".

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys general household survey.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to alert members of ethnic minorities to the dangers of smoking and to encourage them to stop. [23266]

  Mr. Horam
  In addition to the provision of translations of anti-smoking literature, the Health Education Authority works closely with local health promotion agencies to develop resources best suited to the needs of particular communities.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of women who restart smoking after pregnancy; and what measures he is taking to encourage them not to. [23274]

  Mr. Horam
  No such estimate has been made.

  The Health Education Authority is continuing its campaign aimed at pregnant women and, in conjunction with doctors, nurses and health visitors, a new educational leaflet will be available later in the spring. In addition, the national smoking education campaign is designed to motivate and assist those in socio-economic groups C2DE, in particular parents and pregnant women, to quit.

  Mental Health Patients
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of mental health patients in accommodation(a) directly provided or run by a local authority and (b) approved by but not directly provided or run by a local authority in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1995. [23267]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information on the number of people in residential care homes is shown in the table. Information is not available centrally for 1980 and 1985 in this form.

  Residents in residential care homes for people with mental illness1

  England at 31 March

  Numbers and percentages

  1990

  1995

  Local authority homes2

  Residents in homes for mentally ill people

  4,885

  4,070

  Percentage3 in homes for mentally ill people

  4·6

  6·1

  Independent sector homes4

  Residents in homes for mentally ill people

  10,620

  16,265

  Percentage3 in homes for mentally ill people

  6·0

  7·3

  Notes:

  1Includes homes for elderly people who are mentally infirm.

  2Local authority staffed homes. At 31 March 1995 there were also 1,400 people with mental illness accommodated in local authority unstaffed homes.

  3 Calculated as the percentage of all residents in local authority and independent sector homes respectively.

  4 Residential care homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Excludes small homes registered under the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical returns.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 345 (1) on what basis Professor W. Butterfield was appointed as chairman of Medicines Commission for the period 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1981; [23271]

  (2) on what basis Professor Rosalind Hurley was appointed as chairman of the Medicines Commission for the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1993. [23272]

  Mr. Malone
  All members of the Medicines Commission, including chairmen, are appointed for their wide and recent experience in one of the following activities;

  (a) the practice of human or veterinary medicine;

  (b) the practice of pharmacy;

  (c) chemistry other than pharmaceutical chemistry;

  (d) the pharmaceutical industry.

  All chairmen since the inception of the commission have been selected for their wide experience and suitable qualities for that role.

  Children's Hospital Services, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the leader of Manchester city council in relation to
  189
  children's hospital services in Greater Manchester; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [23436]

  Mr. Horam
  We received a letter on 26 March, to which I shall be replying shortly. Children's services are a matter for the six district health authorities in Greater Manchester and the right hon. Member may wish to approach their respective chairmen for more information.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of he 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23650]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him today.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has had from the Haemophilia Society in regard to people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood products supplied to them by the NHS; what reply he gave; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [23803]

  Mr. Horam
  I met representatives of the Haemophilia Society on 26 March to discuss its report on haemophilia and hepatitis C which was published in February. The meeting covered a range of issues concerning haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C and I outlined the action that the Government are taking, including research and support for voluntary organisations working in this field.

  Transfers of Undertakings
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what duties(a) health authorities, (b) NHS trusts and (c) private investors have to consult with trade unions or worker representatives where a private finance initiative within the NHS will result in a transfer of undertakings; what time scale applies; what action he will take to ensure changes in the management of national health services falling within the acquired rights directive are negotiated to fulfil transfer of undertakings protection of employment requirements; and if he will make a statement. [24119]

  Mr. Malone
  The private finance initiative does not affect the obligation of national health service employers to comply with the provisions of employment law.

  Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, employers—including NHS employers—involved in relevant transfers must provide certain information to appropriate representatives of any affected employees long enough before the transfer to enable consultation to take place. An employer who
  190
  envisages taking measures in connection with the transfer must also consult representatives of any affected employees with a view to seeking their agreement.

  Travel Immunisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of the travel immunisation service. [24183]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no proposal to privatise travel immunisation.

  The Department is reviewing the arrangements for travel vaccines. Inconsistencies and ambiguities have arisen over the years and we are seeking to resolve any anomalies which may exist at present.

  Contraceptive Advice (Minors)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance(a) he has issued and (b) he plans to issue to general practitioners concerning information which can be given about patients who are minors to health clinics from whom such patients seek advice on contraception; what are the established procedures for the supply of such information; and if he will review their adequacy. [24364]

  Mr. Horam
  In March 1986, HC(86)1 was issued to health authorities giving guidance on the provision of contraceptive advice and treatment to young people under 16, exceptionally without their parents' knowledge or consent. It sets out the criteria on which a doctor or health professional must be satisfied before prescribing contraception. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  There are no plans to revise this guidance.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 189, how many people have been removed from waiting lists by district in each region in each quarter since 1992. [24379]

  Mr. Horam
  Reliable information on removals by district is not available centrally.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Research
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the levels of expenditure in 1996 prices on Government-sponsored research into the incidence of(a) scrapie in sheep, (b) bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and (c) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans for each five-yearly period since 1970 with regard to micro-biological studies. [24439]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 28 March,Official Report,columns 748–49.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 383, what has been the expenditure on (a) non-medical education and training and (b) medical and dental postgraduate education and training in each of the years since 1989–90 by region. [24381]
  191
  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Newbury Hospital
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects construction of the Newbury hospital to begin; and when the hospital will open. [24275]

  Mr. Horam
  The West Berkshire priority care service national health service trust is in the process of producing plans for a new hospital. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Jim Kerevon, chairman of the trust, for details.

  NHS Trusts (Insurance Policies)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of national health service trusts offering branded insurance policies. [24394]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trusts are empowered to generate additional income of NHS patient care by undertaking a range of commercial services activities. There is no objection to NHS trusts offering branded insurance policies provided that:

  (a) there is no detriment to NHS services, which must be the top priority for every NHS trust.

  (b) there is no unacceptable risk to public funds.

  (c) the services make a positive financial contribution which benefits the NHS trust's work for NHS patients.

  (d) it is made entirely clear that any insurance policy is in relation to future private treatment and does not confer any advantage whatsoever in relation to NHS treatment.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration the NHS executive has given to allowing trusts to offer preferential treatment to patients participating in any insurance policy or club scheme offered by them. [24363]

  Mr. Malone
  Treatment of national health service patients is determined by clinical priority alone. NHS trusts must not offer preferential treatment under the NHS to patients participating in any insurance policy or club scheme they offer.

  NHS Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, columns 658-60, about the deficits recorded by NHS trusts in 1994–95, what factors led to the deficits experienced by (a) the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust, (b) the Mid-Anglia Community Health NHS trust, (c) the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS trust, (d) the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS trust, (e) the Crawley and Horsham NHS trust, (f) the Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust, (g) the Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS trust, (h) the Wolverley NHS trust, (i) the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS trust, (j) the Frimley Park Hospital NHS trust, (k) the Bath Mental Health Care NHS trust and (1) the Premier Health NHS trust. [24429]

  Mr. Horam
  Further information on the factors which led to the deficits in the trusts are matters for the 192
  individual trusts concerned. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the respective trusts for details.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the whole-time equivalent number of NHS general medical practitioners working in each family health services association area in England at the latest date for which figures are available. [24382]

  Mr. Malone
  The information will be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hamburger Meat
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current regulations applying to the supply of beef and meat products to hamburger chains and related outlets. [23072]

  Mrs. Browning
  Premises engaged in the supply of raw beef hamburgers and meat products are covered by the Minced Meat and Meat Preparation (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 and the Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994, unless they supply exclusively caterers and/or the final consumer, in which case they are covered by the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department provides to farmers on the disposal of organophosphate dips; and if he will make a statement.[23190]

  Mrs. Browning
  Advice on disposal of organophosphorus sheep dips is given in the "Sheep dipping" booklet, AS29, published by the Health and Safety Executive, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Department of the Environment. In 1994, copies of this leaflet were sent to all known sheep farmers in England and, in a Welsh language edition, in Wales. My Department's "code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water," published in 1991, also contains a section on sheep dips. Copies of both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Advice on disposal is also included on the labels and product literature of organophosphorus sheep dips as part of the authorisation procedures for veterinary medicines.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions his Department has had with the organophosphate information network; and if he will make a statement. [23172]

  Mrs. Browning
  As part of a series of meetings I have been holding with sufferers and sufferers groups this year, I met the leader of the organophosphate information
  193
  network—OPIN—on 23 February and discussed with her a number of matters relating to OP sheep dips. My officials are also in regular and frequent contact with OPIN on all aspects of the OP sheep dip issue.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a system of compensation for farmers suffering from organophosphate poisoning who cannot apply for industrial injury benefit; and if he will make a statement. [23175]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have no plans to introduce such a system. Questions of compensation are a matter between the individual and the company concerned.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department provides to farmers on the wearing of protective suits when using organophosphate dips; and if he will make a statement. [23191]

  Mrs. Browning
  Advice on the wearing of personal protective equipment, including protective suits, when using sheep dips, is contained in the "Sheep dipping" booklet, AS29 published jointly by the Health and Safety Executive, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Department of the Environment. The labels and product literature for organophosphorus sheep dips include advice on the precautions to be taken when using the products, including the wearing of protective clothing.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's advice on the disposal of organophosphate dips conforms with the EC groundwater directive, and if he will make a statement. [23189]

  Mrs. Browning
  One of the purposes of the "Sheep dipping" booklet, AS29, published jointly by my Department with the Health and Safety Executive, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Department of the Environment, is to provide guidance to users of organophosphate sheep dips on the safe handling, use and disposal of these veterinary medicines.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what arrangements his Department

  Meat inspection staff employed by the MHS as at 27 March 1996

  Region/Department

  Grade

  North

  Central

  South and East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Official veterinary surgeon

  Permanent

  8

  8

  6

  4

  5

  4

  35

  Temporary

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Casual

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Sub total

  9

  9

  8

  5

  7

  4

  42

  Senior authorised meat inspector

  Permanent

  19

  16

  12

  8

  6

  14

  75

  Temporary

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  Casual

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Sub total

  20

  17

  12

  10

  7

  14

  80

  194
  has made since 1992 to ensure that guidance note MS17 from the Health and Safety Executive is circulated to farmers; and if he will make a statement; [23186]

  (2) is circulated to doctors; and if he will make a statement. [23528]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  For farmers and doctors in general, none, though at the time of publication in 1981 and revisions in 1986 and 1987, it was distributed to a wide variety of relevant journals and publications in the medical, agricultural, horticultural, livestock and forestry fields, in addition to general health and safety and chemical industry publications.

  Guidance note MS17 is a specialised document aimed at occupational hygienists and doctors responsible for biological monitoring programmes under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. Most general practitioners do not specialise in occupational hygiene and do not generally need the detailed information provided in MS 17.

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors are currently available to carry out meat inspections in each region. [23112]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply to my hon. Friend direct.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Harry Greenway, dated 2 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question regarding meat inspection staff has been passed to me for reply. [23112]
  The MHS currently employ, nationally, 509 red meat and 163 poultry meat inspectors on a full time basis. In addition it utilises 69 inspectors (62 red meat; 7 white) on fixed term contracts of 100 weeks duration. There is also a pool of 222 staff (203 red; 19 white) used on a casual basis. As you will appreciate, these last two sets of figures in particular fluctuate according to demand.
  These meat inspection staff are supervised by Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs). The MHS directly employs 39 OVSs and in addition contracts out work to 110 full-time equivalent vets to supplement them. 3 vets are also utilised on a casual basis.
  The MHS is divided into 6 regions and the above figures are broken down as shown on the attached table.
  195

  Meat inspection staff employed by the MHS as at 27 March 1996

  Region/Department

  Grade

  North

  Central

  South and East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Authorised meat inspector

  Permanent

  119

  67

  97

  46

  32

  73

  434

  Temporary

  14

  9

  17

  11

  6

  2

  59

  Casual

  50

  32

  35

  37

  24

  23

  201

  Sub total

  183

  108

  149

  94

  62

  98

  694

  Senior poultry meat inspector

  Permanent

  8

  7

  5

  3

  5

  5

  33

  Temporary

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Casual

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sub total

  8

  7

  5

  3

  5

  6

  34

  Poultry meat inspector

  Permanent

  27

  13

  46

  11

  23

  10

  130

  Temporary

  3

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Casual

  2

  4

  3

  3

  6

  0

  18

  Sub total

  32

  19

  49

  16

  29

  10

  155

  Total

  252

  160

  223

  128

  110

  132

  1,005

  P = Permanent, T = Temporary (100 week contract), C = Casual. OVS = Official Veterinary Surgeon, AMI = Authorised Meat Inspector, PMI = Poultry Meat Inspector.

  Poultry Feed
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of poultry which have been fed protein feed in each year since 1989. [23155]

  Mrs. Browning
  All poultry are fed on a diet which typically contains between 15 and 28 per cent. protein.

  Food Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a food safety strategy. [23111]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Department's aims, objectives and programmes in the food safety area are set out in the 1996 departmental report, CM 3204, which has just been published.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to stop the use of potentially infected beef waste in the production of cat and dog food. [23349]

  Mrs. Browning
  The use of specified bovine offal in feedingstuffs for animals, including pet food, is already prohibited under the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995.

  Cattle Inspectors and Veterinarians
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) cattle inspectors and (b) veterinarians there are (i) in Scotland and (ii) in the rest of the United Kingdom. [23356]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: At 1 March 1996, directly employed by the Ministry within the State Veterinary Service there were (a) 23 Ministry technical staff appointed as inspectors under the
  196
  Animal Health Act 1981 in Scotland and 159 in the rest of Great Britain; (b) 51 veterinary surgeons in Scotland and 247 in the rest of Great Britain.

  Meat and Bonemeal Feed
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the import of all animal feedstuffs containing mammalian meat, other animal and butchers' wastes and bonemeal. [23326]

  Mrs. Browning
  The proposed restrictions on mammalian meat and bonemeal will apply equally to mammalian meat and bonemeal imported from other countries.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the location and volume of stocks of meat bonemeal feed in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom. [23355]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Detailed information is not available on the total stocks of meat and bonemeal held in the United Kingdom. However, information is available on the stocks held by all known compounders in Great Britain which produce animal feedingstuffs for sale. The following figures include estimates for such producers in Northern Ireland:
  Scotland: 56 tonnes
  Rest of the UK: 2,053 tonnes

  Food Labelling (Beef Products)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to provide full information to all consumers about beef products contained in foodstuffs; and if he will ban the sales of foodstuffs which do not carry such a description clearly presented. [23229]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: The EC food labelling directive requires that the species origin of meat ingredients of all prepacked foodstuffs should be indicated on labels unless the ingredients form part of a

  197
  composite ingredient which is less than 25 per cent. of the foodstuff. However, the UK also currently permits the use of generic terms for meat and offal ingredients provided that:

  (a) in the case of "meat" the labelling of the food does not otherwise refer to a specific type of meat;

  (b) in the case of "other meat", this describes meat not otherwise referred to on the label;

  (c) in the case of "offal", this refers only to an ingredient of a cooked food.

  Following harmonisation of EC member states' legislation on use of generic terms in ingredient lists, the Government published proposals in March 1994 to amend the UK regulations to discontinue the use of these generic descriptions. The changes will be given effect in the consolidated food labelling regulations due to be introduced shortly.

  The Government have no plans to ban products which do not comply with these rules.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the underspend within the CAP budget for the current year. [23419]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission's latest estimates suggest an underspend of about 0.7 becu or £0.6 billion.

  Fertiliser (Chicken Manure)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received regarding(a) the suitability or otherwise of chicken litter as an agricultural fertiliser and (b) the supply of chicken litter for fertiliser purposes.[23577]

  Mr. Boswell
  Poultry manure—including the ashed product from incineration—is a source of various nutrients and is used as a fertiliser. I have no quantitative information on supplies.

  Rabies
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the rabies risk assessment referred to by the Chief Veterinary Officer at the seminar organised by the Royal Society of Medicine on 3 May 1995. [23595]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 29 February, Official Report, column 710.

  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent studies his Department has undertaken into the efficacy of the pet passport scheme introduced in Sweden to exclude rabies; and if he will reconsider his response to the proposals from the Agriculture Committee in its fifth report of Session 1993–94, HC 347. [23697]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: Senior officials from my Department visited Norway and Sweden late last year to get a first-hand idea of how their new systems are working. Their impression was that the
  198
  import controls operating in those countries were far more bureaucratic than our quarantine system, and administratively more expensive to operate.

  The Government continue to believe that the time is not yet ripe to introduce changes to the current quarantine arrangements for pet dogs and cats entering the UK.

  Imported Meat and Livestock
  Mr. Liddington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to test imported livestock and carcases for disease.[23454]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: For livestock, other member states of the European Union are obliged to ensure that animals sent to the United Kingdom originate from holdings which are subject to regular official veterinary checks and free from animal health movement restrictions. Animals also have to be accompanied by a valid health certificate signed by an official veterinarian in conformity with Community rules. The certificate details the veterinary checks carried out by the official veterinarian. As a further precaution against disease spread, spot checks are carried out on imported consignments, including some sampling and testing for evidence of disease.

  Livestock from third countries can be imported only through an approved border inspection post. Most consignments of livestock must undergo full documentary, identity and physical checks by an official veterinarian at the BIP. Imported livestock from third countries for which the European Community has not agreed harmonised rules are permitted to enter the Untied Kingdom only with a valid import licence, the conditions of which must be met. National and Community animal health conditions for imported livestock include some pre-export and post-import testing requirements.

  Similarly, imports of animal products from third countries may enter the Community only via approved BIPs where they are subject to a range of checks to ensure compliance with import rules.

  As regards intra-Community trade in products of animal origin, the onus is on the member state of origin to ensure compliance with Community animal and public health rules. These require carcases to be health marked to indicate that they come from an approved slaughter house and to be accompanied by commercial documentation bearing the approval number of that premises. Checks and testing are undertaken here if there is reason to suspect that a consignment does not comply with Community rules.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23621]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 1 April, Official Report, column 18.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23631]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Analysing past statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament to identify those which may have included gold plating would involve disproportionate cost.

  Research
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on research in each year since 1986 to date. [23985]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's total research and development expenditure for each financial year since 1986 is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  118·4

  1986–87

  118·3

  1987–88

  113·8

  1988–89

  115·0

  1989–90

  112·2

  1990–91

  119·1

  1991–92

  121·5

  1992–93

  132·9

  1993–94

  135·0

  1994–95

  137·2

  1995–961

  139·7

  1 Provisional.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future structure of the agricultural development advisory service; and if he will make a statement. [24701]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have announced their intention to transfer the majority of ADAS functions to the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are pleased with the progress that ADAS has made and, subject to its performance over the 1996–97 financial year, will be looking to take privatisation forward in the course of 1997.

  The Secretary of State and I have agreed to create a new joint agency to take on those ADAS functions that need to be retained in the public sector.

  The new agency will work only on behalf of Government customers. In line with Government policy on privatisation, it will not compete for work which is capable of being contracted out to the private sector.
  200
  We expect the new agency to comprise around 400 professional staff and are planning for it to come into operation on 1 April 1997.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in securing improvements in the common fisheries policy and the management of fisheries in the United Kingdom. [24809]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows. With regard to structural measures for the fishing industry, the main underlying problem for fishermen is the poor state of fish stocks and the size of the fishing fleets. Tackling the problem of over-capacity must remain a top priority in fisheries policy, since our fleet cannot have a viable long-term future unless it is properly structured in relation to the available fishing opportunities.

  That it why we increased the decommissioning programme by £28 million last year and have recently launched a consultation exercise seeking industry views on how our decommissioning arrangements might be improved. The closing date for comments is 12 April and we aim to have changes in place in time to start the 1996 round soon.

  If our fleet reductions are to work they need to be part of an EU-wide policy. We shall join constructively in the discussions and negotiations in the Fisheries Council on the future arrangements for bringing the European fleet as a whole better into line with fishing opportunities. We have already started discussions by holding seven meetings in different parts of the UK to enable the European Commission to meet our industry and to hear at first hand the views of our fishermen.

  The need to adapt applies equally to ports, to on-shore facilities and to the processing industry. We have therefore announced that we are going ahead with grant support schemes under the EU's financial instrument for fisheries guidance. This is in addition to the continuing national harbour grants scheme and existing vessel safety measures.

  The UK will also benefit by up to £36 million of aid under the PESCA initiative targeted specially at the needs of fishery-dependent areas. Again there will be supporting national, regional and local assistance.

  On fisheries management, the Government have made clear our determination to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. These vessels, although registered in the UK, are effectively owned abroad yet fish against UK quotas and yield little or no benefit to our fishing communities.

  Quota hoppers now account for 20 per cent. of the tonnage of our offshore fleet and take about 10 per cent. of our whitefish quota, most of which is landed abroad. This cannot go on and we must be able to ensure that our fishing communities and related industries derive real benefit from the national quotas allocated under the CFP. As announced in March, we are raising this issue in the intergovernmental conference and, if needed, treaty changes will be sought. We have already secured the Commission's agreement that they will study with us the

  201
  scope for taking practical and effective steps to regulate quota hopping within the existing framework of Community law.

  The system of quota management is often criticised by fishermen. This is not surprising when quotas have to be set at low levels in response to falling fish stocks. The industry has been invited to make its own suggestions for improvements to the system we apply in the UK. At the annual review meeting in November, the industry agreed that no significant changes should be made for 1996. However, the Government remain open to any constructive ideas which are likely to be acceptable to the industry as a whole.

  As part of our quota management policy, we have made clear our commitment to seeking ways to reduce the adverse effect on the Northern Irish industry of Hague preference in the Irish sea.

  With regard to fisheries conservation and science, UK fishermen have laid great emphasis on the importance that they attach to effective technical conservation measures. This is absolutely right, and to address the problems of fisheries conservation, including discards and industrial fishing, I set up a fisheries conservation group consisting of fishermen, scientists and other Government experts to look at the options for new technical measures to help conserve stocks. This will ensure that the UK industry has every opportunity to have the maximum influence on the new Community measures which, at our request, are to be agreed by the end of the year.

  We need to increase our understanding of the impact of industrial fisheries on other stocks and on the wider marine ecosystem. At the April Fisheries Council, I shall therefore call for a collaborative research effort in this important area and press the European Commission to propose the introduction of a precautionary total allowable catch for the large sandeel fishery.

  A further area which clearly needs serious attention by the fishing industry and fisheries scientists is the understanding of fisheries science and the use by the scientists of the best advice from commercial fishermen. I have set out on a number of occasions the importance of fisheries science in policy decision, including my speech at the University of East Anglia last November explaining the key role which science must play in policy making. We have now initiated a series of regular contacts between industry representatives and our scientists in order to increase fishermen's understanding of the work done by the scientists and to give the industry the opportunity to question the scientists and contribute their own expertise. This will be followed up by meetings between the industry and our scientists in advance of formulating our input into the international scientific advice on the state of the various stocks. I hope that these contacts will result in future in better-informed decisions and a better understanding of how we reach decisions on fisheries management.

  As for community arrangements at a community leve,l there is scope for improving the role of the fishing industry in decision making and in getting a clearer regional influence so that those most directly affected by decisions are heard more clearly. I have already put this idea to the Commission and the initial reaction was very encouraging. I shall be taking this up further at the April
  202
  Fisheries Council when I shall propose the introduction of regional consultative committees to bring together fishermen and officials from the member states active in a particular fishery to discuss issues relevant to that fishery. These committees would cover areas such as the North sea and English channel and could consider any issue of regional relevance, such as the most suitable technical conservation measures and the state of fish stocks.

  On the longer-term arrangements for the CFP, we are open to constructive suggestions from the UK industry in particular in relation to the 2002 review. On one important point—the six and 12-mile limits—we have already made it clear that they are not negotiable. The Commissioner has herself acknowledged the desirability of having a clear statement about the future and I shall be seeking to build on this.

  On fish marketing, we have encouraged the industry to respond constructively to changing needs, in particular by making better use of the system of producers' organisations. Producers' organisations have already evolved in response to changing conditions in the industry. In the light of those changes, and the recommendations of the recent Sea Fish Industry Authority task force report, we are launching a consultation on the role and function of fish producers' organisations. We will also be seeking views on how various changes to EU legislation on recognition and supervision of producers' organisations should be implemented in the UK.

  The importance of the fish market is also reflected in the agreement of Ministers to an increased levy rate of the Sea Fish Industry Authority which will provide funds for their promotional work and open the way for a significant contribution from EU aid.

  In conclusion, these are not easy times for the fishing industry. The Government recognise that we are facing a number of difficult issues both on the operation of the CFP and because of the decline in fish stocks. That is why we are taking initiatives across the whole range of fisheries policy in the way that I have described.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 1996,Official Report, column 629, if he will give the figures for (a) running costs and (b) expenditure on consultants by each of the five listed non-departmental public bodies in each of the past five years, using the new definition of running costs. [22804]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: Expenditure on running costs incurred prior to 1 April 1996 was not recorded in the format requested and cannot be produced. Available information on outturn expenditure on running costs and consultants for each of the five non-departmental public bodies is as follows:

  203

  £ million

  Year

  Running Costs

  Consultants

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  1991–1992

  3·101

  0·524

  1992–93

  3·276

  0·489

  1993–94

  3·270

  0·508

  1994–95

  3·137

  0·517

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  2·920

  0·340

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  1991–92

  3·473

  5·510

  1992–93

  4·012

  6·559

  1993–94

  4·100

  10·044

  1994–95

  4·004

  6·536

  1995–96 (budget)

  4·319

  8·093

  Land Authority for Wales1

  1991–92

  1·668

  0·433

  1992–93

  1·732

  0·604

  1993–94

  1·787

  0·600

  1994–95

  1·795

  0·414

  1995–96 (budget)

  1·882

  0·350

  Wales Tourist Board2

  1991–92

  3·666

  0·281

  1992–93

  4·013

  0·289

  1993–94

  3·859

  0·297

  1994–95

  3·884

  0·307

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  3·820

  0·383

  Welsh Development Agency3

  1991–92

  13·750

  4·858

  1992–93

  14·231

  5·917

  1993–94

  15·094

  6·276

  1994–95

  14·130

  6·370

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  13·200

  7·074

  1All fees are recovered from trading activities, therefore net nil cost to the public purse.

  2 Figures for expenditure on consultants are best estimates in the time available.

  3Figures for expenditure on consultants include professional fees.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of households accepted as homeless by each local authority in Wales in 1995. [23107]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of households accepted as homeless in 1995 is shown in the following table.

  Households accepted as homeless in 1995

  Local authority

  Number

  Aberconwy

  62

  Alyn and Deeside

  190

  Arfon

  36

  Blaenau Gwent

  250

  Brecknock

  92

  Cardiff

  1,290

  Carmarthen

  113

  Ceredigion

  131

  Colwyn

  68

  Cynon Valley

  99

  Delyn

  104

  Dinefwr

  201

  Dwyfor

  46

  Glyndwr

  32

  Islwyn

  140

  Llanelli

  72

  Lliw Valley

  37

  Meirionnydd

  80

  204

  Households accepted as homeless in 1995

  Local authority

  Number

  Merthyr Tydfil

  179

  Monmouth

  125

  Montgomery

  147

  Neath

  302

  Newport

  652

  Ogwr

  1,230

  Port Talbot

  165

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  160

  Radnor

  39

  Rhondda

  106

  Rhuddlan

  42

  Rhymney Valley

  130

  South Pembrokeshire

  122

  Swansea

  1,356

  Taff-Ely

  252

  Torfaen

  218

  Vale of Glamorgan

  238

  Wrexham Maelor

  398

  Ynys Mon

  100

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Oil Pollution (Sea Empress Incident)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the economic impact of the Sea Empress disaster on(a) local business activity, (b) local tourism and (c) the fishing industry. [23392]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Compensation is available to businesses which have suffered economic loss caused by pollution damage from the Sea Empress. My right hon. Friend is monitoring the situation and maintaining close links with the Wales tourist board, Pembrokeshire county council, and organisations representing local fishing interests.

  Home Energy Conservation Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many senior citizens households over 60 years of age will not now be eligible for home energy conservation grants because of means testing. [23747]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Planning, Construction and Energy Efficiency, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 26 March,Official Report, column 825.

  Hedgerows and Headlands (Conservation)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to farmers concerning the preservation of hedgerows and headlands. [23564]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has published a "Guide to Hedgerow Management and Establishment" in conjunction with ADAS and the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Advice is also given on the management of both hedgerows and headlands under the environmentally sensitive area scheme and on hedgerows under other environmental measures. All schemes are supported by appropriate explanatory literature. The council also provides advice and supporting literature under the hedgerow renovation scheme.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local people have exercised their right to buy their council house by each local authority giving the sales receipts total for each local authority up to the latest possible date; and if he will make a statement.[23750]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Total right to buy sales and receipts from the sale of council houses1

  Right to Buy Sales October 1980 to December 1995 (Number)2

  Receipts from the sale of council houses April 1981 to March 1995 £ million3

  Aberconwy

  1,849

  16·3

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,778

  18·4

  Arfon

  1,579

  16·5

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,872

  26·5

  Brecknock

  1,630

  15·9

  Cardiff

  8,581

  101·0

  Carmarthen

  493

  16·4

  Ceredigion

  1,788

  20·7

  Colwyn

  14

  8·9

  Cynon Valley

  1,757

  13·6

  Delyn

  1,420

  15·7

  Dinefwr

  1,032

  9·7

  Dwyfor

  467

  3·9

  Glyndwr

  1,390

  13·1

  Islwyn

  4,136

  36·9

  Llanelli

  3,863

  28·3

  Lliw Valley

  2,192

  18·2

  Meirionnydd

  994

  7·6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,520

  20·2

  Monmouth

  2,308

  31·9

  Montgomeryshire

  1,547

  13·6

  Neath

  2,721

  21·7

  Newport

  4,725

  53·5

  Ogwr

  5,126

  50·3

  Port Talbot

  3,990

  33·4

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,744

  27·0

  Radnorshire

  684

  8·0

  Rhondda

  906

  5·7

  Rhuddlan

  1,024

  9·5

  Rhymney Valley

  4,339

  35·5

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,006

  12·6

  Swansea

  4,895

  47·9

  Taff-Ely

  4,339

  36·4

  Torfaen

  4,834

  58·4

  Vale of Gla]morgan

  2,985

  38·7

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,288

  42·0

  Ynys Mon

  1,883

  17·5

  Notes:

  1 Right to buy legislation was introduced in October 1980.

  2Excludes voluntary sales.

  3 Includes receipts from the right to buy and voluntary sale of dwellings and the repayment of principal from local authority mortgages: receipts information for right to buy sales is not separately collected.

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Horticultural Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the horticultural industry; and if he will make a statement. [23531]
  206
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's policy on horticulture is set out in the joint memorandum which the Agriculture Departments submitted to the Agriculture Committee on 30 November 1994, House of Commons Paper No. 61–11, Session 1994–95, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Staff (Location)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer on 19 March,Official Report, column 172, how many civil servants work at each location within Wales. [23572]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of permanent full-time equivalent Welsh Office staff, excluding Cadw, by location are as follows:

  Number

  London

  28

  Cardiff

  1,463

  Caernarfon

  101

  Carmarthen

  93

  Llandrindod Wells

  130

  Lampeter

  6

  Colwyn Bay

  29

  Haverfordwest

  2

  Milford Haven

  4

  Dolgellau

  2

  Swansea

  3

  Newtown

  2

  Brecon

  3

  Ruthin

  6

  Holyhead

  1

  Conwy

  2

  1. From 1 April Welsh Office staff at Aberystwyth office transferred to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

  2. From 1 April there have been no Welsh Office staff based at the Newport office. The area will be covered from the Brecon office.

  3. The figures do not include staff on maternity leave, career breaks and secondment.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of home owners currently suffering negative equity. [23745]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of negative equity are prepared by the Department of the Environment on the basis of a house price index. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions made and are only intended to provide a broad indication of the level of negative equity. An estimated 11,000 homeowners were suffering negative equity during the third quarter of 1995.

  Air Quality Monitoring
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase his funding to local authorities to enable them to measure air quality; and if he will make a statement. [23749]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the Environment Act 1995 local authorities will have new duties in respect of air quality. Phased implementation of the new duties, involving a representative number of local authorities in Wales, England and Scotland, will commence in 1996–97. Special grant support is being provided to those authorities to cover any necessary increased expenditure.
  207
  This first phase will enable the Government to assess the resource implications of implementing the new local authority duties and will inform decisions on any Government support that might be required.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce special financial measures to assist beef farmers following Government statements on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [23408]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Mechanisms for market support already exist within the common agricultural policy for intervention purchases of beef from steers. In addition, we have announced that we will adopt the EU scheme to provide aid to farmers for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is today discussing in Council how best to restore confidence in the beef market.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of farmers who depend principally upon beef farming. [23409]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the particular farm types in the June 1995 agricultural census, there are an estimated 3,625 farm holdings in Wales where the principal activity is beef farming.

  County

  Cases in dairy herds

  Farms

  Cases in mixed herds

  Farms

  Cases in beef herds

  Farms

  Cases in pedigree beef herds

  Farms

  Clwyd

  1,865

  493

  91

  37

  478

  162

  1

  1

  Dyfed

  6,428

  1,587

  530

  214

  691

  418

  18

  13

  Gwent

  906

  196

  63

  14

  119

  77

  3

  2

  Gwynedd

  324

  146

  63

  31

  271

  208

  4

  5

  Powys

  969

  258

  34

  11

  1,256

  697

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  171

  34

  8

  4

  67

  37

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  369

  62

  11

  4

  43

  12

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  68

  28

  6

  5

  40

  19

  —

  —

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the countryside stewardship scheme. [23565]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The countryside stewardship scheme is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. Within Wales, the experimental Tir Cymen scheme, administered by the Countryside Council for Wales, seeks to combine effective farming with whole farm conservation.

  Historic Buildings (Restoration Materials)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of Welsh slate and other industrial building materials needed for the authentic restoration of Wales's historic buildings; and if he will make a statement. [23526]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am not aware of any significant shortage in the supply of appropriate materials.
  208
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the current size of the beef herd. [23407]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At June 1995 there were an estimated 218,900 cows in the Welsh beef breeding herd.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the farmers unions concerning BSE and CJD; and if he will make a statement. [23410]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the farming unions on 21 March to discuss the announcements made the previous day regarding BSE and CJD by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I met the Farmers Union of Wales on 27 March. The Welsh Office will continue to keep in touch with the farming unions on these matters.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) cases of BSE and (b) affected farms in Wales and its constituent counties there have been broken down by (i) pedigree beef herds, (ii) mixed beef and dairy farms and (iii) dairy-only herds. [24386]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of BSE cases and affected farms in Wales broken down by dairy, mixed beef herds as at 29 March 1996 and pedigree beef herds as at 9 March 1996 is as follows:

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the welfare of farm animals. [23532]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The welfare of livestock on agricultural land is protected in Great Britain by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary distress or pain to any livestock. Subordinate legislation and associated welfare codes lay down more detailed requirements which are enforced by the State Veterinary Service.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of(a) deaths, (b) injuries and (c) accidents on the A465 heads of the valleys since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [23821]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is in the following table. The data which cover personal injury accidents recorded by the police, relate to the entire length of the A465.
  209

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Deaths

  9

  6

  10

  6

  5

  7

  Injuries

  183

  180

  167

  178

  153

  250

  Accidents

  110

  108

  100

  101

  98

  131

  New Residents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of individuals who moved residence from England to Wales in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [23827]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available figure for 1995 is from the national health service central register for the 12 months ending September which shows some 52,500 people previously registered in England as having registered with an NHS doctor in Wales. This count excludes armed forces personnel and any others not registered with an NHS doctor.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of(a) dual carriageway and (b) motorway in Wales are without crash barriers; and if he will make a statement. [23830]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 14.78 miles of trunk road dual carriageway in Wales without central reserve safety fencing, details for non-trunk roads are not held by the Department. There is central reserve fencing on the entire length of the M4 in Wales.

  Development Projects (EU Funding)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the development projects in Wales that have attracted grants from the European regional development fund since 1994; on what dates the grants were given; and if he will make a statement. [23973]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the objective 5b rural Wales single programming document 1994–1999 and the objective 2 industrial south Wales single programming document 1994–1996, more than 430 projects have been approved to receive grant assistance from the European regional development fund resources available to these programmes. The lists of projects approved for grant were published in Welsh Office press notice dated 24 August 1995, 5 February 1996 and 18 March 1996 and copies are available in the Library of the House. The dates on which the approval letters were issued and when payments on claims have been made will vary in each individual case.

  County Council Social Services
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what machinery is available to consider current complaints involving county council social services when those councils are abolished on 31 March. [24293]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under section 53 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, responsibility for dealing with the complaint transfers to the new authority or authorities for the area to which the complaint relates.
  210
  The section ensures that the new authorities inherit the implications of any decisions taken by the old authorities—anything done by an old authority shall be deemed to have been done by the new authority for its continuing effect.

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy of his speech made on 27 March, at Bangor, and concerning environmental issues in Wales, in the Library. [24474]

  Mr. Hague
  Yes, I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minster are the responsibility of his Department of those which(a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23646]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Basketball
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance has been given(a) in cash and (b) in other ways by his Department or its agencies towards the maintenance and development of basketball in each of the last 10 years. [24122]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has given no direct assistance towards the maintenance and development of basketball. The Sports Council for Wales has provided grant aid to the Basketball Association of Wales as follows:

  1985–86: £8,400

  1986–87: £8,165

  1987–88: £9,000

  1988–89: £26,105

  1989–90: £44,849

  1990–91: £32,040

  1991–92: £39,049

  1992–93: £42,577

  1993–94: £52,284

  1994–95: £53,194

  1995–96: £46,057.

  In addition, under Sportsmatch, the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport launched in 1992, the council has made grant awards totalling £10,500 to the sport of basketball.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the unitary councils giving the names in(a) Welsh and (b) English as set out in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and indicating which have sought a change of name and the names sought in (i) Welsh and (ii) English. [23914]
  211
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The names of the unitary authorities as set out in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 are as follows:

  English

  Welsh

  Counties

  Anglesey

  Sir Fôn

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  Sir Gaernarfon a Meirionnydd

  Cardiff

  Caerdydd

  Cardiganshire

  Sir Aberteifi

  Carmarthenshire

  Sir Gaerfyrddin

  Denbighshire

  Sir Dbinbych

  Flintshire

  Sir y Fflint

  Monmouthshire

  Sir Fynwy

  Pembrokeshire

  Sir Benfro

  Powys

  Powys

  Swansea

  Abertawe

  County Boroughs

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  Aberconwy a Cholwyn

  Blaenau Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  Bridgend

  Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr

  Caerphilly

  Caerffili

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Merthyr Tudful

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Castell-nedd a Phort Talbot

  Newport

  Casnewydd

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taf

  Torfaen

  Tor-faen

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  Bro Morgannwg

  Wrexham

  Wrecsam

  Five councils have sought and been given consent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for a change of name.

  They are:

  Old name

  New name

  Anglesey

  Isle of Anglesey

  Sir Fôn

  Sir Ynys Môn

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  Gwynedd

  Sir Gaernarfon a Meirionnydd

  Gwynedd

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Neath Port Talbot

  Castell-nedd a Phort Talbot

  Castell-nedd Port Talbot

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  Conwy

  Aberconwy a Cholwyn

  Conwy

  Cardiganshire

  Ceredigion

  Sir Aberteifi

  Sir Ceredigion

  The changes take effect from 2 April 1996.

  Child Abuse, North Wales (Report)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, how many copies of the John Jillings report into child sex and physical abuse in north Wales children's homes were supplied to the social services inspectorate of his Department; when they were obtained; if they were obtained initially in draft; what requests they have received to return those copies for pulping; what the inspectorate's response was; and if he will make a statement. [24430]

  Mr. Hague
  Five copies of a draft of the Jillings report were sent to the Chief Inspector of Social Services for Wales by Clwyd county council on 22 February so that a check could be made for factual accuracy. We understand 212
  that, at the end of last week, Clwyd county council was seeking some 200 amendments to the report. The acting director of social services of Clwyd county council wrote to the social services inspectorate for Wales on 22 March seeking the return of the "uncorrected" copies. The Department has retained these copies and is still awaiting receipt of the report in its final form. When the final version is received, the copies will be returned.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 721, what were the principal components of the consultancy expenditures by the Cardiff Bay development corporation in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) agreed or expected for 1996–97. [24427]

  Mr. Hague
  The detail of this expenditure is an operational matter for the corporation. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people in Wales have been prosecuted over the last five years for failure to pay for television licences; and if he will make a statement; [23250]

  (2) how many people have been prosecuted over the last five years for failure to pay for television licences; and if he will make a statement. [23286]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of people in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales prosecuted for television licence evasion, in each of the last five financial years, is approximately as follows:

  United Kingdom1

  Wales2

  1990–91

  183,000

  12,800

  1991–92

  209,000

  13,500

  1992–93

  232,000

  15,700

  1993–94

  219,000

  13,600

  1994–95

  210,000

  12,600

  1Rounded to nearest 1,000.

  2Rounded to nearest 100.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  St. George's, Hanover Square
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners take(a) the £7,000 annual payments from the charitable funds of St. George's, Hanover square, paid into the incumbents in the old St. George's parish area and (b) the £3,500 payments to the assistant curate into account when paying their stipends. [23780]

  Mr. Alison
  Individual stipend levels are set by dioceses subject to certain understandings as to minimum levels. Dioceses take into account income from local trusts—such as those from the charitable funds of St.
  213
  George, Hanover square. This follows the method for computing income for augmentation purposes approved by the General Synod in 1975. As a result, the incumbent of St. George, Hanover square receives no augmentation from the diocese of London and his stipend consists almost entirely of income from local charitable funds—with the exception of certain small statutory amounts paid to every incumbent from the Church Commissioners' funds. The assistant curate receives no income from these charitable funds.

  St. Ethelburga Rebuilding Programme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the commissioners took to ensure fair competition in appointing the architect for the St. Ethelburga's rebuilding programme. [23781]

  Mr. Alison
  St. Ethelburga is technically a redundant church vesting in the London diocese, which has yet to make a formal proposal to the Church Commissioners for its future use.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average time required by his Department to issue a new contracting-out certificate, after receipt of the application. [23122]

  Mr. Heald
  The issue of new contracting-out certificates is the responsibility of the Occupational Pensions Board.

  Since April 1995, the OPB has issued all new certificates within its target of five days of receipt of all correctly completed documentation.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the statutory timetable for conducting(a) the consultation procedures for the purposes of sections 16 to 21 of the Pensions Act 1995, (b) the consequential nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees or directors and (c) the consultation procedure in connection with an application for a contracting-out certificate under the amended contracting-out requirements inserted by the Pensions Act 1995. [23124]

  Mr. Heald
  We propose to introduce regulations which will give trustees six months to obtain approval for nomination and selection rules and to implement the appointment of member-nominated trustees or directors. Employers will also have six months in which to secure the approval of scheme members for any alternative to member-nominated trustees or directors. The trustees' six months will run from the date on which the employer gives notice that he does not wish either to make, or to continue with, an alternative proposal.

  The regulations will contain transitional provisions which will permit schemes to start the consultation procedures from October 1996 and will allow the balance of any time between October 1996 and April 1997 not used by the employer to be added to the trustees' statutory six months.
  214
  There is currently no statutory timetable for conducting the consultation process required in connection with an application for a contracting-out certificate and we have no plans to change this for applications made after 6 April 1997.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) employments and (b) earners currently contracted out he estimates will cease to be contracted out, following the commencement of the Pensions Act 1995. [23127]

  Mr. Heald
  The provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, including the new flexibilities proposed for contracted-out mixed-benefit schemes, are designed to ensure that contracting out remains an attractive option for the future.

  In his report on the effect of the financial provisions of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the national insurance fund—Cm 2714—the Government Actuary provided details of the assumptions used to determine the estimates of the number of contributions contracted out during the period covered by the report.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice his Department has issued as to the date by which employers commence the three-month statutory consultation procedure required for an employment to be contracted out. [23131]

  Mr. Heald
  The Occupational Pensions Board has issued guidance on the procedures for elections to contract out and consultation. There is no statutory three-month period of consultation. There is, however, a statutory requirement on the employer to issue a notice of intention to contract out which will normally be for a period of three months.

  How the consultation process is to be conducted is not laid down in legislation, although the OPB recommends that, as a matter of good practice, consultation should be started in advance of giving notice of intention to contract out.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will advise members of occupational pension schemes who are aged just over a year before the scheme's normal pension age to transfer to a personal pension scheme; and what estimates his Department has made of the effect on the cash flow of occupational pension schemes of such transfer.[23195]

  Mr. Heald
  No. I recommend anyone considering such a transfer to seek financial advice. General information on transferring into a personal pension is, however, contained in leaflet "PP 1" published by the Department. The Securities and Investments Board also publishes fact sheets for people considering opting out of their employer's scheme and transferring to a personal pension.

  An estimate of the cash flow effects on occupational schemes would not be worthwhile in the absence of any firm evidence that significant numbers of such transfers would take place.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the results of the compliance cost assessment conducted by his Department in respect of the administrative cost imposed on employers and occupational pension schemes of implementing the changes in contracting-out arrangements. [23125]
  215
  Mr. Heald
  The compliance cost assessment in respect of the Pensions Bill of 1994 was published in December 1994 and was updated in April 1995. It takes into account the implications for employers and schemes of the changes to the contracting-out arrangements. The CCA will shortly be further updated to reflect the impact of the provisions contained in secondary legislation.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the consistency of his proposal concerning the treatment of pensioners' rights on wind-up of an occupational scheme with section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. [23159]

  Mr. Heald
  The statutory priority order which trustees will have to follow when a scheme subject to the minimum funding requirement winds up will not change any member's rights. A scheme with sufficient funds to meet all of its liabilities will be able to discharge them in full.

  If a scheme winds up in deficit, that statutory priority order will ensure an equitable distribution of the assets. It will protect pensions in payment by giving them a high priority.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will issue guidance to non-public service occupational pension schemes on the treatment of guaranteed minimum pensions accruing in respect of pensionable service between 17 May 1990 and 5 April 1997;[23713]

  (2) what guidance the Occupational Pensions Board has provided to occupational pension schemes or their administrators on the application of equal treatment requirements to guaranteed minimum pensions accruing from pensionable service completed between 17 May 1990 and 5 April 1997. [23712]

  Mr. Heald
  Neither the Department of Social Security nor the Occupational Pensions Board has issued guidance to occupational pension schemes in respect of equal treatment and guaranteed minimum pensions in the period 17 May 1990 to 5 April 1997 and none is planned.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will introduce regulations to ensure that professional advisers to occupational pension schemes are not obliged to report to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority failures to conform with statutory requirements which have been rectified(a) before they come to the attention of the professional adviser and (b) within one month of being drawn to the attention of the trustees or managers of the scheme, where, in each case, no scheme member or beneficiary suffers loss as a result; [23714]

  (2) if (a) he or (b) the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority will give guidance to occupational pensions scheme actuaries and auditors, on insignificant infringements of the Pensions Act 1995 which need not be reported to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority; [23762]

  (3) if he will direct the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to seek to reach an understanding with relevant professional bodies before 6 April 1997, to ensure that those bodies issue guidance to limit reports of trivial infringements of the Pensions Act 1995. [23722]
  216
  Mr. Heald
  We do not intend to introduce any regulations or issue any guidance on these matters. It will be for professional advisers, using their specialist knowledge and experience, to decide whether a matter is of material significance to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and should, therefore, be reported. Equally, it will be for the authority to decide what action to take in response to such reports and whether, in the light of any investigation, any penalty is appropriate.

  It is, of course, open to the relevant professional bodies and the authority to issue guidance on these matters, if they consider it appropriate to do so. Indeed, we understand that the Auditing Practices Board and the Institute and the Faculty of Actuaries are considering guidance on the duty to report to the authority.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many notifications of breaches of the Pensions Act 1995 or regulations made under it he expects the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to receive(a) in the first six months and (b) subsequently on an annual basis; and what proportion of these he expects the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to take action on; [23734]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of instances where professional advisers will be obliged to make reports to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority between 6 April 1997 and 5 July 1997; and what assessment he has made of the staff and resources available to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to enable it to deal with the above estimate. [23715]

  Mr. Heald
  It is not possible to forecast accurately the number of notifications of breaches that the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority will receive, as the authority will be enforcing new legislation in areas not presently subject to such a high degree of regulation. However, for resourcing purposes, estimates of overall work loads for the authority have been based on the number of inquiries currently received by the occupational pensions advisory service and on the experience of the Irish Pensions Board. On this basis, it has been estimated that the authority might expect to receive approximately 30,000 notifications in a full year from all sources. Of these cases, it is estimated that up to 20 per cent. might require the authority to consider taking some further form of regulatory or enforcement action, beyond initial investigation.

  Reports from professional advisers will be only one of the many sources of notifications about problems with schemes available to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. It will be for the authority to decide the level of staff and resources it should make available to deal with such reports.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what level of accuracy and within what time scale he will require the Contributions Agency to make payments on his behalf to trustees or managers of contracted-out money purchase occupational pension schemes in accordance with the provision of section 42A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993; and if this will vary if an earner has been employed in more than one contracted-out money purchase pension scheme, simultaneously or consecutively, in a single year. [23123]
  217
  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. John Denham, dated 1 April 1996:
  As the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency is away from the office on annual leave, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme in her absence.
  I have been asked to reply to your question regarding the Contributions Agency's accuracy levels and timescales for making payments to trustees or managers of Contracted-Out Money Purchase schemes and if this varies if any earner has been a member of more than one.
  Following the end of each tax year the Agency receives, checks and processes approximately 40 million end-of-year returns (forms P14), containing National Insurance contributions and related earnings information. Because of the number involved the processing of forms P14 is spread over a period of months. The bulk of the processing is completed during the months from April to October, by which time approximately 90% of forms P14 are recorded on National Insurance accounts.
  The Agency will be required to make the payments in question to 100% accuracy within one month of acceptable National Insurance contributions and related earnings information being recorded on earners National Insurance accounts. Where an earner has been a member of more than one Contracted-Out Money Purchase scheme separate such payments will be made to the respective schemes as and when the related earnings information is recorded.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have applied for incapacity benefit but failed the all work test were formerly receiving invalidity benefit. [23729]

  Mr. Burt
  Up to the end of November 1995, approximately 34,0001 former recipients of invalidity benefit had been found capable of work following the all work test of incapacity.

  1 Source: 5 per cent. extract from the incapacity benefit computer system.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the operation of incapacity benefit. [24541]

  Mr. Burt
  The introduction of incapacity benefit was a major undertaking. In the light of practical experience so far, we are looking at ways of improving the administration of the benefit. Any changes will be tested and evaluated before they are adopted nationally. Three projects to test variations in detailed administrative procedures have been established based in Glasgow, Leeds and the south-east of England, to take this work forward.

  Unclaimed Benefits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total amount of unclaimed benefits in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23527]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Actors
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that actors can continue to pay the higher class 1 national insurance; and if he will make a statement. [24011]

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to remove actors from class 1 national insurance contributions and stop them claiming unemployment benefit between roles; what cost-benefit analysis he has conducted in respect of such plans; and if he will make a statement. [24075]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 1 April.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual yield from employers' national insurance levied on salaries subsequently used by employees to make personal pension contributions. [23981]

  Mr. Heald
  Such estimates as are available are in the table.

  Employers' National Insurance Contributions (NICS) paid in respect of employees with Personal Pensions.

  £ billion

  Year

  Amount of Employers' NICs

  Annual total

  Cumulative total

  1987–88

  2·1

  2·1

  1988–89

  2·6

  4·7

  1989–90

  3·5

  8·2

  1990–91

  4·1

  12·3

  1991–92

  4·4

  16·7

  1992–93

  4·7

  21·4

  1993–94

  4·8

  26·2

  Notes:

  1. There are no data available on that part of the earnings of personal pension holders which falls above the upper earnings limit. The calculations have therefore been made on the assumption that those with earnings above the UEL earned the same amount on average as all employees with earnings above the UEL in each year. They also assume that earnings are constant on a weekly or monthly basis throughout the year.

  2. Employers' NICs are not payable where total earnings are below the annual lower earnings limit.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1985
  Sir Nicholas Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which sections of the Disability Discrimination Act 1985 are now in effect; and what plans he has for bringing further sections into effect. [24376]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Act received Royal Assent on 8 November 1995. The National Disability Council was established in January 1996 to advise the Government on the implementation of the Act. It has already prepared its proposals for a code of practice which are currently the subject of public consultation. The Government plan to implement the new employment rights and the initial rights of access to goods, facilities
  219
  and services around the end of this year. The remaining rights will be implemented over a period of time, the length of which is subject to public consultation.

  The education provisions are to be introduced over the next 18 months, with the first provisions coming into force in July 1996. The Department of Transport will be consulting in the near future on the transport provisions in the Act.

  Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which(a) have been repealed or amended, and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995–96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23654]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) landlords and (b) agents in the last available year received housing benefit payments of more than £1 million from local authorities. [23779]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information is not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the second report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1995–96 on the performance and operation of the Child Support Agency, HC 50. [24700]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Government's reply is published today. The Committee's report is a useful and thorough examination of the work of the Child Support Agency. As the Committee commented, considerable progress has been made in increasing the quality of administration and there is now a growing acceptance that the CSA will be a permanent feature of British life.

  The Committee makes 20 detailed recommendations aimed at further improving the quality of administration in the agency. The Government welcome these recommendations and respond to each in their reply. The reply indicates what action it will take to implement them, or for those recommendations which cannot be accepted in full, explains what other action will be taken to achieve the intended objectives.

  At the same time, the agency will be sending the Committee a report of its investigation of the operation of the good cause provisions in child support. This thorough investigation, which was conducted at the request of the Committee, has shown that while the agency is operating a policy satisfactorily and as intended, providing protection to those parents with care who need it, the
  220
  report has also identified potential abuses of the provisions, and suggests a number of ways in which good cause procedures can be improved. I have asked the agency to implement these improvements straight away where possible.

  For the future, the report indicates that there may be a need to enhance the incentives to co-operate with the agency. I am determined to respond to indications that some parents may be abusing benefit and child support provisions and I am seeking the Committee's views on ways to tackle this problem.

  We remain committed to a child support system that ensures that all parents meet their responsibilities to their children. To this end, we welcome all constructive suggestions for improving the service that the CSA offers to its clients. The Government look forward to further discussions with the Social Security Committee.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the time taken by the Child Support Agency to clear(a) 25 per cent., (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 75 per cent. of requests for reviews of child maintenance. [23328]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 1 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State requesting information on the time taken by the Child Support Agency to clear requests for reviews of child maintenance.
  Information on clearances of Second Tier Reviews is not collected in the percentage bands requested in your question. The Agency measures performance in accordance with Secretary of State's target for Second Tier Reviews by recording the percentage of reviews i) cleared within 13 weeks, ii) cleared within 26 weeks and iii) outstanding more than 26 weeks.
  Performance at the end of February 1996, was as follows;
  53% of second tier reviews were cleared within 13 weeks.
  71% were cleared within 26 weeks.
  27% were outstanding for more than 26 weeks.
  Actual numbers of Second Tier Reviews received, cleared and on hand are published monthly in the House of Commons Library report.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement relating to the case of a constituent of Cunninghame, South, national insurance number YM 61 93 54 D, indicating under what legislation he can appeal against the withdrawal of his award of allowance for lowered standard of occupation; which agency will reach a decision on this appeal; and for what reasons on 12 March a letter from the War Pensions Agency indicated to him that he could not be supplied with a copy of the legislation governing allowance for lowered standard of occupation in relation to his case due to copyright laws; [23992]
  221
  (2) what factors led the War Pensions Agency to change the reference system used on the payment books for the allowance for lowered standard of occupation; when people in receipt of ALSO were asked to return these payment books; and how many of these were subsequently advised whilst the War Pensions Agency was replacing the reference numbers on their payment books that the level of payments of ALSO to them were being reduced; [23773]

  (3) how many applicants in receipt of allowance for lowered standard of occupation have had their awards (a) reduced and (b) withdrawn; how much in benefits these applicants have lost as a result of this change; what are the reasons for these changes; and how long his Department has been incorrectly administering legislation in relation to ALSO;[23774]

  (4) if he will make a statement relating to the case of a constituent of Cunninghame, South, national insurance number YM 61 93 54 D, indicating under what legislation his award of allowance for lowered standard of occupation was cancelled with effect from 3 April; for what reasons his award was reduced; when the mistake by his Department in relation to his award came to light; and what factors underlay the time taken by his Department to notice this mistake; [23993]

  (5) if he will make a statement relating to the case of a constituent of Cunninghame, South, national insurance number YM 6] 93 54 D, indicating under what legislation he was awarded his allowance for lowered standard of occupation on 20 July 1988. [23991]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 1 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation (ALSO).
  Awards of ALSO are made under article 21 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 (SPO). This legislation provides that ALSO may be awarded where the war pensioned disablement is such as to render a pensioner incapable, and likely to remain permanently incapable, of following his regular occupation. He must also be incapable of following any other suitable occupation which is of an equivalent standard.
  At the end of 1994, it came to light that some awards of ALSO were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The error was considering only whether a pensioner could get back into service and whether civilian earnings were less than service earnings. Payments had therefore been made where the war pensioned disablement had had no effect on ability to follow the service occupation. The Secretary of State decided. therefore, to review all awards of ALSO to ensure they were soundly based. Article 67 of the SPO provides the power for the Secretary of State to withdraw any award found to be incorrectly made. No awards of ALSO are to be reduced but a total of 1301 pensioners are to have their ALSO withdrawn. The Secretary of State decided to exercise his discretion to continue all awards found to be incorrectly made until he had examined all appropriate cases and that all incorrect awards should be withdrawn from the common date of 3 April 1996. No-one will be asked to repay any money for ALSO, either already paid, or to be paid up to 3 April.
  222
  Those pensioners who, once ALSO has been cancelled, will continue to receive payment by order book for other awards under the War Pension scheme were notified on 14 March 1996 that a replacement book would be issued within a few days. They were then notified on 21 March 1996 of the arrangements for returning the old book. The remainder, whose regular War Pension payment consisted solely of ALSO, were notified on 21 March 1996 of the arrangements for returning their books.
  You asked what factors underlay the time taken by the Department to notice the mistake. The original legislation, which was introduced in 1946, was to compensate the war time conscript, who, because of his war pensioned disablement, could no longer do the civilian job he had done before call-up. The legislation became much less clear cut as a result of amendments introduced in the 1970's to bring career servicemen and women within the scope of the allowance. The incorrect interpretation of the legislation had its roots in those 1970s legislative changes The majority of awards to be withdrawn were made in the 1990s and are being paid at the current maximum rate of £38.12 a week.
  You ask under what legislation an appeal my be made against the decision to withdraw ALSO. Under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 there is no right of appeal against a decision on a war pensions supplementary allowance. These decisions are administrative in character and are made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the power conferred on him by article 70, as the sole interpreter and administrator of the Order. As such, his decisions are susceptible to challenge only by judicial review.
  You also ask about your constituent (NINO YM619354D). He received a Gratuity, under the War Pensions Scheme for disablement assessed at 6–14 per cent. and currently receives ALSO. In the Secretary of State's view, his disablement does not prevent him from following his regular service occupation of "Driver" and his award of ALSO is therefore to be withdrawn on 3 April 1996.
  When your constituent telephoned the Agency and asked for a copy of the relevant legislation, this was taken as meaning he wanted a copy of the whole publication, ie the SPO. The War Pensions Agency is not able to supply copies of the SPO in its entirety as it is a priced item supplied by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Our letter of 12 March 1996 told him that he could view a copy of the legislation at his local War Pensioners' Welfare Office. However, it is clear that a copy of the relevant two page extract from the legislation, ie Article 21, could have been copied and sent to him. I am sorry that this course of action was not immediately taken but I can confirm that these papers have now been sent to him.
  Finally, you ask about the factors which led us to change the reference system used on payment books. The War Pensions Agency previously used two separate computer systems; one to support administration of a claim, the other to make payment. The two systems used different reference numbers. Since April 1995, the Agency has introduced a new computer system which supports the administration of claims through to payment. As part of that change the Agency, in accordance with the Department's long term strategy, introduced the use of the National Insurance number as the sole reference number. This change has affected all War Pensioners' records, on a rolling programme, not just of those in receipt of ALSO. The change to the use of national Insurance numbers does not affect War Pensions payments and is completely unconnected to the review of ALSO awards.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Benefits Agency (Advice line)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current budget for the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line service; and what are the proposed budgets for the next two financial years; [23847]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line; and if he will make a statement; [23848]
  223
  (3) how many Benefits Agency staff are employed to run the Benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line. [23849]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Frank Field, dated 1 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what is the current budget for the Benefits Agency's (BA's) freeline benefit advice line service; and what are the proposed budgets for the next two financial years; if he will make a statement on the future of the BA's freeline benefit advice line; and how many Benefits Agency (BA) staff are employed to run the benefits Agency's freeline benefit advice line.
  The budget for the BA Freeline Benefit Advice Line was £6.3 million for 1995/96 and the planned budget for 1996/97 is £6.6 million, which cover staff and running costs including telecomms costs. A review of the service provided is currently being undertaken. Until the results of the review are known I am unable to indicate what the proposed budgets might be for the following financial year.
  The review will be looking at options for handling these types of enquiries within our overall benefit advice services.
  The BA Freeline Benefit Advice Line has 192 full time and 77 part time staff in post as at 18 March 1996.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 433, if he will list the reasons for refusal of the eight applicants who were not eligible for a social fund grant. [23845]
  224
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 1 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking pursuant to his Answer of 25th March, Official Report, column 433, if he will list the reasons for refusal of the eight applicants who were not eligible for a social fund grant.
  Following Mr. Mathison's letter of 22 March 1996, I am now advised that one of the applicants was in fact awarded a Community Care Grant following their application. I apologise for this mistake.
  The reason for refusal of the other seven applicants was that, in the opinion of the Social Fund Officer and based upon the individual circumstances pertaining to each application, Direction 4 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) was not satisfied.
  It may be helpful if I provide a explanation of the Direction which states:-
  A Social Fund payment may be awarded to promote community care—
  (a) by assisting an applicant with expenses, including expenses of travel within the United Kingdom (except those excluded by these directions) where such assistance will—

  (i) help the applicant, a member of his family, or other person for whom the applicant (or a member of his family) will be providing care, to re-establish himself in the community following a stay in institutional or residential care; or

  (ii) help the applicant, a member of his family or other person for whom the applicant (or a member of his family) will be providing care, to remain in the community rather than enter institutional or residential care; or

  (iii) ease exceptional pressures on the applicant and his family.

  Since the original decisions were made, one of the seven other applicants has requested a review of the decision not to award a Community Care Grant. A Social Fund Review Officer has reconsidered the original decision in the light of new information and has replaced the Budgeting Loan with a Community Care Grant award.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

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

Colombia: "Decertification" by US
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the "decertification" of Colombia by the United States.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, how to achieve a reversal of the US decertification of Colombia is a bilateral matter between the United States and Colombia. The criteria for certification are set out in legislation and discussed with the Colombians at the start of each year.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that may well be so. But surely we should be supporting a country which has made such determined efforts and is so successful in bringing so many drug barons into custody. Does my noble friend recall that when President Gaviria visited Britain in 1993 it was clear that we had a long-standing and warm relationship with Colombia? The bilateral relationship is extremely important in as much as we have considerable trading and investment interests in Colombia. Is my noble friend prepared to make representations in Washington concerning that arbitrary measure? It may well damage Colombia's status in international circles as a major trading nation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe my noble friend knows that this whole issue is a matter for the United States Administration. We have excellent relations with Colombia and have long believed that close co-operation is absolutely vital in the international fight against drugs. I can certainly confirm to my noble friend that Colombia has had some spectacular successes against drug traffickers in recent times since President Samper took office, particularly the arrest of six of the seven kingpins of the Cali cartel and a number of other instances where the authorities did all that one could possibly believe necessary. I note my noble friend's point in regard to representations. We enjoy a warm and important trading relationship with Colombia. We work well with them and they are working well with us in terms of drug interdiction.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten my darkness and tell me exactly what is meant by the terms "certification" and "decertification" in this context?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, when my noble and learned friend asks a difficult question,
134
I take careful note. I understand that the United States' legislation allows that country to take a specific attitude with those they believe have not taken adequate action against drug trafficking. At the present time there are accusations against certain members of the Government of Colombia, but they are only allegations. The Colombian authorities are investigating those allegations. I believe that they came to light as a result of the Colombian Government putting vastly additional resources into tackling the drugs problem. However, it is one of those matters where the terms of the Foreign Assistance Act 1961 require the US Administration to certify annually those major drug-producing countries which have co-operated fully with the United States in the fight against drugs. Because of the accusations I described, it is considered by some in the United States that there is not the full co-operation that there needs to be.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given what the Minister has just said and the fact that investigations are now being carried out in Colombia into the actions of President Samper and some members of his government who, it is said, have been involved in using drugs money for political campaigning, was it not inevitable that the US Administration would take action to decertify Colombia? Do the British Government support the US Administration in taking that decision, at least for the time being?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a difficult situation. I should underline that these are only allegations; they are not proven. I underline also something that I said just now to my noble and learned friend. It is as a result of the Colombian Government tackling this problem so energetically that many of the possible takers of drug money have come to light. Until the issue is resolved by the Colombian authorities nobody can gainsay one way or the other. It may be, because of the "black and white" nature of the Foreign Assistance Act, that that action was inevitable. However, we take the view that it is more important to work in support of Colombia's counter-narcotics policies than to have such legislation on our statute book.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent report by the international drug control committee of the United Nations categorically states that Colombia is doing all that can reasonably be expected of it? Why therefore should the United States consider decertification?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I am aware of the report; secondly, the United States may consider decertification because of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on treading the decertification tightrope without falling off.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the increasing demand for

135
these drugs, particularly in western societies, which causes their supply? Does she further agree that it might be advantageous if the United States were to look at the deep-seated problems within its own society that cause this demand, a demand which exists in other western societies including our own, and treat those problems with the same vigour that they recommend the Colombians should adopt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on this occasion I think my noble friend is absolutely right. I commend to him the work of my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place because the work now being done by the United Kingdom in terms of counter-narcotics policy with foreign governments and in terms of trying to suppress demand for drugs in this country is second to none.

UN Response to Emergencies
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with the reform of the United Nations' response to complex humanitarian emergencies.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the United Kingdom was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs to strengthen the co-ordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations. The creation of the DHA has led to a number of improvements in the way in which the UN system responds to complex humanitarian emergencies.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, which certainly sounds appropriate. Does she think that the present structures of the United Nations could work better if they were better resourced? Or does she feel that further structural reforms are necessary in order to get an effective early warning system so that the United Nations is ready to prevent crises before they actually erupt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the present structure could be made to work better. It is not simply a question of increased resources. It is actually a question of the better use of existing resources. Further reforms are needed. One of the things the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, based in Geneva, has in good measure is its early warning system. It is now in a position to give good information to other UN agencies and to call upon other UN agencies to deploy their resources in the most effective way. That is not always easily acceptable to other UN agencies because it causes a feeling that someone else knows how to put the job together. But increasingly the United Nations must look at the
136
deployment of its varied resources and find ways of making the maximum use of them, particularly for preventive work.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, as one of the great criticisms of the DHA is that it has been under-resourced, does the Minister really believe that it has adequate resources to carry out its job?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is rather difficult to tell at this moment, particularly when we are in the midst of a considerable amount of debate on UN reform. Whereas we have had much more emergency spending over the past five years, that has now bottomed out. That may give the Department of Humanitarian Affairs the chance to deploy its existing resources still better. In my discussions last week with Mr. Akashi, the new Under-Secretary General in charge of the DHA, I made it quite clear that the existing resources could be better deployed. We are in deep discussion about how that should be done.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, although it is important to increase funding if necessary, does my noble friend agree that it would be much better to concentrate on those members of the United Nations who do not pay their subscriptions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend can rest assured that I was in such discussions in Washington and New York just last week.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that undermining the effectiveness of the UN generally has been the major funding crisis? Does she further agree that the stand being made by President Clinton at the moment is to be welcomed and that we should be giving him all possible support in ensuring proper resourcing and proper paying of dues? Does she accept that if the Department of Humanitarian Affairs is to be fully effective it is essential to have strong co-ordination with the authority of the 38th floor and the Secretary General at headquarters and equally strong co-ordination in the field?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that it is just the funding crisis that is undermining confidence in the United Nations. As we covered in a Question in your Lordships' House yesterday, there is the problem of bringing together the different agencies which, in all honesty, are more competitive than they need to be. We have to help the United Nations through this reform process. It is always good for departments, as my own has recently done, to look at their objectives and at how they are fulfilling those objectives. That is very necessary for the United Nations.
There is a need for much better co-ordination, not only between New York and the field, but also between New York and Geneva. There are often quite stupid disputes and a lack of communication despite the vast increase in IT these days. So there is a great deal to be done. I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that the British Government and my department in particular are working very hard on the matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether there is a department

137
which concentrates on inhumanity within member states of the United Nations; for example, Saudi Arabia? That is the country which probably contains the most torture victims; it is part of state policy and includes whipping women and other disgusting activities. Can the noble Baroness say who is looking after that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not expect that this House would expect me to agree that the whipping of women was ever justified.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe there is a good deal of serious consideration taking place in a number of UN departments about the lack of respect for human rights and the way in which some national governments pursue their endeavours. One thing I do know is this: neither the United Nations nor other governments can impose on a sovereign government rules on how to run the lives of their people; nor should they.

Community Health Councils: Functions
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the abolition of regional health authorities, how they intend to preserve the functions of community health councils and who will appoint their members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the functions of community health councils have not altered following the abolition of the regional health authorities. The composition and appointment of community health council members will remain as now, except that regional offices of the National Health Service Executive will act on behalf of the Secretary of State instead of the former regional health authorities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she agree with me that with so many changes in the National Health Service, and more emphasis on primary healthcare, commissioning and GP funding, community health councils—and they are called that—should have more involvement in primary healthcare?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we issued guidance quite recently in March on the role of community health councils. We have tried to ensure through them that primary healthcare is also part of their remit, but there are no statutory obligations as yet.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will consideration be given to those members of staff who might otherwise be dismissed, who have considerable knowledge and
138
experience and who are only too ready to continue to give their excellent service to our National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not aware of any community health council staff being displaced through this move. Indeed, there is a study going on at the moment, through a firm of consultants, to see what their role is and whether the resources are properly or adequately allocated.
Lord Rea: My Lords, after the abolition of the regions, can the noble Baroness say whether the number of CHCs will remain the same or will perhaps increase, and that they will be adequately resourced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I have dealt with the question of resources. There is a firm of consultants looking at that question. We shall be reporting back in June. As regards the numbers of CHCs, the Secretary of State is always very open to any suggestions as to different sizes or the numbers of CHCs. As I understand the situation at the moment, they are satisfied, although there are some marginal changes in boundaries where some of the district health authorities have been amalgamated with family health services authorities.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify the position as regards government policy on cottage hospitals, in view of the number of reports on the closure of such hospitals which contribute so much to community care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, wherever there is a major change in service it has to be referred to the community health council. If the council objects to a closure, then it is referred to the Secretary of State. As regards cottage hospitals, my noble friend will have read over the weekend that there is now greater emphasis on ensuring that hospitals which are useful and serving a purpose remain in being.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not correct that, as the Minister said, the CHCs are about the only part of the NHS structure which has not changed in the past five years? Is it not true that after five years of perpetual and continuous reorganisation culminating in the abandonment of RHAs this week, all the evidence from this year's contracting round is that the NHS is facing this year exactly the same issues of resourcing and financing as sparked off the whole reorganisation process in 1987?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when we were debating the Bill to abolish regional health authorities, I remember that noble Lords opposite tried very hard to stop the abolition and the saving of £300 million, which have gone from administration into patient care. As regards the contracting for this year, I have been in the health service for a good many years and I have to say, "'twas ever thus".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the Minister recalls the debates last year on the health

139
authorities Bill, she will no doubt recall the amendments that we on this side of the House put forward in order to retain the independence and the powers of the community health councils under the new organisation. Is she now confident that there are sufficient safeguards to protect the access of the community health councils to independent trust organisations and district health authorities at local level?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister have available for the House the figures for the number of referrals by community health councils for proposed closures of local cottage hospitals? How many of those closures have gone ahead after referral?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have those figures. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that members of community health councils who represent patients on tribunals when they have problems and difficulties, as well as looking at the standard of all healthcare facilities, work very hard and do not get paid?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, they do a splendid job. They are voluntary workers and they put an enormous amount of time and effort into their work. That is why, when the Government were considering NHS reforms, they decided to keep community health councils as they are now.

Construction Industry Training Board
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposal that the Construction Industry Training Board should move from its existing location will adversely effect its training programme, particularly if staff redundancies result.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the re-location of the administrative headquarters from Bircham Newton is a matter for the Board itself and, I am informed, it is part of a package to improve the operational efficiency of all its services, including the training programme. The board does not propose to re-locate the training facility currently situated at Bircham Newton. It also aims, as far as possible, to keep to a minimum staff redundancies arising from implementation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that the proposed re-location has occasioned an enormous amount of local anxiety, with the result that a group is opposing the re-location? The group is led by the local MP and supported by the trade unions. Is the Minister aware that
140
there has been very little consultation, if any, about the proposed move and that certain members of the board also oppose the move? Is he also aware that there is a very strongly held belief that the move, if it does take place, will involve substantial redundancies? Will that not inevitably have some effect on the effectiveness of the CITB? Therefore, will not the Government feel it incumbent on themselves to do what they can to influence the CITB against this move?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware that very strong feelings have been expressed both for and against the proposals and those strong feelings were reflected in the decision of the board which, I understand, was split in its vote on these proposals. I am also aware that consultation with the various employer federations took place only some two weeks before the decision was made. That is possibly something which the noble Baroness and I would agree was regrettable. As regards whether the Government should intervene, it is a matter for the CITB to decide for itself. It is an operational matter for the board and I am sure that it will take note of the anxieties put forward by the local MP and by a considerable number of members of the other place and those expressed this afternoon by the noble Baroness.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that because of the fragmentary nature of the construction industry, there is some requirement for a central training facility, such as the CITB, particularly to develop new technology skills? Does my noble friend agree that the CITB does a good job and that it is the proper function of government to fund such a central facility, which I hope that they will continue to do?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the future of the CITB is not in question. It is not a matter of government funding. The CITB is funded by a levy which is agreed by both Houses each year, so obviously that is a matter for the Government. I can assure my noble friend that whatever happens as a result of the re-location proposals, the CITB will continue to perform the function that it performs at the moment and to provide training facilities in my noble friend's own part of the world, Norfolk.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Construction Industry Training Board has already decided to eliminate 380 training posts, and that a spokesman for the board is reported to have said that the restructuring of the board is because—I quote:
"training is seen as yet another cost in a difficult time"?
Should not training for skills be regarded rather as an essential investment for the future?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that, as I said to my noble friend, the CITB will continue to exist and to provide training. We are talking merely about the re-location of its headquarters. I can give an absolute categorical assurance that there is no question of money from the training budget being diverted to pay for the implementation of the review proposals. I am not aware of the allegations which the noble Lord has made about a cut in the number of training posts provided by the

141
CITB, but I shall certainly look into that. The assurance that I have had from the board is that it will not cut its training and certainly not as a result of the re-location proposals which relate only to its headquarters.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (H.L. Paper 57).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

1. In our Second Report, Session 1994–95, we recommended that the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] should be referred to a Select Committee, and that thereafter a further ad hoc Committee on the Public Service should be appointed. The Select Committee on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] has now reported.

2. We recommend that the Committee on the Public Service should have the following terms of reference:

"To consider the present condition and future development of the Public Service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest.

For the purposes of the Select Committee, the Public Service should be deemed to exclude local government, the National Health Service, schools and institutions of higher and further education, but to include all Government Departments, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, companies, trusts and other organisations created by or working for the public service."

3. In the light of the debate in the House on 8 March on the Government's plans for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services, we suggest that the Committee should begin by reporting, as a matter of some urgency, on that specific matter. The Committee should accordingly have power to report from time to time.

4. Finally, we invite members of the House to submit proposals for the appointment of ad hoc Committees into specific matters. Such submissions should be made to the Clerk to the Liaison Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A OPW.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees a question. On the assumption that we concur with the receipt of the report, can the noble Lord explain what further action is necessary to activate the ad hoc Committee on the Public Service? Has the noble Lord received any information from the Lord Privy Seal on when the Government propose to table a Motion to set up that committee in view of the fact that they have declined to give any information on what they propose to do with regard to its subject matter?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for letting me know in advance that he was proposing to intervene in this way. The customary consultations have already begun about the membership of the committee. The next step will be for the Committee of Selection to meet and to recommend to your Lordships the names of the chairman and other members of the committee. The
142
report of the Committee of Selection will then be moved in your Lordships' House. Those steps will take place if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon. I hope that those steps will take place in the week we resume after the Easter Recess.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 58).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

1. Electronic Publishing

The Committee agreed that:

(1) the House should make its publications available free of charge in electronic form;

(2) the medium for free distribution should be the Internet;

(3) by a system of licensing, electronic material should be made freely available, on a non-exclusive basis, to commercial publishers who wish to process it and add value to it;

(4) HMSO (and after privatisation, the Stationery Office), as the "normal and preferred agent for the official publication of Parliamentary material", should be invited to act (subject to satisfactory prices and conditions) as the contractor to create and administer a source database of Parliament's electronic material, to place it on the Internet and keep it up-to-date;

(5) the first classes of Lords document for release on the Internet should be Hansard, bills and public information documents, and (when practicable) the Minute.

2. Copyright

In view of the proposal to privatise HMSO, the Committee agreed:

arrangements for the future administration of parliamentary copyright by the residual HMSO;

the payment of an administration fee to be shared pro rata with the House of Commons; and

the issue of copyright licences free of charge except in exceptional circumstances.

3. Painting of the House in session

The Committee was informed of the following decisions by the group to which it had delegated responsibility of the painting of the House in session:

copyright in the painting will rest with the House;

330 Lords will be painted in accordance with a general scheme for the placing of Lords which has been agreed;

the painting will be completed by 1st October 1997;

Lords to be painted will pay a subscription of £150, and will receive a signed print. Further prints will be available for purchase by peers and the public.

4. Signalling of Divisions over the TV and radio channels on the annunciators

The Committee took note of a new method to signal Divisions in both Houses over the television and radio channels on the annunciators in such a way that, with the minimum of interruption, peers and others can be made aware that a Division is taking place, whatever channel they are receiving.

143

5. Fire precautions

The Committee took note of the progress made with fire precautions and the plans to implement further fire safety measures through an automatic fire detection system and fire compartmentation.

6. Cashpoint machines

The Committee was informed that cashpoint machines had been installed on the ground floor of the House of Lords next to the staff restaurant.

7. Staff of the House

The Committee was informed of the appointment of Mr. J.A. Vaughan as a Clerk, with effect from 16th October 1995; and of the appointment of Mr. T.E. Radice as a temporary Senior Clerk, with effect from 15th January 1996.

The Committee agreed the following new posts:

a Senior Information Officer in the Journal and Information Office at Grade 7, for two years in the first instance;

a temporary Archivist in the Record Office at Curatorial Grade F for one year only;

a Personal Secretary in the Bill Office; and

a part-time casual Executive Officer for about two years from October 1996 to complete an Index of Local and Personal Acts.

Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees about item 4 (the signalling of Divisions over the TV and radio channels on the annunciators). I do not quite understand what is going to happen which is different from what happens now. However, what happens now is totally unsatisfactory. One has to keep one's eye on the annunciator, which in itself may be difficult from where one is sitting and one can see only the revolving message. I think that the least that we could expect is to have annunciators for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in every Committee Room in every part of the building. We have them in the Grand Committee Room and in one or two other rooms, but I think that it is essential that we have them in all. I cannot believe that that would involve colossal expense, but it would make life very much easier for those of us who attend all-party group meetings in every part of the building. Can the Chairman of Committees promise that that will happen soon?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, on 20th July 1995 the House debated the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices, when I questioned the criterion to be used in the painting of the House in Session. I was told that one could be included on payment of £150. I said that that was neither in keeping with the dignity of the House nor a worthy way to proceed. I also made the point that it could well be the last ever painting of the House in its present form and that we should therefore think carefully before going down the route of including only those noble Lords prepared to pay. As I pointed out on that occasion, noble Lords who perhaps attend only once or twice a year but who pay their money could be in the painting while other noble Lords who may be assiduous attenders but who may object to
144
the way in which this is being done will not be included. I was supported in that by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend because I did not support him then although I have supported him on other occasions. I did not support him then because I did not agree with what he was saying and I do not agree with what he is saying now.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in order to retain some shred of reputation for consistency, perhaps I may quote from the debate on 20th July 1995 when my noble friend Lord Strabolgi asked:
"Can we therefore ensure that the number appearing in the painting is restricted to those who are regular attenders of the House?"—[official Report, 20/7/95; col. 381.]
That was the point to which I was referring.
I have discovered that only one painting of the House in Session has ever been commissioned by the House previously. That was the 1964 painting by Thomson. The arrangements for that painting were decided by the Offices Committee of the time. The agenda for 24th July 1963 shows that Item I is to consider the picture of the House in Session. The agenda states:
"The list includes certain distinguished Peers as well as those qualifying on the basis of assiduity of attendance. This list represents the optimum number of Peers for inclusion in the picture, but room might be found for any further Peers whom the Committee might wish to specially recommend".
It was stated that suggestions as to who might be included would be welcomed. Because of my position at the BBC I am glossing over the fact that Lord Reith had expressed dissatisfaction that he was not included in the picture. I quote from the Minute that the Lord Great Chamberlain expressed the view that the inclusion of two sleeping Peers in the painting was not in keeping with the dignity of the House. It was stated that Lord Champion, with whom I had the honour of working in the last Labour Government, said that:
"two sleeping out of two hundred is not a bad average. After some discussion a vote is taken and on a show of hands seventeen members of the Committee are in favour of retaining the sleeping Peers and four against".
The Minute does not state whether any Members of the Committee were asleep when the vote was taken.
I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is undignified and it is unworthy of the House. If there should be any constitutional changes in the future, this will be the definitive picture of the House of Lords and will be constantly included in articles and reference books. I really think that the House should think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the question of the request for £150 from whoever is to be included in the painting? I feel that for a picture to be painted of the House of Lords but for only those who pay £150 to be included in it, whatever may be their service to your Lordships' House, is an odd way to proceed. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain why it is thought necessary

145
to impose a charge and why those who either cannot or will not pay this sum should be excluded from the picture.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I speak as one of the relics of the earlier period to which reference has been made. (I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, also present, although I do not say that he is also one of the relics.) The portrait painted in 1962 or 1963 which is now in the Cholmondeley Room resulted from a decision by a committee of this House. The question was how the moneys in the window fund were to be spent. During the war a collection was made by noble Lords, and I believe that there was also some insurance money. The fund was raised so that if there was any bombing, moneys would be available for the replacement of the windows in the Chamber. Fortunately, the Chamber was not damaged during the war and those funds were available. It was thought best to dispense with the fund because it then had no great importance. It was decided that a portrait of the House, as it then was, should be painted, and there was no need to raise funds from those who participated in it for the artist who painted the picture.
If we want to have a portrait of the House today, I do not suppose that presently there are any funds available other than by raising them from Members. Whether or not, as my noble friend Lord Cocks has said, this is the right way to go about it, if a portrait is to be painted someone will have to pay for it. I share his view that it would represent an incomplete House if it were made up only of those who were prepared to pay a sum of money. I do not believe that the character of the House would be accurately reflected if, say, someone with £150 who comes up for Ascot gets his picture in the portrait. If the House wishes to proceed with it, I suspect that the portrait will not be of the same character as that painted by Thomson in 1963.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a similar situation obtains in another place? It is impossible to get all Members into either Chamber. Consequently, not everyone could appear in the official portrait of the other place. Subsequently, what was known as "the other portrait" was painted. All the other Members were in that portrait. Surely this House could adopt the same principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, says that not all Members can get in. Of course we cannot; the Chamber is too small. But it would be possible to have another portrait featuring those Peers and Peeresses who cannot get into the original picture. In conclusion, the other portrait in the other place included the present Prime Minister.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Lord Chairman of Committees reflect upon the fact that as this discussion continues it may reveal a picture of this House that not all of us may wish to see? Having heard all the arguments several times, could it not be considered by
146
the appropriate committee? This matter may fill too much space in the newspapers tomorrow, which not all of us would appreciate.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd spoke of the fund which was set up. I am absolutely certain that all of us had to pay for the 1962 painting by Thomson. I believe that the sum was about £15. Considering the inflation that has occurred since then, that is approximately equivalent to £150 today.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to quote another precedent in support of my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I refer to the painting of the House in 1895 which is just outside the Bishop's Bar, close to the Chamber. Noble Lords may be interested to know that that painting was subscribed for by a dozen Peers, who were presumably fairly affluent, and included a whole range of their colleagues. I am fairly certain that it was representative of the House in 1895. I claim interest in the fact that my ancestor, the second Lord Monkswell, appears in that portrait.
I also support my noble friend Lady David in her request for information about the announcement of Divisions. Perhaps I may ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether it is planned to have an audible signal throughout the Palace of Westminster to signify Divisions in the House of Lords. Last night I missed a Division in your Lordships' House as a result of being in the precincts of the House of Commons conferring with parliamentary colleagues about the implications of the Government's Business Statement. Perhaps we may be given some assurance that in future there will be a distinct, audible signal of Divisions in the House of Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Lord Chairman of Committees agree that if Members of this House do not subscribe to this painting the taxpayer will have to pay? Some of us would find it extremely difficult to accept such an arrangement.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I deal first with the question about Divisions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am grateful to him for letting me know beforehand that he proposed to raise this matter. As far as concerns the general improvements that I hope will be made, perhaps it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I let the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others know precisely what is proposed, so as to avoid taking up too much time this afternoon. One of the proposals is to have a bell in a picture on the television screen which can be there all the time that a Division is taking place without interrupting the sound. I will explain the other matters to your Lordships elsewhere.
To deal with the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I am sorry that he had difficulty last night with a Division, whichever way he was proposing to vote. I will have the matter looked into to see whether anything can be done to help.

147
So far as concerns the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I should like to look into them. I feel that some helpful suggestions have been made. It may be that we shall wish to give consideration to further steps that can be taken. Perhaps I may leave it in that way for the time being. I will let the noble Baroness know of any developments.
The other main matter which was raised was spoken to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Shepherd, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Marsh, Lord Clark of Kempston and Lord Harris of Greenwich. Perhaps I may take all the points made at the same time. First, let me offer a word of personal reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I have never regarded his reputation as being in the slightest danger. I would also venture one further personal comment, without of course committing your Lordships for the future or any of my successors: I very much hope that this will not be the last painting of your Lordships' House in Session. I trust that there will be many, many more to grace your Lordships' walls. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is expressing an interest in this matter. He was one of the first to suggest the present arrangements for having a painting of the House.
One of the fundamental points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords is the payment of £150. When your Lordships' committee was first considering this matter it was felt that the painting needed to be self-supporting and that it would not be right for the taxpayer—this is a point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others—to bear the cost of it. Perhaps I may say in passing that those were the considerations that were in the mind of another place when it was preparing for the last paintings made there. That is the fundamental reason.
In answering the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and other noble Lords, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that you have already taken a decision on this. It was taken as long ago as last summer. The Offices Committee recommendation, later approved by the House, delegated to the group which has been guiding the work for the painting, financial matters and the inclusion of noble Lords in the painting. Those are matters which were accepted by your Lordships' House quite some time ago.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that an alternative was considered by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It was felt best not to proceed in that way. I am sorry to have to disappoint him about that.
We have already gone some way towards preparing for this painting which, as your Lordships will have seen, it is hoped will be completed by about October of next year. I believe that that deals with most of the points raised.
148
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about referring the matter to the committee. I am sorry to have to disappoint him, but these are matters which have been considered thoroughly. I hope that he will feel that it is appropriate not to take that suggestion further forward.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I believe that it is right that none of the funds mentioned by him is any longer available. I shall check whether there are at least two other funds of your Lordships' House in being, to make sure, for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, that neither of those is available for this purpose. If I am wrong, I shall of course let him know.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will. If he finds that they exist, I hope that he will not think that I was proposing that they should be utilised for this painting.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. I did not take his words to indicate anything of that kind.
With those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we can proceed with the report of the Offices Committee. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
3.24 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and to be printed.

Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Trading Schemes Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Chemical Weapons Bill
3.26 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

149
Perhaps I may briefly thank those noble Lords who have taken part on the Bill as it has passed through your Lordships' House. I also thank the opposition parties for the full and constructive support they gave to this important measure which marks a major step forward in freeing the world from the menace of chemical weapons. It has been the Government's aim that the UK should be among the founding state parties to the convention. For the UK to be among the first 65 states to ratify—at present there are some 49—will preserve British influence both in the preparatory commission and in the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons which will come into being upon entry into force of the convention. It will also secure British people in post there.
The Bill's passage will ensure that the UK continues to take a leading role in the development of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I can assure your Lordships that we shall not hesitate to use our influence to ensure that the convention's ban on chemical weapons operates effectively. Apart from my thanks to those noble Lords who participated in our brief exchanges on these matters, I thank also the Royal Society of Chemistry for its thorough and thoughtful briefing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to your Lordships, and to the Minister, for not being in my place when the business on the Bill started. The previous business ended slightly earlier than one was anticipating.
This is an important piece of legislation. I am delighted that it will soon be enacted into law. We have dealt with it as best we can, although I must say that I was disappointed that a Bill of this importance attracted little interest from your Lordships.
The Minister did an excellent job, and I did the best I could in the circumstances, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Most other Members of your Lordships' House, despite what many of us believe is a tremendously important move by Her Majesty's Government, did not feel that it was worth their while taking part. So much for that.
Perhaps I may make one or two points before coming to my final remarks. We discussed the issue of an advisory mechanism. Although in connection with that and one or two other matters the Government felt unable to accept my amendments, they made a number of pledges. One was that advice would be taken without delay and would be taken seriously. I hope that will be the case and that the non-statutory advisory mechanism will start soon. I intend to find ways within your Lordships' procedures to check on that matter because it is important.
Similarly, what will be an extremely important Act will involve various licensing arrangements. The Government promised to publish documentation on the proposed appeals process but as yet I am unaware of its publication. I hope that the Minister will ensure that it
150
will be published soon. The researcher who is denied a licence or who has his licence varied will be most anxious about the matter and will wish to be in a position to appeal. I have also pointed out that many people who will be affected by the Bill—notably the academic community engaged in chemical research—appear to know nothing about its existence. The Minister promised that he would do what he could to publicise the Bill and I know that once he has made a promise, he will ensure that it is fulfilled.
The Bill is a start; but we are discussing a world-wide issue and we cannot act alone. We have taken a leading part, and I know that we shall do so again, in making chemical weapons a thing of the past—that is, so far as is humanly possible. Your Lordships will be aware that biological weapons are another of the more noxious things in the world. I look forward to a biological weapons convention, too.
I repeat my congratulations and thanks to the Minister and I join him in thanking the Royal Society of Chemistry. Mr. Stephen Benn was immensely helpful to me. It was obvious that in so far as I had anything useful to say he was one of my main sources. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Royal Society of Chemistry and to Mr. Benn. I also thank Mr. Julian Perry-Robinson of the Science Policy Research Unit, who has been most helpful. The unit is an example of an effective research body playing a useful role in helping those of us who sit on the Opposition Benches who do not have the vast resources of a government department. Such bodies give us the kind of back-up which enables us to make sense of such legislation.
I support the Bill, as I have throughout its passage. I hope that it succeeds and I hope that our successors will not live in a world in which the use of chemical weapons is acceptable in any kind of conflict.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in thanking the Minister for his adroit handling of the Bill, and in particular for the assurances that he gave on Report about the function of the advisory body. I hope that the Minister will take adequate advice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, a large number of institutions—mostly the universities and the smaller institutions—will discover that the Bill has financial implications. They must be sorted out at a later date and I am sure that such issues will be raised in this House again. It would be wrong if that were not the case because the Bill is supported by everyone and it certainly has our blessing.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I have not taken part in the proceedings of the Bill in this House. However, one of the reasons why few people took part and why the Bill has not received from outside the attention that it should have received is that there was a misunderstanding about its general scope and purpose. That was due in part to its departmental sponsorship—the origins of the Chemical Weapons Convention are in the Foreign and Commonwealth

151
Office—and in part because some of the briefing concentrated on academic and non-military aspects of the impact of the convention.
However, as one who with the late Lord Mulley was in at the birth of the Chemical Weapons Convention more than 30 years ago, it is a great pleasure to see the convention come in this form to your Lordships' House. The legislation is of enormous importance and significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, chemical, biological and microbiological weapons are among the most horrifying engines of war ever to be invented.
In commenting on the noble Lord's wish that we should see the end of such weapons, I point out that one of the great problems which faces us is their proliferation. The fact that Her Majesty's Government are taking a leading part in this way underlines their commitment to the cause of limiting the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. I therefore conclude my one and only brief contribution to the proceedings and congratulate Her Majesty's Government on taking a leading role in the matter.
On Question, Bill passed.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Arbitration Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 85 [Modification of Part 1 in relation to domestic arbitration agreement]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 34, line 1, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 2 and insert (""arbitration agreement" and "seat of the arbitration" have the same meaning as in Part I (see sections 3, 5(1) and 6).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. They are small, tidying-up amendments. The purpose of Clause 101 is to bring into Part II of the Bill the definition of certain terms which are used in Part I. It is largely redundant as the linkage is either already made in the text of Part II or a separate definition is provided. The clause can be omitted but it is necessary to make the linkage between Parts I and II for those terms which are not already covered. That is achieved by the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Power to repeal or amend sections 85 to 87]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 34, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak to the remaining amendments on the Marshalled List. I regret that having done so, I must take a moment or two longer to explain what we are doing. I indicated on Report that I would be bringing forward at Third Reading an amendment to Clauses 89 to 93, which provide for consumer arbitration agreements. The revised text is covered by Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 2 is paving in nature and the other amendments are consequential.
We decided at a late stage in the preparation of the Bill that it would benefit from the inclusion of provisions relating to consumer arbitration agreements. The Bill is more comprehensive as a result, and I have no doubt that we made the right decision. On reflection though, and in the light particularly of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hacking, I believe that there is room for improvement in the way that the issue is treated in the Bill.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that, in proposing these changes, the protection which consumers enjoy under current legislation on consumer arbitration agreements is not intended to be watered down. Indeed, the reverse is the case; the rights of the consumer are strengthened in certain respects.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill as drafted restates for England and Wales and Northern Ireland the provisions of the Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act 1988. On reflection I now believe that, with two limited changes, it would be possible to rely on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994. That implements EC Council Directive 93/13 EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Paragraph 1(q) of Schedule 3 to the regulations refers specifically to:
"excluding…the consumer's right to take legal action…by requiring [him] to take disputes exclusively to arbitration".
There are several advantages in that approach. It will remove the link with the definition of domestic arbitration agreement in Clause 85 of the Bill. The effect of that definition is that consumers in other member states do not have the same protection as UK nationals and, as my noble friend Lord Hacking has commented, this distinction raises questions in terms of EC law. Whatever the position on that, the difference is in any case undesirable. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, based as they are on a European Community Directive, accord the same rights to consumers throughout the European Economic Area.
Secondly, it remedies the unsatisfactory situation where we have two pieces of overlapping legislation—the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 and the Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act 1988. In the treatment of arbitration the two pieces of legislation overlap but are at the same time marginally but significantly different in certain key respects. This could

153
be confusing for consumers and their advisers. Consumers need a clear and simple statement of their rights which they can access with the minimum of difficulty. The amendments before your Lordships focus on the 1994 regulations. At the same time we have strengthened the rights of consumers by incorporating the best features of the 1988 Act, which can therefore be repealed. This approach enables us to make a contribution to achieving clarity and simplicity in legislation which is an important feature of our work on deregulation. At the same time we are shortening the Bill by two clauses. I am pleased to be able to deal with this example of what I believe is called "double-banking".
Your Lordships will see that we intend to make all consumer arbitration agreements non-binding where the claim does not exceed a certain level. In the 1994 regulations terms in consumer arbitration agreements have to be shown to be unfair before the consumer is not bound by them. We have decided not to include a specific limit on the face of the Bill in the interests of flexibility. It will be seen that we have included an order-making power for this purpose. The intention for England and Wales and Northern Ireland is to follow but not to be bound by the limits set for small claims court based arbitration. Claims above the level set will of course be covered by the provisions of the 1994 regulations, so that if shown to be unfair will not be binding. I have also widened the definition of "consumer" slightly to keep it in line with the 1988 Act.
Noble Lords will wish to be aware that nothing in these provisions affects statutory arrangements for small claims arbitration; for example, in relation to England and Wales, the rules under Section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984. The effect of avoiding a term requiring the consumer to go to arbitration may be that his claim will be subject to such procedures but, although they have the same name, they are of course different in a number of respects. It is the case also of course that statutory arrangements incorporate certain safeguards.
I propose that these provisions of the Bill should apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be aware that Scotland has its own arbitration law and the rest of the Bill applies only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom and there is distinct merit in having common provisions for consumer arbitration agreements in this Bill. Otherwise there might be a risk of re-introducing confusion into an otherwise clear and straightforward system.
I apologise for taking a few moments to spell that out, but it is a complicated area and I believe that I should give an explanation of what the changes entail. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving these amendments on two grounds. First, he has shortened the Arbitration Bill by two clauses. It is regrettable that he could not shorten it further but we are very grateful to him for that. Secondly, I am grateful
154
to the Minister for meeting some of my anxieties in relation to the issue of domestic and international arbitration. My noble friend knows—and I shall return to it when we debate the Motion that the Bill do now pass—that I wish him to go further and to abolish altogether the distinction between domestic and international arbitration.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before we accept the amendments, I wish to make certain that nothing in these provisions in any way reduces the rights or position of the consumer. I believe that he said that, in fact, they strengthen the position. In case I was not listening sufficiently carefully, will the Minister confirm that not only is it the intention to do that, but that in reality, that is what will happen?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed, the noble Lord did hear me correctly. We were concerned that nothing should be watered down and our conclusion is that we have strengthened the rights of the consumer in certain respects.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION OF UNFAIR TERMS REGULATIONS TO CONSUMER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
(".—(1) The following sections extend the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 in relation to a term which constitutes an arbitration agreement.
For this purpose "arbitration agreement" means an agreement to submit to arbitration present or future disputes or differences (whether or not contractual).
(2) In those sections "the Regulations" means those regulations and includes any regulations amending or replacing those regulations.
(3) Those sections apply whatever the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
REGULATIONS APPLY WHERE CONSUMER IS A LEGAL PERSON
(". The Regulations apply where the consumer is a legal person as they apply where the consumer is a natural person.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNFAIR WHERE MODEST AMOUNT SOUGHT
(".—(1) A term which constitutes an arbitration agreement is unfair for the purposes of the Regulations so far as it relates to a claim for a pecuniary remedy which does not exceed the amount specified by order for the purposes of this section.
(2) Orders under this section may make different provision for different cases and for different purposes.
(3) The power to make orders under this section is exercisable—

(a) for England and Wales, by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor,

(b) for Scotland, by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Lord Advocate, and

155

(c) for Northern Ireland, by the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor.

(4) Any such order for England and Wales or Scotland shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) Any such order for Northern Ireland shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and shall be subject to negative resolution, within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Consumer arbitration agreements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 89.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Restriction on enforcement of certain consumer arbitration agreements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 90.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Exclusions from section 90]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Causes of action to which restriction applies]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 92.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Power to exclude cases where no detriment to consumer]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 93.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Specific adaptations of provisions in relation to statutory arbitrations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 38, line 21, after ("dispute") insert ("or difference").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Interpretation]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 101.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Extent]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 42, line 2, at beginning insert ("Sections (Application of unfair terms regulations to consumer arbitration agreements), (Regulations apply where consumer is a legal person) and (Arbitration agreement unfair where modest amount sought) (consumer arbitration agreements) extend to Scotland and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 59, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert ("The whole Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated that he expected the Bill would travel through the legislative process:
"speedily, free of friction, moving on oiled castors".—[Official Report, 18/1/96; col. 764.]
I am glad to say that that has proved to be the case, at least up until this point, and I would hope that its smooth passage continues.
That we have made such rapid and problem-free progress is due in no small measure to the support which noble Lords have given to the Bill at all stages. I am most grateful for that. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who participated in the Committee stage off the Floor of your Lordships' House and also to those who took the trouble at various stages to write to me on particular issues. As this was a technical, legal matter, it was of immense value to have advance warning of a number of the suggestions.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated on Second Reading that the debate was dominated by lawyers. He may feel that that pattern established on Second Reading continued. But I hope that he does not feel that his own contribution has gone unrecognised. I am certainly very grateful to him for the welcome support which he has given to the Bill. He did that very graciously and I am not surprised that to some extent, he was rather over-awed by the contributions of a number of very distinguished lawyers, including several practising arbitrators.
The fact that the Bill has been scrutinised carefully by a number of noble and learned Lords who bring to bear on the issues a wealth of experience of commercial litigation and arbitration gives me considerable confidence that we have got it right. Indeed, I have succeeded in doing a double this year. Not only did I secure the support of a number of noble and learned Lords on the issue of public interest immunity some weeks ago, but on this occasion also I have secured their support. That is of great value.
We have made a number of amendments to the Bill. I should like to stress the immense contribution made to the Bill by Lord Justice Saville. In thanking him, I should stress that none of the amendments that we have made has not met with his agreement and none represents major changes of policy. Most amendments were of a drafting nature and designed to improve the clarity of the Bill.

157
On Second Reading, a number of your Lordships praised the Bill for its clarity. Indeed, we took the utmost care in drafting it to ensure that it would be readily comprehensible to both business and other users. I trust that that will be one of its selling points. However, with such a complex and technical subject matter, it would be surprising if there were no ways in which the text could have been refined or improved.
Finally, I believe the Bill is in fine shape. I am convinced it will do much to further the cause of arbitration in this country. Those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of needing to resolve a dispute with another party want it sorted out with a minimum of fuss and expense. At the same time, they look for fairness and finality.
The Bill provides a comprehensive framework for settling disputes and meeting those criteria. I am sure it will enhance the competitiveness of both the arbitration community, particularly by helping to attract foreign arbitrations here, and the business community at large. I invite your Lordships' House to despatch the Bill, with oiled castors attached, for consideration in another place.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I never use anybody else's clichés, so I would like to see the Bill simply despatched with alacrity. It is a Bill of which one can be extremely supportive, and I would like to echo the remarks of the Minister, especially his remarks about Lord Justice Saville, who did what I imagine was an intellectually back breaking job in preparing the groundwork for this Bill.
My difficulty was that I did not understand anything about the subject when I started and, in so far as I believe I now do understand the subject of arbitration, it is rather late to decide that we ought to start all over again so that I can make a more positive contribution. However, in due course, having worked at it, I found the subject absolutely fascinating, and I hope that I shall find some way to use my newly acquired knowledge in your Lordships' House on some other occasion, particularly if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, finds ways of returning us to these matters.
Although the overwhelming interest in the matter rests with the lawyers—and an extraordinarily distinguished group of lawyers joined us on these matters—the reason for the Minister's and my involvement is that we are discussing real business; we are discussing things that are economically valuable to our country. There is a lot of money to be earned by what is called the arbitration community, and the whole point of having this legislation and the reason why we are equally supportive of it is to enable that community, as the Minister said, to compete effectively and efficiently and to bring the business to this country. I, for one, want very much to see this legislation on the statute book and see no reason to delay the matter any further. I hope that the Bill does now pass.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, could I begin by expressing personal pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has intervened in this debate. The noble Lord spoke at Second Reading; he made a very short intervention in Committee and, after his short intervention, was corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The noble Lord then fell into silence until now, the Third Reading. Therefore, I am very glad that he has come back, and I am glad that he has come back with the confidence of knowing something about the subject.
I would like to thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for accommodating my concern over security for costs. I was very grateful that he came forward with his own amendment on that issue. I express my gratitude over that. However, I express sorrow at not being able to persuade the Minister on the issue of costs, and express even greater sorrow—I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Byron—that I did not get support from my fellow solicitor of the Supreme Court, the noble Lord, Lord Byron, on that issue. My noble and learned friend knows of my continuing concern over this distinction between domestic and international arbitration. I will not repeat the arguments that I put to your Lordships at Second Reading and at Committee and Report, but I would ask my noble and learned friend to continue to note those arguments, particularly the argument that I put forward at Report, where I sought to show to your Lordships that nobody would be disadvantaged in the domestic market by removing altogether this distinction between domestic and international arbitration.
Therefore, I live in hope—although I regret that it was not done as a primary matter as this Bill was passing through your Lordships' House—that my noble and learned friend will revisit the subject and will do so by introducing an appropriate statutory order to remove that distinction altogether. My noble and learned friend has indicated that he hopes to do that by the end of this year. May he take polite notice from me that I intend to put down a Starred Question before the Summer Recess to find out how his consultation process is going on that issue, and I intend again, if he may take notice of this, to put down another Starred Question after the Summer Recess to find out again how his consultation process is going.
It therefore falls upon me to join with my noble and learned friend and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in paying tribute to the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law to Lord Justice Saville, who again has honoured us with his presence in the Chamber this afternoon, and also, as I am sure Lord Justice Saville would wish me to do, to his two successors, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn, for their contribution to the work of that committee.
It has been a long journey. I do not know if my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne remembers—he is sitting right in front of me at the moment—the debate in which he participated in this House in May 1978, when he gave a good thrust forward for arbitration law reform. I do not know if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, remembers participating in that debate in 1978 and, indeed, I do not know if the noble and

159
learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, remembers that the first book that he ever wrote was on the subject of arbitration. The book, I believe, has now gone out of print, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord could be persuaded to revisit that subject. Now, some 18 years after the debate of 1978, your Lordships have reached the point of passing the Bill. Therefore, I wish it all speed and happiness through the other place and speed and happiness onto the statute book.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I should like to join in the general congratulations with great confidence, without the slightest authority, on behalf of the judicial members and ex-judicial members of this House who joined in the various stages of this Bill, and congratulate the Government on achieving this stage in the proceedings.
Lord Justice Saville, undoubtedly, has been a driving force—not the only one, but a major driving force—and I join in the tributes to him. I can assure the Minister that I shall not be putting down any Starred Questions. I am not even sure that I know how to do it.
My final word is that I believe the Bill will have a wider effect than its mere terms because of the way it has been drafted. It is beautifully drafted in terms of clarity. I may be wrong, but I believe it is the first time we have ever seen an Act or Bill with parenthetical references by way of example. I look at Clause 40: "(see Sections 32 and 45)". I regard that as enormously valuable and I hope that it will be regarded as a precedent for other Bills that come before this House. May I once again congratulate all concerned and wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.58 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Constitution, functions and membership of Deer Commission for Scotland]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, after ("of") insert ("deer in Scotland").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I indicated at Report that I would be tabling an amendment to Clause 1 to make a specific mention of welfare in subsection (1)(a) of the 1959 Act dealing with the general functions of the commission in response to the widespread view taken by your Lordships that that is needed. The
160
amendment before the House would have the effect of ensuring that the welfare of deer is a matter which is always kept under review by the commission.
As I have made clear throughout our discussions on the subject, welfare is at the heart of the 1959 Act which, among other things, provides greater protection for the welfare of deer than is available for probably any other wild animal in Scotland. The deer commission has taken an interest in deer welfare from its inception and has conducted a number of research enquiries into deer welfare issues in conjunction with the Lasswade veterinary centre. The commission has also developed a good working relationship with bodies concerned with animal welfare, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and has, for example, recently agreed with that society to prepare guidelines on the use of enclosures for managing wild deer.
The welfare of deer is also at the heart of the Bill before your Lordships. All night shooting will henceforth be subject to authorisation and the code of practice for night shooting prepared by the commission. All driving of deer for the purpose of taking or killing them will be subject to a code of practice to be prepared by the commission. Clause 3, on the commission's advisory and research powers, now includes a specific reference to welfare as an area the commission can devote its resources to.
I have also confirmed that welfare is an integral part of sustainable management, a general function of the commission introduced by this Bill. It is an essential component of sustainability that deer as a species have a right to co-exist with humans and cannot be treated simply as human property to do with as we please. We must respect their right to live healthy lives in balance with their habitat. Indeed, the legal status of wild deer in Scots law encapsulates this fact neatly. Deer, when wild, belong to no one but themselves and can roam freely, subject only to controls when they conflict with other land uses and the rights of landowners to take or kill deer on their land.
I have also described the legal advice I have received about the possible dangers we might face if we were to introduce a new general function of welfare alongside the existing functions; in essence we risk creating a duty which might override the other general functions, and perhaps even run into real conflict with the traditional practices of sporting, shooting and population control. For that reason I have not been able to support amendments to this effect.
I have also not been prepared to introduce the word "welfare" into the balancing duty since I see welfare as a matter central to the commission's concerns and not one which should be balanced against the commission's general functions. I have therefore concluded that the most appropriate mention of welfare is to single it out as a matter to be kept under review by the commission in its general work. This will have the effect of ensuring that welfare concerns are always at the centre of the commission's work and that all issues relating to welfare can be tackled by the commission.
Moreover, the commission will be able to keep under careful review the impact on deer welfare of its own activities and where necessary adapt its policies and

161
practices to take account of that impact. At the same time this stipulation will not cut across the existing general functions which the commission will be able to pursue while having regard to the welfare stipulations in the specific functions throughout the Act.
I believe that this amendment will capture the aim of those who have pressed for the inclusion of welfare in this section. I acknowledge that many Members of the House at different stages of the Bill did so. The amendment will capture that aim while ensuring that the commission is able to carry out its general functions effectively. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for these amendments and support them. They give effect to the unanimity of expression which was present at our hearings in Edinburgh and during the various stages of the Bill as your Lordships have considered it. There is perhaps one point I might put to my noble friend. He revealed that the Red Deer Commission and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are conducting a study to produce a code of practice for the management of deer in enclosures. My noble friend uses the word "management" in perhaps its more euphemistic sense. I think he means the culling of deer in enclosures. If that study is going on, can I suggest to my noble friend that he does what he can to encourage the Red Deer Commission and the SSPCA to consult with the Association of Deer Management Groups before they produce any code of guidance which obviously should be acceptable to all sides of the land use debate in Scotland. Having made that suggestion to my noble friend, I thank him again for his amendments and support them.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the amendment. He may remember that I was one of those who spoke in favour of the proposal. It is tremendously important that the welfare of deer will appear in Clause 1 under the functions of the deer commission. We are grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Earl. It is very clever of him to have come up with a solution. We have all been trying to find a way of introducing welfare into Clause 1 without any unwanted consequences. We are all grateful to him for having been the one who managed to do it.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall pass on the compliments paid by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, to the draftsman of the amendment. It underlines the concern that we have had throughout the different stages of the Bill. We have all agreed that welfare is vital to the management of deer in Scotland. We wished to ensure that the way that concept was introduced onto the face of the Bill would not lead in later years to a misuse of our intentions. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, was, I think, the first to mention the matter at Second Reading—possibly
162
the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did so too—hut it has been a continuing theme and I am glad that we have managed to reach a successful conclusion.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch suggests that my reference to enclosures was perhaps somewhat euphemistic. I have heard since Report stage about the use of enclosures, described to the SSPCA, alongside the Red Deer Commission, for the treatment of warble fly and other problems that deer suffer from. My understanding is that the SSPCA was quite impressed with the way in which enclosures could be used in those circumstances. However, I take note of the points the noble Lord made. I can assure him that the SSPCA will be consulted in the drawing up of the code of practice.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think my noble friend means that the ADMG will be consulted.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, after ("matters") insert (", including their welfare,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I announced at Report that I would be tabling amendments to stipulate that the proportion of the commission chosen to represent the deer management category should be chosen from among nominees of organisations representing deer managers.
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 2 has been spoken to.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am speaking to Amendment No. 4. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when I moved Amendment No. 1. Along with Amendment No. 2 therefore I also wish to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("in Scotland").
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move the two amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, after ("and,") insert ("subject to subsection (3B)(c) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I repeat my apologies to the House. My mistake must have had something to do with my being in Luxembourg last night and not getting any sleep. That means that I am not running with the normal procedures of the House as efficiently as I usually try to do.
I announced at Report that I would be tabling amendments to stipulate that the proportion of the commission chosen to represent the deer management category should be chosen from among nominees of organisations representing deer managers. The amendments before your Lordships are designed to have that effect.
The reason for the amendments is that concerns have been expressed that an unreasonable Secretary of State may decide to choose people to represent this category

163
who do not have the confidence of deer managers throughout the country. To do so would be a foolish act indeed, since without that confidence the commission will not be able to do its job effectively at all. For the most part the commission will not be able to act without the agreement and active co-operation of those who manage deer throughout Scotland. Nevertheless I recognise the validity of the point being made and have therefore decided that the best way to tackle the concern would be to ensure that such persons are chosen from among the nominees of the organisations which represent deer managers.
It may be helpful if I explain that the phrasing of the amendment is designed to ensure that organisations which represent those with a primary interest in the management of deer are asked to provide such nominations. That clearly means that the deer management groups, presumably represented through the association, would be consulted.
Since we have defined deer management to include the sporting interest in deer, the representative bodies involved in that side of deer management will be included. We have not been able to stipulate the names of such organisations in the Bill because such bodies are non-statutory. But the intention and effect are clear.
The amendments will have no impact on the way the rest of the commission is chosen nor on the general principle I have elucidated from the start of our deliberations that the commission must be a balanced body which has the confidence of all those affected by deer throughout Scotland. The reason for including special rules in respect of the deer managers' category is because of the central role deer play in their land use practices, which is not generally true for the other categories. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult relevant bodies from all possible sectors before selecting members of the commission and will have the results of the consultation before him when decisions are made.
I am confident that the appointment provisions as now amended will provide a more flexible basis for choosing the best available candidates to serve on the commission in future while maintaining and, it is hoped, developing the level of confidence that exists throughout the country in the commission and its works. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay has recognised that the composition of the commission was one of the key areas, if not the key area, which concerned a number of noble Lords as the Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House, and the key to the success of the commission in the future, and of all that the Bill contains.
The amendment that he puts forward today meets as many of the anxieties that I can think of within the bounds of practicality. For my part I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his efforts in bringing the amendment forward.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for delineating specific groups that he will consult. I hope that the commission does not
164
become too cosy, and that people in Scotland other than those who have a definite connection with deer and the forest will have an opportunity to be on the commission.
I am sure that the Minister will remember the plea made by me and by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for some public representation. We referred to people from outside bodies. We suggested that CoSLA, the Crofters' Commission or some such body might be included. The amendment makes it possible to include a wider range than might be considered ideal by those who are concerned only with the estates.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, again I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled and for the way that he has introduced them. I speak to Amendment No. 9 tabled in my name. Its purpose is to clarify that the one-third of the new commission which the Secretary of State must appoint from nominees of organisations representing deer managers must be put forward by organisations which have deer management as their primary purpose. This may already be within the legal drafting. If it is, I apologise for taking two minutes of your Lordships' time.
The point I am trying to make is that, although I have been a life member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for many years and have a high regard for that organisation (except perhaps when some of its investigations are a little too zealous), I would not expect the RSPB to be among the nominating organisations in this part of the Bill. The RSPB manages deer on several of its reserves, perhaps most notably Abernethy, but deer management is not its principal purpose. The National Trust for Scotland would be in the same category, I suppose, although one should exonerate it from any charge of over-zealous investigation.
The amendment has been tabled to confirm on the face of the Bill what the Minister said on 21st March at col. 1424 of the Official Report at Report stage. He said:
"The aim behind the proposed amendment at Third Reading is that the Association of Deer Management Groups will be the nominating organisation".
My noble friend then wisely went on to say that life is never as simple as that, especially when legal drafting enters upon the scene. Of course, we all accept that.
Apart from the Association of Deer Management Groups, there are other organisations which have as their primary purpose the management of deer. The British Deer Society springs most obviously to mind, as does the British Field Sports Society. The Scottish Landowners' Federation might also be a candidate, especially when it is representing Highland landowners. But I am afraid that it does also busy itself with advice on things like sheep and the unfortunate grants which go with them. Therefore I am not sure that the SLF maintains quite the pristine purity of deer management which my amendment seeks.
I certainly would not expect to see the deer farmers brought within this clause because I should have thought that they would have come under the agricultural provisions of the clause. My expectation, especially

165
after what my noble friend said when introducing his amendments, is that it is in effect the ADMG which will he consulted. It can then consult the BDS, the BFSS, the SLF and such other bodies as may appear relevant.
The Earl of Woolton: My Lords, I should like to support all the amendments relating to membership of the new commission put forward by the Minister. At Report stage I was still not convinced that the correct balance had been found for the various interest groups; there were concerns still being expressed by those organisations representing deer managers about their future representation. These new amendments seek to address those concerns and they remove much of the ambiguity surrounding the issue.
Specifying that one-third of the commission should be nominated by the organisations representing the interests of deer managers should give reassurance to those with the task of implementing deer management on the ground that their interests and opinions will be given proper consideration and hearing. Provided that the Association of Deer Management Groups is one of the nominating organisations—I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that—I believe that the new commission now has the correct balance of interests while at the same time retaining necessary flexibility and should therefore command the widest possible support from all organisations with an interest in the management and welfare of Scotland's deer.
I welcome the amendments and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the positive and helpful way that he has handled this sensitive issue.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I regret that it was not possible for me to attend at Edinburgh, where I gather that there were fruitful discussions on this and other matters. I commend the proceedings at Edinburgh.
I may be out of order in making this comment as regards representation on the Deer Commission. I have heard noble Lords putting down their marker regarding their respective interests and organisations. As noble Lords will appreciate, as chairman of the Forestry Commission I spent a fair amount of time covering the largest estate in Scotland—indeed, in the United Kingdom. The commission was made up of a variety of interests, not unlike the body now under discussion.
One of the areas specifically referred to in the Act governing the Forestry Commission was the representation of those who had experience in labour relations in countryside affairs. Those various worthy organisations which have been mentioned this afternoon inevitably have experience in that regard, but there is merit in having some of the operators in the field of land management and deer conservation with some voice as regards policy. That could be extremely helpful. The point is not introduced in a confrontational sense, but as regards having the co-operation of the labour force which will be operating this piece of legislation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be introducing a slightly contentious note. It appears to me that the Minister has gone too far. I should like his assurance that he will go no further. In
166
my view, he cannot possibly accept Amendment No. 9 proposed by his noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. His noble friend specified the trouble with the amendment when he said that he wanted to exclude organisations which took a contrary view to his way of thinking from the one-third of the commission to be appointed. I hope that the amendments which the Minister has put down to appease his noble friends will leave the Secretary of State in control of those appointed. As I understand it, the reason for giving the Secretary of State the power to pick members, as against their nomination by those bodies, was that the system had not been working. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that is so and that a body like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would be eligible. I have heard its handling of deer on Abernethy praised by experts in the field. The society handles many deer forests and I hope that it would be considered as having the expertise necessary to be appointed in this case. The Scottish Landowners' Federation should also be one of the bodies eligible that has experience in the handling of deer.
Can the Minister tell us how many organisations will be consulted? He said that they were not statutory bodies and could not be named on the face of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us which ones are concerned. At the moment I view the amendments with fear and displeasure. I thought that the provisions were right to start with in the Bill but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, surely an organisation such as the RSPB would be covered under subsection (3)(3A)(a)(iv), "the natural heritage".
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, perhaps I may address first Amendment No. 9 proposed by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Then I shall pick up on the comments made by other noble Lords on the group of government amendments. Referring to my noble friend's amendments, the effect of the amendments I have moved is to ensure that it is from nominees of bone fide organisations representing the interests of deer managers that the Secretary of State will select the members of the commission whom he chooses to represent that category. Organisations which do not represent the interests of deer managers as their primary purpose will fall into other categories. The crucial word is "represent". My noble friend is quite right to compliment the RSPB on its record of working with deer and deer management at Abernethy. Other noble Lords have also pointed out its commendable record.
However, as an organisation, the RSPB does not have objectives which represent deer and deer management. Its objectives are devoted primarily to ornithological subjects and the organisation would not fall within this category, it would come into other categories. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the RSPB is an obvious organisation which will be consulted and it may provide from within its own ranks a commissioner because of its experience with the natural environment and how it impacts on deer management.

167
I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 1(3)(3B) which states:
"Before making an appointment under subsection (3A) above, the Secretary of State shall … afford to such persons or organisations as he thinks fit an opportunity to suggest the name of any person who would in their view be an appropriate person".
The persons so appointed, in other words under the subsection on the natural heritage, will be expected under subsection (3)(3A):
"to have knowledge or experience of one or more of the following matters … in so far as that matter may be affected by the Commission's exercise of their functions".
I make that point because the experience of the RSPB with deer management, as it impacts on the expertise that the organisation has of regenerating forestry or ornithological matters, makes it eligible for the Clause 1 nomination.
My noble friend was quite right, the ADMG is an obvious candidate for nominating persons for the deer management section of the commission, a minimum of one-third deer managers. However, because it is a non-statutory body it cannot be named on the face of the Bill. I can reassure my noble friend that as regards deer farmers, under Clause 10 farmed deer are, for most practical purposes, excluded from the scope of the 1959 Act. The term "deer management" therefore applies to the management of wild deer and not farmed deer.
I am grateful for the support from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Woolton for the Government's amendments. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we do not seek a cosy relationship, through the provisions, with certain interests involved in deer management nor do we seek in any way to unbalance the commission. The primary purpose is to inspire confidence in those people whose primary duty is to manage deer. They have deer management at the heart of their activities and all the related activities. Therefore, it is vital, because of the importance that the Deer Commission places on the voluntary principle and voluntary agreement, that it has the confidence of deer managers.
The amendment is proposed in response to many observations and comments made at all stages of the Bill. It is designed to encapsulate our intentions for that section of the Deer Commission that represents deer managers. The word "appeasement" is totally irrelevant in that context. We intend the deer management section to represent the activities with which the Association of Deer Management Groups is involved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Can he assure us that there are enough groups concerned with deer management to give the Secretary of State a choice from among the nominees they propose?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch named three groups to begin with, and the Association of Deer Management Groups is exactly that—an association of many groups of people who manage deer. There is no shortage of avenues for
168
nominees. The overlap between the British Deer Society, the British Field Sports Society and the Association of Deer Management Groups will ensure that both cohesion and a width of field will be available to any Secretary of State.
I must also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that crofters are already guaranteed representation on the Deer Commission. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that we see forestry as being a critical interest which must be properly represented on the Deer Commission. I am glad that he reminded the House of his illustrious career with the Forestry Commission. He was a chairman who is still remembered at Forestry Commission headquarters. He rightly points out that the Forestry Commission is a huge landowner; it still owns over 1 million hectares, despite the erroneous fears of some Members opposite who feel that the modest sales of about 1 per cent. of the holding per annum for the sake of rationalisation is, for some reason, privatisation by the back door. It will take 100 years to achieve that if that is the theory held by noble Lords opposite.
The Forestry Commission is an organisation that any Secretary of State would want to consult before appointing commissioners who could represent the forestry interests on the commission. Indeed, someone within the ranks of public or private sector forestry might be suitable to be a commissioner.
On the matter of labour, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it is open to nominating bodies and bodies that are consulted to put forward names which they think are fit for consideration by the Secretary of State. So if, for instance, a stalker was put forward by one of the nominating groups from the deer management section, it would be for the Secretary of State to judge the eligibility of that potential member against others.
I hope I have answered most of the points raised. The crucial point expressed by those who doubted the need for this amendment is that we are determined that the commission should retain a balance and also that it should retain the confidence of those who spend most of their time and their focus on deer management at ground level.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("persons or").
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert ("appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned with the matters mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) above").
Page 2, leave out line 32.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert ("; and
(c) where names have been suggested by organisations representing the interests of deer managers, select the one third of the Commission referred to in subsection (3A) above from among those names.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, I point out to the House that "Line 2" should read "Line 3". There is a misprint in the Marshalled List.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9:
Line 3, leave out ("representing") and insert ("which appear to the Secretary of State to have as their principal purpose to represent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for what my noble friend had to say about his amendments and indeed about my Amendment No. 9. I think that what my noble friend said renders my amendment redundant. Before begging your Lordships' leave to withdraw it, I only have to express a certain amount of mild dismay that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, should have misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. I confirm my understanding, which my noble friend the Minister confirmed, that the RSPB, which is an excellent body, will presumably be consulted under the natural heritage interest of the clause rather than under the deer management interest of the clause. I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining the niceties of the legal drafting, in that when the word "represent" is used, we are talking about a primary aim. That was in fact the object of my particular amendment, so I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Emergency powers of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 35.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I announced on Report that I would table at Third Reading amendments to Clause 4 to clarify further the exact circumstances in which the use of the emergency powers in Section 6 to control damage by deer would be used. This is in response to concerns expressed by noble Lords that the way Clause 4 was originally drafted seemed to make it possible to use the power in other than emergency circumstances.
The effect of my amendments will be to require the commission to be satisfied before using Section 6 powers that the damage in question being caused to natural heritage features on unenclosed land is due to the presence of a significantly higher deer density than is usual in all the circumstances. I have already clearly explained that the clause is designed for use in emergency circumstances only, and also added in Committee the rider that the power can be used by the commission only when no other power is adequate to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, I have thought it sensible in the circumstances to include a further
170
clarification which will make it absolutely clear that the power can be used only when deer arrive in much greater numbers than is normally the case on the ground in question—in other words, they are "marauding".
For the most part, that will be obvious from the nature of the damage or danger being caused: deer are quite clearly not expected to be in a farmer's field of turnips, nor in a school playground, nor for that matter within an enclosure designed to protect some natural heritage feature. No specific qualification is needed in respect of these types of land. But deer can be an integral part of the land management pattern on unenclosed land where natural heritage features might be present. Hence the effect of my amendment will be to make it clear that the damage being caused should be an unexpected event by virtue of the arrival of a significantly higher density of deer than is usual.
As background, I should perhaps mention that the Section 6 powers were originally designed to allow the commission to authorise action to deal with damage to agricultural production when it was not possible, for whatever reason, for the occupier to take action himself on the land in question. Over the years, the power has also been adapted to allow action to be taken in this way in respect of the other forms of damage with which the Deer Commission is concerned, notably damage to woodland.
In 1982, in response to fears then about damage caused by deer which had colonised ground, the original stipulation that deer had to be "coming onto ground" to trigger the use of the power was deleted. The power has been used relatively frequently in the years since the time the commission was established and is, for example, the basis on which authorisations are currently given to shoot in the close season as part of the current voluntary control schemes being run by the commission.
The effect of the Bill, in particular the provisions for control agreements and for out-of-season authorisations to protect the natural heritage and unenclosed woodland will be to reduce considerably the need for the commission to use Section 6 powers. As a consequence, we have used the Bill to recast the various powers of the commission to ensure that they are tailored to the situation at hand and are mutually compatible.
Where special action is necessary the commission would normally look in the first instance to the occupier (or owner in certain cases) to take action themselves on their own land, either during the season or, under the powers in Section 33 of the 1959 Act. Where there are more longstanding or widespread problems, the commission would seek to use the powers available to it under Clause 5, that is to say control agreements, or in exceptional circumstances control schemes. In addition, the commission may turn to the powers to protect the natural heritage and unenclosed woodlands set out in Clause 9 of the Bill. Only in emergency situations where deer are causing unexpected serious damage or danger and no other course of action is adequate, could the last resort powers in Section 6 be invoked.
Section 6 powers are not designed as a catch-all to deal with all the kinds of damage wherever they occur. They are a last resort measure to deal with emergency

171
situations when no other form of control is possible. Consequently if deer are an established and significant part of the land use pattern on the land in question, the damage being caused is unlikely to constitute an emergency. It may very well be serious and require effective action to be taken, but that is precisely what the control agreement and control scheme powers are all about. They contain in particular real safeguards for land managers which cannot be overridden without proper consideration.
It has been suggested that by singling out the natural heritage in this way, we are somehow discriminating against it as a land use worthy of protection compared with the other land uses protected by the Bill. That is not our intention; nor is it the effect of the amendment. All the amendment does is allow the terms of the power to operate in the case of the natural heritage as the power is intended to work; that is to say where deer are causing damage in such a way that emergency action deserves to be taken. Specific reference to the circumstances in which the natural heritage can be protected using these powers is needed, because the natural heritage can occur on any land, including land where deer are the primary land use, unlike the other features worthy of protection which are quite obviously land where deer are not the primary land use. I refer to agriculture and forestry.
Moreover, these amendments do not have the effect, as has been suggested by some, that the occupier or owner in question will be required to put up a fence to benefit from Section 6 protection. Where the commission is satisfied that a significantly higher density of deer are present on the land in question and are causing the damage, then Section 6 powers can be used to protect the natural heritage, just as they can for the other factors worthy of protection. I believe it important to retain the option of using emergency powers to protect the natural heritage in the last resort, wherever it occurs, and am confident that the amendments will achieve that effect.
As I stated at Report, we have not, on legal advice, incorporated the term "marauding" into the text of the Bill because of the real legal uncertainties associated with it, especially the definition of "range". The requirement that deer are present at a significantly higher density on the land in question than is usual is one that can be met by the relatively objective criteria of records of deer numbers and movements.
The phrase "all the circumstances" is designed to ensure that the commission takes into account factors such as seasonality and weather conditions as well as movement patterns in reaching its decision on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, though it did not quite meet some of the objections I received from some of the other bodies in Scotland. It is just as well that the amendments have arisen now and that we have another stage in another place where more discussion can take place. Possible improvements in the wording
172
may be made and matters may be cleared up to allow people to understand better than perhaps some of us are able what the full impact of the new clause is.
As a result of the introduction of the new clause, the majority of Scotland's nationally and internationally important habitats, such as peatland, heather moorland and scrub habitats, have been excluded from protection under the emergency powers available in the Bill. The role of Scottish Natural Heritage as the statutory conservation adviser in Scotland appears to be undermined.
The new clause specifically limits the application of Clause 4 to forestry, ignoring other habitats that may be seriously damaged by higher deer numbers. The Minister said—I wondered whether he would—that the issue is related to not merely the quantity of deer but also to the density. That may be obvious, but it did not appear to be the case from my understanding of the wording.
I received representations from the RSPB and the WWF. They consider that the consultation relationship between Scottish Natural Heritage and the Deer Commission should be a statutory one so that the commission seeks the advice of SNH, first, in order to satisfy itself that adverse change is being caused to the natural heritage and, secondly, for financial reasons. I shall not go into that; the Minister is aware of the grants made to SNH which could be affected if it lost a certain amount of status because of the Bill.
The new clause changes the situation dramatically in that regard. The Minister's explanation will be looked at carefully when the Bill goes to another place. For instance, as a consequence of the new clause, what role will SNH play? We all thought when the Bill was going through that it would be the fundamental body looking after the natural heritage of Scotland. What role will it now play in advising the commission on whether deer numbers are having an adverse effect on the natural heritage? Which body, other than SNH, would be the appropriate body to judge serious damage? The Minister mentioned the Forestry Commission. If that is suggested as an alternative body, what will be the appropriate body to decide that serious damage is being caused to natural habitats such as peatlands or montane features?
A number of issues are raised in the new clause. While its intentions are good, one of the reasons that a second Chamber is important is that the Bill will go back to the other place after all the discussions that have taken place here. I hope that the other place looks at it and we end up with something that at least I can understand.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Though it is with a tinge of regret that I see the word "marauding" disappear even from the rubric of the Bill, I confess that once again his drafting is good and meets the majority of opinion advanced so far in our deliberations on the Bill.
It may not be my place to answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, but can I say to him that the Bill does not exclude damage done by deer to

173
sites of special scientific interest, peatlands or whatever; all it does is ensure that if enhancement of the natural heritage is to take place, then that must take place with the consent and agreement of the occupier and owner in question, possibly through a management agreement.
The difficulty in the past has been how to define the natural heritage, which is the new feature of the Bill. It is easy enough to define agricultural production, crops, foodstuffs and so forth. But the amendment meets all the difficulties raised. Where the natural heritage is on enclosed land, Section 6 can still apply and indeed it can also apply on unenclosed land provided a significantly higher proportion of deer than is usual is present and is doing the damage.
I believe that my noble friend has met the main body of opinion advanced during our deliberations. I am grateful to him and feel sure that the amendments will do much to ensure the harmony which we all hope the Bill will introduce into the land in question. I support the amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I should have thought that the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Carmichael were covered by the effect of natural heritage in relation to SSSIs. I presume that any operation of the Deer Commission will need to take account of areas of land which are covered by SSSI provisions.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the advisers to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would do well to read what I said in Hansard. In fact, I could almost have moved the amendment by saying "This is a clarifying amendment". Not one piece of policy has changed with the amendment. All that has happened is that I have taken the assurances given from the Dispatch Box at every stage of the Bill in relation to Clause 4 and turned them into wording on the face of the Bill. We are therefore clarifying the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that the intention behind the amendment was good. We have taken that good intention and put it into unambiguous language. I thank my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for saying that the drafting meets that intention. Once again, that compliment will be passed on to the draftsman involved.
SNH is obviously a vital element in the management of the natural environment of the natural heritage in Scotland. Unavoidably it will be concerned with deer management generally and with advising at various instances on the activities of the Deer Commission. SNH is the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on the natural heritage in Scotland. It is also a public body, so there will inevitably be a close liaison between SNH and the Deer Commission.
We decided deliberately not to make SNH the statutory adviser to the commission. There will be matters concerned with the natural heritage where the Deer Commission wants to seek advice from other quarters. It may be that the Forestry Commission and
174
many other bodies are the right people to advise the Deer Commission on some elements of the natural heritage. We did not feel that the Deer Commission should be obliged in every instance to seek advice from that quarter. But the link will be close. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can assure those who addressed their concerns to him on this point that the link will be close.
The grant-giving abilities of SNH are obviously important, especially if enhancement of the natural heritage is sought through voluntary agreements. It may well be that SNH is involved both as an adviser and as a grant-giving body in the drawing up of a voluntary agreement between the deer commissioner and the deer manager.
The definition of "serious damage" which the noble Lord mentioned will be sought depending on the circumstances of the case. I would not be surprised if SNH often provides advice on the definition of serious damage, but there will be other instances where other arbiters or advisers will be drawn in. At the end of the day it is up to the commissioners on the Deer Commission to make a sound judgment, balancing the advice they have had from experts and their other expertise and duties.
The central assurance that I have sought to give on Clause 4 at all stages of the Bill is that we are dealing with marauding deer which cannot sensibly be defined on the face of the Bill but can be described in, as it were, longer hand by saying that they are deer that are not being effectively controlled and that they are not normally established on the ground in question. The amendments that we have brought forward over the course of the Bill ensure that there is a tighter definition of what Clause 4 is intended to deliver. We have also stressed that Clause 4 powers can be triggered only in a genuine emergency—in other words, if the other powers available to the commission are not adequate or have not been able to deal with the situation. I believe that the concerns usefully raised throughout the proceedings on the Bill have led to a wise clarification of Clause 4 and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO NATURAL HERITAGE
(". After section 6 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following sectionߞ
"Application of section 6 in relation to natural heritage.
6AA. Section 6 of this Act shall apply in relation to the natural heritage as it applies to woodland, where the Commission are satisfied that deer are causing serious damage to the natural heritage—

(a) on enclosed land; or

(b) on unenclosed land, but only if the Commission are also satisfied that the damage is being caused by reason of the presence on the land in question of a significantly higher density of deer population than is usual in all the circumstances.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Authorisation by Commission of certain acts]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert ("and "vehicle" does not include any aircraft or hovercraft").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, anxiety has been expressed in the House over the use of helicopters to drive deer to take or kill them for deer management purposes. As the 1959 Acts stands at present, it is not an offence to use vehicles to move deer. It is only an offence to make such use of a vehicle with the intention to take or kill deer on unenclosed land.
It is our clear intention that all uses of vehicles to drive deer to take or kill them should require authorisation by the commission and be subject to the code of practice to be prepared by the commission. The Bill makes it clear that this requirement will apply to wild deer on all land.
In the light of comments during the passage of the Bill I have given considerable thought as to whether helicopters in particular should be permissible for such operations. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the Deer Commission and believe that, if used with due sensitivity to the welfare of the deer, helicopters could be used in some circumstances without raising undue concerns. However, the continuing concern expressed at every stage of the Bill on this matter has tempted me to revisit this clause and to table the amendment now before the House. I am proposing that aircraft and hovercraft should be omitted from the range of vehicles which can be used for this type of work. I hope this addresses the contributions of noble Lords from the committee in Edinburgh onwards. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for omitting hovercraft and helicopters from the Bill. The matter was raised right at the beginning of our proceedings. There was a feeling that there could he horror stories in the popular press about helicopters chasing poor little deer over the Highlands. In Committee we heard some interesting information about the use of helicopters in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is an authority on the subject of helicopters, made a considerable contribution to this part of the Bill. All in all the Bill without the helicopters will be given a better reception than it otherwise would receive. Certainly in the other place the issue would have raised very many doubts.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for this amendment. Perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendment No. 17. When I first looked at Amendment No. 12 I thought that it was splendid. Then I suddenly asked myself why helicopters had been taken out of Clause 9 while the definition was left under Clause 11. I regret to tell the House that very unworthy dark suspicions entered into my mind and I became seriously worried lest there was some nefarious plot behind leaving the definition in Clause 11. I consulted the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is why I put down my amendment and it is
176
probably why he put down his amendment. Perhaps when the Minister comes to wind up he will comment on what I have just said.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this will be a good amendment if it allays suspicion. As I understand it, it means that one must not move a hovercraft or a helicopter in an operation to take or kill deer. However, rich noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, could have a helicopter and a hovercraft on their estate for the normal work of the estate, but they must not use it to take or kill deer. Is that what the amendment means?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I regret to say that once again the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has misunderstood my position, if not my words. As to the amendments themselves, I have to join the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in confessing that Amendment No. 16 was tabled with the idea of being a backstop in case anything my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say about his Amendment No. 12 had not been sufficient to remove any doubts that remained in our minds and, indeed, helicopters from the use to which we feared they might have been put. I support the government amendment and will not be moving mine when the time comes.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall make a brief comment because the purpose of the government amendments and therefore the problems posed by Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 have become clear. I would stress to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that there was no dark intent or conspiracy. However, the problems we had with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate partly to the fact that if one excluded those two vehicles from the definition in Clause 10 one automatically removed much of the merit of an amendment which the noble Lady herself moved and which was accepted at an earlier stage of the Bill—namely, that it is an offence to shoot a deer from any moving vehicle and by changing the definition throughout the Bill to exclude from vehicles hovercraft and helicopters one suddenly legitimised the shooting of deer from hovercraft and helicopters. The issue is not as straightforward as it should be when one looks at the amendments that are tabled. But the intention is very simple. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 5, after ("the") insert ("owner or").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14. Clause 9 of the Bill introduces a new Section 33A(5) into the 1959 Act. The section allows the commission to authorise the taking and killing of deer out of season in order to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland, the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety.
The section presently provides that such an authorisation may be given to the occupier or his nominee. The noble Earl indicated at Report stage that he recognised that there may be occasions where the beneficial interest in the woodland or natural heritage feature lay with the owner of the land in question rather than the occupier. He said that he was therefore prepared to allow the occupier, the owner or their respective nominees, to be authorised. These amendments achieve that purpose.
I understand that, for reasons of safety, the commission's application procedures will require the applicant to notify the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, of the intention to apply for authorisation. Since tabling these amendments, I have been shot at down the telephone by a friend who said that he is horrified about this and that it is the lazy deer manager's charter. He said that the provision will allow the lazy deer manager, who has not been bothered to shoot his quota of deer in season, to obtain an authority from the commission to shoot what he has not shot in season, out of season. I wonder whether the noble Earl will be very kind and comment on that point when he replies. Meanwhile, I hope that he can accept the amendments that I have proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support these amendments. They seem to me to make sense of what we have been intending in this part of the Bill for some time. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that they might be a charter for the lazy deer manager. I suppose it is possible that for one season they might be, but I would have hoped that, with the progress that is being made all over Scotland in counting the number of deer and making sure that the right number is shot through the co-operation of the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Red Deer Commission, SNH and others, before too long the powers which the commission will have under this Bill will be brought to bear against the lazy manager in question. Therefore, I should have thought that the benefits that these amendments confer are likely to be very much greater in the medium and long term than any disadvantage from that fast-disappearing breed, the lazy deer manager.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, these powers for shooting deer out of season ought to be granted only in the most dire emergency. I know that the Forestry Commission, as a matter of course, likes extending the season for culling hinds. As I said before, they should only be permitted in an emergency.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I hinted to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, at earlier stages of the Bill, I am in complete agreement with the point she makes and I am very happy to accept her amendment.
These amendments will allow the commission to authorise either the owner or the occupier of the land, or their respective nominees, to take or kill deer out of season to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland or the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety. There will be occasions where the
178
beneficial interest lies with the owner rather than the occupier and it is reasonable that the owner should be able to initiate action in his own right.
Proposed new Section 33A(5) introduces what is, in effect, a new power to the commission. The nature of the action that may be authorised, for instance action on unenclosed land, will require careful attention by the commission as to its procedures for ensuring that adequate notification is given to those with a direct interest in the land in question.
I also stress that these are powers which are only to be used in the last resort and therefore they will not be part of a lazy deer manager's charter. Indeed, the discretion available to the commission should prevent that, even if it is unable to establish whether or not these are circumstances which justify last resort powers. In addition, I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch made the point that lazy deer managers are now a very rare breed indeed.
I also share and sympathise with the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. The sentiment that he has expressed is one that we would expect to see in the Deer Commission itself in the exercise of such authorisation. The Government are happy to support this amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reception of this small amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("such an occupier") and insert ("either of them").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
CARCASS TAGGING
("After section 25F of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Carcass tagging.
25G.—(1) For the purpose of monitoring the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland the Secretary of State may by regulations made by order subject to an approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduce a scheme to make provisions for the identification of all deer carcasses sold within Scotland ("the scheme"), as may from time to time be defined in the regulations.
(2) The scheme shall require any such carcass sold to bear a tag in a form approved and issued by the Commission and bearing an individual mark or number for each carcass, identifying the producer, the year of issue and the carcass number.
(3) It shall be a requirement of the scheme that any person requiring to sell a deer carcass shall obtain in advance from the Commission the relevant tags and shall affix them to any carcass sold in such manner as may be specified.
(4) At the expiry of the year to which any unused tag relates, the producer to whom it was issued shall return the same to the Commission.
(5) It shall be an offence for any person to sell, offer or expose for sale or to receive or to have in his possession, transport or cause to be transported for the purpose of sale on any premises any carcass not bearing a tag in such form as may be specified by the scheme.
(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come again to the suggestion that deer carcasses might be tagged in future. Most of what can be said in favour of this amendment has already been said in earlier proceedings on the Bill so I shall not weary your Lordships with repetition now. However, I confirm that the amendment merely advocates an enabling provision, subject to regulations from the Secretary of State and confirmation by Parliament. Since our proceedings on Report, support for the amendment has continued to pour in and most of it addressed to my noble friend the Minister, with copies to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the matter. So I believe that my noble friend is fully aware of the strength of feeling in favour of this proposal.
When we last debated this subject my noble friend seemed minded to set off on a process of consultation. We wish him well on any such journey, although I ask him whom he proposes to consult, who has a legitimate interest in the subject and who has not already volunteered full support for the amendment. There is now unanimous support from producers, including the Forest Authority; support from dealers and processors who handle more than 90 per cent. of the produce, and the supermarkets have also made their position clear. So I have a little difficulty in understanding who may be left to consult in the eventual consultation exercise.
However, there is perhaps one aspect of our proposal which has gained strength owing to unfortunate circumstances since we last discussed it. I refer in passing to the problem of BSE and the emphasis which such a scare gives to the need for the traceability of meat sold in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The BSE scare might seem to be an irrelevance to the Scottish wild venison market and indeed it probably is. After all, wild venison must be about the most healthy meat that one can eat, free of all contaminants; high in protein and low in fat.
But now I must mention—again, somewhat in passing—Benbecula and the current suggestion that the inhabitants may have higher cancer rates, thanks to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster some years ago. I very much hope that Benbecula's problems may prove to have been invented or exaggerated by our ghastly media, who have bestowed on Benbecula much the same energies as they have bestowed on British beef.
One knows that much of the area of the Scottish Highlands where granite rock is exposed shows above-average radiation readings even in normal conditions. That was certainly the case after the Chernobyl disaster. Even if Chernobyl turns out not to be to blame for Benbecula—let us hope that that is so—one cannot rule out some similar disaster in future which might be shown to have a localised effect. It must surely be sensible to have a system which reveals which carcasses come from that area or at least to have the
180
ability to install such a system quickly. That is what the amendment is intended to do. I very much hope that my noble friend can agree to it. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I apologise for the lateness with which I have involved myself in the Bill, but I have been following it with the greatest of interest since its early stages. I have done so because, apart from a short interval during the war years, my family owned or leased the same deer forest for over 50 years and I can recall very clearly that after the war when I was there much concern was expressed by many people on the question of the tagging of carcasses. When the Red Deer Commission came into being, we had many conversations with the commission during which the question of marauding deer was raised as, on every occasion, was the question of the tagging of carcasses. It was definitely felt that that was probably the best way of controlling the poaching of deer and of preventing deer that had been poached being described as "marauding deer". However, the idea never seemed to get off the ground. I have never understood why.
I should like to lend the maximum support possible to my noble friend's proposal. The question of the tagging of carcasses has raised its head yet again. Surely we should have at least an enabling provision in the Bill. I am only sorry that it is not a requirement in the Bill. However, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to take the amendment on board and to include such an enabling provision in the Bill.
The Earl of Woolton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support Amendment No. 15, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson, as I did on Report. Those of us who have been pressing the Government on this issue have been heartened in our attempts by the commitment of my noble friend the Minister to keep an open mind and to be willing to be persuaded by the weight of the argument.
As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, the Minister has now received further expressions of support for a mandatory scheme from organisations representing the great majority of producers, dealers and processors. Both sides of the industry are now united in a desire to see mandatory tagging introduced as a basis for participating effectively in the food industry.
On Report I raised the issue of food quality in relation to persuading the food retailers, the main customers for wild venison, that they could have confidence in the production procedures and in the quality of the meat. As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, since then the beef crisis has underlined how fragile consumer confidence can be even when existing hygiene controls are deemed satisfactory. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Health comment in another place during a recent beef debate that the United Kingdom is now the most highly regulated country in Europe for food production. That has been a powerful argument in giving British consumers confidence in British food products.
I believe that a mandatory tagging scheme should not be seen as compromising the Government's deregulation initiative; rather, it should be presented as

181
strengthening the Government's initiatives to improve the quality of another British meat product. In the light of criticism currently being directed at the United Kingdom's public health procedures and at intensive livestock husbandry in general, the Government should be seeking to ensure that there is no possibility of substandard, poorly handled venison being sold either in this country or abroad.
I believe that the opportunity should be taken to introduce an enabling provision into the Bill to provide for a mandatory scheme once the new commission has put in place the necessary administrative details. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the arguments in favour of such a scheme have now been proved.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, perhaps I may express the same sentiments as my noble friend Lord Woolton because I, too, have not played any part in the Committee stage or the Bill's progress to date, but I, too, have read with great interest the Minister's responses to amendments on carcass tagging. Although I have no interest to declare in relation to deer, the subject interests me greatly.
As some noble Lords may know, I have another even greater interest, salmon in Scotland—and I may be involved at some stage in legislation on that. I have had a very quick look at Clause 31 of the Salmon Act 1986 which provides an enabling provision, not too dissimilar to this, to create a dealer licensing scheme. There are about 70,000 rod-caught salmon in Scotland and about 80,000 red deer are killed there annually. I mention that only because that enabling legislation was passed by Parliament and is now on the statute book. I know that the Government have considered that provision since then although they have not found it practical or desirable to apply it. Nevertheless, that enabling legislation is on the statute book should implementing its provisions become either necessary or desirable at any stage. Therefore, I very much support the amendment because I think that such a system may well become desirable, even if introducing it may not be immediately possible now.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for the simple reason that the honest man should have nothing to hide. Many red deer carcasses go under the counter and the more that can be done to make that as difficult as possible, the better.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I believe that subsection (1) of the amendment would be a useful inclusion in the Bill, but I believe that it is probably wrong to set out all the detail now. The deer groups should move not only to tag the deer, but to promote them in the sort of exercise that is now taking place in farming generally in Scotland in relation to beef, lamb and many other products. I believe that the Government should have the power, but that the detail should not be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, powerful arguments were expressed behind the scenes, if not on the Floor of
182
the House, in 1982 when we debated this matter. Those arguments seem to have been enormously strengthened during the past few weeks. I very much agree with all that my noble friend Lord Woolton said about confidence in the meat industry in this country. With those few words of commendation for my noble friend's amendment, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to see his way to accepting some kind of enabling measure along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, when moving his amendment my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that he was not going to rehearse all the arguments that we have usefully gone over in detail at earlier stages, and in responding to the amendment, I shall not go over all the arguments that I have used previously. I accept, as I have at every stage, that there is a strong case for tagging. I accept that I want to keep an open mind on this. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Woolton reminded me that I have done that. My mind remains open on the question of whether a strong case has been made for mandatory tagging as opposed to voluntary tagging by the industry.
The principle behind the proposal, which has been accepted by the Red Deer Commission, was introduced comparatively late in the day in terms of the formulation of the Bill. The Bill was the subject of three or four years of consultation. It was only once the Bill had started its progress through your Lordships' House—at the evidence-taking session in Edinburgh—that deer tagging suddenly became an urgent issue.
I am conscious that the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will impose burdens on the many people in Scotland who have the right to shoot and deal in deer. Questions relating to the administration and enforcement of such a scheme need to be properly thought through. Of the benefits that have been explored at earlier stages, a number of noble Lords have mentioned BSE and traceability. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has pointed out that in the agricultural industry there are traceability systems which are incorporated into quality assurance schemes. Despite some of the animal health problems that have been experienced, to date the traceability procedures have not been compulsory; they have been voluntarily assumed by producers in order to gain market advantage over competitors.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret refers to poaching. Tagging deters poaching, but whether that argument alone or the various benefits that are accumulated make a strong case for mandatory tagging is yet to be discovered. We believe that the case is not absolutely proven.
My noble friend Lord Nickson, who has a very important job and special interest and expertise in salmon, has prayed in aid the Salmon Act 1986. I acknowledge the point that he makes. However, I am glad to see in the Chamber my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The contracting out and deregulation Act, which has been introduced since the Salmon Act, has changed the whole approach of government to new regulatory measures which impose

183
a burden on business, however small those burdens appear to be. Quite rightly, it subjects proposals for such burdens to very careful compliance costs and cost benefit analysis. An essential part of this analysis is a properly conducted process of consultation with all potentially affected parties. That will allow all views to be taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Pearson asked who else there was left to consult. I acknowledge the flood of correspondence, bearing in mind the amount of correspondence that has come through my letter-box in the past few weeks from various organisations which support my noble friend's amendment. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland with the right to shoot deer, I imagine that there are still some people to consult. We wish to consult throughout the chain, from the person with the right to take or kill deer to the point of purchase for retailing on to the public. We wish to ensure that farmers and small land managers who now and then take a roe deer and drive up the road to hang it in their larder are consulted, because if there is no tag on it they will be committing an offence under the amendment as moved by my noble friend. They may do that once every year, or every 10 years, but it will still be an offence.
To reassure my noble friend, I have already alerted my officials that as soon as possible a consultation exercise will be conducted on this matter. Noble Lords in the Chamber who have been involved in creating policy will understand the process that has to be gone through, especially where new regulations are to be imposed. They will understand the need to produce a comprehensive argument with evidence across all bodies affected by such a scheme. The Deer Commission will be asked to look again at the proposals. It has commented upon them only in principle, not in detail. A contribution from that angle will be a vital part of the exercise. I renew my promise that, with sufficient evidence from consultees and various interests who will be affected, Ministers will give a positive consideration to this matter. I also flag up, as I did at Report stage, the ability to use the new fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to seek measures that are required in Scotland which do not involve United Kingdom legislation in order that they can be used on this system. We will consult quickly and widely.
We have available the fast-track procedure for Scottish Bills, if this Bill passes through the other House and this House before the results of the consultation are known. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I ask my noble friend why it is so easy to have consultations with the many people that he rightly wishes to consult but not to accept the amendment. If there is an enabling provision and the consultation proves fruitful, it is a simple matter to press the trigger on enabling legislation. If it is not there, one has to go through the long-winded process of
184
having an amendment to the Bill. Surely it is more sensible to have the enabling provision in the Bill in the first place.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, quite often this House takes a suspicious view of enabling legislation, especially when the need for such legislation has not been proven. I remind my noble friend that we now have a fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. The size of the Bill required for the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will be ideal for such a procedure. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is often wary of future Secretaries of State having enabling powers which may be misused either accidentally or deliberately. I would rather present this legislation to the House at a later date, with the costs and benefits well proven and the burdens on all businesses involved thoroughly analysed, than simply introduce an enabling power for the Secretary of State without the case having been properly scrutinised.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will forgive me if I take his remarks about the deregulation initiative in this country with a pinch of European salt. I remind your Lordships that at the moment there are some 1,500 regulations which pour forth annually from the Brussels monster but do not even see the light of day for debate in your Lordships' House or the other place. I gather that not one of the pieces of deregulation brought forward in this country under the auspices of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have changed one word of any of the articles in the Sunday Telegraph written by Mr. Christopher Booker over the past three or four years on the burdens of overregulation. I trust that my noble friend will accept what I have just said as a general comment.
I thank him for his undertaking to continue the consultancy exercise, which I understand has already been initiated. I hope those noble Lords who support the amendment will wish to keep the pressure on for the fast-track procedure if the consultancy exercise produces the result which we all feel confident it will. With that proviso, and with thanks to my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Interpretation of the principal Act]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("an aircraft") and insert ("a").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, having heard the Minister's explanation of why the amendment would be totally counter-productive, I am not moving it.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
The Bill is an important measure to amend the legislation on deer management in Scotland set out in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 so that this legislation can be better fitted to meet the challenges of today and the new century.
Much has changed since the 1959 Act and since the previous amendment Act in 1982, especially relating to the nature of land use in upland Scotland and the increasing importance society as a whole places on the protection of our natural heritage. The Bill before your Lordships is designed to ensure that deer can continue to thrive as an important part of our natural and cultural heritage yet in harmony with their habitat and with other land uses.
The Bill achieves that aim by making significant changes to the powers and functions of the Deer Commission, to be renamed the Deer Commission for Scotland. The commission henceforth will be responsible for furthering the sustainable management of deer in addition to its existing general functions of furthering their conservation and control. It will now have equivalent powers for all species of deer and be able to exercise them in a manner which takes full account of the characteristics of individual species. It will be subject to a new balancing duty to take into account key issues such as the impact of deer on the natural heritage and the interests of other land uses and owners and occupiers in exercising its functions.
New, more flexible arrangements for the appointment of members of the commission will be introduced, so that the best available candidates can always be chosen. The advisory and research powers of the commission will be broadened and arrangements for appointing advisory local panels made more flexible.
Measures related to the protection of the natural heritage and dangers to public safety will be added to the various powers of the commission to authorise action to control deer. These powers will be in particular strengthened by the detailed provisions in Clause 5 for the commission to promote control agreements.
Clause 9 contains a number of measures to regulate the circumstances in which action can be taken by occupiers and owners, including at night and during the close season, to protect against damage or danger caused by deer. New provisions on close seasons will allow the Secretary of State to set all those by order.
All in all, the package of measures included in this Bill will provide a coherent and consistent framework for ensuring that deer are managed effectively for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the wider community.
The House has subjected to detailed and careful scrutiny the original proposals put before it which were based on proposals put to us by the Deer Commission. I made it clear on Second Reading that I would listen very carefully to suggestions made by your Lordships for improvements to the wording first proposed, and I am very pleased to say that the work we have done
186
together has achieved precisely that. It is a better Bill now as a result of your Lordships' scrutiny than when it arrived with us.
We broke new ground through the work of the Scottish Select Committee which met in Edinburgh in January to take evidence from a wide range of interested parties. I should like to pay a special tribute to the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who I understand from all parties, and indeed saw when giving evidence, ran a productive and useful committee. It aided all the Bill's stages to have had that opportunity. That committee stage allowed many of the noble Lords involved the opportunity to learn more about what is to many a very esoteric subject so that we were all well prepared for our subsequent work.
In Committee and on Report we considered many amendments and accepted a significant number which acted for the most part to clarify the wording of the Bill. We have also accepted a number of important amendments today. I would stress again to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the policy underlying all the clauses has remained the same, but its intention has been clarified through the introduction of various amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has been diligent and thoughtful from the Bill's very first stages. We are grateful to him for the issues he has raised and for expressing his concerns over the consequences that may result to land which has been enclosed for forests or agriculture and the impact that that will have on deer normally resident over that ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expressed a number of concerns. Being a good and honest farmer from Angus, he used turnips in many of his examples of what the Bill will or will not do in relation to the management of deer. I am sorry that his noble friends Lord Mar and Kellie and Lady Robson of Kiddington are not here because they contributed greatly to the Bill's passage. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about the use of the word "servants". The Consolidation Bill, which is almost complete, will address the term "servants", and I hope that any noble Lords who remain uneasy about the use of that term will be reassured.
The experience of many noble Lords of deer management at ground level has been especially useful. I refer especially to my noble friends Lord Astor, Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Woolton, who, the whole House will be delighted to see, made his maiden speech on this Bill. It was a fine maiden speech.
The experience of my noble friend Lord Burton has been missing from every stage of the Bill, which is unusual. But he has been a constant presence through telephone calls and correspondence during the Bill's passage, so that he has played a part in the way that the Bill has proceeded.
I should like also to draw attention to noble Lords who have had previous experience of bringing forward deer legislation in the House. My noble friend Lord Forbes was the Minister in charge of the 1959 Act which

187
this Bill seeks to amend. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur was involved in the 1982 amendment Act. I am grateful to them both for applying their skills and expertise to the Bill. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, is sadly not in his seat now, although he was here earlier this afternoon. He took a keen interest in the Bill, and due to his curiosity about the possible use of contraceptives in deer management he generated interest among the evening newspapers in various Scottish cities which Scottish legislation in your Lordships' House does not usually achieve.
I pay a special tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and to my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Pearson of Rannoch for their continuous commitment to the detail of the Bill and their continuous scrutiny of it to ensure that the Bill's intention is properly set out on the face of the Bill and that that achieves what I, from the Dispatch Box, explained. Some of the most important amendments to Clauses 1 and 4 are the result of the bright light that my three noble friends were able to shine on the matter.
I hope that the Bill will be welcomed and useful, and that the improvements that the House has brought to the Bill will be regarded as having made it a better piece of legislation. I look forward to the consolidation Bill which, in the normal way, will be published shortly after Second Reading in another place. I hope that the Bill will be a considerable improvement for all those involved in deer management and that we will have one document which deals with all the legislation on this subject rather than having to have an amendment Bill in one hand and the original Act in another. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the one person who the Minister could not congratulate was himself. He has done a remarkable job and was courteous at all times. I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly the few on this side of the House, are grateful that he was so courteous.
This is the second Bill with which I have been involved which was outwith the scope of my normal range and experience. When I look across the Chamber, I see almost exactly the same group of noble Lords who discussed a salmon Bill until two o'clock one morning. I then learnt a little about the great Atlantic salmon and so forth and during the past few weeks I have learnt a great deal about deer. I hope that we shall be less esoteric when we next discuss deer.
Someone from my background still has many questions about a Bill such as this. However, we got to know each other very well; we got to know each other's opinions and points of view. It was an experience for which I am extremely grateful. I am pleased that the Bill is now ready to go to another place; but there it may have a slightly rougher time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Minister, who has handled the Bill extraordinarily well. He has co-operated and compromised and has put
188
up with the close lobbying of his noble friends in an admirable manner. I hope that he has not placed a future Secretary of State in a position in which the close knit community of deer managers will present him with only four names which he will be compelled to accept. The Minister assured me that that is not the case and that a flood of names will come forward from the public-spirited body.
It is a good Bill and it will be useful. It achieves one great aim; it brings in the Scottish National Heritage, widens its scope and shows the concern which we all have for our heritage at large as well as the particulars of deer management in Scotland. I wish the Bill well in another place.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister not only on being at the Dispatch Box after a sleepless night in Luxembourg but on the way in which he has handled the Bill. My noble friend has spoken with great clarity and courtesy in carrying out his task of steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. We are all most grateful to him for the way in which he has handled it.
The success of the Bill, which amends the 1959 Act, will depend largely on the members of the Deer Commission for Scotland. I cannot emphasise too strongly that its members must be chosen with the greatest care. They must be chosen for their wisdom rather than their technical or scientific merits. The commission has considerable latitude over any action it takes so the onus is on it to use its wisdom. I look forward to the day when a consolidated Deer (Scotland) Act reaches the statute book.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Forbes and congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on all that he has achieved in getting the Bill to its present state. I endorse all the remarks about the way in which he has handled the Bill. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has listened to all the arguments and has taken matters forward in a way which all of us agree has improved the Bill no end.
He has not been alone in that because others have been associated with the Bill throughout its long gestation period prior to reaching your Lordships' House. For a number of years they have played a large part behind the scenes and have been most helpful to those of us who have taken an interest in the Bill. I remember the intense relief, as I expect does my noble friend Lord Forbes, of reaching this point in respect of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1982 and seeing it on its way to another place. When it came back to your Lordships' House I was not able to take it on but I hope that when this Bill returns my noble friend Lord Lindsay will be able to do so. We all expect that. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to mention that I had the honour and interesting task of being chairman of the Select Committee set up by your Lordships' House to consider the Bill. Since that was an historic occasion, perhaps it

189
deserves a brief mention. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present during the Committee stage but I had the impression that the meeting of the Select Committee in Scotland—that being the historic occasion—was a success. Perhaps this was the ideal piece of legislation to choose as a first for that experiment. It was a matter of great interest to a number of different groups in Scotland. It was not particularly a party political issue. A great deal of preparatory work had been done by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. There was a great willingness to find common ground, not least in the form of the responsiveness of the noble Earl the Minister to everything that was said in the committee. The committee pursued its questioning with a great deal of good humour and I thank my fellow members for that.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I wish first to say a word or two about the Select Committee which was chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. Most of us believe that it was a useful exercise. It provided the opportunity to receive submissions from so many diverse organisations and to clarify various points by questioning their representatives. Then to have all that body's evidence gathered together in one publication was most helpful in later stages of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has one or two constructive suggestions about how such Select Committees might be even more useful. I shall leave that to him.
Most of us are very happy with the Bill as it now stands. The noble Earl was most helpful in meeting some of us in between its various stages. As a result amendments—mostly Government amendments—were tabled to meet all the principal concerns of, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Glenarthur, and myself. No Divisions have taken place. I thank the noble Earl for that; we are most grateful to him. I also thank him for his kind tribute to myself, over which I am still glowing. Finally, I wish the Bill a speedy and uneventful passage through another place from which we all hope it will return in as good condition as it leaves us now.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships by repeating what has been said. Were I to speak at any length I should be repeating everything that has been said so far. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that I might have something to put forward about our Select Committee meeting in Edinburgh. I suggest that it might be helpful if in future such committees which have near unanimity at the end of their proceedings on any particular subject might be allowed to make the briefest of reports to your Lordships' House. I believe that that might have been helpful on this occasion and I can but recommend it to the usual channels or whoever considers the procedure of such committees in future. I believe that if there had been such a report the wish to put welfare onto the face of the Bill in some way and to remove the spectre of helicopters driving deer and causing them great distress would have been one of unanimity.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and I congratulate him on his success in achieving that.
190
The other important changes which he has been able to agree are to clarify the powers of the new commission to enhance the natural heritage on open ground; that will have to be subject to the consent of owners and occupiers in future.
The only thing that remains undone is that the tagging system is not actually with us but it does appear to be on its way and I am sure that most of us wish it well on its journey.
I end by agreeing with something that my noble friend Lord Forbes said which is, of course, that nothing will be more important than the composition of the commission in future. I very much hope that the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House will enable the commission to continue to do the good work which it has started to do over the past few years in collaboration with the Association of Deer Management Groups and Scottish Natural Heritage. With that hope, I wish the Bill well in another place.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described himself as being outside his normal range when he addressed this Bill. Part of the definition which we apply to marauding deer, certainly from the Dispatch Box, is that they are deer which are outside their normal range. I suggest that as a marauding Peer, he did very well. The second part of the definition of marauding deer is that they are not being effectively controlled. But I think that is for the noble Lord's Chief Whip to decide and not for me.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the intention behind the Bill is that a balance is maintained through all the powers of the commission. Without balance, the commission will not command confidence and if it cannot do that, it cannot promote voluntary agreements. Over the past 30 or more years, it has had a tremendous record in relation to promoting voluntary action and there is nothing to suggest that the commission will seek to follow any path other than that which it has trodden so successfully to date.
I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lords who have supported the Bill. For those noble Lords who do not know it, my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lord Glenarthur steered the earlier legislation in this area. My officials advise me that the 1959 Act and the 1982 amendment Act were a great deal more complicated than this modest 1996 Bill. Therefore, I commend them in retrospect for what they achieved with that legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
5.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

191
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Publication at direction of either Commission]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("() The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 5. Clause 5 is concerned with the publication of performance indicators. It is not easy to make the Committee feel that performance indicators are the most exciting thing imaginable. But they are important and they are important because they enable local authorities to demonstrate to their electorates how the local authority has been performing.
Given the fact that the majority of local authorities in this country are now Labour, the performance indicators, when published, will reveal a record of first-class performance for local people. Therefore, I am delighted that in bringing forward this Bill, the Government will enable the many efficient and effective Labour authorities up and down the country to demonstrate how well they are doing in serving their local people.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 1 seeks to introduce a code of practice in order to give wider discretion in the publication of performance indicators. The amendment seeks to permit the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to determine how that may be done. There are precedents for that under Section 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Secretary of State may make regulations to enforce the provisions of a code of practice to cover such matters as annual reports by local authorities. It seems to me that given that there is such a precedent, it would not be a very major step to have also a code of practice governing the publication of performance indicators. There is a precedent for it and it would be a helpful way in which to proceed.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 seek to achieve a similar end by different means; that is, they seek to permit a local authority to publish information about performance indicators possibly in its own publication or periodical if it has one. That would enable the information to be published not merely through free newspapers not owned by local authorities but through free newspapers owned by local authorities. It seems to me that that is quite a sensible step and I do not know why the Minister resisted such a suggestion on Second Reading. After all, private companies publish information for their shareholders in their own
192
publications—in their annual reports and so on. Provided that the publication produced by a local authority reaches sufficiently widely, I cannot see why that is not a proper way in which to publish its own information. I cannot see that there would be any hint of bias in such a local authority paper as regards publishing performance indicators. That would seem to me to be an extremely cost-effective way of ensuring that voters are given information. After all, local authorities do their best to ensure that their own newsletters or publications reach every household, which is more than can be said for the other methods of publication.
Therefore, I should have thought that if the aim is to ensure that performance indicators economically and efficiently reach all people in a local authority area, where the local authority has its own free newspaper or publication which it distributes, that would be an excellent means of achieving that.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned with a slightly different matter. In Clause 5, conditions are imposed on free newspapers before they qualify for having performance indicators published in them. Those conditions are somewhat more onerous than those imposed on paid-for newspapers. There is not a distribution condition which applies to paid-for newspapers but such a condition applies to free newspapers in that they must have a circulation sufficient to reach the majority or all of the people in an area.
Therefore, a free newspaper would have to be extremely well distributed whereas a paid-for newspaper would not have to be. The point of Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 is to achieve similar distribution conditions for free newspapers as for paid-for newspapers. That merely levels the playing field as regards those two sets of publications.
I hope that the Government will consider the earlier amendments. It seems to me that having established a basis for distributing performance indicators to local people, it would be sensible to adopt these amendments as an improved way in which to achieve such distribution if the local authority has a newspaper and chooses to use it rather than choosing the other methods suggested in Clause 5. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I apologise to the Committee for not being in my normal place. I broadly support the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has brought forward, and I do so for two main reasons. First, it seems to me impossible for any local authority to exercise any power over a newspaper, whether free or not, to distribute its product anywhere that it does not wish to distribute it. Therefore, I do not see how you can exercise upon a free newspaper any kind of means to ensure that it reaches, as it says in the Bill, each household, each dwelling.
In fact, I would like to ask the noble Earl the Minister what he considers to be the reasonable steps which local authorities should take to ensure that newspapers are delivered to each dwelling. I would also like to ask him what the Government suppose the criteria for a local

193
authority's success in this matter would be. Would the local authority be proved to be successful if the free journal reached 70 per cent. of dwellings, 50 per cent. of dwellings, or 30 per cent. of dwellings? What is the criteria for success and, if the Bill goes through, will we be leaving it to the courts?
My second point relates to what I take to be the main aim of the amendment, which is in one way or another to achieve the ability for local authorities to use their own publications to circulate information about performance indicators. I believe that would be an excellent idea for the following reasons. First, it is one way to ensure that the publication actually does reach each dwelling, and I believe it is the only way of doing so. Secondly, legislation already exists and the code, if that is the method that we adopt, could reinforce this to prevent such publications from taking on a party political tone. Thirdly—this is something people have not talked about before—in those areas, at least, where a two-tier system has persisted despite the Government's best efforts and where the responsibility for allied services are divided, the publication of a joint publication by both county and district authorities could reduce the total cost of informing local people and contribute to the enhancement of the two-tier system which the Local Government Commission recommended.
I support these amendments and I suspect that, even if the Government reject them today, the ideas that they represent may appear sooner or later in the legislative process.
Earl Ferrers: First, let me say how distressing it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, sitting where she is and not in her normal position on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thought for one moment that she might have left them behind but, no, she has not; she merely finds herself sitting in a wheelchair as opposed to on a seat on the Bench. I am sure that the Committee would extend their sympathies to the noble Baroness for her indisposition.
I enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as one always does. Then, all of a sudden, he went off and he banged the drum for the Labour Party in the most astonishing way in an extraordinary extravaganza of imagination. He was saying that he was looking forward so much to reading of all the wonderful work that the Labour Party has done and the local authorities have done—let it all be published and then everyone can see how good they are. That is a very good thing and, of course, it is exactly what we want to see as a result of this Bill.
The amendments which the noble Lord has put down do not come as any great surprise to us because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will no doubt be aware if he read the proceedings in another place—I have no doubt that he did—they were put down in another place, too. However, I am bound to reiterate the argument which my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment put forward in another place.
194
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, and I share a common objective in this matter. The objective is to ensure that local authorities publish information about their performance in a way which is unbiased and which informs the people in their area. We think that the Bill as drafted at present achieves this by providing that the publication must be subject to independent editorial control.
The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his Amendment No. 1, that the Secretary of State should issue a code of practice for the publication of performance information, might be used to the same ends, but we must consider what would be involved in that kind of measure. First, it would land local government and the Government with more regulation. That would mean more intervention; we would need yet another code of practice, and that would mean more bureaucracy. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, likes that kind of thing, but I doubt that she does. I am quite sure that her party does not, either. Of course, the party of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, loves that kind of thing, and that is probably why he put down the amendment. However, we do not agree with that, and I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it does not attract us very much.
The code of practice would need to specify not just what information should be included, but also what information must not be included. One might ask, for example: how would a code deal with the Government's concerns that the indicators should provide independent information about an authority's performance? One might ask also: would a code allay the suspicions which the public may have about statistics which councils publish in their own publications? Would the publication need to be what one might describe as a stand-alone document? That would mean more expense for local authorities.
I have no doubt at all that the Government's way is better. Local authorities and Parliament will be in no doubt whatever about the publication requirements and they will not face the possibility of changes to those requirements from year to year. I do not think that we wish to increase the level of interference.
Of course, the remainder of the noble Lord's amendments are closely tied to the first one. The removal of the distribution requirement in subsection (3) and the independence requirements in subsections (3) and (5) could mean that local authorities could publish performance information in an in-house newspaper, which not only was editorially biased, but which might also have only a very limited distribution. That would entirely negate the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve.
We believe that, whatever forms of publication are chosen by a local authority, the information about its performance, as measured against the Audit Commission's indicators, should at least he available throughout its area in a publication which is wholly independent of the authority. We attach considerable importance to that information being readily available to all those who wish to obtain it, and to it being available in a context where an authority cannot seek to

195
put its own gloss on the results of its own performance. Of course, it is entirely open to the authority to publish this kind of additional information about its performance. In addition to publishing it in a newspaper of independent editorial concept, it can also publish it perfectly easily in an in-house journal which is delivered to the public. Some authorities have produced their information in a very good and a very understandable way, and I congratulate them on that. The point is that that should not be the only way in which to transmit the information.
The picture which emerged from the second national publication is one in which many of last year's worst performers have risen to the challenge of improving the services which they provide. That is the purpose of publishing the information, and I congratulate the local authorities on that. Perhaps those were the local authorities which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had in mind—the ones that had done so well and had made such an improvement on last year because, perhaps, they had not done so well in the previous year.
The increase in flexibility in the minimum publication requirements—in other words the ability to publish in a free newspaper—which is contained in this Bill is intended to assist local authorities in the publishing of their performance indicators, and members of the public in having access to them. One of the reasons for that is that free newspapers often reach more people because they are free than do paid for newspapers which have to be bought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how an authority could know whether the free newspapers would reach people. The authority has to check with the editor of the free newspaper to ascertain whether the paper is distributed throughout the area—that is the important point. If the authority is satisfied by the editor's assurance that the paper is distributed throughout the area, and if, subsequently, the paper fails to be delivered, or some houses do not receive it by mistake, or there are publication difficulties, the local authority cannot be criticised. The noble Baroness asked about publication in areas which have retained a two-tier system. The performance indicators demonstrate local authority performance against a decision by elected members. The county and district each have a duty to report separately to their electors, but the two authorities could share the cost of publication by, say, taking out an advertisement together.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was worried that the distribution requirements for free newspapers could be more onerous than for newspapers for sale. I do not think that one can have a distribution requirement for newspapers for sale. The public make a choice when they buy a newspaper. The point about buying a newspaper is that it is independent of a local authority. While I understand the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I hope that they will agree that all
196
those concerns can be met by the local authority publishing its information in its own paper, provided that it also publishes it in an editorially free newspaper.
Lord Dubs: That was interesting. I was surprised when the Minister said I was tub-thumping for the Labour Party. I made the mildest of pro-Labour council comments. If the Minister thinks that was an example of my making full scale pro-Labour Party comments, I am afraid that he has not heard me when I really want to do that. The Minister said that the amendments happen to resemble those that were put forward in another place on this Bill. That may or may not be a coincidence, but they were tabled because I had hoped better of the Government in this place than the Government achieved in the other place. Sadly, I am disappointed.
The Minister said that he was against too much interference and bureaucracy as regards local authorities, and suggested that I liked bureaucracy. I certainly do not; I dislike bureaucracy very much indeed. However, the Minister is setting up a complicated bureaucratic system. I put it to him and to the Committee that my amendments would lessen the bureaucratic load on local authorities rather than increase it. Let us consider Clause 5. As regards free newspapers, Clause 5(4)(a) states, with regard to the condition imposed on local authorities, that they should,
"take all reasonable steps to secure that a copy of a publication containing the information is distributed to each dwelling in their area".
It is quite a burden for local authorities to establish that a paper is distributed to each dwelling in their area when that newspaper is not within their control, and indeed when they might have the choice of using a newspaper for sale where they do not have to worry whether it is distributed widely. It might be distributed in a narrow area. The Minister said that if a local authority's own publication was used, there would be the danger that a local authority would put its own gloss on the performance indicators. However, he then said that there is nothing to stop a local authority from using its own publication provided the information also went into one of the other publications specified in the Bill. He thereby conceded that if a local authority wanted to put its own gloss on the figures it could certainly do so. That does not seem to make much logical sense. I have a feeling that the Minister's heart was not in it because it does not stand up as an argument. I should like the Minister to say a little more before I decide what to do with my amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall comment further. I shall be more than delighted to help the noble Lord. He said that his observations were merely mild pro-Labour Party comments. That is fine; I understand that. I shall watch out for the blast when he really gets going and I shall take cover! The noble Lord said that he thought better of the Government in this place than in another place. It is gracious of him to say that and I am sure that was a personal compliment that he was making to me. However, he will realise that

197
governments tend to have a unified view as regards this place and another place. However, the exposition of it may be slightly different. That is the reason that I did not feel I could accept the noble Lord's amendment. I thought the phrase he used was charming when he said that if we accepted his amendment that would do away with bureaucracy. What is the very first amendment the noble Lord has tabled? His Amendment No. 1 states,
"The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State".
I shall let the noble Lord into a little secret. Since I have been in the Department of the Environment, I have seen codes of practice that appear on my desk which are submitted for approval. They are usually vast documents. I keep on saying that we should think of the people who have to read those documents. They are enormous great documents which state exactly what is to be done, how and why it is to be done, and who should do it, and other such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggests that we should produce another one. It will be quite simple but it might be half an inch thick and all his local authority councillors will have to read through the wretched document—and what for?—to find out whether they can publish the information in their in-house newspaper. That is a waste of time. They can publish all the information they want in the in-house newspaper provided they also put it in other local newspapers.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was lost in imagination as to how an authority might publish the facts and possibly put a gloss on them. He did not seem to think that was at all conceivable, but then he went on to say that it was perfectly all right for them to put a gloss on the facts if they published that in a newspaper for sale. He therefore admits that they might put a gloss on the facts because if they can do that provided they put the facts in a newspaper for sale they can also do it if the facts are not in a newspaper for sale. The noble Lord made the argument against his case, hook, line and—if I may say so—sinker.
I do not think that the noble Lord has his heart in this. Now he is talking to the noble Baroness on his Benches because he is trying to inveigle her into getting involved. However, I do not think she will because her heart is not in it, either. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows perfectly well that if we proceed with the Bill as it stands all a local authority has to do is to publish the information either in a newspaper for sale or in a free newspaper, and in the local authority's newspaper—with a gloss, if the local authority wishes to put such a gloss on the information, which I am sure not even a Labour authority would wish to do as it would wish to give the facts—and then everyone will be satisfied.
Lord Dubs: I shall read Hansard tomorrow with great interest because in referring to putting a gloss on information, I was quoting what the Minister had said. If my memory is right—and I am pretty confident that it is—the Minister said the trouble with only publishing in local authority newspapers is that local authorities will be tempted to put a gloss on the information. I then suggested that if the Minister was happy that local
198
authorities should publish the information in their own newspapers provided they also published it in others, he was saying that the gloss did not matter.
However, if the Minister is against codes of practice, I would refer him to a previous code of practice concerning the publication of financial statements and annual reports by local authorities which was published in February 1981. If the Minister is against the suggestion in this amendment, he is presumably against things that the Department of the Environment was putting out some years ago. However, there is a simple answer. The Minister needs only to accept my other amendments which do not cover a code of practice but which simply say that the local authority may publish in its own newspaper if it so wishes. I fear that the Minister is not to be persuaded this evening. I deeply regret that but I feel it would be wrong to take up any more of the Committee's time in what is a matter of some importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
6.21 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES(Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Caravans and boats occupied as sole or main residence]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(4A) Subsection (3) or (4) above does not have effect in the case of a pitch occupied by a caravan, or a mooring occupied by a boat, which is an appurtenance enjoyed with other property to which subsection (1)(a) above applies.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to show that we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, sometimes; and, incidentally, to ensure that pitches occupied by caravans or moorings occupied by boats which are part of a larger domestic property—such as a house with a river frontage with mooring—will be considered as appurtenances to the main property. They will, therefore, be domestic property. Without this amendment any such pitches or moorings would be non-domestic property and subject to non-domestic rates. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Clearly, I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for having responded to what was said at Second Reading and for the letter that he sent me explaining in some detail the thinking underlying the amendment.

199
In so far as I understand the technicalities, I believe that it is an improvement on the Bill. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or 1st April 1995") and insert ("1st April 1995 or 1st April 1996").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 3. These amendments apply the Bill's provisions to the new post-reorganisation rating lists in Wales. These lists will have effect from 1st April 1995 but were compiled on 1st April 1996. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("1st April 1995 (as the case may be)") and insert ("in the case of lists compiled on 1st April 1995 or 1st April 1996, from 1st April 1995").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996
6.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the order, I shall speak to the other two orders on the Order Paper.
When SERPS was introduced in 1978, the government of the time recognised that some employers already provided good quality pension schemes—good quality meaning offering defined benefits based on salary, as indeed did SERPS. Those that could show they offered benefits as good as those in SERPS—the guaranteed minimum pension or GMP test—were rewarded for continuing to do so by giving employers and employees in such schemes the right to pay a reduced rate of national insurance contributions. Thus the contracted-out rebate was born.
If I may continue the history lesson for a little longer, the present Government saw the potential further to encourage pension provision by the private sector through allowing money purchase schemes run by employers to contract out and by giving employees with no occupational pension the opportunity to provide for themselves through appropriate personal pensions. The rebate given as an incentive to these schemes from 1988 opened up new options for individuals and employers at the same time as averting a major public spending crisis
200
in the next century, when the burden of pay-as-you-go funding for SERPS was set to fall on a much smaller working age population.
We have continued to take initiatives to strengthen private sector pension provision, and the Pensions Act 1995 was a major exercise in improving the security of pension schemes. We also took the opportunity to make the system of contracting out more attractive.
This brings me to the recent past. The complexity of administration of GMPs for contracted-out salary related schemes, the implications of the Barber case and the unsuitability of the flat rate rebate for money purchase arrangements led us to overhaul the contracting-out arrangements.
We responded to complaints of complexity by breaking the current links between state and private second tier provision. For salary related schemes, we introduced a new test of overall scheme quality that threw off the tortuous complexities of the GMP system; and we designed a system of age-related rebates for those contracting out on a money purchase basis specifically tailored to meet the needs of this type of pension provision.
This brings me to the orders that are on the table before us today. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the contracting-out terms at least every five years. In this case we have reviewed after four in order to implement the Pensions Act reforms from 6th April 1997.
The current rebate was set in 1993. At that time the uncertainties surrounding the Barber case led us to consider the value of GMP accruals over the following three years only; we subsequently allowed that rebate to continue until reviewed under the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995.
The independent Government Actuary issued a consultation document in August last year. He took account of the responses to that document in preparing his report to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has taken account of his advice in preparing his own proposals, which were laid before the House together with the three orders and the Government Actuary's report on 13th March.
This setting of the rebate is a technical actuarial matter, but I shall do my best to unravel some of the mysteries that lie behind these orders in my explanation. I will take the contracted-out salary related (COSR) rebate order first, and then the other two orders, each of which have similar considerations.
The current rebate is based on the cost to salary related schemes of providing a guaranteed minimum pension and at the last review was set at 4.8 per cent. Of this 1.8 per cent. goes to employees and 3 per cent. to the employer.
The new rebate is calculated on a different basis—the cost of providing benefits of an actuarial value equivalent to the SERPS given up. This makes the COSR rebate higher than it would have been if reviewed again under the previous system, as it must reflect the greater liabilities now undertaken by schemes which contract out—for example, inflation proofing.
The Government Actuary took account of these and other reforms to the contracting-out system from 1997 along with the changes in SERPS provision and up-to-date actuarial assumptions. He reached the conclusion that the appropriate rebate for COSR schemes would be 4.6 per cent. from April 1997. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley considered his advice and decided to set the rebate at that level. We propose that 1.6 per cent. should go to the employee; as now 3 per cent. will go to the employer.
Currently some 10 million people are members of salary-related schemes and these form a key element of pension provision in the UK. We remain committed to the widest possible choice of pension provision and believe our proposals will ensure a sound basis for their continuing operation and development.
I turn now to the proposed age-related rebates for those who contract out into appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes. Those who contract out of SERPS at present in either of these two ways receive the same flat rate rebate as those in salary-related schemes, except that those aged 30 or over with a personal pension receive an additional 1 per cent. A flat-rate rebate does not suit the needs of older people with personal pensions, as the initial investment has to be higher to match the state pension forgone the nearer a person gets to retirement. This extra amount recognises the need for the rebate to be higher for such people.
We have said for some time that age-related rebates are the next logical step. The orders before us relating to COMPS (contracted out money purpose schemes) and personal pensions set out for each the respective age-related rebates for each the next five years, starting in April 1997. The COMPS rebates will range in the first year from 3.1 per cent. of relevant earnings for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent. They will be available partly as a flat-rate 3.1 per cent. deduction from national insurance contributions; this deduction will be split, with 1.6 per cent. for employees and 1.5 per cent. going to the employer. Any additional age-related payment up to the total ceiling of 9 per cent. will be paid directly to the scheme by the Department of Social Security at the end of the tax year.
The rebates for personal pensions will, as at present, be paid directly to the member's scheme at the end of each tax year. The rates will vary in the first instance from 3.4 per cent. for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent. We have capped both types of age-related rebate at 9 per cent. rather than allow rebates at much higher levels for older scheme members during the early years of the scheme. But we have nevertheless ensured that the great majority of those already with appropriate personal pensions should be best advised to remain with them both now and in the future. By imposing a 9 per cent. cap we have been mindful of restraining the cost to the taxpayer of all this too.
We have also sought value for money in deciding on the level of expenses and charges of pension providers to be used in calculating these age-related rebates. Necessary and reasonable charges and expenses of providers and the correct amount to be invested on
202
behalf of the member are both crucial in calculating appropriate levels of rebate. In deciding this we have taken the Government Actuary's advice on what were the charges of the more efficient providers. This again reflects our aim to be fair to pension holders, pension providers and taxpayers alike.
I firmly maintain that we have in these orders successfully achieved those intentions in setting the age-related rebates at a level that should ensure that those who have contracted out through money purchase or personal pension schemes will find it worth their while to continue to do so.
I hope I have been able to shed sufficient light on these three orders to show your Lordships why we are confident that these measures will help us to meet our commitment to maintaining and, where possible, increasing levels of contracting out, without unduly burdening the public purse. The cost to the taxpayer in the first year of the new rebate will be £7.7 billion in terms of revenue forgone by the National Insurance Fund. However, by 2020 we expect annual savings to the National Insurance Fund in SERPS expenditure to outweigh the annual revenue then forgone on the rebate. By 2030 we anticipate savings nearly double the costs and by 2050 savings some three times greater than costs. That represents a major burden which we have lifted from future generations.
Thanks to the success of our policies up until now, over three-quarters of employees have already opted out of SERPS into non-state schemes of one kind or another, where their money is invested to pay for their pensions when they retire. In the meantime the money strengthens the economy by injecting long-term savings. The total value of investment in British pension funds is nearly £600 billion. As your Lordships have heard me say before, that is not just more than any other country in Europe but more than all the other member states put together. The OECD suggests that the UK may be able to repay its national debt and start to accumulate assets by 2030, leaving us better placed than almost any other country to meet the challenges of global competition in the next century.
Our proposals build on these undoubted strengths. Continuing to make available as wide a choice as possible of contracting-out routes, they are based firmly on the continuing partnership between the state and the private sector. Giving maximum scope for individuals to provide for their future, they meet the needs of taxpayers present and future. Our proposals underpin the almost uniquely strong position of the UK in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for explaining the regulations to us. They show that personal pensions remain a bad deal for so many people that the Government are artificially having to make them more attractive by bribing existing and potential personal pension holders with more of our—the taxpayers'—money to keep them.

203
We all want people to hold a second-tier pension. It is the only way of ensuring and enjoying an old age above the margin of poverty. We all accept that a good occupational pension is the most desirable of second pensions. For those on lower incomes, SERPS may provide the same kind of security; or it would have done if, since 1979, the Government had not progressively raided it, both to save government money and to make private pensions artificially and comparatively more attractive. In consequence, under this Government we have seen SERPS cut from the best 20 years to 40 years, every year but five, as well as an annual rather than an end-of-scheme valuation. Together, those have almost halved the value of SERPS. Even so, SERPS remains appropriate for people on relatively low incomes in secure occupations without an occupational pension. However, in future SERPS may have to be made more secure against government raiding.
The third option has always been personal pensions. Again, no one disputes that they meet a real need in the market, for the better off, for those who are self-employed and for those who are highly mobile. In other words, they are for those who do not have a conventional employer and have to or can afford to dispense with the employer's contribution. Had that niche market been addressed and had personal pensions been properly regulated, there need have been no problem with either approved personal pensions or the right to recycle the standard SERPS rebate. Instead, we have seen hungry, commission-only salesmen whose companies have willingly turned a blind eye to dubious practices.
A similarly blind eye from an indulgent Government has put us in the following situation. First, we have seen the marketing of approved personal pensions to the wrong people: those on low incomes who were persuaded out of good occupational schemes and out of SERPS, to their disadvantage. Secondly, as a consequence, those APP providers have been found to be so inefficient that even the best providers top-slice at least 15 per cent. in charges and the inefficient double or nearly treble that in some cases. Thirdly, some two-thirds of those holding APPs only, and merely, recycle their rebate. Many are in and out of work and cannot keep up regular premiums. Therefore, sadly, many people will find that APPs will not float them off poverty in old age.
Therefore, finally, the Government have realised, as pension holders themselves are realising, that for many it would be financially prudent to rejoin SERPS because of the poor deal that they get from APPs. As the Government are anxious that SERPS should not become an ambulance to casualties of private pensions, they are throwing additional rebates at APPs, not because APPs and their providers are good providers of pensions but because they are bad; not because they are efficient but because they have proved inefficient; not because people want to remain in them but precisely because people may not. Consequently, the taxpayer is having to contribute some £300 million, we suspect, this year to
204
bribe people with their own money to stay in schemes which would otherwise probably damage their financial health.
Let me spell out those points a little further. First, personal pensions (APPs) have been sold to the wrong people. Those with personal pensions may be worse off if their income is low—say, below £10,000 a year; if they are too old to benefit because the pension does not have time to accrue; if they cannot maintain regular contributions; if they are in and out of work; or if they are women, who tend to get lower private pensions for the same level of contributions or annuity rates. As my honourable friend Mr. Denham made clear in another place, every one of those fears has materialised. We find that something like 3.6 million people—60 per cent. of all personal pension holders in 1993–94—had less than £10,000 a year in average income. For women holding personal pensions the average income was £6,300. We also find that nearly half a million of the holders are over 45. In addition, since 1987–88, nearly half of those who bought personal pensions have failed to make regular contributions each year since.
In consequence, if APPs are funded merely by recycling this rebate, they will be insufficient to take people out of poverty. We fear that that may apply to something like two-thirds of those holding such pensions. As we found when we discussed the Pensions Bill last year, the best advice was that unless people can afford to make voluntary contributions over and above a rebate taking them up to something like 15 per cent., it will not be sufficient to provide for their old age. By definition, those who are poorest, those who are often unemployed and women with interrupted work, are least likely to make voluntary contributions and least likely to benefit from APPs in their old age, and may still need income support.
This situation has been made worse by charges. It would be bad enough, pensions having been sold to the wrong people, if APPs were efficiently provided. But the record has been disastrous. According to the Government Actuary, the typical figures (not the most efficient provider, but not the least efficient either: presumably the median) suggest that, on an income of £10,000 with the SERPS rebate being recycled, between a quarter and one-third of the money saved is being top-sliced in charges if a person is around 40 with 25 years to go to statutory pension age. We should remember that the average income for women is only £6,300; and for someone on £7,000, charges can take anything from 25 per cent. (the more efficient) to 40 per cent. or more of the payments at the age of 40. Some will do better, some will do worse, according to age, gender, income and provider. But in all cases where we are dealing with incomes under £10,000 we are likely to see at least a quarter of the savings top-sliced, and nearly half of the savings top-sliced in costs. For those who put in simply a single premium or an intermittent premium, the whole of that will be taken out in charges. It is a straight gift to the commission-hungry salesman and to the company, and nothing remains in the bank.
How many people on an income of £7,000 a year would have entered into a personal pension plan at the age of 40 had they appreciated that in some cases 40 per

205
cent. of what they were recycling or saving was being wiped out in charges? It is worse still, compared to SERPS. For someone in SERPS who is unemployed for a year and cannot make a contribution, or whose earnings fall below the income threshold for two and three years, nonetheless the existing contributions are fully protected. They are ring-fenced, and people are not charged. But for those in a personal pension scheme, fees continue to be charged per year to manage a pre-existing asset whether or not additional contributions are made. So each and every year people see their capital being top-sliced, top-sliced and top-sliced in fees. They see it diminishing, as they stand there looking for work, steadily depleting what has been built up.
As for women, they are hit three times over by the Government's personal pension schemes. First, they are more likely to have low earnings—as I say, the average is £6,300. Secondly, their income is more likely to be interrupted as a result of work patterns and family responsibilities, while charges nonetheless continue to top-slice what they have put away. Thirdly, women will receive a lower pay-out because, unlike SERPS, where the same is received whether a person is male or female because there are no actuarial considerations involved, in APPs the payment will be less. So women are hurt because they are more likely to have lower incomes, because the charges continue when they are not so likely to be in work and because at the end of the day they will receive a lower sum. These are the people the Government have encouraged the personal pension providers to take into portable personal pensions. It has been an absolute disaster.
This means that, as the Government have belatedly woken up to the fact, if such people are not to rejoin SERPS the Government have to increase the attractiveness of staying with the personal pension by increasing the rebates that can be recycled to fund it. In other words, in a desperate effort to keep personal pensions afloat, the Government are having to pay for the management costs and charges of inefficient providers so that more of the rebate stays as savings and less is grabbed by the company. That might be fine—except that they are doing it with our money, the taxpayers' money: £300 million of it. So far the Government have spent over a billion pounds of our money to persuade low earners to leave SERPS, even though, alas, many will remain in poverty.
The Government have got themselves into the most awful mess. We see their pensions policy unravelling before our eyes. They are having to throw additional money at the problem. (This is one area where the Government clearly think that the problem is solved by throwing money at it.) But it will not be solved. Although additional money is being provided, it will still not be enough—nor can it be—to remedy the plight of those who are with the worst providers. Even with the additional rebates they will still find themselves facing poverty in old age—all to avoid a return to SERFS which this additional rebate may not postpone.
So we have a government pensions policy, first, to cut the value of the state pension relative to earnings from 22 per cent. value in 1979 to 14 per cent. today;
206
secondly, we have seen the Government chop away at SERPS, which would otherwise, in 2040, have been worth £173 and will now be worth only some £107 under the Tories; thirdly, to encourage private provision at all cost. It is now clear that that cost is considerable.
At considerable cost to the taxpayer, we have ended up with a scheme that pays to the poorest more taxpayers' money to take them out of SERFS into APPs, while still almost certainly having to give them additional money when they reach pension age because a recycled APP will not float them off income support. What a waste of taxpayers' money and their money. And what a desperate situation for those who will see their savings whittled away by the false promises of government and the false prospectuses of providers. It is a sad and sorry story.
Earl Russell: My Lords, every time I hear the word "SERPS" I start feeling a bit like Laocoon. It is not a simple creation; it tends to mirror the mind of its creator whose worst enemy would never have described him as simple minded.
I shall not follow the Minister and the noble Baroness into a long argument about contracting out. I have heard that argument in this House at least 10 times before and it tends to grow in the telling. In any case, as I understand it, it is not directly relevant to the orders before the House today. Those orders are simply a matter of fixing rates according to the recommendations of the Government Actuary.
I do not propose to make a complaint about the Government taking the advice of the Government Actuary. I will ask the Minister about one thing that he said in his speech. In the contracting-out money purchase order, he said what I suspected on looking at the figures as set out in the order; that is, that the Government have decided to treat the rate of 9 per cent. as a cap. I understand the Minister's argument for having a cap, without at present passing judgment on it. What I want to know is why he fixed that rate at 9 per cent. Why not 8 per cent? Why not 10 per cent.? Maybe there is an answer; maybe there is not; but if there is one I would be interested to hear it.
Also, somebody should draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which, as usual, we owe a great deal. It noticed a drafting error in the primary legislation on which the salary related contracting-out scheme is based. The wording of the section left out the words "or (b)". The effect of that was to make it apply only to the employee's share of the rebate and not to the employer's share. The committee believes that it was clearly the intention of Parliament to refer to both percentages and thinks that it should be treated as a manifest mistake on the face of the Act. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I do not mean to make a meal out of this matter at the moment because the rebate percentage for employers has not, in any event, been altered. It does not affect the vires of the order. But if the mistake, as is alleged, has been made, at some stage before we leave things set in stone for too long, there should be a miscellaneous provisions Bill in which this question could be addressed. I do not know whether the Minister has

207
anything to say on that. Mistakes happen to all of us; one does not make a meal of them but they need to be put right.
I agree that in 1995 the security of personal pension funds was improved. I am not sure that it was improved enough. There is probably still a good deal to do in that area. Indeed, we have not even done all that was set out in the Goode Report, a subject to which we must return and give our attention. It should be clear that there is an employee trustee and a pensioner trustee and the other trustees should not have the power to dismiss them. There should not be schemes which are open only to directors and to which other people cannot get access. There should also be, before and not after we experience another scandal, a really effective compensation fund so that the next time we have a Maxwell—and it will happen again because sin goes on—we have equipment ready to deal with it rather than having to look at emergency provisions.
With those few remarks I shall not detain the House on what are themselves, however great the arguments behind them, quite small orders.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their welcome, at least to those parts of the orders with which they agree. I do not believe that there was too much disagreement on COSRs; the disagreement from the noble Baroness came from the order on COMPS and perhaps in particular from the order on personal pensions.
I shall deal with the technical point, though it is equally a serious point, raised by the noble Earl in relation to the observation of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that there was an error in the Pensions Act. As is so often the case, the noble Earl is quite right about that. I am surprised that he did not spot the error in the original Act but I suppose he was not actually dealing with the original Act for his party and that excuses him. However, it does not excuse the rest of us who took part in the passage of that Act. I fear that there was a mistake and nobody spotted it. I should like to blame the word processor and perhaps that is where I shall stand.
What happened, without going into detail, was that the important words "and (b)" were omitted from the Act when they should have been included. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments rightly points out that if we take the whole of the section together, it is clear that it should refer to (a) and (b); (a) being the employee's share and (b) being the employer's share. The joint committee accepted that that was the meaning of the Act and that we should work on that basis.
The noble Earl asks whether we will take the opportunity to correct that error at the earliest opportunity. In fact we do not need to do that. The specific part of the Act where the error occurs is relative to the transitional position. As we stand here this evening, this is the transitional position and after this the error effectively disappears for subsequent reviews
208
under the Pensions Act. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness therefore that at least we do not need another Pensions Bill to correct this error.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister is prepared to make the same sort of concession as his noble friend Lord Lucas made to my noble friend Lord Dubs, I would welcome such a Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness should not push her luck too far.
The noble Earl asked how the figure of 9 per cent. for the cap was arrived at. Essentially, the setting of the cap at this level means that most current appropriate personal pensions holders are able to maintain their plans until retirement without imposing excessive cost on public funds. A balance therefore had to be selected between trying to make sure that people were encouraged to stay in their personal pension schemes as they got older and making sure also that one was not putting too much money across from the national insurance contribution fund to personal pension holders. As the noble Earl will note, over time, as each year progresses, fewer years—if I may describe them like that—at the top end down to the 9 per cent. are capped. In time, five years and then another five years as each quinquennium progresses, the 9 per cent. would drop off if governments maintained the same kind of arrangements into the future. That is the reason we selected 9 per cent.
The noble Earl went a bit further than the provisions before us by addressing the protections in the Pensions Act for pension schemes against people like Robert Maxwell. There is already a compensation fund. As I have described before—I will take a second to do it again as the noble Earl raises the matter and it is important—the defences operate at a number of levels. There is a compensation fund if all else fails and there has been distinct cheating. Also, OPRA will be there; indeed, it has just been set up with the chairman, chief executive and members appointed. Duties have been placed on auditors and scheme professionals to blow the whistle to OPRA if they see anything irregular occurring in the fund, as can members of the scheme or trustees if they feel that there is something wrong or something has not been properly done. They, too, can blow the whistle by reporting the scheme to OPRA and OPRA will then investigate. The employer trustees are another line of defence, as is the minimum funding requirement. We believe that, taken together, the OPRA schemes and, more importantly, the pensioners and prospective pensioners have better protection than they had before the Act and before Goode.
I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who seemed to say that the Government's pension policy was "unravelling before our eyes". The Opposition's pension policy is not even ravelling, let alone unravelling. We are still waiting for it. I am not too sure if, in the midst of the attack on personal pensions, I got the flavour of the fact that Mr. Chris Smith, when he announces the Opposition's pension policy, may well say that they intend to abolish personal pensions. It will be interesting to know whether

209
that is the kind of commitment I can rightly assume emerges from the noble Baroness's clear dislike of personal pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister, I am sure not deliberately, misstates my position. It was not a clear dislike of personal pensions. I made it very clear that there is a niche in the market for personal pensions—for those who are better off, for those who are mobile and for those who are self-employed. My criticism of personal pensions—I am delighted to spend another 10 minutes repeating it if the Minister does not recall what I said—is that the Government have encouraged them to be targeted at people who could not afford them, that personal pensions for them would not float them off poverty and that too heavy a slice of those personal pensions was going in charges—up to 40 per cent. of people's savings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have lifted a little corner of the veil over the Opposition's pensions policy—they do not dislike personal pensions. That was not the flavour that came over to me, but I am happy to accept that and to accept the Opposition into the same group as those of us who believe that personal pensions have an appropriate part to play in pension provision for all our people.
The noble Baroness made a number of points about the personal pension scheme. She attacked our rebates on a number of grounds. The decision as to whether the pension is a good buy depends on a lot of circumstances and not, if I may say to the noble Baroness, just on the level of income the person has at that time. We are keen to encourage people to contribute as best they can to their pension. There is no firm evidence that so-called rebate-only personal pensions are unsuitable for specific types of employees. Neither low earnings nor time out of the employment market necessarily mean that their final personal pension will not be as high as the SERPS they would have received if they had stayed in SERPS. Quite often the effect of charges on a pension fund is more than outweighed by the investment performance. For example, pension funds over the past 15 years have managed a real rate of growth per year of nearly 10 per cent. and providers' charges vary too. If people have a personal pension, even if it starts off by being a rebate-only one, at least they have the vehicle into which they can put additional contributions if they are able to do so at any time in their working life. Therefore they are on their way to providing a better pension provision than just remaining with SERPS.
Personal pension charges do indeed vary and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, since January 1995 changes have been made. Providers have been required to set out their charges in their promotional literature and in the key feature documents issued at the time of sale. Indeed, a PIA recent report said there was some evidence that companies are charging less and that they are improving what they pay if a policy is surrendered early or transferred. Our publicity advice clearly advises potential investors in personal pensions to shop around
210
by talking to an independent financial adviser or several advisers tied to individual companies. We are sure that that is the way to explore what is on offer.
With regard to where the expenses have been pitched, we have made allowance for reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers. We have not incorporated any allowance for flat rate charges. We have not taken the average. We have looked at the more efficient personal pension providers when we have come to the conclusion about how much the expenses part of the rebate should be.
It was said that the age-related rebates are just another example of a bribe to keep people out of SERPS. At present appropriate personal pensions become less attractive for contracting out of SERPS as people get older simply because there is less time for the investment to gather interest and to grow the nearer one gets to retirement age. These age-related rebates will ensure that most of those who are already contributing to an appropriate personal pension will continue to do so for the rest of their working lives. It also gives younger people the same kind of personal choice.
Personal pensions play a part in the spectrum of pension provision that we on this side of the House, and I think most people, want to see available. Not everyone works in a company where there is an occupational pension scheme—either a salary related scheme or a money purchase scheme. Indeed, personal pensions are a sensible way for those people to consider putting aside money for their retirement. We are all keen to see that. Even the party opposite appreciates the need for second pension provision. We have a clear policy on how we proceed to that and APPs form an important part of it. In order to get to the position where an increasing number of people have second pension provision, these rebates are very important—the rebates to salary-related schemes, the rebates to money purchase schemes and the rebates to appropriate personal pension schemes.
As I said at the beginning, we are looking forward to the unveiling of the pensions policy of the party opposite. I think I know now that it is not entirely opposed to personal pensions. I think I know from an article I read in a newspaper that it is not keen on carrying on with SERPS. An article in The Times of 29th February by Mr. Chris Smith stated that,
"Serps depends on the benevolence of each younger generation to meet the cost of its elders' pensions".
The article went on to say that it will always be liable to raids from some future Mr. Lilley who will cut the benefits once again.
The noble Baroness complained loudly about the changes we made to SERPS provision in 1985. Without those changes, by the middle of the next century SERPS would be costing the taxpayers of that time an extra £30 billion at 1985 prices. It is one thing to expect the next generation to look after you; it is another thing to saddle them with costs that are so huge that they will no longer be prepared to accept the burden. That is why we made those changes in 1985 and 1986. SERPS had not been properly worked out when it came to considering the burden which it would impose on future generations in the middle of the next century and when

211
it came to the £30 billion cost that would be imposed at that time. We had to throttle back that expense, frankly, in the interest of those people who would come to retirement at that time and the working generation who would be expected to shoulder that burden.
In conclusion, we believe that the rebates will reinforce and continue the excellent policy we have in this country. We have a pensions policy of which we should be proud and on which we should be building. It should not be attacked in the negative way in which the noble Baroness attacked it in her speech. We should be proud when we consider what our colleagues in Europe have. They must look with envy at the kind of pension provision we have—£600 billion and 10 million of our people in salary-related schemes or COMPS and another 5 or 6 million in personal pensions. We ought to be pleased about that. We ought to be extremely pleased for future generations that we are making these sensible provisions today. These orders are part and parcel of the sensible provisions for people in retirement tomorrow. I commend them to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Burnham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Responsibility for publication]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("of the statement complained of").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 1, I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 6, 9 to 12, 15 and 20. Amendment No. 1 is a small drafting amendment. It does not affect the meaning of subsection (1), which sets out the conditions which must be satisfied if the statutory defence under Clause 1 is to apply. It moves the words,
"of the statement complained of",
which relate both to the "author editor or publisher" in paragraph (a) and to "publication" in paragraph (b), to an earlier position in the subsection. Amendment No. 2 is consequential on the first amendment, to avoid unnecessarily repeating words which now appear in the previous paragraph.
Amendment No. 5 is a drafting amendment to avoid any doubt that the new defence will be available to a person who has shown that he is within a specification, in subsection (3), of a person who is not to be considered an author, editor or publisher for the purposes of the clause. If he is within that specification, he will not be considered to be the author, editor or publisher even if he might otherwise have fallen within one of the definitions of those terms in subsection (2). Those definitions are now expressed to be further explained in subsection (3).
Amendment No. 6 is a drafting amendment which ensures consistency in the special meaning given to the word "publisher" in subsection (2). The words "publication", "publisher" and "publish" and all related words have very different meanings in the context of defamation proceedings from their usual meaning in the world of commercial publication. In this special context, "publisher" will mean a person whose business is issuing material to the public (or a section of it) and who issues material containing the statement complained of in the course of that business. The revised definition avoids the use of the word "publish" within the definition in either its special narrow meaning or the wider meaning which it usually has in defamation proceedings.
Amendment No. 46 is a drafting amendment to Clause 17(1) which confirms that "publication" and "publish" have the meaning they have for the purposes of defamation generally, although there is a special definition of "publisher" for the purposes of Clause 1 only. The amendment changes Clause 17(1) by making an express reference to that special definition to avoid any suggestion that the words "publication" and "publish", where they appear elsewhere in Clause 1, should be construed otherwise than with the meanings they would normally have for the purposes of defamation.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 are four linked drafting amendments to achieve greater economy of words, so that the words "only involved", which qualify all the descriptions in subsection (3) of those persons who shall

213
not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement, appear once only instead of being repeated in every paragraph.
Amendment No. 15 is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that, in the context of communications systems, paragraph (e) will apply to those who provide access to such systems as well as those who might be regarded as the "on the spot" operators at a particular time.
Amendment No. 20 is a drafting amendment which spells out for the avoidance of doubt that the list, which plainly could not be and does not purport to be an exhaustive list of those who should not be considered to be authors, editors or publishers, may nevertheless serve as a guide in those cases which are not expressly covered but could be seen as analagous to those which are. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: Some time ago the noble and learned Lord invited suggestions on the drafting of this Bill. I am grateful to him for dignifying two or three of the suggestions that I made as two or three of the Government's amendments. It is helpful to have it made clear in Clause 1(1)(a) that we are indeed talking about the statement complained of. That makes it possible to simplify paragraph (b) by means of Amendment No. 2 and also, I hope, by means of my Amendments Nos. 17 and 25, which I shall move in due course.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his help in these amendments. I have perhaps some less helpful remarks as regards some of the other amendments he has proposed. I have adopted the ones that he suggested to me where we seem to be able to fit them in. I am not so sure about some of the others, but we shall come to them as matters proceed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("its publication").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, at beginning insert ("either (i)").
The noble Lord said: It is certainly desirable for the defence of innocent dissemination to be statutorily defined and to be extended to cover a wider class of secondary publishers; that is, distributors, printers and others. The problem with Clause 1 as it stands, however, is that it does not contain a wholly accurate formulation of the elements of the existing common law defence of innocent dissemination.
An individual libels someone else when he publishes in permanent form to a third person words or matter containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of that person. At common law, secondary distributors can rely on the defence of innocent dissemination provided that they did not know that the publication contained the libel complained of and did not know that
214
the publication was of a character likely to contain a libel and that such want of knowledge was not due to any negligence on their part. Consequently, it is the current practice of large newsagents, aware that many of the publications they sell contain defamatory statements, to seek and obtain reassurance that there is no libel risk because there is every reason to believe that these statements are true.
Yet the defence of innocent dissemination, as it is set out in Clause 1, would, as I understand it, exclude from its protection those who were aware, or ought to have known, that the material they were handling was merely defamatory whether or not its publication was defensible. This, I believe, would have important implications for the large newsagents I have mentioned. Once they have discovered a defamatory statement in one of the publications they distributed, they would be denied the protection of the defence of innocent dissemination regardless of any steps that they subsequently took to assure themselves that the statement was true and that its publication was not therefore libellous. If I am right, that would have the unfortunate effect that it might encourage newsagents, booksellers and libraries to keep their eyes shut and remain ignorant of the contents of the publications they carry.
This amendment seeks to bring the defence of innocent dissemination in Clause 1 into line with my understanding of the common law defence. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 1 is intended to provide a defence for those who have unwittingly provided a conduit which has enabled another person to publish defamatory material. It is intended to provide a modern equivalent of the common law defence of innocent dissemination, recognising that there may be circumstances in which the unwitting contributor to the process of publication may have had no idea of the defamatory nature of the material he has handled or processed.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would, in effect, create an entirely new defence. It would give a defence to a person who was indeed aware, or on notice, that he was contributing to a defamatory publication, but nevertheless chose to do so. It would allow him to rely on his own judgment as to whether there might be some other defence in the event of the defamed person taking proceedings, and have the effect of presenting him with a real defence because he thought, however wrongly, that he would be able to rely on some other defence.
It is imperative that we do not lose sight of the effect on plaintiffs of giving a defence to those who have in fact been instrumental in bringing material which has defamed the plaintiff to its audience. The effect in practice may be to deprive the plaintiff of any cause of action to remedy the wrong which he has suffered and which he would not have suffered had it not been for the link in the chain of publication provided by the contributor who escapes liability

215
because of this defence. That may happen when the originator of the defamatory statement is impecunious or cannot be found.
That is an important point which I stressed when I consulted on the question of whether it was right for a defence of this nature to be available to printers. That had been recommended by the Faulks Committee in 1975, and the response to my public consultation persuaded me that it was right. However, the Faulks Committee had concluded that it would be wrong to make the defence an absolute defence absolving distributors from any responsibility in any circumstances, for, broadly, the reasons I have sought to explain. I believe that the reasoning of the Faulks Committee, and the public response to my consultation, justifies some broadening of the categories of defendant to whom this defence may be available beyond those to whom the common law defence of innocent dissemination might have been. But in my submission it would not be right to deprive a plaintiff of his cause of action against a defendant who was aware that he might be wronging the plaintiff and misjudged the plaintiff's chances of succeeding in a defamation action. Unlike the defamed plaintiff, those who may participate in the publication of a libel can protect themselves from the consequences by taking care, by taking indemnities or by taking out insurance against liability.
For the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that that would be a considerable and unjustified extension—indeed, a new defence—in the circumstances and, in the light of that explanation, I hope that he may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Aldington: Perhaps I may detain the Committee for a moment because in the long saga of my libel-factual career recently I have had experience which is relevant to what the noble Lord is trying to cover in his amendment. However, perhaps I should say first that my recent experience in the libel courts was not my first experience of libel. I do not suppose that the Committee is aware that in 1938 I was appointed secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Committee on the Reform of the Law of Defamation—an earlier attempt to do what is being done here—and but for the war I might have been as knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and but for the war I might never have got into recent troubles with libel action.
Although I am glad to say that it did not result in court action, I had an occasion when a libel was published by an impecunious man with a subsidy from the Scottish Arts Council, which was rather curious, repeating the main Tolstoyan libel. I found it quite impossible to deal with him so I had to deal with the retailers and the newsagents. Immediately I informed them of what was happening, they wanted to know that I was right and that I was not telling them a falsehood. That was communicated to them in the course of a day and they withdrew all of the offending material. That
216
happened with the printers and others in the process also. It seems to me that the law as it is is satisfactory to deal with the point which the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I redeclare my interest as a practitioner in defamation, acting for plaintiffs and defendants. I believe that the analysis put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is correct and that it should not be an expanded defence for a person who, in certain circumstances such as those outlined in Amendment No. 4, knew that he caused the publication of a defamatory statement simply on the basis that he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the statement was justified on the basis of fair comment. After all, fair comment can only depend on the basis of true, proved facts. I believe as a matter of principle that mere belief in the truth of facts which are incapable subsequently of proof ought not to afford a defence.
A further disadvantage and detriment to Amendment No. 4 is that mere belief that the defamatory statement which is known to be defamatory at the time of publication in certain circumstances—mere belief that qualified privilege attached—should not be sufficient, since whether or not the matter is one of qualified privilege would be a matter for ruling by the trial judge. As the noble and learned Lord said, common practice in a commercial undertaking is to take out insurance or contractual indemnity. It seems to me that there is no reason to expand those defences to commercial organisations, some of which are of great financial power and which are faced by plaintiffs who have no recourse to legal aid and which in many instances may be private litigants.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear explanation of his objection to the amendment. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Wiliams of Mostyn, to whom I should like to refer as "my learned friend" among other things. I suppose that I too should declare my professional interest as I sometimes appear against him in libel actions: I normally appear for the defendant while he appears for the plaintiff.
I have been persuaded by what the noble and learned Lord has said. We share a common aim: to achieve a fair balance in the Bill between the rights of plaintiffs and defendants. I am reassured by the explanation that Clause 1 is designed to give effect to the common law defence of innocent dissemination. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("which are further explained in").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("publishes") and insert ("issues material containing").
Lord Kilbracken: As the Deputy Chairman of Committees has just indicated, this amendment, if agreed, would have the effect of pre-empting my Amendment No. 7 which calls for the word "publishes" to be put into the past tense as "published", but Amendment No. 6 would remove the word "publishes" altogether, replacing it with the word "issues".
I would, however, suggest that the past tense "issued" would be preferable here. If there are defamation proceedings in progress, it stands to reason that the statement has already been published or "issued", if the amendment takes effect. Therefore, surely the past tense should be used. The passage would then read, "a person whose business is issuing material to the public … who issued material containing the statement". I hope that the noble and learned Lord will perhaps consider this.
The Lord Chancellor: I have considered the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. The real point is that the passage with which we are dealing contains definitions of who is and who is not an "author", "editor" or "publisher". Those definitions apply at all times for the purpose of the clause. It is true that that will happen as far as the past is concerned where the statement has already been issued, but the point is that when giving a definition of who is a "publisher", it is right that that should be done—at least, it is an option—in the tense that we have used. A "publisher" is a person who publishes a statement in the course of that business. It is true that because of that he may incidentally have published a particular statement in the course of his business, but I submit to the Committee that the definitions apply at all times for all the purposes of the clause. For that reason, I have not accepted this suggestion. I have been a little selective in accepting the suggestions of the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend why, if that is the case, in line 16 the word is "did" rather than "does", since the rule seems to be the same?
The Lord Chancellor: In line 16 the context is a little different:
"'author' means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all".
218
That is anterior to the publication of the statement. That he did not have that intention must precede publication of the statement. Therefore, there is a distinction between the situation in line 16 and the other positions to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has referred.
Lord Kilbracken: Clause 1(5) slips into the past tense again. I do not know why we slip from the present into the past. I believe that there is merit in consistency.
The Lord Chancellor: The same point applies. I believe that if the noble Lord looks at it closely he will see it is rigorously consistent. I have re-examined it in the light of the noble Lord's suggestions and concluded that the ones I have accepted are rightly accepted. We have not accepted those where, on the basis of rigorous consistency, we believe we have done it correctly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19. Here, one is not dealing with a definition, although much the same matter arises as in Amendment No. 7. If defamation proceedings are under way, it is clear that the printing, producing, etc., of the statement will already have taken place. Therefore, in the past tense, the person was or was not (as the case may be) involved. Surely, "is" should become "was" at the end of line 23. The same consideration applies to the other amendments that I have mentioned.
The Lord Chancellor: The point is the same, and I cannot elaborate it. Subsection (3) is in the nature of an exclusion from the definition which applies at all times for all the purposes of the clause. It is perfectly correct as it is. I do not say that the alternative would not be possible. However, if we are to be consistent I believe that this is the right way to do it.
Lord Kilbracken: In the absence of any support, I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("only involved").
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("only involved").
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("only involved").
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("only involved").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("statement") in line 11 and insert—
("(d) as the broadcaster of a live programme containing the statement in circumstances in which he has no effective control over the maker of the statement;
(e) as the operator or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 15 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 16, an amendment to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("a defamatory") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 is a minor drafting point. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain why the word "defamatory" in line 11 is necessary. Can it not simply read "by means of which the statement is transmitted"?
The Lord Chancellor: If the Committee looks at Amendment No. 15, it will see that Amendment No. 17 is on that account not necessary. I have accepted the effect of this amendment in my Amendment No. 15.
Lord Kilbracken: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—("In a case not within paragraphs (a) to (e) the court may have regard to those provisions by way of analogy in deciding whether a person is to be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 20 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("cause of action which arose") and insert ("litigation which has commenced").
The noble Lord said: I have put down Amendment No. 21 at the request of the Scottish Law Society. I pay tribute to the quality of its briefing material provided by Mr. Michael Clancey. Deferring to Mr. Clancey's greater knowledge of Scots law, I am told that "cause of action" relates principally to the English and Welsh analysis of rights of action and that, in the context of the United Kingdom, ought more appropriately to be replaced by the words in the amendment. I cannot assist the Committee further.
The Lord Chancellor: Needless to say, I am reasonably familiar with this matter. I accept that the phrase "cause of action" is not as technical a term in Scots law as in English law. However, I suggest that it is capable of being understood by Scots lawyers. I do not believe that
220
the briefing suggests otherwise. The expression is used in other Acts which apply to Scotland; for example, in Section 17(1) of the Defamation Act 1952. I can see the possibility of other phrases, but this seems to me to be a fairly precise phrase which is capable of being understood by Scots lawyers. While the point is worth noting, I believe that what we have is suitable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. It is not my intention to press any of the amendments in my name to a vote this evening, but I have indicated that on subsequent occasions I may wish to test the feeling of the House. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offer to make amends]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("has published") and insert ("was the author, editor or publisher of").
The noble Lord said: Unlike my other amendments which were all drafting amendments, this amendment raises a question of some substance in which I hope the Committee will see merit. Clause 2(1) at present states:
"A person who has published a false statement alleged to be defamatory of another may offer to make amends under this section".
That is an important new provision—a fast-track procedure, as it has been called—which should have the effect of reducing the immense cost of litigation to all parties and saving the time of the courts.
As at present drafted, however, it is not made available to the author or the editor, but only to the publisher of the statement complained of. I do not know why that should be the case. It is obvious that the author and the editor may be defendants. Otherwise, why should they be mentioned in Clause 1(1)? It seems clear to me that they, too, should have the right to make this offer on the terms set out in the clause. My amendment would have that effect by amending the subsection to read:
"A person who was the author, editor or publisher of a false statement alleged to be defamatory of another may offer to make amends under this section".
I suppose that as an author I should declare some kind of interest, though I hope never to be guilty of defamation. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish to accept the amendment because these provisions—the fast-track as it has been referred to—are intended to apply to any person who has published a defamatory statement. The word "published" has an established wide meaning in the law of defamation. It makes no difference for this purpose whether the person who has published the statement would be regarded as a publisher, editor or author. Indeed, not all of those who publish defamatory statements would be necessarily regarded as any one of those, using everyday language.
A person who utters a slanderous comment publishes it within the meaning understood in the context of the definition, but it might be artificial to describe him as the author. Accordingly, the procedure of the offer to make

221
amends is a procedure which should be available to everyone who has published a false statement alleged to be defamatory of another, whether that person would qualify as a publisher, editor or author in the strict sense.
Lord Kilbracken: I am surprised. I know that words can mean anything that lawyers want them to, but it seems rather surprising that a person who writes an article or a book is thereby publishing it, or that an editor is publishing it, particularly when we have in Clause 1(2):
"'publisher' means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public…who publishes a statement in the course of that business".
It would never have occurred to me, as a layman, that the writer or editor of a book could use this process. However, since the noble and learned Lord has made it quite clear that in the legal use of language that is the case, and that the author of a book counts as the publisher, I am prepared to accept that. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("false").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is a drafting amendment to remove a word which became redundant as a result of earlier drafting changes made following our consultation on the draft Bill. That was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I have given effect to that in the amendment. When I looked at the noble Lord's suggestions originally, I did not accept this one, but on more mature consideration I have seen that he is right. I gladly acknowledged its authorship. I have published the amendment, but I believe that he is the author, having published it to me.
There are one or two other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 23 with which I could perhaps deal. Amendment No. 28 is in my name. It is a small drafting amendment in the description of the effect which a party's acceptance of an offer to make amends will have on his cause of action on defamation. It substitutes the words "may not" for "cannot" in preventing him from pursuing, or further pursuing, that course of action (which is succeeded by the right to enforce the offer). I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for coming round to my point of view, apparently, after reading the words of wisdom that I published in my letter to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("of another").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I speak also to Amendment No. 25. I simply want to ask whether the words "of another" in line 28, and "complained of in line 40 are necessary. They seem to me to be otiose. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I accept that the two words in Amendment No. 24 may not be necessary to the sense
222
of subsection (1). There would not be a cause of action unless the statement were defamatory of someone other than the defendant himself. Nevertheless, the words do serve a useful purpose in linking together the provisions of this and the following two clauses, which envisage, first, that the publisher of the statement will address his offer to the other person, the person who has been defamed by it, but has not necessarily issued proceedings so that he or she could be described as the plaintiff; and, secondly, that the acceptance or non-acceptance of the offer will have particular consequences as between the publisher and that other person. So although the words are not strictly necessary for the sense of the clause, they provide a useful link, and therefore I wish to retain them, if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment in the light of that explanation.
Lord Kilbracken: I also raised the question of Amendment No. 25 and the words "complained of in line 40. My feeling is that since we have stated in Clause 1(1) that we are talking about the statement complained of, it is subsequently not necessary to define it each time, and therefore the words "complained of can be left out.
The Lord Chancellor: It may be convenient to answer that point now. Subsection (4) explains what is meant by an offer under the clause. It is an offer to do various things in relation to the statement complained of. The words are necessary for the purpose of identifying the statement to which the offer refers. It is for that reason that I do not feel able to accept Amendment No. 25. One has to specify what it is that one is dealing with, and identify it for the purpose of the offer under the clause.
Lord Kilbracken: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is right; he always is. However, Clause 2(1) states:
"A person who has published a false statement alleged to be defamatory",
so that is what we are talking about. Subsection (2) states:
"The offer may be in relation to the statement generally".
However, when the word "statement" appears again in line 40 on page 2 for some reason we have to put in the words "complained of". I do not believe that that is necessary but it is not a point of earthshaking importance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("which shall be made by a joint statement in open court unless the parties otherwise agree").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the power of the court to determine the form of fulfilment of an offer of amends. It is the result of a great deal of concern that has been expressed by newspapers such as The Times in its editorial today, the Financial Times and

223
the BBC and other media organisations. They are concerned about how to make the fast track procedure really work in the sense that it will be used in practice. As the Bill is currently drafted, an offer to make amends includes the publication of a correction and apology. If the parties were unable to agree on a suitable correction and a suitable apology, the court would decide the issue under Clause 3(3).
By analogy with Clause 9(3), which relates to the summary of procedure, the court would therefore have the coercive power to specify the terms and the timing of the apology. The power to resolve disputes about the steps to be taken in fulfilment of an offer of amends is already available to the High Court under Section 4(4)(a) of the Defamation Act 1952. However, the defence of unintentional defamation under that Act has proved so unworkable that in practice very few offers of amends have ever been made. Therefore, there has been little opportunity for the courts to exercise their Section 4 powers.
In my view, the Bill rightly seeks in Clauses 2 and 3 to remove the obstacles to the successful operation of the defence of unintentional defamation by means of the creation of the new defence of offer of amends. That is greatly to be welcomed. The new streamlined defence would provide a welcome means of reducing unnecessary litigation while vindicating the plaintiff's good name provided that the procedure was used in practice. The conditions necessary to bring the defence into operation have been amended and that too is welcome. However, the power of the court to make orders dealing with the prominence and wording of apologies and corrections in default of agreement between the parties has not been amended. It is the continued inclusion of that power which is unwelcome to most broadcasters and newspaper editors.
I shall explain why that matters a great deal. An editor or broadcaster confronted with the ultimate prospect of being ordered to give an apology or correct a prominence which he felt was not merited would be most unlikely to be willing to make an offer of any kind. Rightly or wrongly, the threatened loss of editorial sovereignty would be too great. If that is right, the defence will again be little used in practice. If any evidence is needed for that one only has to look at the editorial in today's copy of The Times.
The amendment would alter the focus from an offer to publish an apology or correction to an offer to join in the making of a statement in open court. The power of the judge would be confined to ruling on whether what was said in open court was suitable and efficient as an apology. The statement would come to the attention of the public vindicating the reputation of the plaintiff in two ways. First, the Press Association is, as a matter of routine, present in court when defamation proceedings are disposed of by a statement in open court. The outcome of the hearing is then wired to newspapers and periodicals. Secondly, if the defendant were a newspaper or a broadcaster its respective code of practice would require it to report the outcome of the action. The code of practice of the Press Complaints Commission requires, for example, that a newspaper or
224
periodical should always report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party.
Clause 2 as it currently stands would allow for a degree of judicial encroachment of a coercive kind that would be regarded as too coercive to make the offer of amends procedure likely to be attractive in practice. My amendment seeks to make the defence of offer of amends workable for both plaintiffs and defendants and to strike a fair balance between their competing interests. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the concern expressed on many occasions both recently and earlier by editors and those who control the contents of broadcast and televised matter. I do not believe that the amendment will deal fully with the mischief that the noble Lord wishes to avoid because it seems to me that his present amendment leaves it open to a joint statement in open court unless the parties otherwise agree. That may well mean that in default of agreement the full offer of amends cannot be acceptable and therefore will not be accepted. But I wholly agree with the fundamental principle. It is wrong as a matter of principle to dictate to the editor of a newspaper or periodical or to the editor or the director of a broadcast item to include televised material, a form of apology which may not be wholeheartedly meant. That is an undue interference with the freedom of the press. I believe that it will vitiate the value and the effectiveness of the offer of amends procedure. I do not believe that the present amendment deals fully with the mischief.
The problem is not restricted to this jurisdiction. There have been serious difficulties in South American countries—for instance, Argentina—which are feeling their way towards a free press after many years of totalitarian dictatorship and interference with the press where editors violently object as a matter of principle to directed corrections or apologies with which they do not concur. Therefore, I believe that in principle the thrust of the amendment is right and I believe that in practice if something is not done by way of useful amendment the procedure will not be used by many newspaper editors when it ought to be.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether under this or any other construction it would be possible to offer the reluctant editor the alternative of paying a suitably increased financial compensation. I see the difficulty of getting a free press to make an apology which is not sincere. Equally, I see the importance of protecting the victims of press unfairness who are numerous and at present too inadequately defended. I see that the courts should throw their protection over those people and I wonder whether that is a way of squaring that circle.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree that there is a problem in relation to forcing an apology from someone who does not wish to make an apology. I certainly do not wish to do that and we have tried to meet the point in the wording of Clause 9. It states:
"If they cannot agree on the content, the court may direct the defendant to publish or cause to be published a summary of the court's judgment agreed by the parties or settled by the court in accordance with the rules of court".
That is intended to deal precisely with the situation where a party does not wish to apologise because he believes that he was right in the first place but cannot prove it. Therefore, he is likely to have been found liable but does not wish to make an apology. Therefore, we have substituted for an enforced apology a judgment of the court on the outcome to be agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, to be settled by the court. I believe that that deals with that point.
I have read carefully, as I always do, the leaders in The Times. I have thought about the ITN broadcasts which will start with a "bong". I have not yet heard one of those but I am sure that The Times will anticipate the future in a way that I cannot. However, I do not believe that this amendment deals with that point. We have not yet reached the amendment which deals with that point. The answer to the "bong" editorial, if I may call it that, is to be found at the third paragraph of Clause 9(2), which states:
"If they cannot agree on the time, manner, form or place of publication, the court may direct the defendant to take such reasonable and practicable steps as the court considers appropriate".
The use of the words "reasonable" and "practicable" are intended to guard against the scenario which one finds in the leader in The Times.
Of course, it is possible to take the view that the court would act unreasonably or impracticably, but I am not prepared to take that view. The judges would take account of the particular conditions set out in Clause 9. However, this amendment does not directly address those matters and therefore I should have thought that it restricts the scope of an offer to make amends. I cannot see why it needs to take the restricted form which the amendment proposes. An essential element of the offer, which has been accepted, would be missing if the parties were unable to agree.
There is a question of precisely what the formulation should be. I should be the last to want to have a system which would not work for one reason or another. So far I have accepted the essence of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and have tried to deal with it in the form of words which I used in Clause 9(2). It may be that something more needs to be done. I shall be happy to consider that because I want this to work. It is a question of whether it needs to be restricted to a statement in open court.
8 p.m.
Lord Hoffmann: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is speaking also to Amendment No.
226
36 and subsequent amendments. If he is not, I shall wait until we reach that point before giving the Committee the remarks that I wish to make about them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, are quite right to indicate that this amendment should be taken together with the later amendment dealing with Clause 9 and the power of the court to determine the form of the apology by way of summary relief. I have spoken to that matter because I intended the two to be taken together.
Lord Hoffmann: If the same point arises, I would say that Amendment No. 36 and the three which follow it would in effect destroy the main purpose of the summary procedure. The whole idea of the summary procedure was based upon the perception, which I think is widely shared, that a libel victim does not usually want a large sum of money but rather the rapid publication of a correction and the vindication of his reputation as nearly as possible in the same place and with the same prominence as the original libel.
The Bill as it stands provides that in the first instance the courts will in general terms order the publication of a suitable correction and apology. But obviously, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, one cannot make a newspaper say that something is false when, despite the views of the judge, it still believes that it is true. After all, one must allow for the possibility that the judge may be wrong.
Nor is there any point in making a newspaper publish an insincere apology. Therefore, the Bill provides that the publication of an apology is for the parties to agree. But if there is no agreement, then the judge may direct the newspaper to publish a summary of his judgment. That does not commit the newspaper to saying that it agrees with it. In fact, if it is willing to risk another libel action, it can say that it disagrees with the judgment. But that judgment must be published because that is what justice to the victim requires.
It is only the most doctrinaire view of editorial freedom which will seriously object to a newspaper simply having to publish a summary of the judgment. The right to make a statement in court which the newspaper can ignore is perfectly useless. I know that my noble friend Lord Lester says that there is a code of practice relating to those matters, but we have some experience of what happens to codes of practice in this area. You may as well allow the victim to go out and proclaim his innocence to the passers-by in the Strand. The only proper remedy is to bring what the judge considers to be the truth to the attention of the same people who saw the original libel.
If that is thought to be an invasion of editorial freedom, one should remember that that is part of a larger package. First, there is the limitation of summary damages to £10,000. I should not like to see that limit increased to £25,000, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests, because £25,000 is quite a large sum of money. It is important to make it clear that the summary remedy is intended for people who are not primarily interested in money.

227
Secondly, the other part of the package is that newspapers have the advantage of using the summary procedure as a cheap way to get rid of gold-digging claims. All that I have heard from editors and newspaper lawyers suggests that they regard this as a useful weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would give them all the advantages of the summary procedure with virtually no concession on their part to the rights of libel victims. I do not believe that that is fair.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am extremely grateful for all the speeches that have been made on this and later amendments. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, does not regard me as doctrinaire on the approach towards editorial independence and its sovereignty because I certainly do not have that view.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—and I believe that all Members of the Committee agree—that we must avoid inserting into a statute coercive judicial powers which dictate unnecessarily the form and manner of publication in newspapers. I am extremely heartened by the fact that all who spoke share that view.
Having heard the extremely persuasive speeches of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, I should like to reconsider the matter. I am sure that it will be reconsidered also by the press because it is extremely important that the persuasiveness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, persuades newspapers about the fairness and practicability of that procedure. If my amendment has done no more than serve to raise that issue, it has probably been worth while. Therefore, I shall reconsider the matter in case I wish to return to it on Report. Meanwhile, with gratitude, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: As presently drafted, Clause 2(5) indicates that the procedure of an offer to make amends may not be made by any defendant after he has served a defence. My proposal is that the word "not" should be deleted.
I make that suggestion for these reasons of practicality. Many publications are made responsibly by serious newspapers, although they are erroneous. It is not always discovered that they are wrong until perhaps the close of pleadings or, more often, the exchange of witness statements, which is automatic in libel actions. The usual defences of course would include justification, fair comment or qualified privilege.
It may well be that a perfectly responsible defendant publisher—for example, a newspaper—may wish to plead fair comment on a matter of public interest in the belief that it can demonstrate the truth of the underlying facts or justification to prove the underlying facts themselves, or it might be under a legitimate, genuine misapprehension that qualified privilege did attach.
It seems to me, with great respect, that it is an unnecessary and unneeded restriction on the offer to make amends if the offer may not be made at any time after a defence has been served relating to fair comment, justification or qualified privilege, when the newspaper, for genuine reasons, wishes to abandon any of those defences. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I have nothing to add.
The Lord Chancellor: It is a matter of some interest, to see just what we should do about it. The purpose of the provisions in Clauses 2 to 4 is to encourage defendants who have published defamatory statements to make speedy reparation to the wronged plaintiff. It will be up to the defendant to make up his mind reasonably quickly that he wants to use this machinery, which will curtail the proceedings and avoid trouble and expense for both parties. Speed is clearly of the essence, although one of the reasons why the defence under Section 4 of the Defamation Act 1952 did not achieve popularity as it might have done was that it required the defendant to act so fast that he hardly had any opportunity at all to carry out legitimate investigations and consider whether the best course would be for him to make an offer of amends under the section. Clauses 2 to 4 do not provide a specific time limit within which the defendant must make up his mind, but they do require him to act before he serves a defence. That allows him time to complete any necessary investigation.
Once he has served a defence, he has signalled his intention to go down the other path, and to defend the claim on some other basis, raising other issues, so that the defamation proceedings will take their normal course. The service of a defence, which is the result of his own considered decision, is a natural watershed. It is the point at which he must have decided that there is a defence which he wants to pursue, rather than make immediate amends. If a defendant were permitted to serve a defence first, and then decide that he would, after all, like to take advantage of these provisions, much of the benefit of these provisions might be lost. It could take away all sense of urgency, and fail to provide the plaintiff with the prompt amends that the provisions are designed to achieve.
The clause, as drafted, does not impose any time limit in the sense of a fixed time, but it does suggest a sensible watershed at which the decision is taken not to go down the road of an offer of amends because it has been decided to defend the action. This is the thinking behind the clause. An amendment as simple as this is easily made, but it affects, quite basically, the idea which is embodied in these provisions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to say that I believe myself to be continually right and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to be continually wrong in this instance. Everyone who has acted in a defamation case for the defendants realises the value of investigative journalism, particularly in a country as

229
obsessively secret as ours. Many investigative programmes or articles are conscientiously researched and legitimately put forward.
The noble and learned Lord said that there was no fixed time. I respectfully disagree. If a plaintiff issues his writ promptly and his statement of claim promptly then, of course, the rules of court are quite restrictive in terms of time when the defence may be served, unless an extension is applied for and given. They are not frequently given in defamation cases. However, a defendant may honourably come to a conclusion that he was simply honourably wrong in the allegations he made against a wounded and wronged plaintiff. He may realise that his sources were wrong. He may simply realise, on a view, perhaps, of expert evidence from the plaintiff on the exchange of witness statements, that he has it hopelessly, awfully wrong.
The noble and learned Lord said that in effect that gives to the defendant—though he put it more elegantly than I—the penny and the bun but, of course, the answer to that lies in the question which the noble Lord, Lord Elton raised. If an apology is not forthcoming, can the damages be enlarged? The answer is: yes, a thousand times yes. That is because, as every practitioner will recognise, what inflates damages in most defamation cases is the refusal to apologise, or the refusal to apologise promptly. What is suggested here is that if a newspaper realises that it has it wrong, and realises, perhaps, that justification cannot run or that qualified privilege is a mistaken assertion, it ought to be able to say to the wounded plaintiff: "I have it wrong; I will make amends." Of course, if the fast-track procedure allowed an increase up to £25,000, then the plaintiff might well be adequately compensated. It seems to me to be unduly rigid in an area of law which is hide-bound by over-rigidity, to refuse to allow a repenting, repentant defendant to use this procedure simply because he has put the pleader's signature to a defence of fair comment, justification or qualified privilege.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Is it not the case that, as an example of the very rigidity of which he complains, at present the jury are not allowed to be told about an offer of amends once the matter comes to trial? Therefore, a defendant who does everything he reasonably can to make amends by way of apology and offers of various kinds is not able to place that material before the jury.
I should say, as regards the answer to that question, that it is the subject of a pending appeal in which I am professionally representing the defendant. Is that not now the current position which, therefore, adds force to the amendment in the context of the fast-track procedure, because one cannot remedy the situation once the matter goes to trial.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can achieve a lifelong ambition, because I can use the immortal words, "Up to a point, Lord Copper", on a legitimate public occasion. It is not entirely right, because one can always put forward on behalf of a defendant the fact that an apology has been offered. I have done it myself, not always with
230
enormous success. The fundamental point is that it is an undue rigidity which is capable of harming the defendant's interest but, not least, capable of taking away from a plaintiff an offer of amends, which is all he really wants. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Accepting an offer to make amends]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("may not").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("where the parties so agree").
The noble Lord said: This relates to Clause 3, subsection (9):
"Proceedings under this section shall be heard and determined without a jury."
My amendment seeks the agreement of both parties for a judge alone so to decide. In essence, this comes down to a question of the approach to the assessment of damages. Many would, perhaps, feel that damages in personal injury cases are grossly unacceptable to the vast body of public opinion, rightly, as I submit, because the power of increasing damages was taken away from juries and now juries virtually never assess damages, at least in England and Wales, contrary to the position which has applied in Northern Ireland.
The reason that I put this forward is that it should be for both parties to agree that a judge alone should assess the damages. Judges are notoriously mean in assessing damages in personal injury cases. That is the basis for this amendment, which I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: In introducing this machinery, we are seeking to provide a way in which the parties will be brought together to reach a sensible conclusion which will be for the benefit of both plaintiffs and defendants. In many cases it may be unnecessary for them to seek the assistance of the court at all. But if they cannot agree on the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer, they may seek the assistance of the court under Clause 3.
One of the factors which will make the offer to make an amends an attractive option for defendants is the knowledge that if they cannot agree with the plaintiff on the exact details of the steps to be taken by way of amends, any money compensation which would form part of the amends package would be assessed by the judge who would clearly take very much into account such mitigating factors as the defendant's willingness to restore the plaintiffs reputation fully and promptly. It is important to recognise that a defendant who makes an offer under these provisions will be entering into an open-ended commitment to do a number of things which

231
may include the payment of a sum of money on which there is no upper limit. Certainly defendants will recognise that.
The effect of this amendment, providing that Clause 3 proceedings should only be heard and determined without a jury if the parties so agreed, is to give the plaintiff the option of insisting that the steps to be taken to honour that open-ended commitment should be determined by a jury. Immediately, the costs which the parties are likely to meet will be much more substantial. The defendant will bear that in mind when deciding whether to make an offer under Clause 2. But another and more serious objection is that a defendant may not even contemplate making an offer if it will amount to entering into not only an open-ended commitment but a commitment to pay whatever sum, and take whatever steps, a jury may decide upon. Our intention in these provisions is to provide machinery which defendants will want to make use of for the purpose of making amends. We shall fail if defendants find that there is a sting in the tail of that so that they conclude that there is no point in using it.
It is always possible for a defendant to offer to settle at any stage of the litigation on such terms as he or she thinks he should offer. Then it will be for the plaintiff to decide whether to take that offer. In my submission to the Committee this provision is intended to introduce a special procedure in which it is appropriate that the judge should decide the amount in question as a concomitant to the fact that this is a special procedure which is intended to short-circuit the existing procedure and also to involve a degree of constraint on cost, which is an important element in the matter. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall indeed—although I may wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Failure to accept offer to make amends]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wish to raise some general questions. However, I shall be economic in my words because in a sense I repeat the questions which I raised earlier. Clause 4(3) states,
"There is no such defence if the person by whom the offer was made … had reason to believe that the statement complained of—
"(a) referred to the aggrieved party or … was both false and defamatory of that party".
"The person" referred to is the defendant. I have mentioned my next question before. If a defendant realises that his earlier belief was wrong and that it was grossly wounding of a plaintiff, why should no offer of amends defence be available to him? Clause 4(5) states,
"The offer may be relied on in mitigation of damages whether or not it was relied on as a defence".
232
I wonder how that will work in practice and whether there is not some internal inconsistency here, and how a judge will deal with these matters if an offer is relied on in mitigation of damages though it is not relied on as a defence. That is a genuine question as to how this measure will work in practice.
The Lord Chancellor: It is some time since I practised in the field of defamation in another jurisdiction and therefore I offer comment on practice with a degree of diffidence which perhaps I do not always show. As regards the latter matter to which the noble Lord referred, what I assume to be the situation is that if the offer was made but subsection (3) of Clause 4 applies, and therefore the offer either was not put forward as a defence or fails as a defence for the reason that the conditions there referred to were applied, it is still possible to rely on the offer as a mitigation of damages on the view that if the offer had been accepted the resulting damage would have been less than it might otherwise be. That is the way I assume the measure might work.
On the main point, the intention that the noble Lord has evinced is that there should be machinery to determine the steps to be taken pursuant to an offer to make amends which has been accepted, but that the fact that a good offer had been made and not accepted should not amount to a defence. Those modifications together would undermine the purpose of the offer to make amends. In making an offer, the defendant commits himself to making appropriate amends, which may include money compensation assessed by a judge. The incentive to commit himself in this way is provided by the knowledge that he will have an absolute defence if the offer is not accepted (unless it is shown that he knew or had reason to believe that he was defaming the plaintiff). The effect of taking that defence away is that once the defendant has made an offer, the plaintiff must win, and has nothing to lose by disregarding the offer and insisting on a trial. It is most unlikely that any defendant would then use this machinery rather than making a without prejudice offer. It is important to draw attention to the fact that this is an alternative. It is not the same as either a without prejudice offer or an offer of settlement. It is a more particular matter that is being addressed. If Clause 4 were to go, the position would be hopeless. The single most important part of the proposals made for reform remaining to be implemented would go if this were taken out of the package.
I think it is also worth saying that the approach of the Court of Appeal in recent cases, such as those of Elton John and Esther Rantzen, towards the control and rationalisation of libel damages, as well as running quite contrary to the modern attitude of courts towards litigation generally, would be affected in an inconsistent way if Clause 4 were not kept in place. In my submission, Clause 4 is an essential part of the machinery for this special type of offer of amends which is set out in Clauses 2 to 4.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his exposition. I do not concur but my observations in respect of Clause 4 relate to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Elton John v. Mirror Group Newspapers which itself was not consistent with the Court of Appeal judgment which occurred shortly before that in the case of Rantzen. However, I shall withdraw my opposition on the basis that I may well return to it in due time.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Limitation of actions: England and Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 41, at end insert ("and
(d) the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose including the extent (if any) to which the defendant responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the plaintiffs cause of action against the defendant.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 30 which stands in my name and also indicate the basis of my opposition to the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill because I have indicated my general approach to the Committee earlier.
My fundamental objection to Clause 5 is that it is wrong to take away a plaintiff's right, subject to exceptions, to the three-year period in respect of limitation. Amendment No. 30 includes a further relevant protection for a plaintiff who, if Clause 5 becomes Section 5 of the Act, may need further protection.
Perhaps I may make one or two general observations. If I stand on the pavement outside this House and am run over by the Evening Standard delivery van, I do not understand why I should have three years in which to claim in respect of my broken leg; but if another newspaper defames me, perhaps wounds my life more fundamentally than the break of my leg would represent or imply, I have only the one year. I know it will be said that there are exclusions. I do not see why there should be any reason in principle that a plaintiff should be limited to one year.
There is no legal aid for plaintiffs. Many plaintiffs are private individuals. Very often a plaintiff will want to take action—for instance, if he is a doctor or a member of a profession which is subject to an internal complaints machinery. Very often a plaintiff will have to save quite strenuously to afford the costs. If no legal aid is available, there is normally an inequality of arms between defendants, who tend to be well off, and plaintiffs, who, if they are not a member of a union or a professional organisation, are not well off.
Despite the explanations given on an earlier occasion, it seems to me that there is no proper reason to limit the limitation period to 12 months in respect of false material published which is defamatory as opposed to the personal injury example that I gave earlier.
I recognise, of course, that there are exceptions. But the court will tend to be rigid if the experience of the Limitation Act in personal injury cases is any guide. For the convenience of the Committee, I have sought to address the matter generally. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: On this occasion I have the misfortune not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It seems to me that there is a major difference between a personal injury case involving an accident and the subsequent trial and a claim for defamation. The two main differences are these. Defamation cases are tried by a jury. The same factors which apply in criminal trials—the need for the trial to be brought on quickly while memories are fresh and the defendant given an opportunity to vindicate himself speedily—apply in defamation proceedings. The other factor is that the burden of proof is upon the defendant in a libel case. That is often a heavy burden and if the defendant has to shoulder it, it is right that he knows there is a fairly short time limit within which he will have to prove his case.
I therefore regard the Bill as sensible in giving one year as the limitation period. I do not think that there is a justification for a longer limitation period. But it enables the plaintiff to gather funds to be able to pursue his course of action.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for the anticipatory support from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for what I shall say.
Clause 5 implements one of the major recommendations made by Lord Justice Neill's working group; and I need not remind the Committee of the depth of experience which resided in that group.
I think that I discern a difference between the situation in which, unfortunately, the noble Lord had his leg broken by a newspaper van and in which he was defamed either by that newspaper or another. The injury by defamation is an injury done at the time, and the sooner it is corrected the better for everyone. In so far as the injury to the broken leg heals, that is well and good. But the substitution of damages, which is the remedy, depends a good deal on how the injury turns out. One might hope that the injury would heal quickly and that so good and so straight would be the result that one would hardly notice the difference as the noble Lord walked on in his brilliant career. In that case the damages would be somewhat reduced. Therefore, a three-year period of limitation for personal injuries seems reasonable in regard to these circumstances.
However, as the Neill group said, in its experience it would be in only the most exceptional cases that a plaintiff could be justified in delaying for more than a year before starting defamation proceedings. That is the result of a great deal of experience. I think that all of us agree that the sooner these actions are taken the better for reasons of freshness of evidence and the like.
Looking at the law of limitation generally, I cannot anticipate what the Law Commissioners may say, for example, on the law of limitation on personal injuries.

235
As regards Amendment No. 30, we put the measure into the Bill as published for consultation. Following consultation, and in response to many comments on the clause, it was modified so that fewer examples of "all the circumstances of the case" to which the court might need to have regard were provided. The basic and essential provision is that the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, which was not the case under the previous legislation. Although the reason for and length of delay will always be relevant, and lack of knowledge will often be, it is clearly not possible to identify all the kinds of circumstances which could conceivably in any case be relevant for consideration.
Moreover, it was pointed out in consultation that the inclusion of a specific example could raise two expectations which it should not do. One possible expectation was that a plaintiff who could show that his case fell within that example must succeed. That is clearly not right if it is just an example of a matter which could affect the exercise of the discretion. The reason that we took that out in the final form of the Bill as laid before the Committee was in order to avoid those difficulties.
My answer on the main point is that there is an essential difference between the cause of action in defamation and the cause of action in personal injuries. The accumulated experience of the Neill Committee was in favour of, and recommended as a central recommendation, the limitation to 12 months. The discretion should be a completely open one and particular examples are on the whole unwise.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot detect a true difference in principle in the examples referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I am not employed as a manual worker. Therefore, if my leg heals up after six weeks I have no loss of wages or anything of that kind. If I am employed in a profession where reputation is important I may have special damage. The consequences of the dissemination of the defamatory material may be very wide and difficult to establish. I detect no difference in principle. I could understand a principled approach which said that the limitation period for the personal injury was to be the same as for defamation. But I fail to see any distinction in principle between 12 months for one and three years for the other. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
UNJUSTIFIED PROCEEDINGS FOR, OR ACTIONS IN RELATION TO, ALLEGED DEFAMATION
"(.—(1) If a person (whether or not the person allegedly defamed) without reasonable cause issues a writ for defamation or by letter, advertisement or otherwise without reasonable cause threatens to issue such a writ, or otherwise without reasonable cause attempts to hinder the publication or further publication of allegedly defamatory material, the person aggrieved (whether or not the person to whom or
236
against whom the threats or attempts were made) may bring proceedings against the person issuing the writ or making the threat or attempt, claiming any relief mentioned in subsection (4) below.
(2) In any such proceedings the onus of proving reasonable cause shall be on the defendant or defender but he may discharge it as follows—

(a) if he has issued a relevant writ, by undertaking to the court to pursue the consequent proceedings with due expedition,,

(b) if a relevant writ has not been issued, by undertaking to the court that such a writ will be issued forthwith and that consequent proceedings will be pursued with due expedition.

(3) Breach of any such undertaking mentioned in subsection (2) above shall, in addition to being a contempt of court, revive the plaintiff's or pursuer's right to claim the reliefs in subsection (4) below.
(4) The reliefs are as follows—

(a) dismissal of the writ,

(b) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable,

(c) an injunction or interdict against the renewal of the writ or the continuance or resumption of the threats or attempts,

(d) damages, including (where appropriate) aggravated or exemplary damages.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I have given notice that I wish to move it on his and my own behalf. The noble and learned Lord asked me to apologise that it is impossible for him to be present this evening.
The amendment follows from a point raised by the noble and learned Lord during the Second Reading debate; namely, the notorious practice by some rich and powerful individuals in the commercial world and elsewhere to issue groundless or so-called gagging writs to suppress damaging information about themselves or their malpractices from the public. One of the most notorious examples was the practice of the late Robert Maxwell. He was able to take advantage of the fact that under the law of libel, as under no other branch of the law of tort, the burden is on the defendant to discharge the effective burden of disproving that the words published or to be published are false. That problem would be solved if the burden of proof were shifted. That is the subject of one of my later amendments. On the assumption that the burden remains upon the defendant, I submit that it is fair and reasonable to provide the defendant with an effective remedy for the unwarranted and groundless use of gagging libel writs.
The amendment is based on Section 70 of the Patents Act 1977. Prior to 1883, the position was that the proprietor of a patent could issue threats of proceedings for infringement without rendering himself liable for any damage which he might occasion thereby, provided that those threats were made bona fide. The 1883 Patents Act gave a statutory right of action in certain limited cases to any person damaged by groundless threats of infringement proceedings, whether or not such threats were bona fide. That right of action is substantially reproduced in Section 70 of the 1977 Act. As I explained, the present amendment is based on that section.
If a person were to issue or threaten to issue proceedings for defamation without any cause for doing so, the person to whom those proceedings were issued or the threats were made would be entitled to bring an action

237
against him. If the defendant could not prove that he had a perfectly good cause for bringing a defamation action, the plaintiff would be entitled to various remedies, including an injunction to prevent the threats or the writ continuing and, where appropriate, damages.
Groundless threats by public figures to bring defamation actions accompanied by coercive prior restraints represent an unacceptable encroachment on free speech. The amendment would go some way to restoring the balance between the protection of reputation and the freedom of the press to keep the public informed by providing an effective remedy where the issue of proceedings is truly groundless. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a mischief to be dealt with here, but it seems to me that the amendment is not the remedy for that mischief. If what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, called "prior restraint" is sought by way of injunction, no court gives an injunction if justification is the defence. He mentioned the late Robert Maxwell, for whom I have to say I acted and against whom I acted. But he was resisted. It is quite a roll call of honour to see who resisted him. He was resisted by Tom Bower and Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber who owned Aurum Press. He was resisted by "Panorama" which published its exposé of his misdeeds shortly before his death.
If one is trying to make the law of defamation simple, there is a danger that one will go the American route. That is not an exaggeration. Lawyers in the United States act on contingencies; many of them are now suing tobacco companies and it will not amaze your Lordships to know that the tobacco companies are now suing the lawyers acting on contingencies for improper suits. Now the lawyers who are sued by the tobacco companies for improper suits are themselves suing the tobacco companies on the basis of interference with their right to practise law. I am not sure that I can usefully say anything further in opposition to the form of the amendment, although I fully recognise that there is a mischief.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I also recognise the possibility of a mischief but, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it is a mischief which can be resisted. I had the experience of defending someone unsuccessfully against an action on the basis of unwarranted threats in a patent action based on the design of cranes. The circumstances in which the provision exists in the patent legislation is a particular one. It is related to a right in something, whether as a proprietor or otherwise. The person who makes the threats is the person who has a right in the patent in question. So what the person is trying to do is unlawfully to extend the scope of his monopoly.
The section is limited to threats to bring proceedings, whereas the new clause goes somewhat further and includes the phrase,
"otherwise without reasonable cause….attempts to hinder the publication or further publication of allegedly defamatory material".
238
For much the same reasons as were given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at the moment I do not feel able to go along with the new clause. It may be a matter for further consideration as to whether some other remedy may be found for the problem. But, as was pointed out, such things can be resisted. Perhaps that is the best defence to the mischief.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am most grateful. I appreciate that where the defendant indicates that he intends to justify, no interlocutory injunction will be granted against him. The problem arises where the defendant is not able to prove the truth of the defamatory publication. It is in that situation where all or most of the knowledge is in the plaintiff and not the defendant that the problem tends to arise.
I am glad that all noble Lords who have spoken recognise that there is a problem. I am at the disadvantage that the architect of the amendment is not present. I am sure that he and I will carefully consider what has been said, to see whether we need to return to the matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Ruling on the meaning of a statement]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the following new Clause—
RULING ON THE MEANING OF A STATEMENT
(" . In proceedings for defamation, the court shall not be asked to rule whether words are arguably capable, as opposed to capable of bearing a particular meaning or meanings attributed to them.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the difference between the phrase in Clause 7, the ruling as to whether a statement is arguably capable of bearing a particular meaning, and the proposal which I put forward, which concerns the defamatory words.
The question was raised by the Law Society, to whom I am grateful, as to whether one ought to concentrate on whether the words are arguably capable of bearing a certain meaning. If one deals with a statement, one is looking at perhaps the totality of the statement rather than the words in question. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The words were used in the version of the Bill which was published for consultation. We thought that we had made an improvement by substituting the word "statement" because that which has been published and whose meaning is in issue may not have taken the form of words or certainly not exclusively words. A cartoonist, for example, may be skilled in conveying a meaning without using any caption. To close that loophole, we have substituted the word "statement" which has an extended definition in Clause 17 and would cover any method by which a meaning could be conveyed. Accordingly, we believe that this is an improvement on the clause put out for consultation.
As will be recognised, we shall have to make a corresponding amendment to the rules of court under which the parties would make applications for rulings as to what the published material was actually, as

239
opposed to arguably, capable of meaning. Like the earlier draft of Clause 7, the rules refer to the meaning of "words". It would be desirable to alter these to make the provision of the rules more in keeping with what is in the Bill.
I hope in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel that in moving to what is in the Bill, we have improved on what was put out for consultation in the light of the responses to consultation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for that explanation, which I accept. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
BURDEN OF PROOF
(" In an action for defamation, the burden shall be upon the plaintiff to prove that the defamatory words of which he complains are false.").
The noble Lord said: I recognise that this is a bold amendment. I hope the Committee will bear with me if I take a little longer to explain it than I would any other subject. In moving it, I am greatly indebted to Mr. Desmond Browne QC, who, with his very great experience of the law of libel, told me that from his first week in pupillage he regarded this aspect of the law of libel as being the most unfair aspect of it.
Unlike the tort of malicious falsehood, the common law action for defamation is not an action on the case—that is, it is not dependent on proof of damage. It is derived from the common law crime of libel, whose essence was the tendency of all libels (whether defamatory, obscene, blasphemous or seditious) to create a breach of the peace.
Because the Star Chamber and its successor courts were concerned with the preservation of the peace, at common law truth was not a defence to criminal libel. Indeed, it was literally the law that the greater the truth, the greater the libel. The Star Chamber stated:
"For libelling against a common strumpet is as great an offence as against an honest woman and perhaps more dangerous to the breach of the peace, for, as the woman said, she would never grieve to be told of her red nose if she had not one indeed".
Section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 (Lord Campbell's Act) mitigated the rigour of the common law by providing a defence of justification, so long as, in addition, the defendant could prove that,
"it was for the public benefit that the matters charged should be published".
That is the source of the present defence of justification in civil proceedings, though there is no requirement for proof of public benefit. However, it explains why historically the burden of proof is upon the defendant.
A rule as to the burden of proof derived from the Star Chamber's concern with preserving peace is hardly consistent with modern day notions of freedom of speech. The public interest if often well served by
240
the publication of defamatory words, for example, where a newspaper exposes a charlatan member of a profession or a dishonest businessman. So why should the newspaper have to assume the burden of proof? The question is seldom posed, and never answered. The leading textbooks merely state the rule as to where the burden of proof lies, without attempting any explanation of the rationale. Nor do they refer to authorities for the rule.
The existence of the rule has important practical consequences for the defence of libel actions. Villains can (and frequently do) recover substantial damages in libel without having to show that what has been published about them is false, or (in the absence of a plea of justification) without having to give discovery of the material documents. Libel counsel need to consider their position very carefully before pleading justification. They must have evidence to support the plea, or reasonable grounds for supposing that sufficient evidence to prove the allegations will be available at the trial.
The way in which the burden of proof on justification chills free speech was realistically described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in Derbyshire C.C. v. Times Newspapers, in which I acted for the defendant newspaper, in this way. The noble and learned Lord said:
"Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory publication are known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those facts is not available. This may prevent the publication of matters which it is very desirable to make public".
A leading academic lawyer, Professor Eric Barendt, has argued in his article in Public Law that if the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, are taken seriously, as they must be,
"they provide a powerful argument for reversing the presumption of falsity in defamation actions, at least in actions brought by public officials and politicians".
There is no reason why the reversal of the presumption should be limited in that way. Public officials and public figures are not the only classes of person who may require exposure in the public interest.
As Barendt says, only two arguments have ever been given for the present incidence of the burden of proof. The first is the deterrent argument expressed by the Faulks Committee; namely, that the rule,
"tends to inculcate a spirit of caution in publishers of potentially actionable statements which we regard as salutary".
That argument collapses if the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, based on the chilling effect, is accepted. The two arguments are plainly not consistent one with the other. Faulks echoes in that respect the Star Chamber. The approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, for the Law Lords, reflects the strong commitment to free speech, for example, in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the common law.
The second argument used is that the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove a negative. Professor Barendt rightly describes this as, "surely only a debating point". Plaintiffs in actions for malicious falsehood have always

241
had to discharge the burden of showing that the statements sued upon are false, and in practice do so without difficulty.
In its 1991 report on the civil law of defamation, the Irish Law Reform Commission, chaired I believe by Mr. Justice Hederman, examined the presumption of falsity and concluded, by a majority, that the onus of proof should be on the plaintiff to establish that the words complained of are true.
The majority of the Irish Law Commission referred to the chilling effect of libel, and stated that:
"The law of defamation should protect the citizen from defamatory statements which are untrue, not those which are true… The approach of the law should be that, while there is no public interest in the publication of false statements, there is equally no public interest in penalising the authors of true statements, particularly when they relate to matters of public concern".
The minority contended that to abolish the existing presumption would be to create an unfair presumption that anything said of the plaintiff, no matter how damaging, was true.
That argument by the minority is, I suggest, based on a misconception. The present amendment would result in there being no presumptions in this area of the law: no presumption that the defendant had wronged the plaintiff by the publication of an untrue defamatory statement, and equally no presumption that what the defendant said about the plaintiff was true. The plaintiff would simply be required to prove the commission of the alleged wrong by the defendant in accordance with the general principles of the civil law of tort.
The time has come to throw off the shackles of the Star Chamber and to adjust the law of defamation to contemporary notions of free speech. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, and his colleagues pointed the way in the Derbyshire case with the acceptance of the concept of the chilling effect of the civil tort of defamation as it stands.
I apologise for taking so long. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I speak against this amendment. In a action for defamation frequently the scales are uneven. The plaintiff is very often a private person. As I said earlier, legal aid is often not available. In a very substantial number of cases the defendants are extremely wealthy corporations with vast resources.
I take the citations from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, in the case of Derbyshire County Council. But essentially I believe that relates to whether or not a public body has a reputation that is capable of being defamed. I do not believe that those remarks were intended to go or do go to the present question.
I put the matter on the basis of principle. A private person's reputation is his or her property. It may be of infinitely more intimate value than his or her home, which is presently defended by the law. If an attack is to be made on a private person's reputation, why should the attacker not have to justify it on the basis of taking on the burden of proof?
I give an example. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—he is not in his place at the moment—intends to speak later, but I am sure that he will not
242
object to my poaching part of his territory. How on earth could he possibly have taken on the burden of proof in the case of Tolstoy and Ors? It would have been impossible for any private person.
It seems to me that balances may need to be redressed. The Court of Appeal, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, has begun to redress the balance in terms of the excessive awards for damages which have recently been made. But to put on the plaintiff the impossible, intolerable burden suggested by the amendment tilts the balance far too far against the individual and far too much in favour of the multinational, very wealthy organisations which substantially control the public press and other media.
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I too speak against the amendment. First, it would be a major change in the law of defamation, with considerable ramifications, and the Bill does not attempt to do anything of that major kind.
As the Committee will be aware, Lord Justice Neill's working group—upon whose recommendations many of the provisions in the Bill are based—considered representations to the effect that the burden of proof was the wrong way round. However, as the group pointed out, it is normally the plaintiff who is the accused and who should be presumed innocent of the defamatory charge unless the defendant can prove that he was guilty; or, to adopt the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, he is the person who has the reputation, and if somebody is going to seek to deprive him of it, that person should be under the obligation to show that that deprivation is justified. If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff was guilty, then his plea of justification will succeed.
The amendment would alter the whole structure of defamation law so that every hapless person against whom another chose to allege dishonesty, immorality, dishonourable conduct, incompetence and so forth would always have to prove his innocence in order to protect his reputation.
Professor Barend's comments are interesting. The one that I would wish to mention is part of what he described as the second reason—proving a negative. But it is a negative in which I would say the plaintiff normally has the right to have it presumed that the positive (that is, his reputation) is something of value to him.
The Irish Law Reform Commission, by a majority, decided to do that. I am not sure whether the Doyle—the Irish Parliament—has yet given effect to it. It may be right to wait to see whether anyone introduces it to the Doyle and, if so, what the result is. I also subscribe to the view that the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel in the Derbyshire case were not intended to be as general as the defendant's counsel would seek to make them in this situation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is not my purpose to seek further to debate the point. The fact that the Irish Law Reform Commission was split three to two shows, I hope, that reasonable people can reasonably disagree

243
about this. I remain convinced that one day, at some time in the future, the burden will need to be readjusted. It may be that the circumstances in which that will happen will be circumstances in which a specific kind of plaintiff is regarded as giving rise to the need to change the burden of proof. However, that is a matter to be dealt with by the courts rather than by Members of your Lordships' Chamber.
I am grateful for the explanations given. This may be the first time in which such explanations have been given in this Chamber. I am sure that Professor Barend will be particularly interested to see the fruits of his article having been commented on in the serious way in which they have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Summary disposal of claim]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("that") to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) there is no arguable defence to the claim on the ground of justification or fair comment or under section 1 (responsibility for publication) or section 3 or 4 (accepting an offer to make amends),

(b) there is no other defence which has a reasonable prospect of success, and

(c) there is no other reason why the claim should be tried.").

The noble Lord said: The present wording of this part of Clause 8 represents a slight variation to the draft Bill in the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper of July last year. To avoid summary relief being granted against him, a defendant now has to do more than show an arguable defence of justification or fair comment. It must appear to the court that there is no defence which has a reasonable prospect of success.
That is a heavier burden than confronts a defendant on an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It is difficult to think of a good reason why a defendant's right to defend a defamation claim should be so restricted. Amendment No. 34 would restore the wording of Clause 8 to the form it took in the draft Bill in the consultation exercise and, in my view, would provide a fairer test. I beg to move.
Lord Hoffmann: Amendment No. 34 looks like a minor change in language. The Bill says that the plaintiff may have judgment if there is no defence to the claim which has a realistic prospect of success. My noble friend Lord Lester would substitute for some defences, "no arguable defence" and for others,
"no other defence which has a reasonable prospect of success".
This looks like a rather arcane dispute—the kind of thing which gives lawyers a bad name. But underneath there is a point of some importance. As my noble friend said, he chose his phraseology from the existing general summary judgment procedure under Order 14 because it is well worn and familiar. It has been used for more than a century in connection with applications for summary judgment or to strike out hopeless cases.
244
There are many cases in which judges have said what these little phrases mean. But the intellectual baggage that they bring with them is from a past time and different circumstances. They were defined by the courts at a time when cost and delay in litigation hardly seemed to matter. Summary procedures were regarded as something quite exceptional; and if there was the slightest prospect of an arguable point, the whole procedure of a full trial had to grind into action. The assumption was that only at a full trial could one have perfect justice.
In our day we have come to realise that if we insist on perfect justice, for many people there will be no justice at all. It is so perfect that hardly anyone can afford it. So the draftsman of the Bill—these are not my words—has deliberately broken away from the old formulae and all the resonances of the old procedures that they carry with them. The words "a realistic prospect of success" are ordinary English words. They have not been used before, but my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf tells me that they are in the draft of the rules for the summary procedure which he is preparing for general use in the courts. Together in this Bill with the very wide discretion which is given by the words,
"there is no other reason why the claim should be tried",
they allow the judge to decide whether there is really anything in the case that needs to go to a full trial—is there really any justification for putting the plaintiff to all that trouble and expense?
Of course, judges are human, and sometimes they will get it wrong, but the more realistic approach to civil procedure which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommends and which we have adopted today is that one will never attain perfection in these matters. A jury sometimes also gets it wrong. The Bill as drafted is intended to encourage judges not to look back to the old Order 14 procedure but to use the power to grant summary relief in a vigorous, humane and commonsense way. I would urge your Lordships therefore not to retreat to the old language which comes from a different age.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann for his support for the clause as drafted. The amendment reflects what was in the clause put out for consultation. In the light of the consultation, and as one of the benefits of it, we saw a way considerably to simplify and to focus on the issue which, as far as I can see, is the correct issue to determine whether or not the summary disposal should be given effect. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, actually suggested that there was anything wrong with Clause 8 in the sense in which it would deal with the matter. Rather, he preferred the more detailed but not so succinct version of the summary judgment clause. I would submit to the Committee that, as drafted, clear guidance is given as to the questions which the court has to ask, and the result on answering these questions is what justice would suggest was the right answer.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The last thing I want to appear to be is a traditionalist when it comes to the procedures of the 19th century. I am wholly persuaded by what has been said both by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and by the noble and learned

245
Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, may turn out to be an optimist if he thinks that the members of my profession will not seek to graft onto the new phrase a great deal of the baggage from the past. But no doubt a Pepper v. Hart reading of this debate may serve to discourage that from happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("This is not an exhaustive list of the matters which may be considered.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment by way of a probing query. It is to establish whether or not it is intended that in Clause 8(4) the statement of matters to which the court shall have regard is to be wholly and exclusively exhaustive. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This was in the clause for consultation. We concluded in the light of the consultation that it was redundant, and I think it is so. The intention is that these matters are ones that the court should have regard to. But they are not exhaustive.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Meaning of summary relief]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("£10,000") and insert ("£25,000").
The noble Lord said: Under Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill, it is envisaged that every defamation action shall come at an early stage before a judge to determine whether it is suitable for summary disposal. The aim of the introduction of summary proceedings is, according to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper, to offer a streamlined disposal procedure where the claim is straightforward and less serious. I find it disappointing, therefore, that the initial ceiling on the amount of damages that can be awarded under the summary procedure has been set at a level which is so low. I perfectly understand what has been said already in the debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, that it is not designed to deal with cases where the plaintiffs are after serious money. But at the moment few juries would award less than £10,000 to a successful plaintiff. Indeed, £10,000 would hardly begin to cover even the costs of the average plaintiff in a libel action, so heavy are the legal costs of proceedings of this kind.
I believe that the operation of the summary procedure is likely to be constrained as a result. Under Clause 8(3) of the Bill, a case will not be disposed of summarily unless the court is satisfied,
"that summary relief will adequately compensate [the plaintiff] for the wrong he has suffered".
246
Unless judges were to adopt the attitude that the mandatory publication of an apology or the text of the judgment, provided substantial vindication for the plaintiff warranting a much lower award of damages, it seems likely that £10,000 will be considered such a small sum that the number of cases considered by judges suitable for summary disposal will be very restricted. That will entirely subvert the reasons for the introduction of the summary procedure, resulting in the procedure becoming merely an extra interlocutory stage in every defamation case and actually adding, perversely, to the cost and length of defamation litigation.
The alternative scenario is that judges will frequently dispose of cases summarily by awarding the maximum of £10,000 damages. Although that will be perfectly in accordance with the aims of the summary procedure, it will be likely to result in a host of additional appeals from disgruntled plaintiffs and the courts would then become overburdened. There is a power in Clause 9 for the Lord Chancellor to amend the maximum amount of damages by order. I suggest that it might be preferable for the Bill to be amended on its face to make it workable from the outset rather than seeing it amended by order in council at a later stage out of necessity because the summary procedure proved to be unworkable or much less used than it ought to be in practice. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment substantially on the basis which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is true, as he said, that Clause 9(1)(c) allows for an order by the Lord Chancellor to increase the amount, but inertia being what it is, the temptation will be to say, "Well, Parliament thought that it was appropriate in 1996 and therefore there will be no significant increase for some time". It is simply a discretionary power for the judge to manoeuvre within the ceiling of £25,000. It is not a vast sum these days even in terms of personal injury awards, which are far too low, I suggest, and certainly in terms of what one expects in libel awards in the moderate area. Therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accede to this amendment.
Lord Hoffmann: I shall not repeat what I said earlier about the purpose of this procedure. Unless I misunderstood him, some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill seemed to be based on a misreading of the Bill as it now stands, but they might have been properly directed to the Bill as it went out for consultation.
The Bill as it now stands states in Clause 8(3),
"Unless the plaintiff asks for summary relief, the court shall not act under this subsection unless it is satisfied that summary relief will adequately compensate him for the wrong he has suffered".
In other words, if the plaintiff is making the application for summary relief and is content to have £10,000 or less, the court is not concerned whether that will be adequate. It is up to the plaintiff to decide that he is going to act under that procedure and choose that as his limit in order to get the other advantages of the summary

247
procedure. It is only if the defendant is seeking to rely on the summary procedure and have the action dismissed as a trivial one, that the judge has to be satisfied that, come what may, the plaintiff would not be able to recover more than £10,000.
The Lord Chancellor: I gratefully accept the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. But even with that point it is a difficult matter to decide what the rigid figure should be. The intention behind this series of clauses is to provide a reasonably speedy remedy for plaintiffs who are not particularly concerned about serious money, although in my book £10,000 is quite serious money. I can understand that others have a different appreciation of that. The precise level is difficult to decide. I do not know why £25,000 is thought to be a particularly appropriate amount either. The idea that a plaintiff should be able to go for that means that in many cases it will be an advantage to the defendant to accede to that procedure. I do not want to lose that because I want to give the person who wants a summary and rapid remedy a remedy which is likely to be attractive from the defendant's point of view also. The protection of the £10,000 limit is important for the defendant. I am willing to consider this further, but at the moment I am inclined to think that the £10,000 figure is reasonable for the purposes of this clause.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for correcting my misreading of the Bill. I suppose that my real concern is to set the figure as high as one reasonably can to compensate plaintiffs without deterring defendants from taking part in the procedure. I think that £10,000 is lower than the amount for which newspapers would be likely to settle under the procedure. It is a question of judgment.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked: why £25,000? The answer is that in my practical experience that is the sort of figure which newspapers would tend to regard as a reasonable top limit for such a procedure. I am not saying that because that is what I have been told by newspapers; it is a judgment from my experience of seeking to settle cases. I still regard £10,000 as very low. I am seeking to tempt the parties into more and more settlements under this procedure by raising the figure. I am sure that this matter will have to be reconsidered at some stage and I would hope that it will be sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Evidence of convictions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a troublesome clause which, on the basis of the correspondence that I have received, concerns many who act in this area. Its consequence would be that previous convictions would
248
be proof in respect of the plaintiff that he had committed the offence in question, but not in respect of the defendant or any person giving evidence on behalf of the defendant. I believe that that opens the door to collateral attacks on criminal convictions. It may cause unfairness to certain plaintiffs, such as doctors, other professional men, police officers and prison officers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to write to me at length on the matter, but I am afraid that I remain unconvinced. I do not see why a plaintiff should be disabled whereas a defendant and/or his witnesses are not.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: On this matter I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. As I understand it, the position is as follows: before 1968 a person's conviction of a criminal offence was not admissible in defamation or any other civil actions. That was amended by the Civil Evidence Act 1968 which provides that in a defamation action, the proof that a person has been convicted of an offence is conclusive evidence that he committed that offence.
The working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill explained in its 1991 report that the rule could operate unfairly in proceedings where the plaintiff is a person other than the one convicted of the relevant offence. Where a defendant made allegations about the conduct of a police officer, for example, or some other witness for the prosecution in bringing about the conviction, the plaintiff would have an artificial advantage in that the correctness of the conviction could not be challenged in an action for defamation arising out of the allegations. As the Neill Committee recognised, that could obstruct the defendant in justifying the allegations. Indeed, it would be likely to deter him altogether from making the allegations, chilling free speech. In line with the opinion of the Neill Committee, Clause 12 narrows the application of the rule which makes conviction evidence conclusive in those cases where the convicted person is the plaintiff or one of several plaintiffs in a defamation action. Proof of the conviction of any other person will still be admissible evidence under Section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act but it will no longer be conclusive. Consequently, if a newspaper decided to write a defamatory article claiming that a police officer had put the wrong person in gaol, in an action for defamation against the newspaper by that police officer the fact that the person in gaol had been convicted of a criminal offence would be admissible but no longer conclusive.
In my view, Clause 12 has welcome implications for freedom of the press and public discussion of the conduct of those who exercise public powers. Therefore, I welcome the clause as it stands.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already provided a fairly full explanation of this clause to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I shall not weary the Committee by reading it out. Essentially, the reasons given by the Neill Committee for the recommendation upon which this clause is based are good ones. They have been elaborated somewhat by what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has just said. In a sense, a

249
collateral matter of this kind should not be decided conclusively as a result of a conviction of a person when the person in question is not the plaintiff. I do not see why it should be so regarded. The matter has been raised by the Neill Committee, but I have not been able to find any satisfactory answer to that question. I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will feel able to allow the clause to proceed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course I shall. I still do not understand why a plaintiff should be disabled by the conclusive nature of the finding. I believe that there is a continuing possibility of mischief arising out of a collateral attack on the validity of a criminal conviction before a jury properly directed, possibly even after the matter has gone to the Court of Criminal Appeal (Criminal Division). However, on the basis of the indication that I gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Basis of entitlement to damages]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 26, after ("damages,") insert ("but only after a finding in favour of the plaintiff on liability").
The noble Lord said: If Clause 13 becomes law it will lead to longer trials of defamation cases, more expense and a lot more evidence. If one does not restrict it, it will permit the leading of evidence substantially on credit, which at the moment is not allowed. My proposal is that if evidence of specific fact is to be admitted at all it should be admitted only after the jury has found in favour of the plaintiff on liability. Therefore, it would be true mitigation of damages. There would be no overlay between the proper assessment of damages and the question of whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on liability. The amendment is intended to give effect to the principle that one should be compensated only for damage to one's real reputation, as it were, and to avoid the confusion between liability—whether or not the plaintiff should succeed—and quantum of damages. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I regret that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on this amendment. It seems to me entirely sensible that the plaintiff should be entitled to recover no more damages for injury to reputation than he deserves when all the facts liable to affect his reputation in relation to the sector of his life to which the statement relates are generally known. Otherwise, if one makes a technical distinction between liability and damages, rather than look at it in a sensible way, given the reverse burden of proof, and so on, it means that unmeritorious plaintiffs will be able to recover more than they deserve. I therefore very much welcome the clause.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not believe that there is anything I can add to what I have said before as regards the clause generally. On the question of whether there
250
should be a statutory rule, there is a passage in the Lord Justice Neill Working Group Report which might suggest that it envisages such a rule, where it says, "In such cases"—referring to the situation we have here:
"we would see no objection to liability being determined first, and the issue of damages being subsequently resolved by the same judge and jury in the light of the outcome on the pleaded instances of misconduct".
It is implicit in that passage that the group did not envisage that evidence going to mitigation only would invariably be left until after the liability verdict. My understanding is that that is the correct interpretation of what the group said. The group agrees with the view that a statutory rule to that effect would not be helpful in practice.
There is no impediment of course to the two verdicts being separated if it appears that mitigation material could be prejudicial to the plaintiff on the issue of liability. That would be a matter for the court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the individual case. If that be right, no statutory power to separate them is required. The court can do that. Automatic separation in every case, whether necessary or not, is likely to increase the length of trials. None of us would wish to do that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, but I am convinced that trials will become longer. Statements will be served and counter-served on endless material. To take an example, a doctor may be accused of defrauding the NHS. That is the sector of his life as a professional man. It is possible that evidence could be led that he had behaved indecently to a woman patient. It is the same sector of his life as a professional man—a doctor.
What will inevitably happen is that trials will become longer; the volume of evidence will become greater; and attempts will be made to blackguard plaintiffs on the supposed basis that that goes to mitigation. If the material is relevant only to mitigation, it has no proper part in the assessment of liability. Judges should therefore be constrained to exclude from the consideration of liability any material which properly goes only to mitigation of damages. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hoffmann moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
(".—(1) Where the conduct of a person in or in relation to proceedings in Parliament is in issue in defamation proceedings, he may waive for the purposes of those proceedings, so far as concerns him, the protection of any enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
(2) Where a person waives that protection—

(a) any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made about his conduct, and

(b) none of those things shall be regarded as infringing the privilege of either House of Parliament.

(3) The waiver by one person of that protection does not affect its operation in relation to another person who has not waived it.
(4) Nothing in this section affects any enactment or rule of law so far as it protects a person (including a person who has waived the protection referred to above) from legal liability for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in Parliament.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), that subsection applies to—

(a) the giving of evidence before either House or a committee;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to either House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business;

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of either House or a committee; and

(e) any communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or any person having functions in connection with the registration of members' interests.

In this subsection "a committee" means a committee of either House or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is put forward to deal with the problem which was raised on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Finsberg. It arose out of a recent libel action brought by Mr. Neil Hamilton, a Member in another place, against a newspaper which published an article which meant, he alleged, that he had made corrupt use for private gain of his right to ask Questions of Ministers.
The action was stayed—in effect, terminated—by a judge on the grounds that the law forbade the courts to investigate anything which happened in Parliament. That meant that the court could not decide whether the allegation in the newspaper was true. It would not therefore be fair to allow the Member to sue for libel if the newspaper was not allowed to justify what it had written.
Most people would agree that if the newspaper was not allowed to prove that what it said was true, the Member should not be allowed to sue. Newspapers would be extremely reluctant to criticise what anyone said in Parliament if it meant that they could be sued while they had to stand with their hands tied behind their backs. That would be bad for government and bad for democracy.
The question is whether it is necessary to have a rule that the courts cannot for any purposes inquire into proceedings in Parliament. The judge who stayed the action followed a recent decision of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand which decided that such a blanket ban on questioning anything that went on in Parliament was derived from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689. That article provides that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. That article, with its echoes of the struggle with the Stuart kings, is primarily concerned with the freedoms and privileges of Parliament; the immunity of Members from prosecutions or actions for sedition or libel on account of their speeches or activities in Parliament. It has no obvious application to
252
a case in which a Member of Parliament is not being sued or prosecuted for anything in which he is in fact the plaintiff.
In Australia it has been construed by one judge as concerned only with freedom of speech in Parliament and by another judge as not applying to a case in which a Member of Parliament is the plaintiff. But the Privy Council, in the case to which I referred, stated that over the years since 1689 it had come to have a much wider effect and it now amounted to a total ban on court investigation of any proceedings in Parliament.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow a person who may be a Member of either House, or neither, to waive so far as concerns him the protection of any rule of law which prohibits the investigation of proceedings in Parliament. The waiver does not affect the operation of the rule in respect of anyone else and, furthermore, the immunity of Members from any kind of action in respect of what they have said or done in Parliament remains sacrosanct and cannot be waived. Therefore, in the case that I mentioned, the Member could waive the protection of the rule so as to allow investigation of his own conduct by the court, but not that of anyone else.
The drafting of an amendment to deal with this matter is not easy. I have had the assistance of parliamentary counsel but I do not believe that either he or I would suggest that the form of amendment before the Committee is necessarily the last word on the matter. It raises a point of general public importance and another which is a technical point. I wish to deal first with the general point. The injustice which the amendment seeks to remedy is that a Member of either House of Parliament cannot, like any other citizen, sue to clear his name if he is alleged to have acted dishonestly in connection with his parliamentary duties. The argument against allowing him to do that is that Members of Parliament cannot be sued for defamatory comments that they make in the House about other people. Why, therefore, should they complain if they cannot sue other people for making defamatory comments about them?
I believe that the answer to this tit-for-tat argument is that the immunity of Members of Parliament under the Bill of Rights is not a private privilege for the benefit of individual Members. It is a privilege conferred upon the House as a whole in the public interest to ensure that there will be that complete freedom of debate which is necessary for the functioning of a democracy. All such freedoms have a cost and occasionally the privilege will be abused. But it is for the House to exert its own discipline and prevent its privilege from being exploited by individual Members for their own private ends.
On the other hand, there is no public interest which requires that a Member of Parliament should not be entitled to bring proceedings to vindicate his reputation if he is accused of dishonesty by a newspaper. Members of Parliament are like other men and women; if you prick them they bleed. If you injure their reputations why should they not also be entitled to vindication?
It is true that in theory, the House itself could conduct an inquiry into his conduct and pronounce upon it. One of the reasons which was given in the New Zealand case for complete abstinence by the courts was the possibility

253
of a conflict between the views of the House and the decision of the court on the same question. But I believe that that possibility is rather theoretical. There is always a risk that an internal inquiry may divide the House on party lines and vindication by such an inquiry is never as satisfactory as by a judge and jury. Therefore, I do not believe that the tit for tat argument is a good one.
Members of the Committee will find plenty of saloon bar cynics whom nothing will persuade that any parliamentary privilege or immunity is in the public interest. But I do not believe that the original meaning of Article IX needs any defence from me. It is the wider rule that has been built on it which has been shown to need some adjustment to prevent it causing injustice in cases where there is no contrary public interest.
Finally, there is the technical point. The Privy Council in the New Zealand case said rightly, if I may say so, that Article IX was a privilege of Parliament and not of the individual members. It is a rule of law and not a personal right. Therefore, the amendment is phrased not as a waiver of the right but a waiver which, to a limited extent, disapplies the rule.
An alternative possibility would have been to allow the privilege to be released by a resolution of the whole House. But for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that that would be very satisfactory because again there would be the possibility of party division. The majority of one party might decide whether or not to release the privilege according to how it felt about one of the Members opposite. Therefore, it seemed best to allow waiver by an individual but to confine its effect to him. It may be that other technical improvements will be suggested in debate here or in the other place.
There is an injustice which needs a remedy and I offer this amendment as an attempt at a constructive solution. I beg to move.
Lord Finsberg: As a non-lawyer, perhaps I may dare to say something about this proposed new clause. Perhaps I may say—and I hope not too frivolously—that having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, it reminded me a little of Box and Cox. If I ever require two lawyers, I could not do better than to have both of them because during the evening they have agreed to disagree with each other on many occasions.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for taking up the point which I raised on Second Reading and for tabling the amendment which has been clearly couched with expert advice and moved with great elegance and eloquence. It seems to me that this provides the remedy for the injustice which I think has been done to my ex-colleague, Mr. Neil Hamilton, and, indeed, to my long-standing friend, Mr. Ian Greer.
I have looked at the amendment and I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said. I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to confirm that this applies to cases which have not been what I would call in layman's terms "ended" because for reasons adduced by the noble and
254
learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, it has not been possible for certain things to happen. That reassurance is needed and I very much welcome this proposed new clause.
Viscount Tonypandy: Perhaps I may follow the brave example of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, because I have been fascinated by listening to the legal profession as it has spoken in the Chamber.
The House of Commons feels deeply about its freedom of speech. The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about that. But I never had the impression, throughout all the years that I served as Speaker, that it would somehow punish a Member, as it has clearly done in the case of Mr. Neil Hamilton, by not allowing him to defend himself properly. I hope that when the Lord Chancellor replies to the debate, he will make it clear that, whatever else he does, there will be no attempt to interfere with that complete protection of honourable and right honourable Members in another place when they speak.
I may say to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships that when an honourable Member defames someone outside the House, no one is more watchful or, sometimes, angry than the House itself. The House has its own way of punishing any honourable Member who defames someone who cannot answer for himself in the House. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as we all love the institution of Parliament, realises that, ever since the Bill of Rights, a cornerstone has been freedom of speech, with no harm to any honourable Member who speaks in the House. The House will deal with him if he goes too far.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I specifically disqualify myself from saying anything on this matter. The reason is plain: I have notified the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the reason I acted for Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Greer and Mr. Greer's company. The only observation I am entitled to make is that it seems, objectively, a suitable reform for another place to consider.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, is to be congratulated on his attempt to tackle a complex and very sensitive problem raised by the decision of the Privy Council, as he said, in Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd. in 1994, as subsequently applied in this country.
The problem is sensitive and complex for a number of reasons: first of all, it is part of the ancient, fundamental principles of the British constitutional system of parliamentary democracy that whatever arises in either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and judged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere. That means that each House of Parliament, Parliament itself and the courts have to be astute in order to recognise and respect their different constitutional roles, and they do.
Secondly, it is sensitive because, as the noble Lord has indicated, it is part of the ancient privilege of Parliament enshrined in Article IX of the Bill of Rights that freedom of speech in debates or proceedings of

255
Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. That is a vital protection of parliamentary democracy.
Thirdly, it is sensitive because it is well established that Article IX stops any court from entertaining any action against a member of the legislature seeking to make him legally liable in criminal or civil law, so members of either House may freely defame their fellow citizens in the exercise of their right to free speech and remain immune from libel proceedings. Although one does not wish to encourage it, one would add, "and rightly so". That is a vital protection, going back to 1689.
Fourthly, it is delicate because the parliamentary privilege protected by the Bill of Rights is a privilege of Parliament as an institution and it cannot be waived by an individual Member of either House. As I understand it, there is an absolute prohibition, even when it is the MP himself who brings libel proceedings.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, that the result of the Prebble case and its progeny has been to create a real injustice. It would be unfortunate, however, if this amendment were seen in some way to be especially for the protection of the rights of Mr. Hamilton or any other MP currently engaged in legal proceedings. We must deal with this, I suggest, as a matter of principle.
There is an element of rough justice about the present position. An MP is immune from being sued for libel for what he says in the House and, on the basis of the Prebble rule, he cannot sue for libel if he depends upon anything which would question proceedings in the House. Therefore there is a kind of reciprocity there, but it is not a fair one. My view is that MPs should be able to sue to vindicate their parliamentary reputation provided that it cuts both ways. Under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, as I read it, it would cut both ways because if the MP did not waive the protection, then he would not be able to proceed with his action against the newspaper because the newspaper would not be able to defend itself and therefore the proceedings would be stayed.
The immunity of the MP under the Bill of Rights is a further reason for supposing that the common law might adjust the burden of proof in such cases through qualified privilege. That is not a matter that now concerns the Committee. There is, I think, the problem in the amendment of the notion of an individual waiver. It has been dealt with with great delicacy and rightly not mentioning the Bill of Rights and Article IX as such. But I can envisage problems that may arise where one MP exercises waiver and another MP does not and yet they are both in some way involved as parties or witnesses in the same or related actions. That may cause great difficulty.
It is admirable that the amendment has been introduced and it ought to be passed by this Chamber, but the place where it really needs to be carefully considered is in another place where, as I have indicated, their own position and privileges will be very
256
much in the fore when this is considered. I hope that it can be considered in a way which quite transcends any individual case, any individual Member of Parliament and any individual political party. Having said that, I very much welcome the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I wish to express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann for bringing forward this new clause and for—if I may quote my noble friend Lord Finsberg—the elegance and eloquence with which he did so. It has given the Committee a valuable opportunity to reflect on the substantial issues which the clause raises. Of course, as has been said, it is a matter of great importance for the other place but it also affects this place and the privileges of this Chamber.
As my noble and learned friend has explained, the clause would allow a person whose conduct in Parliament is in issue in defamation proceedings to waive protection such as that of Article IX of the Bill of Rights so as to enable evidence to be given in court, and findings made, about his conduct in Parliament. At the same time, the clause preserves the essential protection afforded by the Bill of Rights to Members of both Houses and others such as witnesses before parliamentary committees from any legal liability for anything they may say or do in the course of parliamentary proceedings.
As my noble friend Lord Finsberg reminded the Chamber at Second Reading, the matter has been focused because the learned judge stayed an action for defamation brought by Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Ian Greer against the Guardian newspaper. The judge did so because he decided that the case could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about Mr. Hamilton's conduct and motives in tabling Parliamentary Questions which were the subject of the newspaper's allegations; and that evidence could not be heard because of the prohibition (by virtue of Article IX) on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. As has been said, that followed the earlier decision of Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in which, because of the provisions of Article IX, the committee found that the defendants could not use parliamentary materials to establish the truth of allegedly defamatory allegations made by them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said, this raises a matter of principle quite independent of any particular case. The case I mentioned is just an illustration of the situation in which it might arise. The case for the new clause is, in essence, that it would enable justice to be done in defamation cases such as that brought by Mr. Hamilton. Provided Mr. Hamilton waived his protection, which the clause would allow him to do, the defendants would be able to call evidence to justify their publication and the issue between them and the plaintiffs could be tried by the court. If the plaintiffs went on to win their case they would be able to recover damages which they could not do if they were forced to resort to the machinery which exists within Parliament for dealing with such cases by way of a complaint of privilege.

257
Therefore, there is a substantial case to be made for the amendment. On the one hand, any interference with the Bill of Rights is a matter of great importance which both Houses will be anxious to assess with the utmost care. I am particularly glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was able to take part in the debate. His knowledge and experience of the privileges of Parliament in both Houses is very great. I am grateful that he has been able to be with us on this occasion and to contribute to the debate.
The particular way of proceeding which has been proposed inevitably involves an element of one-sidedness. A Member of Parliament would be able to put his conduct in Parliament before the courts when it suited him, but whether it suited him to do that, he would continue to enjoy absolute protection from liability if he so wished. I am sure Members of the Committee would agree that it is essential to preserve, as the clause does, the core privilege of protection from liability in respect of proceedings in Parliament, without which the exercise of free speech in Parliament cannot be fully upheld. But it must be admitted that there is a certain awkwardness in allowing the courts to question parliamentary proceedings only when it is to the advantage of the Member concerned—or, as he sees it, to his advantage.
Finally, I should make what is perhaps a slightly technical point—it has been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann—that the privilege of either House belongs first to the House rather than to individual Members. In the words of Erskine May,
"it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by Members".
That is essential, in my submission.
That being the case, it may be remarked on that the clause envisages the waiver of privilege by an individual Member, without the House having any say in the matter. But giving the House a say in the matter—by making the waiver dependent on a resolution of the House—could conceivably lead to a greater mischief: a partisan parliamentary majority might decide capriciously to refuse a waiver—or worse, it might impose a waiver on a Member who did not wish to waive the privilege. That is the real question: whether it would be a matter for Parliament to decide, whatever the wishes of the Member, that the privilege in respect of a particular Member should be waived.
Those are among the considerations which the Committee will need to weigh. There is the point about other Members being involved either in that Member's conduct, or closely with it. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, gave as an example a case where two Members seemed to be in almost exactly the same position. Their position in Parliament could be the subject of adverse comment if one waived the privilege and the other did not.
As I understand the clause—my noble friend will correct me if I do not have it right—it enables a person whose action had been stayed, for example, to waive the immunity and in consequence for the stay to be lifted to
258
enable the action to proceed. If the clause were passed, it would have effect in respect of actions already stayed on grounds such as we have been discussing.
These are among the considerations which the Committee will need to weigh. Speaking as I do on behalf of the Government, their position is one of neutrality. Those are matters for the House rather than the Government. Ministers' concern is that this important issue should be properly ventilated in debate in each House. The Government will want to hear the views of another place in due course before taking a decision on how best to proceed. The debate in the Committee this evening will, I am sure, be of great assistance to Members of another place when they consider the question.
There is the problem of what we should do now. It is a matter of fundamental importance which has only recently been published in the sense of being added to the Marshalled List of amendments to the Bill. So that the whole House may have an opportunity of considering the matter fully before an amendment is made, it may be that my noble and learned friend will feel that the best course to take this evening is, having had the discussion, to withdraw the amendment. Then it can be moved again on Report, giving anyone who may read the debate but who did not have an opportunity to contribute the possibility of studying the subject before the House takes a final decision and the Bill goes to another place.
It must be right for this House to decide, one way or another, before the Bill passes whether it should adopt this clause or any amendment or refinement of it. As I said at the outset, it is a matter for both Houses of Parliament. There are particular sensitivities in the other place to which the noble Viscount referred. However, we too have an important interest in this aspect. Therefore, it is right that the House should decide whether the clause should be added. My noble and learned friend may feel that it is such an important issue that before it is added to the Bill it is considered again at Report stage. Other Members of the House who may not have fully appreciated its importance will then have an opportunity of considering the proceedings in this Committee.
Lord Hoffmann: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks and particularly for his acceptance that there is a serious problem. It needs to be dealt with, if not by the precise clause then at least by a clause along those lines. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to the debate. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 14 [Reports of court proceedings absolutely privileged]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 37, leave out from ("before") to end of line 41 and insert ("a court to which this section applies, if published contemporaneously with the proceedings, is absolutely privileged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 42, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 and 52. Amendment No. 42 is consequential on the recasting of Clause 14 which confers absolute privilege on contemporaneous reports of proceedings of courts in the United Kingdom. The effect of the amendment is that the courts to which the privilege applies are no longer referred to in subsection (1), which now simply refers to the courts "to which this section applies".
Amendment No. 45 is part of the same recasting as I mentioned in relation to Amendment No. 42. A new subsection is inserted to provide a free-standing list of the courts to which the section applies, so that contemporaneous reports of their proceedings will be privileged. It adds the courts attached to the European Court of Justice (which will include the court of first instance) and also the European Court of Human Rights. Those are all courts whose proceedings can have an impact in the United Kingdom in one way or another.
Amendment No. 52 is a drafting amendment to affirm that references to the European Court of Justice in the first schedule will include references to any court attached to the European Court of Justice, as the court of first instance now is.
On Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 in this group, perhaps I should wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes to say. They are obviously connected and it may be convenient to deal with them all together. In the meantime I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If it is convenient, perhaps I should indicate my approach to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. It is on the same basis as indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It seemed to some of us that an international war crimes tribunal, the General Medical Council and the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal should be in the same categories.
Lord Aldington: I wish to comment from my experience of the European Court of Human Rights, which has been added to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, knows what I am about to say. We are used to absolute privilege here. It applies to proceedings in courts at which all parties relative to proceedings are present and at which counsel obey rules, do not give evidence, and so on.
However, there was a recent case in the European Court of Human Rights which arose out of my libel action in which one of the defendants was the plaintiff against the United Kingdom. I was not a party. Because of the way in which these things happen, the newspapers reported things said in that court which were entirely incorrect and which were damaging to my reputation. My noble and learned friend should be aware that his department is well aware of my complaints in this matter.
260
I want to draw a lesson from that. We are used to applying these privileges to courts, and indeed to parliaments, which have some control over what is said. But the European Court of Human Rights seems to have a completely different procedure to the one to which we are accustomed. This particular case opened with the spokesman for the Commission giving evidence about the matters as background, which was quite wrong. It happened to cross what I knew to be correct and what had been said in my case. The case continued with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who had been briefed wrongly. He was kind enough to say so, and corrected the record. But the mistakes he made, which were damaging to me, appeared in the newspapers.
It is doubtful whether we should give absolute privilege to proceedings in a court of that kind. The other way is to give them absolute privilege and try to see that the procedure is tightened up a good bit. It was a very extraordinary thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said to me, that the proceedings started with a representative of the Commission—which, as the Committee will know, examines cases before the court—actually giving some personal evidence of what he himself found when he was a young officer in the 27th Lancers in Austria. It was a very extraordinary way of conducting affairs. All that gets into the newspapers. I cannot think that it will be right for me. It does not matter. I have had the time and resources to try to correct what was in the newspapers; and I have done it. But it was damaging in the meanwhile.
That example provides a lesson for us all. It relates somewhat to what can happen in United Kingdom courts when there is an outburst during the course of proceedings by one of the parties and the newspapers do not report the proceedings properly; they report the outburst and only part of the proceedings. That is because usually they do not immediately report counsel's reply. That is possible here. Because counsel in a court here does reply, it is possible to get matters put right under the terms that it has to be a fair and accurate report.
The case at the European Court of Human Rights, because of the nature of the proceedings, was one of a private individual against a government. It was really a case against me, but I was not a party. I was not represented; I was not there; I could not correct anything that was wrong. Yet the newspapers can carry, the next day, something that is defamatory. I put that point to my noble and learned friend. I do not suggest that he alters the Bill at this moment, but I should like him to do something about it, because there will be others who, like me, are affected in that way in due course. He may say: you can deal with all that. I did. But it cost quite a lot of money and a lot of time. That is not a good way of conducting our affairs.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord did not give me notice that he intended to make the speech that he just made. I feel a little embarrassed about it. Had he told me, I might have discussed matters with him in advance, and indeed returned to the documents in the case. In that case I appeared for Count Tolstoy against the United Kingdom before the European Court of

261
Human Rights. What one has just heard is the views of one of the parties to that litigation who feels extremely strongly about it, just as my client himself did.
The issue raised by the noble Lord is whether it is right for the proceedings in courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, to be covered by statutory privilege. I listened to him carefully and believe that he recognised, in the latter part of his speech, that the kind of injustice that he feels, rightly or wrongly—I emphasise both words, "rightly" and "wrongly" without taking sides—is an injustice that many people who are parties to litigation feel when they read reports in newspapers about the conduct of proceedings.
I was an amusing victim this morning when I found myself described in the newspapers as acting on behalf of the traitor George Blake. In fact, I was not; I was acting as the amicus in the case. But I was described in that way with a lot of comments made to me afterwards. That is one of the facts of life that occur with a free press when it is reporting proceedings in courts or, for that matter, in Parliament.
As somebody who has had a great deal of experience of the European Court of Human Rights, in my view it operates independently and impartially as a real court. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, does not agree either with what was said by Sir Basil Hall, the delegate for the Human Rights Commission who appeared before the court, nor with some of the statements that I made on instructions that were reported in the press. But that is no argument for withdrawing statutory privilege from our courts or from the European Court. As was said many years ago, justice is not a cloistered virtue; the public are fully entitled to know, on the basis of a fair and accurate report of proceedings in public before the courts, what is going on in those courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has had every opportunity to make his point known in this Chamber and I am glad that he has had a chance to do so. However, I do not think that that in any way casts doubt on the wisdom of Clause 14 and the inclusion of the European Court of Human Rights within it.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand well my noble friend's concerns in these matters. I know a good deal about the detail of the matter to which he referred. It is a matter of judgment as to which tribunals and so forth should go into the list. The important thing is that what is protected is a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in public before any court.
Without going into any specific situation—I shall not refer again to the circumstances of the particular case—if something is said against an individual in a court and that something is also flatly contradicted in the course of the same proceedings, a fair and accurate report of the proceedings would incorporate those comments. I leave that case and turn to a case where someone is represented wrongly as representing the traitor George Blake. I imagine that that was not a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in that specific case either, unless the submissions were of such a character that someone could fairly and accurately report them as
262
having been made by a representative of George Blake, notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was not instructed on behalf of George Blake.
The point is that it is only a fair and accurate report of the proceedings that is protected; it is not a defence to an action of defamation, in my understanding, that the thing simply emanates from a hearing in public before a court. It must be circumscribed by being a fair and accurate report of the proceedings. That is probably the right answer to this matter. In the meantime, I hope that the Committee will approve Amendment No. 42.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he indicated that he might offer a view on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
The Lord Chancellor: I am looking further at the question of Amendment No. 43 because one needs to see what others have done in respect of that. I have instituted inquiries. The General Medical Council and the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal are tribunals exercising certain powers. The Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal would be singled out for some reason—I think possibly because it was mentioned in the excellent briefing of the Law Society of Scotland. It has an English equivalent so it would probably be less clear.
The general rule I have followed is that domestic tribunals are not given the same benefit as those tribunals which are courts. The definition of "court" which I have used consistently in such legislation as I have been concerned with in this area is "a tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the state". I initially picked that up from the Constitution of Australia and certain of the decisions made there. That gives the essential character of a court and that is why it has been used.
It would not be right to extend the absolute privilege to tribunals which are in the nature of domestic tribunals. There is an argument about whether the particular tribunals to which the noble Lord refers in Amendment No. 44 are of that character. The law has been that domestic tribunals attract qualified privilege under paragraph 14 and that it would not be right to extend the absolute privilege to tribunals of that kind. That is my response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
("() This section applies to—

(a) any court in the United Kingdom,

(b) the European Court of Justice or any court attached to that court, and

(c) the European Court of Human Rights.

In paragraph (a) "court" includes any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("except as provided in") and insert ("but "publisher" is specially defined for the purposes of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Extent]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, leave out line 23.
The noble Lord said: This amendment speaks for itself. I believe it to be acceptable to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Qualified Privilege]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, line 29, after ("any") insert ("member State or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 49 is a small drafting amendment to avoid any suggestion that the provision in paragraph 9(b) is intended to exclude reference to authorities performing governmental functions in relation to the whole of a member state as opposed to in relation to part only of that state. Amendment No. 50 is a drafting amendment which affirms, in case otherwise there could have been any doubt, that the expression "governmental functions" includes "police functions" both in the United Kingdom and in other member states, so that fair and accurate copies of or extracts from notices or other matter issued for the information of the public by those exercising police functions will attract qualified privilege under Clause 15 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 14, line 31, at end insert—
("() In this paragraph "governmental functions" includes police functions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
(" . A fair and accurate report of a correction or apology pursuant to section 2 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill currently stands, it is possible that a publisher might find himself in the position where, if libel proceedings against him were disposed of under the new offer of amends procedure and he was obliged as a result to publish a correction and apology, a third party might come along and claim that the published correction or apology was a libel of him. That is by no means a fanciful possibility. Frequently, libel proceedings arise out of complicated factual situations involving a considerable number of people, each of whom blames others involved for the scandal that has arisen. Where that happens one or more of the parties involved-might bring libel proceedings.
Under Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill it is possible that these will be disposed of by way of offer of amends. It might well be impossible, however, to devise a suitable correction and apology in fulfilment of the offer of amends without implying, or even in some cases stating, that other parties involved in the affair were implicated in a way which could be defamatory of them. This amendment would confer qualified privilege on corrections and apologies published by way of offer of amends, reducing the risk that an editor might find himself out of one libel frying pan into the fire of another. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the reason why it might be thought that reports of the outcome of an offer to make amends should have a special privilege, but I believe that a special privilege for that situation would be unnecessary and have unfortunate consequences. The outcome of an offer to make amends would not often involve a fresh defamation of a person who had not been involved in the original dispute. But if it did, it would raise the question of why a third party had been defamed.
One reason might be that the parties to the offer, and acceptance of the offer to make amends, had been motivated by the desire to gain publicity for their defamation of someone else, knowing that, although they themselves were not worth suing, anyone reporting their publication would have no reason to look into their motives. It does not seem to me right that the reporter of a settlement between two parties should automatically be licensed to pass on their defamatory comments on one another. I should have wanted to consider this amendment if it were shown that a responsible reporter who had not been aware that the reputation of a third party could be adversely affected by the report in respect

265
of which no other defence would be available had made the report in question. I believe that to have a kind of general licence to give special privilege to this type of statement would be rather wider than justified.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for showing me that the amendment does not do complete justice. It seems to be a case where complete justice probably cannot be done. I would like to think further about it to see whether there is some method of dealing with the problem I have raised in a more proportionate way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
266
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 16, line 46, after ("Justice") insert ("(or any court attached to that court)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Global Environment Facility: Annual Report
  Global Environment Facility: Annual Report
  Zanzibar: Aid
  Zanzibar: Aid
  Central and Eastern European States: Policing and Law Enforcement Training
  Central and Eastern European States: Policing and Law Enforcement Training
  Cyprus: Missing Persons
  Cyprus: Missing Persons
  Saudi Arabia: Arrests of British Nationals
  Saudi Arabia: Arrests of British Nationals
  Passenger Railway Service Provision
  Passenger Railway Service Provision
  CrossRail
  CrossRail
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Thameslink 2000
  Thameslink 2000
  Transport Research Laboratory: Sale
  Transport Research Laboratory: Sale
  Railways Act 1993: s.139 Grants
  Railways Act 1993: s.139 Grants
  Civil Enforcement Agents
  Civil Enforcement Agents
  Marriage: Interdepartmental Working Party
  Marriage: Interdepartmental Working Party
  The Ombudsman: Advisory Booklet
  The Ombudsman: Advisory Booklet
  Remploy: Annual Performance Agreement
  Remploy: Annual Performance Agreement
  Bilingual Teaching Projects
  Bilingual Teaching Projects
  Modern Language Teaching in Secondary Schools
  Modern Language Teaching in Secondary Schools
  Modern Language Skills
  Modern Language Skills
  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Downe Hall
  Downe Hall
  Rough Sleepers, Gloucestershire
  Rough Sleepers, Gloucestershire
  Common Agricultural Policy: Costs
  Common Agricultural Policy: Costs
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  National Debt
  National Debt
  UK Current Revenue and Spending
  UK Current Revenue and Spending
  UK Revenue and Spending
  UK Revenue and Spending
  EU Common Visa List
  EU Common Visa List
  Foreign Nationals: Application Forms for Leave to Enter or Remain
  Foreign Nationals: Application Forms for Leave to Enter or Remain
  FBI: Representation in UK
  FBI: Representation in UK
  Asylum Seekers: Benefits Disentitlement
  Asylum Seekers: Benefits Disentitlement
  Entry Clearance and Extension Applications: Primary Purpose Rule Refusals
  Entry Clearance and Extension Applications: Primary Purpose Rule Refusals