Sitting of 26 April 1996

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

  Offensive Weapons Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  9.34 am
  Mr. David Nicholson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you have been briefed about the reason for the withdrawal of my new clause 1, which was tabled some time ago, and the tabling last night of new clause 2, which is starred. The Public Bill Office found an error in line 9 of the new clause—it was my fault or that of those who drafted it for me—where the word "Act" was used instead of "section".
  I understand that the Public Bill Office discovered the error only yesterday morning, although it has had the new clause since before the Committee stage. I learnt about the error last night at 7 o'clock through a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and we attempted to put right the mistake by withdrawing new clause 1 and tabling new clause 2. I believe that the late discovery of the error was due to the bereavement of a staff member in the Public Bill Office. In those circumstances, Madam Speaker, I hope that you will select new clause 2 for consideration this morning.
  Madam Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have considered carefully whether I should make an exception and allow starred new clause 2 to be called in the circumstances that he has explained. However, I am not prepared to allow the Bill's proceedings to begin with consideration of a new text that hon. Members have not seen before this morning. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might consider discussing the matter with a colleague in the other place.

  Offensive Weapons Bill
    Clause 1

      ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT FOR OFFENCES OF CARRYING OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ETC.
      Mr. David Nicholson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
      '( ) an offence under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959;'.
      I shall be brief, as I had intended to speak mainly about my new clause. The amendment seeks to ensure that the legislation relating to flick knives—the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959—should carry powers of arrest similar to those proposed for offensive weapons in the Bill. I hope that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in extending the Offensive Weapons Bill to include flick
      670
      knives. They are clearly a major threat to personal safety, so it is desirable that they be included within the scope of the Bill.
      Mr Tim Smith: I do not have section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 before me, so I ask my hon. Friend to explain what he has in mind. Is not the matter covered by paragraph (1), which refers to an
      "offence of having article with blade or point in public place"?
      Does that not include flick knives?
      Mr. Nicholson: The drafting of the Bill is principally a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. This is a belt-and-braces effort to ensure that flick knives are included in the Bill. I made a copy of the relevant section from the 1959 Act.
      Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to filibuster without having got their act together? It is clear that, as usual, an attempt is being made to avoid debating important measures that could come before the House later. Conservative Members do not seem to have got their filibuster or papers together.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is clear that a great deal of research material on the subject is available, and presumably the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was trying to find the relevant document.
      Mr. Nicholson: I had no intention of filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I intended to sit down, having made my point. I cannot explain why a reference to flick knives is not in the Bill, but I have the text of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. Section 1 states:
      "Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale on hire or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person—
      (a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a 'flick knife' or 'flick gun'; or
      (b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring lever, or other device, sometimes known as a 'gravity knife',
      shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction … to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both such imprisonment and fine."
      Therefore, I want the Bill to refer to such weapons.
      Mr. John Greenway: My understanding is that the Bill's purpose is to ensure that police officers are given the power of search and arrest in a public place. The 1959 Act proscribes flick knives and gravity knives. Most of us are of an age that we can recall that in the 1950s, such weapons were a scourge on our streets. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 included a long list of other items that I can only think are used to cause injury, such as knuckledusters, hand claws, belt buckle knives and push daggers. The 1988 Act extended the 1959 legislation to include all those items.

      671
      Section 142 of the 1988 Act allowed magistrates to issue warrants authorising police constables to enter and search premises for flick knives or gravity knives, or for weapons set out in the order made under section 141. If the House accepts the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), as it should, will that put beyond any dispute the ability of a police officer to arrest in the street someone whom he finds in possession of one of the weapons in question? It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, that the weapons would be caught in the generality of the measure.
      Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend said that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 extended the 1959 legislation. If so, and if a flick knife is an
      "article with blade or point",
      as I believe it is, I cannot see the need for the amendment.
      Mr. Greenway: The 1988 Act, in extending the 1959 legislation, included a long list of other items that do not necessarily have a blade or point, such as
      "the weapon sometimes known as a 'telescopic truncheon', being a truncheon which extends automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device"
      and
      "the weapon sometimes known as a 'blowpipe' or 'blow gun'."
      On the face of it, such weapons would not be caught by the general description of an
      "article with blade or point".
      If the Bill's purpose is to put on a proper footing the power of the police to stop, search and arrest in a public place, and given that the 1988 Act allowed magistrates to issue warrants rather than give the power of stop, search and arrest, we ought to a do a belt-and-braces job and make sure that the power of arrest is included. I doubt that the House will have the opportunity to consider the matter again for some considerable time, so I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends in their places. It is important to get the Bill right, and I hope that my explanation of my understanding of the law will assist the House.
      9.45 am
      Sir Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has initiated and advocated an important point, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Clause 1 refers to arrest without warrant for carrying offensive weapons, and in speaking to it I must declare that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
      Amendment No. 1 would make it clear without doubt that the legislation relating to flick knives will carry a similar power of arrest as proposed in respect of other offensive weapons in the Bill. That sensible provision would be widely welcomed by police forces throughout the country. The amendment does not require lengthy consideration, but it is evident that flick or gravity knives present a problem, and the Bill addresses the dangerous knife culture that has developed in this country. I hope that the House will be disposed to support my hon. Friend's amendment.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I reject amendment No. 1, but not with any great enthusiasm.
      672
      The amendment would give the police the power of summary arrest in relation to the offence of manufacturing or selling a flick knife or gravity knife. I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment, and it is understandable that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) wants to be tough on the manufacturing or selling of flick knives or gravity knives. They are vicious and create appalling harm, so why not arrest on the spot persons who peddle, sell or manufacture those weapons? Why not close the loophole? Why not make a belt-and-braces amendment? That all sounds so logical.
      Such weapons are invariably smuggled into this country, largely from France—where they are legally obtained over the counter. Even if a seller of such weapons is caught in this country, which I regret is rare, the offence does not qualify for the emergency action of immediate arrest and interview at the police station. Selling is a static activity. It causes no immediate harm, so the offence of selling such weapons is dealt with by a summons. The vendor is easily traceable by virtue of his premises.
      The danger comes when a weapon is in the hands of the purchaser and from what he might do when he goes out of the shop into the street. If he is then found carrying a flick knife or gravity knife, which are banned under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, he can be arrested on the spot. In any case, there is a flaw in the drafting, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has limited the scope to gravity knives and flick knives. Why did he not include butterfly knives and the rest of the 14 weapons already banned under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
      The amendment would extend the power of summary arrest to the offence under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which makes it an offence to import, manufacture or sell a flick knife or gravity knife. Most of us have a rough understanding of what a flick knife is—a knife or blade that opens automatically when a button is pushed. A gravity knife is similar, except that the blade is released by the force of gravity and what the 1959 Act describes as the "application of centrifugal force". The offence under section 1 of the 1959 Act is not in the same category as that of carrying an offensive weapon or knife.
      First, selling is an absolute offence and it is therefore less difficult to establish whether an offence has been committed. Next, the offence will not normally have been committed in the street, but at a fixed address—the seller's shop. That means that the offender is easily traced, and interviewing can be carried out on his premises. There is no difficulty in keeping tabs on the offender—he is there.
      The force of the amendment should be put in the context of the number of recorded convictions. It is very rarely that vendors are found to be selling such weapons. Indeed, there was a total of only five prosecutions in 1994 and one in 1993. In the circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make the offence arrestable. I therefore reject the amendment.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on promoting the Bill, which I believe is much needed in the light of recent tragic events of which we are all aware. The heart of her Bill is, of course, clause 1. The important point is that the clause is about the carrying of offensive weapons.

      673
      When my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) first introduced amendment No. 1, I had thought that section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 also referred to the carrying of offensive weapons, and that is why I thought that the amendment might be unnecessary. If all that we were talking about was the carrying of offensive weapons, that would be covered by clause 1 as it stands. My hon. Friend was, as I understand the position, referring only to flick knives and one other kind of dangerous knife.
      I now appreciate, in the light of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, that the 1959 Act is about the manufacture and sale of offensive weapons. The amendment would therefore have the effect of widening considerably the remit and the scope of clause 1. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that that was not really the original object of her Bill, because she seeks to give to the police the power to arrest without warrant, in the street or on school premises, in circumstances in which they have good reason to believe that a weapon might be about to be used immediately. That is a very different proposition from somebody either manufacturing or selling one of those weapons. Serious though that offence is, it does not involve the immediate intention of using the weapon to cause harm. The amendment would extend the scope of clause, and on balance I believe that we should not accept it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I can assure him—and the point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—that the carrying of any offensive weapon, including flick knives and gravity knives, which is prohibited by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, will be arrestable under clause 1. The amendment would make the sale or manufacture of such weapons arrestable.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), now that he has heard what has been said, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We all wish to take strong action against knife-related crime, and if there were an operational justification for the amendment, we would need to consider it seriously, but the amendment would widen the provision considerably and we would end up with a measure that was too strong for the circumstances that are envisaged.
      Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out that the existing legislation makes the carrying of flick knives an arrestable offence, so the sanctions and provisions of the Bill will apply as much to flick knives as to other offensive weapons. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to air such an important matter and for the assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT ON SCHOOL PREMISES ETC.
      Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'reasons' to the end of line 39.
      674
      The amendment would affect clause 4, which was added in Committee for very good reason, because it deals with the carrying of bladed articles in schools. I wish, in passing, to make it clear that I fully support the clause and I was delighted that it was added. It deals specifically with the sort of violent incidents in schools that have caused so much concern to the nation of late. It also has some bearing on one of the motivations behind the Bill, which was the unfortunate murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence, although that took place just outside school premises.
      Because clause 4 was added in Committee, the House did not have the opportunity to consider it on Second Reading or to table amendments to it in Committee. For that reason, I tabled the amendment today. It would strike out subsection (4)(d), which is a reference to national costume. To explain the relevance of that, I need briefly to refer to the earlier part of the clause.
      The main purpose of the clause is to make a specific offence of the carrying of bladed articles—which are banned under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—on school premises. The clause also specifies exemptions or clear defences on those two offences, and subsection (3) provides the general defence of being able
      "to prove … good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon … on the premises".
      Subsection (4) extends the defence to provide specific defences. In my view, most genuine defences would be covered legitimately by subsection (3), so I slightly question the need for subsection (4) at all. I assume that it is included to clarify the situation for people who, quite legitimately, carry pointed instruments or weapons, which action would otherwise constitute an offence. The four specific additional defences are defined as follows:

      "(a) for use at work,

      (b) for educational purposes,

      (c) for religious reasons, or

      (d) as part of any national costume."

      I seek to remove paragraph (d).
      It would seem that the wearing of the Sikh kirpan would be fully covered by subsection (4)(c), if it were not covered, as I believe it probably would be, by subsection (3). There will be examples of individuals wearing the full Sikh regalia in schools, and the kirpan is part of that regalia. The Sikh community inherits rich cultural and national traditions that are linked to religion, and the wearing of various garments is a requirement for strict adherence to the Sikh religion.
      10 am
      I wish to do nothing to detract from the ability of a Sikh to carry out his religious observances. They are a fine body of people and I would hate to see either their religion or their tradition inhibited in any way. I believe, however, that Sikhs would be fully protected by subsection (4)(c) as a result of a religious imperative. I do not believe that the removal of subsection (4)(d) would have any impact on them.
      That leaves us with a simple question: to what would subsection (4)(d) apply? I need to be thoroughly convinced that there is a good and overwhelming reason for the specific reference to "national costume" to be included. I have nothing against the wearing of national costume.

      675
      As something of a romantic, I rather approve of people dancing or walking around in various national costumes. I would hate in any sense to be destructive of tradition.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems almost to be ridiculing his amendment. Is he aware that the amendment has been seen in some quarters as an attempt to inhibit the wearing of the Scottish national costume and the purely ceremonial element that is involved in the wearing of that dress? Is he not diminishing respect for that costume and that activity in the rather flippant way in which he is introducing the amendment?
      Mr. Merchant: I fail to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not being flippant. I made it clear that I took national tradition seriously, otherwise I would have not made the remarks that I did. As for Scotland, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have observed that the amendment does not apply to the relevant area of Scottish law. The amendment is directed to English law.
      Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many Scots wish to wear their national costume in England and Wales? Therefore, the amendment applies to citizens of the United Kingdom when they are seeking to wear Scottish national costume in England and Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman serious, or is he intent on arguing in support of the amendment to take up time, only to withdraw it?
      Mr. Merchant: I am concerned about these matters. I am aware that there are Scotsmen in England who wear national costume. I am not aware, however, that that happens very often in English schools. To the extent that it does, I believe that there would be protection in any event.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend ignore the filibustering attempt of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is clearly trying to disrupt the argument? There is a distinction between United Kingdom national costumes, such as the Scottish costume and the equipment that is worn with it, and the national costumes of other countries. Is subsection (4)(d) an attempt to protect Greek evzones who wear their costume? I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the distinction between United Kingdom national costumes and national costumes of other countries.
      Mr. Merchant: That is an extremely relevant point, as is that of weapons that are linked with national costume.
      I shall pose three questions that I think are relevant to the amendment. First, are there clear and specific examples that show it to be necessary for someone to attend school premises wearing a national dress that has, as an essential part of it, a sharp or bladed object?
      Mr. Bill Walker: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pipe bands, which regularly appear on school premises throughout the United Kingdom. An essential part of a pipe band's proper costume or outfit—highland dress—is the skean-dhu. I wear it on school premises and in Parliament.
      Mr. Merchant: No doubt my hon. Friend also wears it in the street from time to time. I feel sure, however, that he would not fall foul of the main part of the Bill, even though there is no specific exemption for national costume in the rest of the Bill.
      I believe that Scottish pipe bands would be absolutely and fully covered by parts of the Bill other than subsection (4)(d). For example, they would be covered by subsection (3), because they would be able to prove that they had "good reason" for wearing a national costume, including the skean-dhu. If not, they would be able to illustrate that the full costume was being worn for "educational purposes". Pipe bands would not walk on to school premises out of a whim. No doubt they would have been invited. There would be a good educational reason for their being on the premises. They would probably not be able to defend themselves for "religious reasons", even though I know that many Scotsmen—especially highlanders—feel extremely strongly about their national costume.
      I return to the three questions that I have been attempting to pose for the past five minutes. First, are there relevant examples that show the absolute necessity of subsection (4)(d)? I question that. Secondly, if people are wearing national costumes at school, why is that? If there is a good educational reason, that is fine. But are we really saying that we want to encourage those attending school to wear an array of national costumes from different parts of the world? That would be inadvisable in itself. Thirdly, is it always necessary to carry a weapon as part of a national costume? Given the various degrees to which I have been pressed over the past few minutes, I exclude the Scots.
      There have been many precedents created for the display of national costumes. There have been some exemptions for usual practice in occupations that require a uniform to be worn. In those instances, there has nearly always been a specific reason. For example, railway conductors have long been allowed, if they are genuine Sikhs, to wear the required items to which I have referred. That exemption has not been extended to people who happen, on a whim, to wish to wear a national costume. We do not see bus conductors wearing Dutch clogs, for example, or Lederhosen. It would be rather absurd if they were allowed to do so. A schoolteacher would not be especially well thought of if he suddenly took to arriving at school and conducting lessons dressed in Lederhosen and wearing Dutch clogs, not necessarily together. There is a clear distinction between national costume and clothes that are part of religious observance.
      There will of course be exceptions, and no doubt a school might wish, as part of its curriculum, to show national costume. A school might have a day on which people would be encouraged to dress in national costume as part of a history lesson or for cultural studies, and that would be covered under "legitimate educational purposes". In the vast majority of cases, however, the legislation would not even begin to apply because there would be no likelihood of sharp instruments being carried.
      I should like, finally, to refer to Scotland and to the Scots, although my remarks have been anticipated to some extent. I stress that I deliberately did not table an amendment to the latter part of the Bill, which refers to Scottish law, because I take seriously the matter of Scottish national costume. I accept that national costume is regarded differently in Scotland, and I can think of no reason why it should not be so regarded under the law.

      677
      Scottish costume requires the carrying of the skean-dhu, which might be ruled, in other circumstances, as contrary to the Bill—under clause 4 or elsewhere—because it is of course a sharp and pointed instrument. I do not have a great deal of experience of how sharp and pointed it is—perhaps luckily. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will no doubt be able to enlighten us on that point.
      My hon. Friend might also be able to explain why it is necessary to carry the skean-dhu as part of national costume. Sometimes I wonder whether it is entirely necessary, or whether it might be more sensitive for a Scotsman visiting a school not to include it as part of his national dress. I am willing to be corrected on that point if I can be assured that wearing a skean-dhu is absolutely essential, and that a Scotsman would feel naked without that part of his dress.
      I think that a Scotsman would still find that there was little doubt that he would be able to defend himself fully against any absurd charge that might be attempted under the Bill, either under subsection (4)(d) or under any of the other clauses to which I have referred. Therefore, Scotsmen, however sensitive they may be about it, need not feel threatened in any sense by my amendment.
      For all those reasons, I argue that subsection (4)(d) is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment, to the extent that I am asking to be convinced that it is necessary. I cannot think of any convincing argument that it is, but I have a sufficiently open mind to allow myself to be persuaded, if other hon. Members are able to do so.
      10.15 am
      Mr. Bill Walker: I shall speak against this amendment, which will not surprise the House, and take up the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).Perhaps he will now be able to understand why we Scots regularly have no remind everyone it was our king who came down to sit on the Union throne and why, from time to time, we have to remind everyone that the Union between Scotland and England was voluntary. There may have been an element of bribery involved in it, but the Union was made by voluntary agreement.
      In forging that Union, the Scots brought to the United Kingdom a certain colour and a certain heroism—which was found on battlefields, to the great advantage of the Union. Part of that Scottish tradition is the wearing of highland dress. I underline the fact that we are talking about highland dress, which is not worn by all Scots.
      Lady Olga Maitland: Pity.
      Mr. Walker: Yes, it is a pity.
      One can, therefore, recognise that there is a great danger of alienating a part of a minority in the United Kingdom. We live in a world in which minority interests have to be considered with great care; we constantly see people introducing legislation to protect minorities. I am a minority of a minority in many ways, because not only am I a highland Scot but I am a highland Scottish Conservative Scot, and we really are a minority.
      678
      I am one of the few Scots who come to the House fairly regularly wearing my national dress. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always wear it in matters in which the scouts have an interest because scouts throughout Scotland regularly wear highland dress.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I understood from books of Scottish etiquette that the kilt should never be worn below the highland line.
      Mr. Walker: That was probably written by a Campbell. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Scots were on both sides at Culloden. As is often the way with the Scots, they hedged their bets—which was reason for sending our king down to sit on the throne. The truth is that the Scots always wear the appropriate dress when facing the enemy.
      Mr. David Nicholson: I hate to spoil my hon. Friend's paean in support of the highlanders, but is not it true that at Culloden there were more Scots in the Duke of Cumberland's army than in the prince's army?
      Mr. Walker: That was why the king's army won. I do not know why anyone should be surprised about that. That was the most astonishing intervention. The king's army would not have won if there had not been more Scots on Cumberland's side. So that there is no doubt on this matter, I should tell my hon. Friend that my mother's side was on the king's side and my father's side was on the losing side. Such situations were not uncommon in the highlands and among those who married lowlanders.
      I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—it is a very important point—that the highland regiments, until well into the second world war, went into battle wearing the kilt, as they did in the first world war and in all earlier campaigns. I ask him: how can anyone possibly suggest that it was not proper to be wearing the kilt south of wherever? As I recall, most campaigns were fought far south of wherever. Scots all over the world, and particularly in England, demonstrate at every opportunity the fact that we reached an agreement on the Union, of which we are proud to be part.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham properly asked whether it would be right to remove the skean-dhu—the weapon with which he is concerned. The skean-dhu should be worn in the stocking and should not be unsheathed in public. I have occasionally shown my grandfather's skean-dhu, which is the one that I wear. He wore it during the Boer war campaign, the first world war in Mesopotamia and in two tours in India, when he was in the Black Watch.
      We wear the skean-dhus because they are much more than symbols. They reflect family inheritance and tradition, and they cannot easily be replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham suggests that it should not be worn and asks whether one would feel naked without it. If one were not to wear it, one would feel that one was not continuing the traditions that make us what we are—beautifully different, yet part of this collective whole called the United Kingdom.
      Given the opportunity, I shall in a later debate deal with the question of this beautiful United Kingdom of which I am proud to be part. I am proud to be part of it because

      679
      I am in a minority of a minority. I am a highland Conservative Scot, which is why I have to demonstrate clearly to the vast majority who are not of my background that we Scots have contributed massively to the Union.
      It rarely, if ever, happens that the skean-dhu is unsheathed in public. I have the police's assurance on that, because the matter arose some years ago when we were debating legislation proposed by my former right hon. Friend who came from Grantham. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the skean-dhu was not covered by the type of provision that we are debating again today.
      My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is that there are no problems with the skean-dhu. There is no history of Scottish boys or members of school pipe bands behaving badly, and, "If it's not broke, you don't mend it."
      Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) failed to advise us what possible mischief there would be in someone being on school premises with what might be regarded as an offensive weapon were it not part of a national costume. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said, we have to consider whether there is the slightest chance of someone removing a skean-dhu from his highland dress and using it as a weapon of assault.
      Mr. Merchant rose—
      Mr. Greenway: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I wish to develop this point a little further.
      I wish to relate an incident that occurred during my police career in the 1960s and which, on the face of it, might support the amendment. In reality, however, it serves to prove that my hon. Friend's proposition is ridiculous.
      I had just walked into the front office of the Savile Row police station just after midnight, when there was an emergency call to go to the Westbury hotel around the corner in Conduit street where a brawl was taking place in the foyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surely not."] Yes, indeed, at the Westbury hotel.
      Hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to learn that, when I arrived at the hotel, a mother and father of a punch-up was going on. It involved mainly gentlemen in dinner jackets, but one in highland dress. I, a bold 19-year-old policeman, tried to stop this fracas in one of our leading west end hotels. I was roundly assaulted with kicks to various parts of my anatomy, one of which I would not wish to mention in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
      At that point, something strange happened. The gentleman in highland removed the skean-dhu from his stocking and attacked the throat of the gentleman who had kicked me in a particular part of my anatomy. I subsequently managed to arrest both gentlemen and, at the police station, they were charged with various offences relating to drunk and disorderly behaviour. On the advice of the station sergeant, the gentleman in highland dress was charged with an offence relating to the skean-dhu. The word "skean-dhu" appeared on the charge sheet.
      In those days, it was usual for people who had been charged to appear at Bow Street or Marlborough Street magistrates courts the following day. The CID officer on
      680
      duty that morning would consider any charges. When he saw the reference to the skean-dhu on the charge sheet. his first impressions was that I had been over-zealous and that the charge had been made simply because the poor fellow had the skean-dhu in his stocking. I assured him that that was not the case and that it was fortunate that the skean-dhu had not entered the other gentleman's throat.
      Suffice it to say that when the gentlemen appeared in court that morning, it transpired that they both had impeccable professional qualifications. They had been at an annual dinner when an argument had broken out. Everyone there had been the worse for drink. They pleaded guilty to the offence and were roundly condemned and thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.
      I do not think that I have ever told that story in public before, and certainly not in the House. The point of my telling it is to emphasise that we are being asked to consider the likelihood of such an event happening on school premises if someone were wearing his national costume and had a skean-dhu in his stocking.
      Mr. Merchant: A person intent on mischief would not be allowed to take a weapon into a school if he were dressed like me. If he tried to do so. he would immediately fall foul of the Bill's provisions. However, does my hon. Friend accept that such a person could put on any national costume—there is nothing in the Bill to say that he is not entitled to do so—and thus enter the school brandishing a knife without falling foul of the Bill?
      Mr. Greenway: That is an absurd proposition. We have to have a sense of proportion.
      In the story which I related, the Scottish gentleman who went to dinner at the Westbury hotel in highland costume was not committing an offence by having a skean-dhu in his stocking, but the moment he removed it from his stocking and attacked the other gentleman's throat, any defence that allowed him to carry that implement went out the window.
      I can tell from the way that the House listened with care and interest to my story—I hope that I shall not be accused of filibustering or of being out of order for having told it, because it goes to the heart of the matter that we are debating—that the very idea that such an event could occur on school premises is patently absurd. In the extremely unlikely event of someone drawing that knife in anger from his stocking on school premises or elsewhere, he would lose the protection of any possible exemptions and would be guilty of a serious offence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was right to raise the matter, because we must be sure to get the legislation right, but I hope that, on reflection, the House will not support the amendment.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made a powerful and emotive case against the amendment. It is incumbent on those of us who represent English constituencies to listen to him carefully. There are many Scotsmen in England and, no doubt, many teaching in English schools. From time to time, they may choose to wear their national costume. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) examines the subsection that he seeks to

      681
      amend, he will see that national costume provides a defence only if the person wearing it has no ulterior motive.
      I listened carefully to the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of his experience when, some time in the 1960s, as a 19-year-old policeman. he was called to the Westbury hotel after midnight. That fascinating episode from his past was also extremely relevant.
      In fact, the defence that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam inserted in Committee, when clause 4 was first introduced, is not novel. It also appears in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which refers to a "public place". As the 1988 Act is a consolidating measure, even in the 1960s—when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was serving at Savile Row police station—the gentleman wearing Scottish national costume would have had a defence had he not removed the offensive weapon from his sock. The point of my hon. Friend's story was that he did remove it. Until that point—or, perhaps, until the point at which he had consumed too much—he had not intended to do any damage with the weapon that he had decided to carry with him. It was part of his national costume, and posed a threat only when he removed it with intent to injure another person.
      I strongly believe that we should keep legislation as simple as possible. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on which I believe clause 4 is modelled, provides the same defences. It refers to "use at work", "religious reasons" and "national costume". I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has added "educational purposes", which is understandable in the context of schools.
      I feel that the clause should be left as it is. I am glad that the Committee decided to extend the Bill by referring to schools; it is not entirely clear to me that a school is a public place, although a public place is defined in section 139 of the 1988 Act as a
      "place to which … the public have … access".
      There could be some debate about whether the public do have access to schools. Clause 4 is a welcome addition to the legislation, and I feel that in this respect, at least, we should leave it unamended.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) tabled his amendment, but by the time he finished his speech I think we felt that he had not been all that enthusiastic in the first place, because he made so many exceptions. The arguments against the amendment are borne out by the experiences described by my very dear hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker)—another Scot; we have two on the Front Bench today—and the telling incident in the Westbury hotel described by the erstwhile detective constable, currently my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Those experiences tell their own story; sometimes the law can seem absurd, or, indeed, an ass. If the amendment were accepted—I hope that it will not be—we would find ourselves in an invidious position.
      The intention behind clause 4 is simple: it extends to school premises the provisions that already apply to the carrying of offensive weapons, such as knives, in public.
      682
      I believe that, unless there are good reasons not to, we should strive for consistency between what happens in public and what happens on school premises.
      The existing offence of carrying a knife in public is accompanied by a number of defences for anyone charged with such an offence. There is the general defence that the person concerned had a good reason, or lawful authority, to carry the knife. That makes good sense in regard to, for instance, someone carrying home a kitchen knife that he or she has just bought, or carrying a knife with which to cut cabbages on the allotment. A keen fisherman might carry a knife along with his rod and tackle.
      There are also three specific defences. The person charged may be able to prove that he was carrying the article for use at work; he may be a carpet layer, for example, although that defence is somewhat over-used and, indeed, abused. He may be able to prove that he was carrying it for religious reasons, or as part of a national costume.
      In extending the offence to carrying an offensive weapon to schools, we have added a specific defence where the person concerned can prove that he was carrying the article for educational purposes. He may be a teacher, or, indeed, a pupil, equipped with a tool with which to work in arts and crafts or cookery classes. The justification is obvious.
      The amendment proposes to remove the specific defence in relation to national costume. I note that a similar amendment has not been tabled in relation to Scotland. I think I understand why—my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside gave us a very good description—but the traditional Scottish dagger, or skean-dhu, is part of that country's national costume, and there will be occasions on which it is worn on school premises: open days, speech days and, in boarding schools, on Sundays. I have seen them worn in church. Although a person wearing highland dress, complete with skean-dhu, would not often enter school premises in England and Wales, he could do so.
      What is more likely is the extraordinary development that Scottish country dancing classes involving full highland dress, including the skean-dhu, would suddenly become unlawful. Pupils from a Scottish school visiting a school south of the border might well wish to go formally dressed as a courtesy, but under the amendment that could be construed as an offence. Similarly, pupils might take part in a school play in national dress, including a dagger.
      Mr. Merchant: Would there not be a perfect defence in such circumstances under "educational purposes", if not under
      "good reason or lawful authority"?
      Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend is introducing yet more exceptions. There are so many exceptions that I wonder how often we would find that there was a rule.
      The amendment is not logical, and could cause serious difficulties. If we are to keep the legislation as harmonious as possible, we should retain that specific defence in England and Wales. With great regret, I must tell my hon. Friend that I reject his amendment.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has just said. We should not forget that there

      683
      are many people of Scottish ancestry in this country. I include myself in that. My only problem is that, having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I am not sure into what grade or category I fall. I am descended from a lowland rather than a highland family. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside will not be too prejudiced against me. There is some argument about whether I am entitled to wear a hunting Stewart tartan or whether, must be confined to the Galloway tartan of my own family.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of Scots—like everyone else in the United Kingdom—lived on the land, and the highlands were very densely populated. After the 1745 rebellion, the highland clearances and the industrial revolution, that changed. My hon. Friend is probably descended from highlanders.
      Mr. Kirkhope: My family has been progressively moving further south all the time. My hon. Friend forces me into an embarrassing admission. Having survived in the Scottish lowlands, I understand that in some murky episode my family removed itself to the north-east of England, to Newcastle, apparently with some cattle and other items, which I suspect we have never returned. The point of relating that is simply to enable me to say that I was privileged to go to a good school in Newcastle, the Royal grammar school, at which some of the pupils were of Scottish extraction.
      I was involved in Scottish country dancing, a fine social activity, and we were visited many times by boys from other excellent schools in Scotland. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition went to Fettes college, but I am not sure whether he ever visited the Royal grammar school or came to England in full Scottish dress, which I think he may be entitled to wear. I have related all that because it underlines the fact that the amendment would not be helpful. Although we are discussing pupils, we should not forget that many people are on school premises out of school hours for various purposes in which such national dress could play a part.
      There should be consistency between knife carrying in public and on school premises. In that context, it is wrong for someone to have a defence for carrying a knife in public but not for carrying it on school premises. We have had some merriment and some tuition from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside about Scottish history and folklore, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Merchant: The debate has been skilfully and quickly turned into one about the Scots, which was not my intention when I moved the amendment. I am aware of the sensitivities and should like to make it clear that I have nothing against the Scots or Scottish national dress, which is an important, colourful and historical part of our overall United Kingdom culture. I was trying to make some serious points about what I thought could be a loophole in the Bill, and I am glad that at least I have been able to precipitate a reasonably full debate on the subject.
      There have been many references to minorities. I distinctly appear to have become a minority of one on this issue and do not seem to have much hope of pressing my
      684
      amendment. I suspect that I am surrounded by a majority of Scots, albeit wearing suits, but at least I am not like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who maintains his solitary vigil in the knowledge that he has a majority of one, on his side at least.
      If the clause has to remain, I would prefer it to read "as part of that person's national costume" rather than "any national costume", but it is clearly too late to introduce an amendment on that. I hope that people will not use the clause as a loophole to avoid the Bill's provisions. Above all, I do not wish to be unhelpful—the magical word that was used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—or to upset or frustrate the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As she knows, I supported the Bill at every stage and spoke strongly in support of it on Second Reading and in Committee. As she says that the amendment would frustrate the Bill's purpose, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Merchant: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 44.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 3, line 3, leave out
      'or a fine, or both'.
      No. 15, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 7.
      No. 16, in page 3, line 10, leave out
      'or a fine, or both'.
      No. 17, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 11.
      No. 18, in page 4, line 14, leave out
      'or a fine, or both'.
      No. 19, in page 4, line 17, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 18.
      No. 20, in page 4, line 21, leave out
      'or a fine, or both'.
      Mr. Merchant: The amendment is straightforward and simple and I shall not detain the House. The linked amendments have exactly the same purpose, which is to remove the fine option from the offences related to the issue that we have been discussing, namely, the carrying of various types of weapons in schools. The amendments apply to England and Scotland, which are listed in the measure.
      Removing the option of a fine leaves the penalty as a mandatory prison sentence. However, this is not so harsh as it may sound because the term of imprisonment that would be applicable for the offences will not exceed six months, two years or four years, depending on the clause to which reference is made.
      10.45 am
      I shall not detain the House by going into the detail of which offence attracts which punishment. My sole purpose is to say that maximum prison sentences are specified and that it is clearly up to the court to show flexibility according to the circumstances, detail and

      685
      nature of the offence. Courts would be able to impose a light sentence if that appeared to be relevant, which means that there is room for discretion.
      I move the amendment because at present the proposed sentence is identical to that which applies for offences that are committed outside a school. In my view it would be appropriate to have a tougher sentence when an offence is committed in a school. The reason is simple and relates to the environment in a school. A large number of children are present at one time without their parents, and for that reason they need extra protection. I cast no aspersions on our highly professional teaching staff and others who look after children in school. In the vast majority of cases it works perfectly satisfactorily and safely. Nevertheless, the ratio of adults to children is normally considerably lower than when children are with their parents. There is also the specific sensitivity and the potential target that a school may present to those who wish to cause mischief. I recently quoted two recent examples of that and there are many more.
      The Bill needs an extra mark of protection for children who are potentially under threat. We need tougher deterrents and greater punishment and deterrence is the issue that I wish to stress. By making it clear to anyone who contemplates breaking the law that there is an automatic prison sentence, the deterrent value is that much increased. The amendments would strengthen the Bill and are based on good reason.
      Mr. John Greenway: The amendment is not a good idea. Again I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). He tried to explain that the courts would have discretion and spoke about a maximum rather than a mandatory sentence. None the less, removal of the fine option would be extremely serious and would leave a court with no option but to impose a custodial sentence. We should be clear on two points. First, with the exception of the exemptions that we debated earlier, this is an absolute offence. There is no requirement to prove that someone entering school premises with a knife had any intention of using it for any purpose. We all know why we are doing it and it is right that we should, but it is an absolute offence.
      I do not want to give in any detail an example of the innocent carrying of a knife or weapon on school premises where someone would be caught under the clause, but it could happen, not least because, as the previous debate made clear, school premises are not used exclusively as schools. They are used for social events, especially secondary schools, and at weekends and during school breaks, so we must be careful. If we think about it clearly, the amendment would impose an absolute offence with an absolute certainty of imprisonment, however brief. That is not a good idea.
      Secondly, is it always correct to say that imprisonment is a greater deterrent than a financial penalty? I am not sure that it always is. A youth in his late teens or early 20s, who is earning an extremely good income, may go to an event or dance held for his local football team on school premises. He could have his knife in his pocket and be found guilty of this offence. It would be ridiculous to say that the possibility not just of imprisonment, but of hitting his pocket would have no deterrent effect. It is not one or the other: it is the possibility of both that would be deleted by the amendment.
      686
      For those reasons, the amendment is not a good idea, however well intentioned it might have been. I return to the point that I made in the discussion on the previous amendment. Were anyone to be so foolish as publicly to draw a knife or pointed instrument from their person on any premises, the powers in the clause to impose extremely tough penalties can be used. The amendment imposes a penalty simply for an absolute offence of someone having such weapons on their person. It is possible that a relatively innocent offence could be committed.
      It is right that we should accept the Bill, but equally it is right that we should allow the courts sufficient discretion to deal with the circumstances with which they will be confronted whenever this charge is brought, which we cannot necessarily foresee today.
      Mr. Tim Smith: At about the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was Detective Constable Greenway operating out of Savile Row police station, I was a young law student studying what Oxford university pompously calls jurisprudence, and I have a vestigial memory of some of the basics of criminal law. One of the things that we learned was that normally the criminal offence consists of two parts: a guilty act and a guilty mind. My hon. Friend has made the point that this is an absolute offence: there is no mens rea. It means, in effect, that the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence. That is why the defences in the clause and in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are so important.
      If all that one has to prove is that someone was carrying an offensive weapon, it is not reasonable that the only penalty that could be imposed on such a person is a prison sentence. At present if someone is convicted of an offence under section 139 of the 1988 Act, the court cannot impose a prison sentence; only a fine can be imposed. Clause 3 of the Bill increases the penalties.
      I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is doing. She is saying that Parliament believes that the position is now sufficiently serious that in certain circumstances the courts should have available to them the possible imposition of a prison sentence, but the Bill makes it clear that, until it becomes an Act of Parliament and is brought into effect, the only penalty that can be imposed is a fine.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants us somehow to distinguish school premises from public places generally. I understand why he says that. We all know of the recent horrific cases on school premises and of criminal offences close to school premises involving school teachers. We all share his deep concern about that, but we cannot therefore conclude that in the case of school premises the possibility of a fine should be ruled out altogether.
      In those circumstances, taking into account the fact that only a prison sentence is available, not only injuries, but perhaps magistrates might be reluctant to convict in certain circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that it would be wrong to remove from the courts the discretion to decide what should be the appropriate penalty in any case.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. Earlier, I mentioned the wearing of the skean-dhu. I was reminded by the hon. Member for

      687
      Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of an interesting event that occurred in my life, where discretion was important and where certain leeway was required.
      I was to be joined at the United States Democratic convention in San Francisco by my wife and daughters. Before they boarded the aircraft at Heathrow airport, they were advised by the chap who was looking after them that Bill had been arrested in San Francisco because he was wearing a knife. The Democrats got themselves in an awful mess. Eventually, I met the head of the secret service, who was in charge of security. Being a sensible fellow, he said to me, "You and I had better come to an agreement and an understanding. You can come in the morning wearing your knife. They'll tannoy for me and I'll come. You will hand over your skean-dhu to me publicly so that everyone can see and then we'll go off for a cup of coffee and I will give you it back."
      My arrest hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. I followed that with a visit to the Republican convention—this is important because this is where discretion comes in. The Republicans were determined that I was not going to be arrested at their convention, so they advised everyone at the convention that this chap wearing the kilt and the knife in his stocking was to be treated with kid gloves—British Member of Parliament and all that. Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the Dallas police. In Dallas, people can wear as many guns as they like, but they are not allowed to wear knives in public and I was arrested by the Dallas police on my way into the convention centre. They called up on their radio telephone and said, "We've got this guy, " and all the rest of it. Eventually, it got through to the head of the police. He came on the radio to the car and said, "Look. We had better handle this with great care. This guy is a British Member of Parliament." So they photographed me dressed in my finery with my knife in my stocking and dropped the arrest charges. This is the discretion part. They realised that, although it contravened the law in that part of Texas, they had someone wearing his national dress. They took a photograph of me and distributed it to every policeman in Dallas to make sure that I was not arrested again. It is that sort of discretion that the courts need as innocent individuals could otherwise be caught by the Bill.
      Mr. Michael: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his photograph was distributed for the purpose he suggested? It is more usual for photographs of individuals to be distributed widely within a police force for a rather different purpose.
      Mr. Walker: It might have been because I am such a good looking fellow and the police thought that all the ladies of Dallas should know that I was visiting—like pop stars and other people of substance. It probably had nothing to do with the fact that I was wearing my kilt, with a skean-dhu in my stocking. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interesting. So far as I am aware, no one has ever found any reason, other than the wearing of my skean-dhu, to distribute my photograph. If he has evidence to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear of it. We could then discuss what a suitable penalty would be.
      11 am
      Lady Olga Maitland: The remarks of my hon. Friends in response to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) have been of
      688
      one mind. We need flexibility and it would be a great mistake to remove the degree of decision making and options that should be available to the courts. Indeed, it would be unusual for the option of a fine not to be available as one of the penalties.
      I understand that in 1994 fines were imposed on almost three quarters of offenders sentenced in magistrates courts, covering a very wide range of offences and involving about 1 million people. Six months' imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine are the normal maximum penalties for trial in a magistrates court. The courts must have the power to deal with the whole range of serious incidents that may occur under the proposed offence of carrying an offensive weapon or knife on school premises. Some examples of that offence will be so serious that gaol must be the penalty—there is no doubt about that. That will be especially true where it is clear that the defendant went out intending to stab a victim viciously, not caring whether it caused injury or death.
      Nevertheless, there will be offences where there are strong mitigating factors, such as those described by my hon. Friends, which must be regarded as being at the lowest level of seriousness. Indeed, there could be considerable misunderstandings. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to imprison the offender as such a penalty would be quite disproportionate. Without the power to impose a fine, magistrates would often feel obliged to impose very short terms of imprisonment, which could be far less effective than a fine for some offenders, as a fine would hit their pockets very hard. Many of them could not give a hoot about spending a few days in gaol. However, if they do not have very much money and what they do have is regularly docked so that they no longer have beer money, they might think twice.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend know whether there are any precedents for what is being proposed in the amendment? Are there any criminal offences for which magistrates can only send people to prison and cannot fine them?
      Lady Olga Maitland: I am not aware of any. I understand that it is not the practice of this country to shackle magistrates or justices in that way.
      The amendments are somewhat spurious. It should be remembered that there is a power to override gaol sentences under section 31(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. That gives Crown courts the power to impose fines, of any amount, regardless of any restrictions imposed in specific pieces of legislation. It is also important to remember that providing for a fine in legislation can actually increase the severity of the penalties available. A long gaol sentence together with a fine is obviously more severe than just a prison sentence. Furthermore, it is arguably the case that a large fine may be taken more seriously by the offender than a short prison sentence, depending on the circumstances of the case. I therefore support my hon. Friends' call for the amendment to be withdrawn.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I agree with the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and others of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale and for Beaconsfield. We all want strong measures to be taken against knife carriers, but to remove the option to impose a fine or to impose a

      689
      fine as well as a prison sentence would not only reduce the flexibility that the courts can exercise, but in some cases, as has been stated by my hon. Friends, it would actually weaken the severity of sentencing.
      Mr. Merchant: I hope that I have at least given the House an opportunity to examine, in a little more detail, the nature of the punishment that should fit the crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale felt that it would be inappropriate to have only a prison sentence. Perhaps I take a tougher line on crime than he does. I strongly believe that prison is a tough deterrent—in most cases, the ultimate deterrent—and I am not entirely convinced by the argument that a fine, however unwelcome, can be a tougher way of dealing with offenders.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to mens rea. Given the clarity of the offence and the wide knowledge of the existence of this legislation when enacted, as I hope it will be shortly, people—especially youngsters—will know full well that they are committing an offence if they carry a weapon as described. Therefore, it could quite easily be said that if someone is carrying such a weapon, he has a guilty mind as well as carrying out a guilty act. I doubt whether there will be many instances of someone saying, "I had no idea and no intention of breaking the law by carrying this weapon." Hon. Members should remember that we are talking about the carrying of the weapon; we are not referring to any intention that it may be used, which in itself would constitute a separate offence.
      I feel strongly that the carrying of knives on school premises is a very serious matter. It happens a great deal more in some areas than hon. Members may be aware. It is therefore incumbent upon us to take a tough line so that we can avoid some of the disasters that have occurred and might occur again.
      I make no apology for moving my amendment or for wanting a debate to draw attention to the risks posed by people carrying knives. The House needs to ensure that tough action is taken against such offences. Having said that, I accept that I am once again cast in the role of a minority. Having drawn attention to my point, and its having had a good debate, I hope that at least some of my motives for introducing it will be taken on board.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—
      '(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

      (a) the reference in subsection (2) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and

      (b) the reference in subsection (6) above to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is to be construed as a reference to Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
      '(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.
      690
      No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to bE".'.
      No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.
      No. 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out 'and 3' and insert
      ', 3 and 4(1), (1A) and (3)'.
      Lady Olga Maitland: These amendments fulfil a commitment given by the Minister during the Committee stage on 6 March. He informed the Committee of the intention, which I fully share, to extend to Northern Ireland the new offence of having an article with a blade or point on school premises. That is the effect of the amendment.
      The amendment would add subsection (7) to new section 139A—the offence of having a article with blade or point on school premises—of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to provide the relevant adaptions in application of the new section to Northern Ireland. Thus, any reference to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—which refers to the prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—will be construed as a reference to the equivalent offence in the law of Northern Ireland. That is found in article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which refers to the carrying of offensive weapons in a public place. A similar amendment is made in new section bI of the 1988 Act.
      Provision is made for references to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to be construed as references to article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which contains the definition of a "school" in Northern Ireland. A new clause 4(1A) is inserted to amend the extent section of the 1988 Act to apply to the new sections 139A and 139B to Northern Ireland, and a consequential amendment is made to clause 4(3) as a result.
      The amendment fulfils a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister made in Committee, and I am therefore only too glad to table it on Report. I hope that it will be supported by my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Michael: I am happy to confirm the Opposition's support for the amendments. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, it introduces an element of consistency by extending the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed. I am glad that she and the Minister have been able to fulfil the undertaking that was given in Committee.
      Mr. Kirkhope: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, the amendment fulfils a commitment that I made in Committee. I therefore naturally support it, and welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
      Amendment agreed to
      Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 27, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

      691
      No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      Lady Olga Maitland: This is another somewhat technical amendment, but important to the overall purpose of the Bill. Its intention is to clear up a small and entirely unintended ambiguity in relation to police powers of seizure of knives and offensive weapons on school premises. It is proposed in clause 4 to extend the offences of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public to school premises. Those two separate offences are referred to in the proposed new section 139A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to England and Wales. The equivalent Scottish offences are referred to in the proposed new section 49A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
      The problem arises in relation to the associated police power of seizure of a knife or an offensive weapon if an officer discovers such a thing in the course of a search on school premises. The proposed powers of seizure are referred to in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 139B for England and Wales, and subsection (2) of the proposed new section 49B for Scotland. Both provide that a constable may seize an article—I emphasise the word "article"—of a kind described in subsection (1). That may conceivably be taken as omitting the power to seize offensive weapons. The amendment merely rectifies that.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has given a technical explanation of the need for the amendment, but not one that is easily understood by a lay person. Surely the word "article" includes weapons, especially when one considers the context of the Bill and other legislation under consideration. As the Minister is to comment, perhaps he will deal with that point.
      I clearly understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to ensure that items are not accidentally omitted so that powers given to police officers in the Bill would therefore be faulty. I share that aspiration, but I do not understand why the amendments are necessary. The Minister may not be all that distant from the drafting of the amendments, so I ask him to explain in lay terms why the wording as it stands is not satisfactory and why the word "article", as one would commonly understand it, does not include weapons as a matter of legal definition.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Kirkhope: One of the problems is that the amendment is essentially technical. I fully understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is saying that without the amendment problems may not be caused—but problems could be caused. As the matter is currently framed, it is possible to construe the clause as proposing a police power of seizure for knives, but not for offensive weapons. I am advised that the amendment must be technical.
      Mr. Michael: I am not trying to delay the Minister; I am simply trying to understand what is being said. If offensive weapons other than knives are not included,
      692
      would the Minister illustrate the sort of articles of which he is thinking? That might make the matter wholly transparent.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot really do that because the term "offensive weapons" covers a large range of items. The word "article" does not help us. We believe that the word "article" does include weapons, but we still think that there is a possibility of doubt in legal argument; that is why we are trying to remove the ambiguity. In talking of offensive weapons, a sharpened screwdriver comes to mind, for instance. Nevertheless, the amendment has to be technical. It is important that in such an important measure we should remove any possibility of misunderstanding or ambiguity, and any opportunity for the extension of legal argument and of justice not being done. The amendment is very sensible and, uncontentious and would clarify matters.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister's illustration is very helpful. Am I correct in thinking that he is saying that the wording is basically to act as belt and braces, and that it does not change what was intended by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam or those who were originally involved in drafting the Bill or what we understood that we were doing in Committee, and that it is merely to ensure that there is no doubt?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I can confirm that. While the hon. Gentleman and I may think that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the matter in a certain way, lawyers might use the opportunity in certain circumstances to misunderstand the wording unless it is absolutely crystal clear. That is the reason for the amendment, which we support.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
      '(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.
      No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to 139B".'
      No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.
      No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.—[Lady Olga Maitland.]

    Clause 6

      SALE OF KNIVES AND CERTAIN ARTICLES WITH BLADE OR POINT TO PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 7, after 'applies', insert
      'or who encourages or incites the purchase of an article to which this section applies by or on behalf of a person under the age of sixteen, or who advertises such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes,'.

      693
      The Bill deserves two cheers and it will earn a full three cheers if the amendment is accepted. The amendment is intended to take a grip on the incitement and advertising that have helped to encourage the knife culture, which we all abhor. This point was discussed on Second Reading, and I believe that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was sympathetic to my argument then.
      To explain my reference to three cheers, from the beginning, Labour has supported the Bill, which will take a grip on the carrying of knives. A second cheer went up when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister accepted the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, that we should ban the sale of knives to young people under the age of 16. However, we need to go beyond those measures, to take a grip on the knife culture in general, and in particular on those who profit from encouraging impressionable young people to take an unhealthy interest in offensive weapons. That is why we need a ban on the advertising of such weapons. I shall spell out the problem briefly.
      On Second Reading, there was agreement on both sides that we needed to control the advertising of guns and weapons generally. Today, the amendment is designed to deal specifically with advertisements that encourage the knife culture. I raised the question of advertising and the mail order of weapons as long ago as the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which I proposed amendments, so it is not an issue that has suddenly come out of the blue.
      Last year, the shadow Home Secretary brought to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority some advertisements that included other weapons such as guns, but which also specifically included quite horrific weapons with titles such as "Rambo shortsword" and "SAS shoulder holster knife".
      In response to the approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, Lord Rodgers, the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, stated specifically that the authority had no powers to ban such advertising. Therefore, since as long ago as the period before Second Reading, Ministers have known that legislation is the only way in which to ban such advertisements and it is disappointing that we have not yet got that point covered in law.
      We cannot deal with the whole issue of the advertising of weapons and guns in the Bill, but we can agree to an amendment that would ban advertisements that are specific to the knife culture. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that such weapons can have no legitimate use; there can be no legitimate reason for wandering the streets with something called an "SAS shoulder holster knife" or a "Rambo shortsword".
      Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we exchanged words on this subject in Committee; we may not have been talking on quite the same subject then. Will he confirm—I have great sympathy for his objective—that it is possible under existing ASA arrangements and the Committee of Advertising Practice codes to prevent advertisements that
      "appeal to the immature or unstable mind"
      or are "emotive or aggressive"? That would catch many of the advertisements to which he refers.
      Mr. Michael: No, it would not. The code would have an effect on those who observe the code of conduct.
      694
      It might have an effect on the responsible end of the press. I am sure that The Times, The Guardian and other major newspapers take note of requirements set down in guidance from the Advertising Standards Authority, but the code does not actually stop anyone putting in such advertisements. Nothing illegal is involved; people do not have to take note of the code. I shall develop that point in a moment, with specific reference to what has been said by the ASA.
      The ASA confirmed, after my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to it the advertisements I mentioned, that it was not considered appropriate to take action on them. It referred them to a working party, and that working party may come up with new words or may strengthen the code of conduct, but that will not control the type of advertisements and virtual incitement that I am talking about.
      As I said, we raised the issue on Second Reading, when it was made clear that the ASA was not able to ban advertisements that encouraged people to purchase weapons for the purpose of violence. I make it clear that we are not talking about advertisements in relation to country sports and things of that sort. We are talking about the wording to which I have referred, which is clearly not about sporting or legitimate activities.
      On Second Reading and in Committee, I quoted a letter from the ASA in reply to our initial approach to it. The letter states:
      "It is important to be clear that the Advertising Standards Authority is not in a position to ban such advertisements."
      That sentence from the ASA goes to the heart of the question raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). It is clear from the authority itself that it does not have the power to do what the House wants, and that is why an amendment is needed to achieve the desired result. I should perhaps make it clear that that statement was authoritative, because it came from Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is chairman of the ASA.
      Mr. Merchant: I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman entirely appreciates how the ASA works in practice. I was very involved in the advertising industry and had experience of the ASA. The ASA's latest publication, which deals with its research on this subject, says that companies whose advertising is found to be unacceptable or questionable will be asked to make any necessary amendments. I appreciate that that does not have the force of law, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in practice, the ASA's authority is extremely strong in the advertising industry? In 99 per cent. of cases, what it decides to do will be followed by the industry.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman destroys his own case by the words that he quotes. The ASA says that companies "will be asked" to change their advertising. In view of the wording used in advertisements to which I have referred and the motivation of people who would be willing to put such advertisements in public periodicals, I do not believe that such people will respond to being asked rather nicely to amend the wording that they use. That is simply not good enough.
      If the hon. Gentleman's own words are not sufficient to destroy his case, I quote again the very specific and authoritative statement by the chairman of the ASA. He says:

      695
      "It is important to be clear that the Advertising Standards Authority is not in a position to ban such advertisements."
      That is absolutely clear and specific.
      Sir Michael Shersby: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Does he agree that many of the advertisements for these horrible knives appear in fringe magazines of one kind and another, which probably never even cross the doorstep of the Advertising Standards Authority, but which are circulated to groups of people whom the advertisers believe will buy the product?
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In a conversation that I had with members of the Advertising Standards Authority, they commented on the vast amount of advertising there is and said that it was totally impossible to monitor all of it. It is impossible for them to monitor all mainstream advertising, never mind the fringe periodicals to which the hon. Gentleman refers He is precisely right.
      There are vulnerable people who can easily be encouraged in the culture of violence and the knife culture, which give rise to such concern. We are talking about a fringe activity, not about an activity involving masses of people. However, it is those who are vulnerable in some ways and who can become dangerous in other ways if their predilections are encouraged who are the target of fringe advertising. That advertising is my target in the amendment. The hon. Members for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Sutton and Cheam are, I believe, sympathetic to that point.
      If we were talking about advertisements that appear in major, large-circulation periodicals, there would be no great difficulty, because the pressure of the ASA would discourage them from continuing to accept such advertisements. However, the hon. Member for Uxbridge is absolutely right to say that that is not the target of the amendment. But without the amendment, as Lord Rodgers made clear, the target that we have in mind cannot be tackled by the ASA.
      In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1994, in response to a question of mine, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said:
      "The British code of advertising practice includes special provisions on the advertising of weapons so that advertisements for weapons, such as knives, neither condone nor incite violent behaviour".
      That is what the hon. Member for Beckenham was referring to, but we now know that the Minister was wrong, because the code cannot extend to the sort of fringe periodicals that are likely to do the damage, because they are circulated in the type of environment that encourages the knife culture.
      11.30 am
      The Minister of State continued:
      "Where advertisements are found to contravene the codes, the Advertising Standards Authority can take steps to rectify the situation as appropriate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1357.]
      696
      We now know that the powers of the ASA are not appropriate, but clearly at that time the Minister thought that something should be done about the matter, and erroneously believed that the ASA had the power to intervene. As I said, the ASA has made it clear that it does not have that capacity.
      In March, I asked the authority what action it had taken on various advertisements referred to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. The answer was simply that the matter had been referred to a working party. I do not see the point of referring a matter to a working party if the authority does not have the power to deal with those specific issues and the periodicals that advertise such items.
      We would end up with a tougher code enjoining The Guardian and The Times in even stricter terms to observe the standards that they observe already. That is patently useless in tackling the development of the knife culture.
      There are advertisements generally available in this country that find their way all too easily to impressionable young people, displaying illustrations of weapons that no one could reasonably want for legitimate purposes. They incite people to purchase such weapons for all the wrong reasons. Such advertising should be brought under control, and my amendment at least addresses that specific problem.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after, but how can he establish whether a generally available advertisement is directed at people under 16? Would it not be more straightforward to say that he really wants to ban advertisements of all kinds?
      Mr. Michael: No, but I do want to ban advertisements that encourage the carrying of articles for an offensive or violent purpose, and that is what the amendment would do. The point is that those who use such advertising are seeking impressionable people, especially impressionable young people. That is where the tap ought to be turned off, and that is what my amendment would do.
      The clause as it stands puts the onus on those in the retail trade, especially people who specialise in country sports, to ensure that they do not sell weapons to young people under 16. It is right that they should have that responsibility, but the stable door is still left wide open on mail order. There is no control over the type of articles advertised that can be purchased by youngsters through mail order. That is why the amendment is needed.
      That may be irresponsible advertising, and it is not controlled. The mail order advertisers are not controlled as the Bill will control the retail trade in general, so there is a wide gap in the provisions that we are passing. We have put the onus on the retail trade, which will put an additional pressure on many responsible shops, and we think it right to do so, but it is surely also right to put the onus on advertisers not to advertise weapons of the type that I have described.
      The clause as it stands says:
      "Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen years an article to which this section applies"—
      that would now be an article or a weapon—
      "shall be guilty of an offence liable … to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5".
      The amendment seeks three things. First, it would place a similar penalty on a person who encouraged or incited the purchase of such a weapon. That is straightforward. People should not incite youngsters to obtain and carry weapons.

      697
      Secondly, the amendment would make it a punishable offence to buy a weapon on behalf of a youngster under 16. Surely that is a sensible extension of the requirement. Thirdly, it would make it a punishable offence to advertise
      "such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes".
      That would not stop the advertising or sale to adults of items needed for legitimate activities such as work or fishing or whatever; it would concentrate the weight of the legislation on the nature of advertisements that include words that appear to make violence attractive or to incite those who are interested in violence.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam on bringing the Bill before the House, and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported it. We are tackling a serious problem, and we need to go behind that problem to the culture that appears to encourage people, especially young people, to become involved in carrying weapons, and potentially in actual violence. I hope that my amendment will attract support throughout the House and that the Minister will accept it.
      Sir Michael Shersby: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and I have considerable sympathy for what he said. He touched on an important subject, of which many hon. Members will have had no experience, because they do not come into contact with the type of publication that he was talking about.
      Mr. Michael: May I make it clear that I—and,I am sure, the hon. Gentleman himself and my hon. Friends—have come across such periodicals only in the course of research?
      Sir Michael Shersby: I am sure that that is the case.
      I shall tell the House about an experience that I had two or three years ago, when the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation drew my attention to an advertisement that, if I remember rightly, appeared in one or two of the east London local papers. It was for a commando knife made of carbon fibre, complete with blood channels, which was described as an ideal Christmas present. It was said that it could be used as a letter opener.
      The advertiser did not give his address, simply a telephone number, but it was made clear that one could purchase the knife by using a Visa card. The chairman of the federation and I set out to track down the address of the advertiser, and used all the legitimate channels open to us, but we could not find it. The telephone number was ex-directory.
      We therefore decided to purchase the article to see what was being offered. I still have mine locked up in a safe as an example of such terrible weapons. We referred the matter to the Home Secretary, who was extremely concerned about it. An individual was clearly advertising a weapon that had only one purpose—to kill. It could certainly not by any stretch of the imagination be described as a letter opener. If I tried to bring mine into the House today, I think that you would instantly have me incarcerated in the Clock Tower, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious and dangerous weapon.
      Since then, I have seen a number of other examples of such items, often advertised in the fliers that are inserted in local newspapers. Newspaper proprietors may not be
      698
      aware of the detailed contents of the fliers; they are interested only in the business of circulating them in the newspaper. Therefore, they can reach a wide variety of people, many of whom will be young. Other advertisements appear in what I would describe as fringe periodicals of one kind or another, which are sometimes issued free with newspapers. They advertise a horrifying variety of articles that no law-abiding citizen would want to possess. As has been pointed out, such articles are particularly attractive to young people—particularly men between the ages of 16 and 18 who are becoming interested in knives, guns and things of that nature.
      We must address that problem. It is very difficult to deal with because, as I said by way of intervention earlier, the advertisements and fliers do not always come to the attention of respectable and distinguished bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority or the Committee of Advertising Practice, which deal with such matters in a practical and a sensible manner. The advertisements and fliers in question often appear on the fringes of society. But they advertise equipment—certainly knives and other dangerous articles—that has only one purpose: to kill human beings.
      I realise that it is a difficult problem to resolve. However, I express my strong support for the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He makes a good point, which needs to be addressed—although I do not underestimate the difficulties of doing so.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to accept amendment No. 22. I understand exactly what its supporters seek to do. However, I fear that if we accepted the amendment, we would not achieve the results that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seek. In accepting the amendment, we would be going down the slippery slope of restricting freedom of expression.
      I take the point that the literature in question does not constitute a very pleasant form of expression—I find the advertisements as offensive as anyone else does. Nevertheless, we must not restrict people's rights to express their views and to advertise products. That goes to the heart of our freedom in this country. We restrict that freedom very reluctantly. We do so in the case of pornography and indecent material, and the hon. Gentleman is asking for a similar restriction of freedom in this area.
      Mr. Michael: I find it difficult to believe what I am hearing. The hon. Gentleman is saying that allowing people to advertise weapons in a way that incites violence is protecting freedom of speech. Does he seriously mean what he is saying?
      Mr. Atkinson: I am saying exactly that. In this country, people have a right to publish their views—provided that those views are not indecent or restricted by the laws of libel—however offensive they may be. All hon. Members can think of things that we find offensive and would like to restrict or ban. I might like to ban Labour party political broadcasts, but I cannot do that because the Labour party has a right to televise those broadcasts.
      The hon. Gentleman must understand that he is going down a very dangerous road. If he had introduced such a measure in this place in the 19th century, virtually every

      699
      hon. Member on these Benches would have attacked him vehemently. We must be careful not to take away people's freedoms. We should do so only if we could prove that. by accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we could solve the problem. Clearly. that is not the case.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, weapons such as Rambo shoulder holsters are advertised in fliers. It is a sinister and subtle mail order trade, which does not reach most young men aged between 16 and 18 who are the targets of the legislation. Such material is sent to those rather curious people who like to collect military equipment and memorabilia. I do not think that such people are the cause of violence on the streets or the targets of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
      If we could prove conclusively that restricting those fliers would have a positive impact on violence on the streets, I might consider removing people's rights of expression. However, that is not the case. Those who use such weapons on the streets are not collectors; they acquire knives and carry them for violent and illegal purposes, and the legislation is correct to crack down on that practice.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to restrict freedom of expression. If we were to restrict the advertising of a Rambo shoulder holster knife, it would be an easy and logical next step to ban films and television programmes about Rambo-type characters. We must not go down the road of censorship and restriction of expression. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and the House not to accept the amendment.
      Sir Michael Shersby: I ask my hon. Friend to clarify his remarks. I agree completely that the House should not do anything to restrict the lawful, reasonable and sensible expression of opinion by any individual. I think that everyone present accepts that. However, we are not talking about that: we are talking about those who advertise dangerous articles, the only purpose of which is to kill other human beings. We are not talking about confining people's legitimate expression of opinion: we are talking about those who offer horrible knives for sale, usually in a covert manner. As I explained earlier, they often do not provide their address and operate through ex-directory telephone numbers. They ensure that the material that they produce is directed at the people who are responsible for many of the problems with which we are dealing today.
      I fully accept that it is not an easy matter to resolve. However, I do not think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said anything that would constitute a restriction on the legitimate rights of individuals to express their views. He is talking about the advertising of weapons to young people who may purchase them. As a result, we may then read in the newspapers, see on television or hear on the radio that someone has lost his or her life.
      11.45 am
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend reinforces my point: I do not believe that the leaflets that advertise those products covertly get into the hands of young people. They do not. The products are sold to collectors of military memorabilia and to the patrons of those sorts of establishments, who could not sell those weapons to people under a certain age, according to the terms of the Bill. Such people constitute a curious minority.
      700
      The advertisements do not appear in reputable magazines that are widely available around the country, because those magazines are covered by the Advertising Standards Authority code of practice. Such advertisements do not appear in newspapers, because newspapers also adhere to that code. The advertisements appear in small backstreet fliers that are circulated discreetly among collectors of those sorts of items. I do not believe that they get into the hands of the people whom the Bill is targeting. That is my argument.
      If such advertisements were encouraging young people at large to commit acts of violence, I would take a different view. However, we must not restrict people's right of freedom of expression—no matter how undesirable that expression may be—unless we are absolutely certain that, by removing that freedom, we shall achieve our aim. I urge the House not to support the amendment because it will not do that.
      Mr. Merchant: I have great sympathy with the objective of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in moving the amendment. It is entirely laudable that he wishes to restrict the sorts of advertisements to which he referred, which are clearly harmful and go against the principle of the Bill. However, I part company with him on the means of achieving that aim.
      I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands—I do not suggest that he has any intention to mislead—the way in which the Advertising Standards Authority and the self-regulatory system in advertising work. I believe also that his quotation from the letter that he received—although I am sure that the quotation is accurate—is not a fair reflection of the way in which the ASA works in practice.
      Mr. Michael: The day before we debated the issues in Committee, I had a long conversation with an official of the Advertising Standards Authority. As a result of that conversation. I am absolutely certain—without any shadow of doubt—that I have quoted Lord Rodgers' statement absolutely correctly. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is a very specific statement, which has been checked carefully.
      Mr. Merchant: If I may continue to describe how the ASA works, I shall answer the hon. Gentlemen's question. The ASA was originally established by the advertising industry, but is an independent body, and its authority is probably greater than that of any other self-regulatory body. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the ASA does not have the force of law, which is palpably true. He is also right to say that the ASA could not ban and prevent by law every advertisement. I do not challenge that point, but seek to illustrate that the effect of a firm line by the ASA is equivalent to that of the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      As a result of a complaint or on its own initiative, the ASA will examine an advertisement in detail. If it breaks the code of practice—and as I said in my intervention, any advertisement of a kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred would do so—the authority can take action. The hon. Gentleman attempted to suggest that the ASA just asks nicely for an advertisement to be withdrawn, but does nothing if that request is ignored. From my past experience in the industry, I know that if the ASA makes such a request, one can be pretty certain that the vast majority of the industry will instantly accede.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. Responsible organisations do not need the ASA's advice in such circumstances. If there is a slip-up and an unacceptable advertisement gets through the net, the media will respond to an ASA request. We are concerned not about responsible organisations, but about advertisers and periodicals that do not give a toss for the authority's views, which makes the amendment necessary. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand?
      Mr. Merchant: I entirely understand, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient—and I do not intend to delay the House long—I shall answer his point specifically. We must deal first with the vast majority of advertising, and that comes under the scope of the ASA. One passes laws to cover an entire subject, not one small part.
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Merchant: No, because I know the point that is exercising the hon. Gentleman and I shall answer it.
      It is important to understand the whole subject. If a firm advertises wrongly, in a way that would upset the hon. Gentleman, me or the ASA, the authority can deal with and bring sanctions to bear against the people involved at every stage of the process—the advertiser, the agency that produced the copy, the media or the direct mail company that posted the leaflet or publication. The ASA can also deal with host advertisements, in the form of leaflets within a mailing or publication. One would be hard put to find an advertisement that could not be the subject of ASA sanctions.
      The hon. Gentleman exaggerated the number of cases when an offending advertisement would be outside the ASA's control. I concede that such incidents could arise, but the hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerated the number.
      Mr. Michael: I have not exaggerated the number, because I have not given a number. The number does not have to be large. The hon. Gentleman implied that we legislate only for majorities, but we do not—we legislate for minorities. Murderers account for a tiny minority in this country. We legislate against murder because we do not regard it as acceptable. We are doing the equivalent in this case.
      Mr. Merchant: As a matter of fact, we do not legislate for the majority or the minority: we legislate for everyone across the board. That was the point that I was trying to make. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the law was necessary to deal with a number of cases. He is right to say that he did not specify how many there were, but his argument gave me the impression that he was talking about a large number. All I seek to do is to suggest that the number is extremely small and—this is the crucial point—the number of cases in which the ASA would not be able to solve the problem would be roughly equivalent to the number of cases in which the law could not solve the problem, if the amendment was accepted.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept and understand that the existence of a law does not prevent an offence from being committed. Even if the amendment were successful, people would still break the law, and place advertisements with no telephone number given, but with a discreet way of obtaining the goods concerned.
      702
      That happens now in other areas, including pornography, which is why there is a thriving, though illegal, pornography industry. The sole purpose of my remarks is to point out that the amendment would not have any effect and would not improve the situation. The self-regulatory system is extremely effective. For the most part, it achieves the objective, and when it does not, nor would the law.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I have great sympathy for the arguments put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. We have discussed the issue in the Chamber, in Committee and outside. It would be a great pity if we dismissed the hon. Gentleman's concern out of hand, and I wish to demonstrate to him much thought I have given to the subject and how hard I have gone into his arguments. I hope that he will bear with me while I try to give him a real answer. I will not delay the House for too long.
      It is appalling to see advertisements that appear to encourage vulnerable young teenagers or their older friends to buy vicious knives that serve no useful purpose, save to harm others. It is equally appalling to read advertisements that appear to incite or condone the possession of those knives for violent purposes. No one could dispute that.
      I have read the report by the Advertising Standards Authority on weapons advertising, and I have a copy here. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has studied it; if not, I shall let him have a copy. The report contains some provocative reading. The ASA conducted a survey, and I found its attitude a trifle complacent. The authority said that it had received only four complaints in six years and that, therefore, there were not as many serious grounds for complaint and anxiety as we believe. However, in my view, the authority failed to recognise that the kind of magazines that publish those disturbing advertisements are read largely by people who enjoy or are somewhat excited by such material and they are not likely to complain. The complaints have to be brought in from outside.
      Admittedly, the ASA was very concerned about a mail order advertisement for a wide variety of pocket, hunting and fishing knives. Although the advertisement contained no specific claims, its headline "KNIVES, KNIVES, KNIVES" was considered excessive. The report drew my attention to replica knives, which were given some very unhealthy descriptions. For example, a 13 in replica sword based on those used in the Napoleonic wars was described as being
      "carried by riflemen for vicious hand to hand combat."
      A replica skean-dhu was described as a "wickedly effective fighting knife." The ASA conceded that such advertisements were questionable, but other descriptions are even more vivid. A "Terminator Terror Sword"—the name alone is sufficient cause for concern—was described thus:
      "an explosive power radiates from this monstrous double handed sword … fearsome death's head skull that grins menacingly … absolutely awesome 56" overall."
      The ASA conceded that the words were sinister, menacing, monstrous, unnecessary and excessive.
      It should be said that, usefully, the ASA has paid just as much attention to guns in its research. Guns do not come within the scope of the Bill, but in the light of the terrible Dunblane tragedy there is no doubt that there are

      703
      lessons to be learnt about the way in which some guns are promoted. Bearing in mind the time element which is pressing on us, I shall not go into that subject.
      Suffice it to say that we are all suitably horrified. We feel that much more could and should be done. But what is the right approach? It is necessary to explore a number of difficulties.
      12 noon
      In clause 6, the proposal is to make it an offence to sell certain articles, including knives and razor blades, to those under 16. The offence would be one of selling rather than buying. The onus would be on the seller rather than the buyer. I think that that is right, given that there is already an offence of carrying a knife in public. The additional offence of buying would create too great a concentration of offences. The problem is adequately catered for by having selling and carrying offences.
      The proposal behind the amendment is to create an offence of encouraging and inciting the purchase of a knife or other banned article by someone under 16 years of age. We cannot have an offence of inciting someone to commit another offence that does not exist. Someone could be held to be inciting another to carry a knife or other offensive weapon in public without good reason, but that would not require legislative change. We must reject—
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Lady Olga Maitland: I shall continue. It may be helpful if I complete what I am saying.
      We must reject the proposal that is set out in the first part of the amendment on the basis that it is flawed. It would create an offence of incitement to do something that is not of itself an offence.
      It is proposed also to create a different offence, which would be to advertise one of the articles whose sale to people under 16 we proposed to ban in a way that appears to incite or condone the possession of that article for violent purposes. It is already a common law offence for a person to incite or encourage another to commit a crime. To advertise an article for sale, representing its virtue to be that it may be used to undertake an act that is an offence, is an incitement to commit that very offence. That is true even when the advertisement is accompanied by a warning that the act is an offence.
      I am trying to say that we are already covered by existing legislation. We do not need to go that bit further, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is clear that the amendment would add nothing to existing law. Although incitement can arise in relation to any offence, it is not general practice to include specific provisions for incitement for each offence. The result would be cumbersome and unnecessary.
      Despite the findings set out in the ASA's report, I am concerned that it appears to be lacklustre when it comes to what it would like to do next. Surely the onus is on the ASA. It should monitor the media annually. Having said that it will take its responsibility on board, the ASA cannot duck it and say that the job is too large. It seems that there are many people who would help the ASA to undertake its task. There is plenty of evidence that the relevant material can be brought to light.
      704
      The ASA should not wait for a complaint to be brought before it before taking action. It should move rapidly as soon as it sees an advertisement that is downright dangerous and inflammatory. It must put much more direct pressure on advertisers, publicising what has been done and forcing them to withdraw such advertisements.
      We should also encourage the police to take action when material that clearly incites others to commit crimes is brought to their attention. The police, after all, have the powers, and they should feel free to use them.
      In view of those matters, I feel that it is not realistic to support the amendment—much as I sympathise with its spirit. Because of the ASA report, I believe that we should be keeping an eye on the situation and pressing that agency to be vigilant in exercising its responsibilities. At a later stage, if the system is not working, we will have to think again.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot say that I am without sympathy for the views that have been expressed. We had a very interesting debate on this matter in Committee, when I expressed some sympathy for the concerns expressed not only by my hon. Friends but by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that the amendment—although it is well meaning—is flawed in one part, and I believe that the other part is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will in due course withdraw it.
      I believe that the amendment is aimed at, among other things, dealing with the serious issue of how such articles are advertised and how that advertising is controlled. I should like to comment on the advertising of weapons in the context of the Advertising Standards Authority's recent report, to which hon. Members have referred.
      The ASA has just reported on its survey of weapons advertising in the non-broadcast media. I understand that the report, which some us have already received, will be made more widely available in due course. The report is of very great interest, although the Bill, as we know, does not contain proposals directly affecting advertising.
      The survey's aim was to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertisements in the United Kingdom. Those conducting it monitored a range of newspapers, magazines and mail order catalogues during the first two weeks of February this year, and they made the following findings. They found a total of 259 advertisements, which included duplicates. The advertisements were for guns, knives, sports goods—ranging from martial arts weapons to archery equipment—replicas and catalogues. Of the total, 226—or 87 per cent.—of the advertisements were for guns, including air rifles, pistols and so-called "soft firers", which are guns that fire balls at very low velocity. The great majority of advertisements came from titles dedicated to such subjects as martial arts, fishing and field sports. About half were classified as advertisements for guns.
      The ASA reports its views on the acceptability of advertisements under the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. I shall deal in a moment with what the ASA can and cannot do in situations in which it considers that advertisements are in breach of the codes.
      The codes lay down the criteria for advertising standards and state that advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society,

      705
      and that they should not contain anything that might condone or encourage violent or anti-social behaviour. Advertisements that were presented in a manner that might appeal to the immature or unstable mind, for example, would be unacceptable. Similarly, if a weapons advertisement were emotive or aggressive, it would come into conflict with the codes.
      I turned with interest to the section of the ASA report that considered whether the advertisements picked up by the survey were considered to be acceptable or unacceptable. That is of interest for two reasons. The first reason is that we all, I think, want to know whether advertisers are behaving themselves. Secondly, however, I believe that it is helpful for us to have some insight into the way in which the ASA judges whether an advertisement is acceptable.
      Of the 259 advertisements picked up by the survey, the great majority—94 per cent.—were considered to be acceptable under the codes. The remaining 6 per cent. were considered to be questionable. I should say that the low level of questionable advertisements should not lead us into complacency. As I mentioned earlier, 97 per cent. of the advertisements came from titles dedicated to subjects as diverse as martial arts, fishing and field sports. I believe that most advertisers will be responsible about the manner in which their advertisements are presented.
      Although the ASA's report does not make it explicit, I believe that the majority of advertisements that were found to be offensive were at what one might call the "seedy end" of the range. Much of this relates to guns and knives rather than other offensive weapons—it is the latter with which we are mainly concerned now—but it would be helpful if I referred to the report as a whole because of the light that it sheds on the ASA's general approach.
      In my opinion, certain mail order publications pander to the immature with advertisements of the type that I mentioned in Committee and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned again a few moments ago. The ASA stated:
      "Advertisements should not glorify violence nor should they suggest that psychological excitement is to be gained from owning and handling weapons. Claims which refer to power and strength (even by using exaggerated exclamation marks) could appeal to the immature or unstable mind."
      That certainly seems to be a promising starting point.
      The report went on to say that six advertisements caused concern by referring to
      "The lightweight rifle packing the heavy punch!!"
      and
      "Pistol power! shooting fun starts with",
      and that phrase is followed by the brand name. The ASA states that, although these expressions could be relatively harmless if used purely in the context of the Olympic sport of shooting, in other contexts the descriptions could be inappropriately emotive.
      Five of the advertisements picked up in the survey were considered questionable by the ASA because they seemed unnecessarily provocative. A mail order advertisement placed by a retailer of air guns, swords, knives and replicas was considered irresponsible because of the use of the following language:
      "How cash crunching prices leave competitors heads rolling like lemons on lino. Battle burgers, had enough of pledgee wedges and stench warfare? … Sadistic ballistics".
      706
      I do not pretend to understand all that, but I understand enough to find it highly offensive. The ASA viewed that advertisement as aggressive and likely to appeal to the immature. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam cited similar examples which I do not need to repeat.
      I take some heart from the ASA's criticism of advertisements that appear to take a frivolous approach to the advertising of potentially dangerous weapons. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is especially concerned about that. The ASA's report mentions a mail order advertisement for rifles. It is in the style of a comic strip in which the characters use expressions such as "Brill!", which we all know is an abbreviation of "brilliant", and "Get this!" The ASA considers that an immature way to promote guns.
      Three of the mail order catalogues were considered to contain questionable advertising material. One advertisement for a gun referred to a "fistful of fun" along with the statement:
      "it's the kind of gun you just can't put down".
      The ASA considered that a frivolous and irresponsible way to promote an air gun. As has been said, many immature people, or those with psychological difficulties, do not look at advertisements in the way that people with a more mature mind might. That certainly causes me great concern.
      I shall deal now with the ASA's follow-up action to the survey. The purpose of the survey was, given current concerns about the sale of weapons, to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertising in the United Kingdom. The ASA will distribute the report widely, which is good because it needs careful scrutiny. It will ask all the companies whose advertisements it considers unacceptable or questionable to amend them in future.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to the nature of the ASA's approach when it feels that sanctions might be necessary. Judging from its past performance, I believe that the ASA will be successful, but I remind the House that the ASA has no statutory powers. It was established in 1962 as an independent body to administer the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. The codes regulate the content of all non-broadcast media in the United Kingdom. The authority seeks to ensure that everyone who commissions, prepares, places and publishes advertisements observes the codes.
      In this context, it is important to realise that many sanctions are available and that they are widely spread throughout the non-broadcast media. They include adverse publicity, the refusal of further advertising space when codes are broken, the removal of trade incentives, which is often very important, and legal proceedings if advertisements are in any way misleading.
      The question that still arises is whether the arrangements are adequate. It is helpful in that context to distinguish between the article being advertised and the terms in which it is advertised. As we know, guns and knives can be bought and sold perfectly legally. As for knives—it is knives in which we are mainly interested—I believe that we have gone as far as we can in banning weapons that have a legitimate use, and that can be defined in law in a way that distinguishes them from knives that have other uses. Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959,

      707
      for instance, flick knives and gravity knives are prohibited. Anyone who sells any of those articles, be it over the counter or through mail order, is committing an offence that carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine or both.
      12.15 pm
      The ASA is not in the business of banning advertisements for articles that may be sold legally; that would be a matter for Parliament. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth feels that we should take matters further. Let me make a few comments about whether it is desirable or possible for Parliament to ban advertisements for knives.
      It might well be desirable to ban advertisements for certain knives. I have in mind the so-called Rambo survival knives, and articles of that sort. Regrettably, the practical difficulties that arise when we consider banning the sale of those items also arise when we consider advertising. We cannot define the items in law in a way that distinguishes them from knives that have legitimate uses. A manufacturer may give a knife a fancy or even an offensive name, but the fact remains that, unless the article in question has a mechanism or feature that enables it to be distinguished in law from knives that are used legitimately, it is not possible to ban one without banning the other. Even if it were possible to tease out advertising from simple sale, it could be strongly argued that, if it is legal to sell something, it should also be legal to advertise it. As I said earlier, I believe that we have gone as far as we can in banning the sale of undesirable articles.
      It is one thing for an advertisement to describe, say, an angling knife in a straightforward and unemotive way; it is quite another for the advertiser to say or imply that it can be used to inflict injury. In reaching a decision about whether an advertisement is unacceptable, some pretty fine judgments may have to be made in a number of different contexts. It is not easy to legislate for that.
      The ASA regards the use of the title "KNIVES, KNIVES, KNIVES"—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—as excessive, and is confident that it will get it modified in future advertisements. I doubt whether we could achieve that through statutory control. As I have said, there are problems. Some of us may feel that censorship might not be such a bad thing, but if we censor so-called Rambo survival knives, should we not also censor Rambo-style films? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), I believe that there could be a slippery slope. I also feel that we would have great difficulty in dealing with much of the advertising that we would want withdrawn or changed—some of which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, emanates from shady operations with limited circulation, and which is very difficult to control, particularly if the distributors do not care for the law.
      I am concerned, however, that the ASA normally only responds to complaints, rather than looking for objectionable material. Much of that material will appear in magazines and catalogues whose readers may actually enjoy it rather than wishing to complain. In the context of the debate, those people worry me.
      I have taken careful note of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), who represented the views and concerns of many people.
      708
      I make it clear that, as a result of the ASA report and our debate, I intend to approach the ASA to have further discussions about its approach, its sanctions and the discipline that it brings to the advertising industry. I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, that it will continue its regular surveys to keep an eye on what it going on. In the meantime, more may have to be done and, as I say, I intend to approach the ASA for further discussions.
      Mr. John Greenway: In those discussions will my hon. Friend seek to address the potentially growing problem of the advertising of such material through the Internet?
      Mr. Kirkhope: That is an important point. Within the Home Office I am involved with a team that is looking at the effect of the Internet, particularly some of the unpleasant material that is passing through it. I shall do my best to include that in my discussions with the ASA. I apologise to the House for having spoken for so long. I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Michael: The Under-Secretary quoted example after example of advertisements that make my case absolutely and unquestionably. The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge also gave examples which show why the amendment should be accepted. The Under-Secretary and the Advertising Standards Authority agree that these advertisements are intended to appeal to immature people, especially to young people, and that has been accepted.
      The Under-Secretary agrees that the ASA does not do enough. He was right to suggest that it is too much of a limitation that it considers a case only when it receives a complaint. I hope that he is successful in his discussions with the ASA on that. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) shakes his head with a violence that seems likely to do him some damage. However, his enthusiastic support for the Advertising Standards Authority is misplaced on the basis of what it has said to me and to others on precisely this point.
      Mr. Kirkhope: Perhaps I could set the record straight. I used the word "normally" and I did not say that it was exclusively the case. In my discussions with the ASA, I shall speak about the emphasis on proactive or reactive attitudes.
      Mr. Michael: I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to do that. It will be interesting to discover the outcome of that discussion, but having it does not abrogate the Minister's responsibility. The Minister has expressed concern, but what do the Government intend to do? Nothing! He has acknowledged that the ASA has no statutory powers and cannot do anything about those who ignore its rules, its codes and its advice. Is there some sort of ban on Ministers agreeing to regulate anything, even matters that are universally accepted as being in the public interest? Only yesterday, the private security industry was raised. Regulation is wanted by the police, by the industry itself and by the public, but Home Office Ministers appear to be stymied by the Department of Trade and Industry from agreeing to regulate even in the public interest.

      709
      I would not have moved the amendment if the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam or the Government had drafted amendments to try to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has acknowledged that there is a need to take some action and has attempted to deal seriously with the issues that I have raised, although I think that she has been led astray by the Home Office from her virtuous efforts to tackle the knife culture. She suggested that everything is covered by existing legislation. She is wrong. If we want the police to act on such weapons, we need to give them the tools that they need to do the job, and the amendment would help in that regard.
      The hon. Lady said that the onus is on the Advertising Standards Authority. No, it is not. I agree with her criticisms and also hope that it will take the matter more seriously, but it is the responsibility of Government and of Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that legislation is in place for people who do not observe the ASA's voluntary requirements.
      Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ASA has already responded to our concerns and that, as a result of our earlier debates, it has published this report?
      Mr. Michael: Yes. It has been a bit slow to do so, but the ASA has, I acknowledge, responded to some extent. I am not, however, trying to place the onus on the ASA. My basic point is that responsible advertisers seeking to sell articles to people involved in fishing or other sports will observe the ASA's rules, but people who seek to sell weapons that are intended for violent purposes to impressionable people, including impressionable young people—who can then become a danger to society—will not take a blind bit of notice of what the ASA says.
      I was taken aback by the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham. I am not sure whether he has retained an interest in the advertising industry, but I believe that he was speaking against the interests of that industry and of the ASA.
      Mr. Merchant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: Wait one moment. The vast majority of people who publish and who advertise have no interest in promoting such weapons in the sort of advertisements that have been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The amendment aims at a specific target. It is in the best interests of the advertising industry as a whole that this disreputable bit of the market should be hit by my amendment.
      Mr. Merchant: I will not be drawn back into the debate, because I have made my position clear; but, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, I want to make it clear to him that I have no interest in the advertising industry or in any other industry. I have no such connections and never have done during my period in the House.
      Mr. Michael: If there is any doubt, I was referring to interest in the sense of keeping up to date and of being aware of issues that affect the industry. My point is that the line that the hon. Gentleman was taking is not in that industry's interests.
      710
      The hon. Member for Beckenham made the point, as I have done, that the vast majority of the industry observes voluntary regulation, but we often legislate in the House for a small number of people who go against the interests of the community at large. I gave the example of murderers. There are not very many murders, but it is such a horrendous offence that we legislate specifically to try to prevent the actions of that minority and to punish them if they offend. That is what laws are for.
      Similarly, I know that we are trying to regulate for a small minority of advertisers and a small proportion of the advertising market, but it is a proportion. It continues to have these advertisements, which succeed in reaching some people. If advertisers were not selling any of these things, they would not continue to advertise. Responsible organisations do not need the advice of the Advertising Standards Authority on this matter. If they are slipping, they will listen to the advice in the report, which has been referred to by several hon. Members. The amendment is about advertising by organisations and individuals who do not give a toss about the views of the ASA or of hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made an extraordinary speech. He appears to be so obsessed with freedom of expression that he does not care whether that advertising results in violence or even death. I have to put it that strongly to him because such things are encouraged by the advertisements that have been quoted, among others, by the Minister and myself. I expect people involved in country sports generally to support my amendment when they consider its specific wording and the type of advertisements to which we have referred. The amendment would catch those who advertise
      "such an article for sale in a way which appears to incite or condone the possession of such an article for violent purposes."
      The amendment is very specific and it is narrowly drawn.
      It is difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Hexham is so naive as to think, first, that those advertisements get into the hands only of those who are not impressionable in any way and do not get into the hands of young people and, secondly, that it is all right for people to advertise in that way.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I may be naive, and perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe in defending the right of an individual to self-expression. It is something that we should restrict only with very great reluctance. It should be restricted only if the hon. Gentleman could show, through his arguments during this debate, that some positive benefit to the public would result from passing his amendment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown without doubt that the amendment would not achieve that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not try to restrict the rights of people to self-expression. I agree that they are unpleasant people, but simply because someone is unpleasant does not mean that he should not be able to express his views.
      Mr. Michael: I do not regard the hon. Gentleman as old-fashioned, although I certainly regard him as naive and his views as dangerous. The expression of views can cause enormous problems in society and the House has legislated against that in certain cases. On a number of occasions we have expressed concern about the freedom

      711
      to incite violence, including racial violence. Are those freedoms that the hon. Gentleman would wish to defend? I rather think not. If he reads his words in Hansard and considers their implications, he may come to regret deeply what he has said today.
      Fringe periodicals of the sort that the amendment would target reach impressionable young people, as do flyers in local newspapers. The freedom to incite violence is a freedom we can do without. The self-regulatory system is not sufficient. We need to control the advertising of offensive weapons to ensure that neither guns nor knives get into the wrong hands, thereby putting the public in danger. It is in the interests of the advertising industry—even of the ASA—that we should legislate in the way suggested in my amendment. It is certainly in the interests of the public and also of the police, who have to deal with violence on our streets.
      There has been a series of cross-party debates on the Bill. I acknowledge the fact that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has tried to deal with the issues that I have raised. We are agreed on the need to do something about advertising. Unfortunately, the Minister has not yet accepted that. I hope that, in the atmosphere of a cross-party approach to the horrific events at Dunblane and cross-party agreement on necessary legislation, we will continue to debate the whole issue of mail order of weapons—including guns and knives and the way in which they can be advertised through channels that will encourage the interest of impressionable young people. I hope that, this year, legislation will be introduced to tackle a problem that I have been glad to be able to air during this short debate.
      It is not my purpose to delay the Bill. As I said earlier, we give two cheers for it; I would have liked to be able to give a third cheer for having my amendment accepted. However, two cheers are better than none. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 39, leave out 'and 3' and insert
      ', 3 and 4(1), (1A) and (3)'.—[Lady Olga Maitland.]

    Title
    Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in line 1, leave out from 'about' to end of line 12 and insert
    'persons having knives, other articles which have a blade or are sharply pointed or offensive weapons; and about selling knives or such articles to persons under the age of sixteen years'.
    I tabled the amendment as a result of concern expressed about the long title of my Bill. It is a very long title and we feel that the Bill should now be given a better title and a relatively short one. I am assured by the draftsmen that the shorter version that I proposes is no different in substance from the one that it replaces
    712
    and does not affect the Bill's scope. It is therefore an uncontentious, technical amendment, about which there is not a great deal more to be said.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.34 pm
    Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    This is an important Bill. It is a sad reflection on the times that it needs to be introduced at all. The knife culture is set to engulf us all unless we take a firm hand and curb it now. There must be tough condemnation from society for young thugs who indulge in mindless violence, and the backing of Parliament to ensure that we have legislation that will work. We want to ensure that those who carry knives do so at their peril. They are not heroes; they are common little criminals. They will be caught, they will face stiff penalties, and wherever they turn they will face a wall of obstacles preventing them from obtaining their vicious weapons. The Bill will achieve all that.
    It might be helpful if I set out the context in which the Bill came about. I have personally campaigned for years against the knife culture. I know one family in particular—Bill and Valerie Dennison—who were shattered when their 17-year-old son, John, was mindlessly stabbed to death. We owe a debt to headmaster Philip Lawrence, slaughtered by a teenager: his courage and sacrifice spurred me on, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister helped me to put the Bill together.
    Tragically, Mr. Lawrence's death is one in a long series of statistics. Knife-related offences are increasing year on year, and the victims are of all ages—children, teenagers, middle-aged people, pensioners and, above all, the police. In 1994, 1,000 police officers were seriously assaulted and injured in England and Wales. Prosecutions rise every year, and in 1993–94—the last year for which figures are available—there was a sharp jump of almost 1,000, to 3,367, in London alone. That is a good example of just how serious the problem is. Despite the appalling tragedy in Dunblane, more people die from being stabbed by a knife than from being shot by a gun. Of the 677 people murdered in this country that same year, 236 were stabbed. In London, 41 per cent. of all murders involved knives or other sharp instruments. In short, the knife is more lethal than the gun, and we have no choice but to tackle the knife culture with great urgency.
    Such offences are taking place all over the country. The decent suburban areas and the peaceful rural countryside are not immune to the violence. In my constituency. a pleasant, green and seemingly tranquil part of the world, 54 people were arrested for possessing offensive weapons in just six months of last year. We have had our share of stabbing incidents. Youngsters as young as 10, 11 and 12 years old have been caught with knives.
    A regular survey of the press will come up with its own catalogue of tragedy. Barely a week passes without one hearing of a terrible death. I look back, for instance, to February, when a 14-year-old boy was stabbed in the chest while playing with school friends. Last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, reeled in horror when her husband, John, was stabbed just yards

    713
    from their front door. Just two months ago, a gang fight in west London resulted in death, and in March an amnesty produced 37,000 knives. I imagine—sadly—that that is only a tiny percentage of those still at large. And so the awful tragedy goes on. The nation may be horrified, but with determination, we should be able to prevent our country from sliding into the violent chaos that dominates major US cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago.
    The Bill tackles the problem from the bottom. A week ago, the Evening Standard published a despairing article which accused Scotland Yard of being
    "soft over war on knife culture".
    The article suggested that the police were weak in view of the fact that although 60,000 people had been cautioned or prosecuted for having offensive weapons between 1990 and 1994, a mere 1.7 per cent. had been gaoled. The paper was right in one respect, because the law needed to be tightened up, but it was wrong to suggest that nothing was being done.
    In many cases, the police were powerless to do more. The Bill will greatly help the police to make an arrest on the spot when they find a person carrying a knife without good reason. Until now, the policeman was powerless. He was empowered only to issue a caution, a warning or a summons, which could sometimes take weeks to go through the system.
    In future, the thugs will have a shock when they are caught. Their swaggering arrogance will disappear when they are frog-marched down to the police station. Furthermore, on conviction, they will no longer get away with a ticking off. They will face stiff fines and, according to the circumstances, they may face gaol sentences of up to four years. There will be no hiding place for these mobsters.
    Tragically, school premises have been the scene of far too many knife incidents. Until now, schools were a sanctuary, like a church, which the police could not enter to search and arrest. We have therefore taken a significant step in Committee by including in the Bill a provision permitting the police to go into schools to search and arrest. They were not able to do that before because the sanctuary aspect of schools prohibited them when they wanted to go inside. It meant that children felt that they could get away with it.
    It is significant that the important step of allowing the police into schools has been welcomed by 14 different teachers' unions and associations. Regrettably, the chief education officer in my Liberal Democrat-controlled authority admitted to my researcher that he could not see any advantage in allowing the police to go into schools and that he was against the suggestion. He speaks for himself and for the Liberal Democrat attitude towards being tough on crime. The Liberal Democrats are certainly out of step.
    We shall not rest there. Not only do we want the police to have permission to go into schools, but we want to forbid the sale of knives to under 16-year-olds. We have therefore taken a major step by including in the Bill a provision whereby retailers will not be able to sell knives to teenagers under 16. The truth is that these teenagers feel that buying a knife is smart. It is not; it is cheap and cowardly. The retailer is now protected by the fact that he cannot sell knives to under-16s. If he does and is caught, he will face a fine of up to £5,000.
    714
    I trust that the Bill will be the breakthrough that we crave. Society has had enough of this thuggery. There may be many causes. I believe that the breakdown of the family structure has a great deal to do with the problem. Parents who love and control their children, bringing them up in a stable and disciplined environment, are far less likely to find that they have offspring who turn into street thugs. However, this is not the time to apportion blame; it is time to recognise the difficulties that we face and to take firm action.
    I am grateful for the support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Minister, from my colleagues and from the Opposition in bringing this important Bill through all its stages. I commend the Bill to the House. I trust that it will have a safe passage when it is piloted through the other place by my father, the Earl of Lauderdale.
    12.43 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her Bill and on the campaign that preceded it. In each case she has done the community that she represents in Sutton and Cheam, and our nation, a great service. I hope that she will not think it a discourtesy on my part if I leave to see constituents shortly after speaking.
    As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Philip Lawrence was my constituent and friend, so I have been extremely close to one of the main triggers of the Bill. I would like to say a word or two about that situation, without prejudice to the forthcoming trial of those charged with his murder.
    The position would have been different, and Philip might have been with us today, if the Bill had been in place on 8 December 1995. Philip Lawrence saw a group of thugs outside his school, St. George's, behaving in a menacing way. If such a thing happens now, a headmaster will be able to call the police, who would have power to search those involved, on the suspicion that one of them was carrying a knife, and they would be able to disarm that individual. If that had been the case in December, a brave headmaster would not have had to face a group of thugs who were interfering with one of his pupils—a vulnerable 13-year-old—and then, when his intervention failed to deal with the problem, had to chase them up the road for 200 or 300 yd. Think of the courage of that. At that distance from his school, Philip Lawrence still could not resolve the situation, and he was stabbed in the heart. Somehow he got back to his school, collapsed outside it, was carried in by his colleagues and the children, and died 20 minutes later.
    That has been such a tragedy for Philip's family—his dear wife Frances, his brave mother, who is nearly 90, and his four children. It has also been a tragedy for my community and for the nation. I believe that that sort of thing will be prevented in future by the Bill. For that reason alone, the Bill is right and proper.
    What more can we say about the Bill's effect on schools? It is profound. For the first time, the police will have the power to enter schools and search for a weapon. My 23 years in teaching included my time as deputy headmaster at a school for 1,100 boys at King's Cross—fine boys, but it was not the easiest of areas. I was subsequently deputy headmaster of a school for 2,200 children from 11 to 19 the Bellingham estate in

    715
    Lewisham, and I ran that school for periods of time. So I know that in running a school one often has to face physical challenges. As you know from your own professional days, Madam Deputy Speaker, in schools there are children who will go to Oxford or Cambridge, and there are those who may become criminals if we do not succeed in doing what every school seeks to do and handling them in the best possible way. From time to time I have had to disarm boys with knives and other aggressive weapons—boulders, great pieces of wood, and so on—just as other teachers, head teachers and deputy heads have had to do over the years.
    Once the Bill is enacted teachers will not have to do that any more. If there is a suspicion that a pupil has a lethal weapon such as a knife, and if the head and deputy head feel that they cannot handle that difficult situation, they will be able to call in the police to deal with it. That is a sad development, because in one's professional days one liked to feel that one was king of one's classroom and of one's school—as, indeed, one was, and as head teachers, deputies and teachers still are, but they now need the assistance of the facility that the Bill provides to help them handle the serious and growing difficulties which, as we know, have led to the murder of a great headmaster.
    I have nothing but praise for what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has sought to do, for the way in which she has gone about it and for her achievements in getting the Bill to Third Reading today. I congratulate her.
    12.49 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her work in promoting the Bill and on responding to the horrific statistics and cases that she cited in her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) described in detail the tragic murder of his constituent, and we shall all remember that case for a long time.
    I wish to take the House back some 20 years when, perhaps rather rashly, I intervened in an incident in the west end of London. A person was lying on the ground being kicked by a group of four or five thugs and, in coming to his assistance, I was thrown to the ground and sustained a kick under the ribs. The police arrived rapidly, so I and the victim of the assault did not suffer worse damage. I fear that such incidents have become more common in recent years, and I wonder what would have happened to us if the assailants had been armed with knives.
    Shortly before that episode, I had moved into a new flat and one evening I disturbed a burglar—a new residence is often burgled at the time of handover. The burglar did not steal anything from my flat, but when I discussed the incident with the owner of the flat downstairs he told me that the burglar had stolen some money from him. I said, "I'm very sorry—I wish that I had tried to apprehend him, but it all happened so suddenly." My neighbour replied, "It's a good thing you didn't do that because he also stole the bread knife." That brings home to us the danger faced by the police—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred—and others going about their business who try to prevent street crime if they tangle with someone who is carrying a knife.
    716
    I hope that the Bill will proceed successfully through Parliament. My hon. Friend referred to the powers that the legislation will afford the police to arrest a person for carrying a knife without good reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the powers to search schools on the suspicion that students are carrying knives. We were appalled by the comments of the director of education in the borough of Sutton. I hope that there will be no resistance to the new extremely important powers that the Bill confers on the police to enter schools. They are a way of commemorating Philip Lawrence.
    It may be quite easy for students in school who are carrying knives to arouse suspicion. Other students get to know about it, and therefore the staff will become aware that knives are present at the school and that they should call in the police. However, I am concerned about those armed with knives who seek to commit burglaries or street crimes or who simply meet up at the pub and are involved in an affray.
    We have heard about the traditions of the Scots and the Sikhs, but people in this country do not carry knives like the characters in Romeo and Juliet—stuck through their belts so that everyone can see them. Most people conceal such weapons. I tried to address earlier—it appears that I was not successful—the problem of how one arouses suspicion and how the police will deal with this matter. Perhaps the police should have more flexible powers to stop and search people so that those who carry knives will run the risk of detection and prosecution.
    I welcome the Bill and the powers that it confers, but is it enough? Perhaps in a year or two shall look back and say, "That was the major turning point for the knife culture"—not only because of the penalties, which are the Bill's biggest innovation, but because of the ability of the police to apprehend those who conceal knives on their person. Leaving that concern with my hon. Friends the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister, I welcome the Bill and wish it success.
    12.54 pm
    Sir Michael Shersby: I join colleagues in all parts of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her achievement in bringing her Bill to its Third Reading and taking a signal step in the progress that Parliament is making towards dealing with the difficult problem of the knife culture. The Bill is important to my constituents as to those of every other Member of Parliament, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by many head teachers and others responsible for the safety of children in school.
    My one regret is that the Bill does not deal with a major obstacle in detecting whether a person is in possession of an offensive weapon—the inability of a police constable to stop and search a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find a stolen or prohibited weapon. The introduction of the concept of reasonable grounds is the responsibility of the House, following the Brixton riots in the early 1980s and with the subsequent passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. That concept was backed by a code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search, which set out the circumstances in which an officer can stop and search a person with reasonable grounds for suspicion.
    The manuals used to educate and train probationer constables advise that the level of suspicion required to establish reasonable grounds in exercising the power to

    717
    stop and search is no less than the level required before an officer arrests a person without warrant for an offence that carries such a power of arrest. The existing legislation and its associated guidance are too restrictive in providing police officers with the flexibility to use their powers of stop and search as a preventive measure, which I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is of utmost importance.
    It is important that the House should recognise that police officers cannot use their substantial experience, knowledge, intuition and training in dealing with potential problems in a proactive way. We all admire the intuition, training, hunches and skill that police officers bring to their work in protecting the citizen, but they are restricted by the provision that I mentioned.
    The current restrictive legislation and guidance can be effectively highlighted by an example that is relevant to the Bill, relating to the carrying of knives in or within the vicinity of a school. A police officer might come across a group of youths outside a school, knowing that they do not attend it. He suspects that there could be trouble if the youths remain in the vicinity of the school grounds. He could also be aware that trouble has occurred outside the school before and that knives have been brandished. Nevertheless, unless the police officer has a description that fits the youths concerned, it is unlikely that he would be considered to have reasonable grounds to justify a search. Unfortunately, as the present legislation and guidance is framed, the officer can take little or no positive or preventive action to stop and search the youths.
    Since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police officers have been forced to be extremely cautious in their use of stop-and-search powers, which has had a detrimental and negative effect on preventive policing. That does not have to be the case. The legislation and guidance should be framed in such a way that officers are given greater flexibility to execute stop-and-search powers to prevent crime while still being responsible for their actions.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is enunciating the concerns that I was trying to address, and we have had conversations on the subject. Does he agree that the law is different in Scotland and that because the law is more flexible there it has had a significant effect in reducing the knife culture?
    Sir Michael Shersby: I agree entirely. The Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 is an excellent example of my hon. Friend's point. That legislation relies on an officer having reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has a prohibited article, and in Scotland the meaning of that phrase is not constrained by the guidance contained in the codes of practice introduced by order in England and Wales alone under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On its implementation, the Scottish legislation had an immediate and positive effect on crime levels, especially in the Strathclyde area, which was undoubtedly due to police officers' ability to use the power given to them. That power is necessary in England and Wales. In terms of destroying the rapidly expanding knife culture in England and Wales, it is a pity that the Bill will not amend the current legislation and allow officers the power to stop and search, in a preventive manner, in order to protect defenceless and innocent citizens and to allow all members of the public services to perform their duties safely.
    718
    One change since the 1984 Act was very welcome and received wide support in the House. That change was contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 60 of which gives limited powers to a police officer
    "of or above the rank of superintendent"
    to authorise stop-and-search powers in a specific geographical area for a specific period of time. The powers can be used to search for "dangerous instruments", which are defined as
    "instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed".
    Welcome though the Bill is, I hope that there is still time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government to consider, before the Bill reaches the statute book, whether the time is right to take a further step to restore to our police service the powers of stop-and-search that police officers enjoy in Scotland and which they operate without any difficulty whatever. The Government should have the courage to address the problem, difficult though I realise it is. It is important for the ethnic minority community to understand the importance of restoring to the police the powers that they had before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and now have in Scotland, because that would be in everyone's interest.
    I have one simple message: we have to trust our police. They are highly responsible individuals whose expertise and training are the envy of the world. They should not be restricted by the outdated provisions of the 1984 Act and the codes that have been drawn up under that Act and which every constable has to learn by heart as they go through training school.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will be kind enough to consider the points that I have made today and use her good offices to see whether, even at this late stage, we might make that change. If she were to be successful, she would have made a magnificent and substantial contribution to improving the policing of this country and to achieving the objectives of this admirable Bill.
    1.5 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I consider it to be something of an honour to be a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in bringing forward such an important Bill. Throughout all stages of its consideration, we have heard many cases that exemplify why the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, it came as something of a shock last week when I read the judgment in an especially horrifying case involving some of my constituents. The case was heard at Maidstone Crown court on Thursday last week.
    The case concerned four of my constituents, who went out for an evening's entertainment. They were involved in an incident in which they were all stabbed. One of them died. A 23-year-old lad called Mark Simpson, with his young brother Lee and two friends, went out for the evening. The boys were described by a detective sergeant as decent, hard-working young men.
    My constituents saw a young girl being harassed by a youth outside a pub in Gillingham. In a public-spirited nature, they intervened to try to save her from harassment. As a result of the affray, all of them were stabbed and, as I said, one of them died. I shall give the House an idea of

    719
    the nature of the wounds that were inflicted. As for the wounds of my constituent who died, two of the blows were delivered with considerable force, enough to pierce his breastbone and strike his heart, and he had knife wounds to his stomach, ribs and lower spine. What of the three other young lads? It was reported that Lee Simpson had been knifed in his left shoulder blade. Mr. Higgins suffered three stab wounds, one of which damaged his liver. Mr. Shea suffered wounds to his shoulder, back, arm and chest.
    Who delivered such grievous wounds? The accused was a certain Daniel Latham, aged 21. He was a chef in a local restaurant. Apparently, he thought it necessary to carry a knife about his person to act as a deterrent because, he said, he had been beaten up in the neighbouring town of Sittingbourne. He thought that he should carry a knife as a deterrent, to show to his mates and to anybody else that he had a knife and that he would use it. And use it he did. It left one of my constituents dead and three others badly wounded.
    That incident shows so graphically what remains wrong with the criminal justice system. It shows graphically also why the House needs to pass the Bill. The young thug to whom I referred would not have been carrying a knife if the provisions set out in the Bill had been in force.
    What was the sentence that befell the young thug, having been proved to have killed one of my constituents and grievously wounded three others? He received a five-year sentence. My constituents and the grieving family of the boy who died are horrified at what they deem to be a travesty of British justice. Not only did the villain receive a mere five years for having killed a man and grievously wounded three others, but he will serve a prison sentence of only 20 months, by which time he will be eligible for parole. He will serve 20 months for a life.
    I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his announcements on honest sentencing because of such cases. Five years' imprisonment in this case patently is not sufficient. When that sentence means only 20 months, I say: how we need honest sentencing.
    I was completely flabbergasted at the leniency of that sentence. Mr. Justice Wright, in Maidstone Crown court, told the accused that he, the judge, had a duty to "reflect the public revulsion" over the use of knives. He went on to say:
    "If you and those like you had the sense to realise the stupidity of such behaviour you would not find yourself in the position you now do … It is the kind of offence I cannot treat leniently. As a result of your folly and stupidity in carrying that weapon, a man lies dead."
    Nevertheless, the sentence was a mere five years.
    Could it be that, as I suspect, some kind of plea bargaining had something to do with the sentence? The villain admitted manslaughter. I should have thought that carrying a knife and killing a person was murder, but I am not a lawyer. What irritates me and so many of my constituents is that there currently appears to be some type of grand judicial game-playing in the courts and legal system, which takes no account of the interests of justice or of public protection.
    I intend to write to the Attorney-General about that case and to ask him to exercise the opportunity given to him by legislation to refer the case on the ground of undue leniency.
    1.11 pm
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on a helpful and positive measure, which we have supported from the start. Some of the debates on the Bill have been constructive and interesting, and have had a positive effect, as did the amendment that was tabled and agreed in Committee.
    I must make one serious point about the violence that is being experienced in British society. We have heard speeches today about how violence is increasing and about how tough we need to be to tackle it, and I agree with the general thrust of those remarks. In recent months, however, we have heard from the Home Secretary, time and again, that the level of crime is going down, and that there was a drop of 2 per cent. in crime last year. He has exhibited a degree of complacency that is probably shocking to the Conservative Members who have taken part in today's debate.
    We have had a serious and important debate on an important Bill, and I share the worry that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the dangers of a growing knife culture. I also share the sense of urgency with which we should seek to nip that culture in the bud.
    It is particularly important to realise that each attack involves a person's injury or death. Events such as Dunblane and the death of the head teacher Mr. Lawrence bring home to us our responsibilities as Members of Parliament in getting legislation right.
    The statistics make some extremely important points: last year, the level of violent crime in England and Wales went up by 2 per cent., and the figure for robberies—some of which involve the type of weapons that we are talking about today—increased by 14 per cent. That is not happening only in some parts of the inner city.
    The increase in total violent crime in Kent last year was 4 per cent. and robberies in Kent increased by 23 per cent. The figures for London are also very worrying. They show an increase of 2 per cent., which is quite considerable when one considers the size of the metropolis. Robberies in London increased by 17 per cent. Such increases in recorded crimes of violence are extremely worrying. It is important to understand them and not try to brush them under the carpet.
    We have debated some of the ways in which the Bill could be extended. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has succeeded not only in promoting an important Bill, but in having it improved without delaying its passage through the House. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to her for that.
    I am a little disappointed that we have not managed to go a little further. We need to target those who encourage or incite people under 16 to purchase weapons. The encouragement and incitement of youngsters to become involved in violent activities does occur. Football hooliganism, gang fights and racial violence do not just happen—they come about because impressionable people, and especially impressionable young people, are encouraged to get involved in violence and are drawn into the culture of violence. We need to tackle those issues as well as implementing the Bill's provisions.
    We also need to target those who advertise weapons for sale in a way that incites or condones the possession of a weapon for violent purposes. I shall not rerun our

    721
    previous debate, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today and read not only my comments, but those of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge and others, which have drawn attention to the horrific nature of some advertisements.
    There is still time for the Minister to persuade the Home Secretary that, when the Bill goes, as I hope it will, speedily and efficiently through its stages in another place, it should have added to it a provision to extend its scope, which would tackle the problem of the advertising of weapons.
    We certainly give two cheers today—one for the Bill and one for extending it to make it illegal to sell weapons to young people under 16, as my hon. Friend suggested. I plead with the Minister to think again and extend the Bill's scope to tackle the small and preventable problem of mail order catalogues and advertising which can put dangerous and potentially lethal weapons into the hands of those who should not have them in their possession. That would be an important addition, which would protect the public, and I am sure that it would win the third cheer from both sides of the House.
    1.17 pm
    Mr. Kirkhope: I must express the Government's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for agreeing to take forward this very important Bill. I know that that gratitude is shared by the whole House. My hon. Friend has also been very much involved in considering the proposals that were added to the Bill in Committee.
    It is fair to say that there is a high degree of acceptance by hon. Members on both sides of the House not only of the notion that the evil of knife carrying and other knife-related crime should be stamped on, but of the type of measures that we should be looking at to achieve that. The Government have long recognised the need to empower the police to deal with such problems.
    The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 made it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public without good reason or lawful authority. A knife is not an offensive weapon in itself, as it can have all manner of legitimate uses. It can, however, be regarded as an offensive weapon when the prosecution can prove that the carrier intended to cause injury with it. The police were experiencing difficulties in proving intent in many cases, even though common sense dictated that knife carriers were not carrying knives for use as, say, legitimate kitchen implements.
    Because of that difficulty, we introduced in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 an offence of carrying a knife without good reason or lawful authority. In addition, we introduced in section 141 of that Act the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of specified weapons. An order made under that section specifies 14 articles, including swordsticks and knuckledusters. That is in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, which are already prohibited under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
    The provisions in the Bill build largely on the foundations already provided in other legislation. The proposed ban on the sale of knives to people under 16 is a new and radical measure, and one that is entirely justified. Common sense cries out that people in that age group should not be able, for the most part, to buy knives.
    722
    Let me explain about exclusions. In drawing up clause 6—which the Government introduced as an amendment in Committee—we gave careful consideration to the definition of precisely what we wished to cover in the ban on the sale of knives to people under 16. We need a workable provision and, if we introduced a long list of exceptions, I fear that that would not be achievable. We none the less recognise that certain articles covered by the definition proposed in new section 141A(2) should be excluded, and can be without undue threat to the clarity of the measure.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to exclude two articles in that way. The first is the folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3 in. The reasons are simple. First, buying a penknife has been a natural experience for many a child, on holiday, in souvenir shops, before going camping with the boy scouts or girl guides or for fishing. There is an argument that, if a child wants such a penknife, it should be bought for him by a parent. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of maintaining the freedom of children to buy penknives, but I think it important to make that concession. Another reason is that penknives are not a significant part of the knife culture that many police officers are now witnessing.
    I said that two articles were covered by the ban. Let me explain what is meant by a knife blade. It is simple, although unpleasant, to explain. Most of us are familiar with craft knives of the Stanley knife variety, which are extremely useful for a variety of tasks but also much favoured by young knife carriers for their slashing qualities. The blades of such knives can be easily detached and replacement blades purchased. Those blades are not covered by the definition "any knife". By themselves they are not very bulky, and they are therefore sometimes carried by young thugs who wish to evade searches on entering, for example, football grounds. Even without the handle, the blades can inflict great injury, and it would be a mistake not to include them in the ban.
    Clause 6(2)(a) refers to "any … razor blade". What most of us understand by a razor blade is a blade used in an old-fashioned safety razor. That needs to be included in the ban for reasons similar to those that I have just given in relation to replacement blades for craft knives. Razor blades are not, however, covered by the definition "knife blade", and therefore need to be specified separately. That creates a difficulty—which brings me to the second of the two articles to which I have referred.
    In Committee, I said that disposable razor blades should be excluded from the ban. By "disposable razor blades", I mean the plastic cartridges with two short blades protruding. Not much damage can be done with those, beyond the superficial injuries that may be self-inflicted by the inexperienced shaver. It is perfectly right that someone under 16 who has begun shaving should be able to purchase his own disposable razor blades.
    The Bill has enormous support throughout the House. It has been presented and prepared admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The support of the House has continued throughout the Bill's stages. I am disappointed only by the fact that, a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being complacent. Whatever the political grounds on which the hon. Gentleman might wish to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend, to describe him and his vigorous attacks on

    723
    crime as complacent strikes me as inappropriate and very much against the general tenor of our consideration of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael rose—
    Mr. Kirkhope: No, I will not give way. I have made my point, as the hon. Gentleman made his.
    I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully. As I said, in certain respects the Government will continue to look carefully not only at his remarks, but at elements affecting the general area of the advertising and sale of knives.
    I shall finish as I started. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her wonderful achievement. This important legislation will do an enormous amount of good.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Prisoners' Earnings Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  1.24 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It gives me great pleasure to return this short, but important, Bill to the House. This is the first time that we have considered it orally in the Chamber. The proceedings in Committee established beyond all doubt that this will be a practical and useful measure. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee for their thoughtful and constructive contributions and for maintaining the all-party consensus that the Bill has attracted.
  I am grateful to the members of the Howard League for Penal Reform and of the Penal Affairs Consortium, to Home Office officials, who have just entered their Box, and to the many others who have supported or issued guidance on the Bill. For many years, I have felt that the practice of prisoners being unemployed and idle in prison should be reversed. They should pay their debt to society while they are in prison, and that would be an opportunity for them to prepare themselves to re-enter society as law-abiding, useful citizens. I raised this matter with lain Macleod, a former right hon. Member of the House, when I was a mere stripling of a student. Unfortunately, he was unable to agree with me at that time, so I am glad to bring the matter to the House now.
  In a publication that was kindly published by the CPC in 1992, I wrote about the importance of prisoners paying something directly to the victims of crime. That is part of the Bill.
  The Bill follows a series of important reports from Woolf, Tumim and Learmont, who all called for more work to be provided in prisons and for more financial responsibility to be accepted by prisoners. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to give the interests of victims greater prominence in the way in which the criminal justice system operates. One of the Bill's key objectives is to give prisoners the opportunity and the encouragement to do something for victims and potential victims of crime. To achieve that, prisons must provide the capacity for prisoners to work hard and productively, and we need a robust system for deducting part of their earnings to help victims and for other appropriate purposes.
  The Bill has three purposes. They are: crime prevention, national housework and help for victims. Victims can be divided into three categories—actual victims, families of victims and taxpayers.
  The Bill is not about increasing prisoners' wages, but it allows for a modest pay increase which is necessary to motivate them. Since 1991, the Prison Service has made commendable progress in developing so-called enhanced wages schemes. In 18 prisons, 1,300 prisoners out of 9,000 are employed by prison industries and farms on this scheme. Instead of earning the ordinary wage of £7 a week, prisoners on the scheme are paid £15 or perhaps, occasionally, a little more. However, the average amount is £15. The effects on motivation and output have been quite dramatic. In one workshop output has tripled from

  725
  the same number of workers. The beauty of the scheme is that all the extra pay is funded from the value of the extra output produced, so there is no net cost to the taxpayer.
  The introduction of a comprehensive system of deductions has been held back by the lack of a proper legal framework, so the Bill provides a clear statutory framework for four deductions: board and lodgings, upkeep of dependants, savings and contributions to victim support and crime prevention schemes. Participation in the enhanced wages scheme to which deductions will apply is a privilege. Prisoners will earn that privilege. Only then will they be allowed to take part. If they are not allowed that privilege, the alternatives will be ordinary prison work on ordinary prison pay.
  I have little doubt that the scheme will prove popular among prisoners, leading to increased levels of activity in prison workshops and to busy prisons. It will mean that prison authorities will have to find more work for prisoners. I understand people's concerns about where the work will come from. It is crucial that it should not be obtained at the expense of law-abiding jobseekers in the wider community. That is why the Prison Service is increasingly seeking to work in partnership with private sector firms seeking opportunities for import substitution, and making every effort to ensure that local jobs are not lost. The prison population is about 54,000. If we can get a high proportion of those people working productively, that will help in a small way to stimulate the economy and to contribute to growth and a reduction in unemployment.
  May I share with hon. Members a few examples that illustrate those points? For a Manchester firm, bulk container bag production is in progress in certain prisons. That involves import substitutions that would otherwise come from Turkey. For a midlands firm, safe workwear is being produced by machinists in prisons after advertisements locally for machinists produced no replies. Again, no local jobs have been lost.
  For Minit shoe repair shops, refurbishing of machines takes place at Wymott prison. For the Prison Service, mugs and toothbrushes are produced at Ranby prison—there is even a night shift to produce those. For another company, mozzarella and ricotta cheese are produced at East Sutton Park. If that prompts hon. Members to ask, next time they eat a pizza, where the cheese comes from, so be it.
  In the course of producing the Bill and during its passage through the House, I have been asked some questions. I should like to respond quickly on a few of them. What of prisoners' dependants? Will they lose social benefits? If there is a payment from the prisoner to the family, there may be some replacement of social security benefit, but, given that one of the main causes of spiralling crime is the break-up of family life, I believe that if the Bill can retain the link between the prisoner and the dependant family so that marriages are saved, that will reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending.
  How will the Bill affect the enhanced wages scheme? It will not affect the scheme badly. Prisoners will still be better off than under the old mailbag and pocket money scheme. The enhanced wages scheme will still succeed.
  Will prisons directly benefit from the Bill? That is especially relevant to contracted-out prison services. There is a yes and a no. Money from the payment for board and lodging will go directly to the Consolidated
  726
  Fund and to the Treasury, so no contracted-out prison—indeed, no prison—will have any conflict of interest, but prisons will benefit because morale in them will be better and they can apply to the Treasury or the Consolidated Fund for project money, possibly from that source.
  How will the money be apportioned? I have already mentioned the four destinations. Initially, it will be split simply among four objects, but over the years it may be varied accordingly to what seems relevant in a particular case.
  What safeguards will there be against excessive deductions? There will be the prison rules and there will be common sense. This is a voluntary scheme that will succeed only with the will and motivation of the prisoners. In any event, we are signatories to conventions that prevent the use of forced labour which we must observe.
  How will the funds be administered? The prisons will set up savings accounts and systems to send money directly to dependants and to voluntary victim support and crime prevention organisations.
  Will the scheme be unfair to the unemployed? Indeed, it was put to me by a forceful journalist yesterday that prisoners should stick to breaking rocks in prison. It does not help anyone for prisoners to remain idle. It just adds to our economic burden. It is in the interests of even the unemployed that when prisoners leave prison they have a greater likelihood of going straight, not least because many of the victims of crime are themselves unemployed.
  The Government have a proud record on victim support, the funds for which have been increased by 8 per cent. this year. Some £11.7 million has been paid out this year. Under the present arrangements, this Bill will add money to that. That is what the Government intend and there are no plans to change that. Compensation orders will be paid first by offenders in prison, before they become part of the scheme.
  There are no losers under the Bill, only winners. Prisoners are motivated, because they will have a little more cash in hand to save for their release. They will gain self-respect from contributing to the upkeep of their dependants. Victim support and crime prevention organisations will benefit from the additional financial assistance they will receive. Society as a whole will gain in two major ways. First, prisoners will come out of prison with some work experience that will help them to resettle in society and avoid reoffending. Indeed, some evidence shows that there is a 50 per cent. greater likelihood that prisoners who have been earning properly, given responsibility and earning respect for themselves in prison will go straight and choose honesty when they come out of prison. Secondly, prisoners will be working more productively. They will be putting something back into the economy rather than just being a burden on the taxpayer.
  For the sake of victims of crime, for the sake of prisoners' families, for the sake of the economy and for the sake of all of us, I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.38 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has taken a constructive approach to the way in which we deal with imprisonment. It is a pity that there is such a short time to discuss the Bill. I understand that the Government are desperate to reach the Constitutional Change Bill of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), which deals with referendums.

  727
  The Prisoners' Earnings Bill merits a longer debate as it raises a variety of important issues. However, I do not intend to delay the House. I am afraid that, again, I shall rouse the Minister's zeal to defend the indefensible by pointing out the background against which we are debating the Bill. The Home Secretary is complacent not only about violent crime but about the chaotic state of the Prison Service. That fact has been confirmed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, as well as by his predecessor.
  During this Parliament, the prison population has soared from about 46,500 to about 54,000. That reflects the Government's dramatic failure to address the causes of crime. To make matters even worse, the Prison Service is having to cope with a budget cut of 14.5 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Not only is that a difficulty facing the Prison Service but it is worrying for the public generally, because if the Prison Service is not effective, a series of offenders who have not been reformed and are likely to reoffend will come back into the community.
  Prison certainly has a number of purposes. Punishment and deterrent are crucial, but rehabilitation and making recompense to victims, whether financial or in some other form, are also ways in which the offender should pay his debt to society. It is in the interests of the public for restitution to be paid. It is certainly in the interests of the public and potential future victims to give prisoners a sense of discipline, self-worth and experience of work that is likely to result in their being less likely to reoffend when they are released at the end of their sentence. There are many other issues, such as drugs in prison and the ineffectiveness of much of the psychiatric work that should be going on there, but they go well beyond the Bill's scope.
  Reoffending is certainly an issue on which the House should be united. It is not best achieved by sending offenders to so-called "universities of crime". It would be far more prudent to ensure that, once convicted, all activities in which prisoners engage are geared towards effective rehabilitation. That is why we welcome the Bill and have long argued for the principle of productive remunerated work in prisons.
  Before the Bill was introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said on the issue to which it refers:
  "Partnerships between prisons and industry could provide invaluable training with genuine qualifications, so that prisoners will have something to offer back to society on their release rather than improved criminal skills."
  Community service schemes have rightly been applauded where they force offenders to make some recompense to their victims, but there is no reason why prisoners should not work to compensate their victims as well. We are looking at ways in which industry can be brought into partnership so that the lot of prisoners' victims can be improved, while ensuring that prisoners are less likely to offend after release.
  A balance must of course be struck, because it would be wrong if offenders who ended up in prison were treated better than those in society who are also without proper employment and have not offended in the serious way that has led to imprisonment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) would agree that the Government must maintain a careful balance so that prisoners are not favoured at the expense of other sections of society. Once that is accepted, the principle will be welcome.
  728
  We recognise the value of productive work in rehabilitating prisoners, and it is a shocking indictment of policy that, at the end of the 20th century, we do not have effective rehabilitative programmes in all our prisons. One ex-prisoner commented in The Guardian:
  "The boredom in prison is mindless. Facilities like education, sport or the library are very limited in terms of time and quality and more often take the role of baby-sitting rather than adult stimulation".
  A disproportionately large proportion of prisoners have few or no qualifications. A facility to award genuine qualifications based on work could greatly help them to find gainful work following release. Conversely, many other prisoners are highly qualified, and we should try to make them work in prison-based employment that utilises their skills. Just as in the outside world, neither prisoners nor the community at large benefit from wasted ability.
  Offenders should never be allowed to earn more money than law-abiding citizens in the community or be advantaged in comparison. I understand and have some sympathy for the proposal that a proportion of the moneys earned should be directed towards victim support schemes and crime prevention measures. We support those very strongly. Community service schemes have rightly made recompense to the victims of crime. It is high time that prisoners should be able to do the same.
  However, some concerns have been raised by the Victim Support national office and I hope that the Minister will address two points in his response. First, at the moment, compensation orders are not usually made against offenders who are sent to prison because it is assumed that they cannot pay. A far greater number of prisoners should be able to pay compensation to their victims than is provided for in the Bill. In other words, is it not right that the first call on compensation if a prisoner is able to earn money should be the victim of the crimes for which he has been convicted? I would be interested to know whether the Minister feels that that principle is covered adequately and, if not, whether he will introduce measures to ensure that that principle underlies the way in which we approach a prisoner's responsibility towards the victim or victims of his crime. I am sure that the hon. Member for Finchley, the Bill's promoter, does not disagree with that principle.
  The second aspect on which the Victim Support national office has expressed concern, which may go rather more to the content of the Bill, is the compulsory charitable donation. Although the Bill states that donations will be used for voluntary organisations concerned with victim support and crime prevention, there seems to be a suggestion that the main beneficiary will be victim support. If prisoners were allowed to choose the charity to which they gave money, there would be an opportunity for proper thought and discussion about the effects of crime on victims and for reparation.
  As the Bill stands, the donation looks a bit like a tax on prisoners. Victim Support is worried about the implication for its Home Office funding. It has always believed that the organisation should be funded by the main criminal justice budget and that the funding should not be dependent on a levy on prisoners. That point ties well with the principle, which I put forward a moment ago, that the first call on the money should be direct compensation for the victims of the crimes that the prisoners have committed. I hope that the Minister will accept that point and the principle behind it.

  729
  The notion that some money should be diverted to the cost of keeping inmates in prison is welcome as long as, again, it is not seen as purely a cost-cutting exercise. Reductions in the Prison Service budget have already placed great strain on vital services such as education provision and basic security. As with productive work and training, education is important if we are to produce people who not only have been punished by being in prison and by the discipline of prison but come out more likely to avoid reoffending and to be reasonable members of the wider community. I hope that the Minister can respond positively on that point.
  The creation of an investment fund for use by prisoners on release should greatly assist in the first few weeks following release. There are far too many cases of prisoners coming out of prison, being totally adrift and almost drifting into reoffending because their circumstances are not very positive. Obviously, they are still to blame for any offences which they commit. However, it is a foolish society that does not anticipate that danger and does not try to build in protections. For that reason, the proposal to give a prisoner something with which to plan a future on release is positive and sensible, and does not conflict with the concept of punishment for which prison is intended.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to my specific questions about the way in which the legislation will be pursued. As I said, the Bill has our support. I welcome this initiative, and congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley on promoting the Bill and on bringing it successfully and simply to its Third Reading.
  1.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I do not intend to allow my remarks to range as far and wide as those of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Before I speak on Third Reading in general, I must say to him that, although it is of course possible not only that the numbers of inmates in our prisons have been increasing but that they will continue to increase when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's tough new sentencing laws are in place, our discussions on the Bill have to do with how productive prisoners' lives may be when they are in prison.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on having brought the Bill through to the point where we are on the verge of giving it a Third Reading. The fact that the Bill has made such relatively trouble-free progress through its Commons stages, and arrives back in the Chamber without amendment, is the result, I think, of two main factors.
  First, the proposals themselves are eminently sensible. They open the way for some exciting developments in the way in which work is provided for prisoners in the future, and, as my hon. Friend said, they do so in a way that means that there are no losers as a result of the Bill, only winners.
  Apart from the proposals themselves, the second key factor has been the way in which my hon. Friend has guided the Bill through its various stages, building and maintaining a consensus that has embraced hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know that he has also been assiduous in ensuring that outside organisations concerned with crime and the treatment of offenders were consulted, and were content with the direction set by the Bill.
  730
  As the House will know, the Prison Service, along with other parts of the public sector, is currently having to examine its operations very critically to meet demanding cost reduction targets; but Ministers and the prisons board have made it clear that we expect cost reductions to come mainly from increased efficiency, not from cuts in regime activities, especially those that can be shown to be beneficial from the point of view of reducing the risk of reoffending after release.
  Constructive work clearly falls into that category, and because it actually brings income into the system to offset operating costs, it is in a unique position to maintain or increase the amount of activity provided, while at the same time reducing the net cost of the activity. The key is to get more prisoners to work, and to get prisoners working harder when they are at work. Although work is compulsory for convicted prisoners, those objectives cannot be achieved simply by coercion. As the existing wages schemes show, prisoners will work harder if there is a reasonable incentive.
  The arrangements cannot simply be left at that. Prisoners do not have the same living expenses as other people, and it would be wrong for them to accumulate spending money without contributing to the cost of their upkeep, to the upkeep of their dependants or to victim support schemes. The Bill therefore establishes a sensible framework, with appropriate safeguards, for such deductions, as well as for using part of prisoners' earnings for compulsory savings to be repaid on release.
  In many ways, the Bill had its origin in the Woolf report on the Strangeways disturbances, but it is also totally in line with the Learmont report, with its call for much more active industrial prisons.
  There are two outstanding points. First, I confirm for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that a compensation order to an individual victim of course takes precedence over any other deduction, and that will continue to happen.
  Secondly, I agree that Victim Support should derive its main funding from public funds. The Bill does not pre-empt the decision on the voluntary organisations to which deductions should go. Those will be prescribed by prison rules. However, I am interested in the possibility that, when the matter is decided on a local committee basis for prisons, there may be more consultation with prisoners on how the money should be allocated.
  I do not want to detain the House. The measure—
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Kirkhope: Very briefly, because I do not want to detain the House.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the positive way in which the Minister responded on those two points. That is most helpful, and enables us to be even more enthusiastic about the Bill. As victims of the actual crimes will have priority in the allocation of compensation, will there be a change in the guidance to the courts, to take account of the change arising from the Bill?
  Mr. Kirkhope: Obviously, notification of the legislation's provisions would be given to courts where appropriate. I remind the House that the question of compensation paid to a victim is always a matter for the

  731
  courts. They take into account all relevant circumstances when deciding whether a compensation order is appropriate. The Bill's provisions will be made known to the relevant parties.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing an excellent measure that will make a positive contribution to prison life and will be acceptable to the wider community. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Constitutional Change Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am grateful to the House for giving me an opportunity to present my Bill for Second Reading today. I also place on record my thanks to the Clerks for their help in drafting my Bill.
  As I stated during my ten-minute Bill speech, the Bill seeks to address the political and constitutional problems that may develop from some of the constitutional proposals being discussed currently. The Bill's objective is to provide for consultation with the people by way of referendum before implementing any constitutional change that is approved by Parliament. In other words, after a Bill has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament, it must be put to a national referendum in order to decide whether Parliament's proposals will be accepted. There are precedents for that in the Scotland Act 1978 and in a different form in the European Communities Act 1972.
  I have news for Sir James Goldsmith: my Bill is not a response to his public statements and actions. In my case, he is about 25 years too late. However, I welcome converts to my cause—even if I have doubts about the wisdom of their tactics.
  My Bill, and particularly clause 1, reflects the view that I have held for most of my adult life and follows the line that I took during the public debates in the early 1970s and during the constitutional debates and discussions in the late 1970s. Although I was on the losing side in the 1975 referendum, I support the view that it was constitutionally correct and proper to hold such a referendum.
  Clause 1(1) states clearly that any change, redirection or transfer of Parliament's powers agreed by both Houses of Parliament must be put to the people in a referendum. This Parliament, with all its shortcomings—it has a number—is still the finest democratic Parliament anywhere in the world. A cornerstone of the unwritten constitution is the fact that no Parliament can bind future Parliaments. In recent years, constitutional change has undermined that cornerstone. I believe that proposals now under discussion will continue that process.
  I believe that Members of Parliament hold the leasehold for our unwritten constitution during their time in this place. While it is in their care, they may make changes that can be altered next week, next year, in five or 10 years or at any time in the future. However, they should not alter the constitution in such a way that it may be impossible for future Parliaments to change it back if they so wish. Hon. Members hold only the leasehold; I believe that the freehold for the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is the property of the people. Only the people should change the constitution. Sometimes that is called sovereignty: the power of Parliament. The right to create and repeal legislation, to raise taxes, to borrow and to spend, and the right to block supply are powers of Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), wrote in the March issue of The European Journal, the journal of the European Foundation:

  733
  "I launched the Maastricht Referendum Campaign, MARC—which ran from February to July 1993 under the patronage of Lady Thatcher. This meshed with a parliamentary rebellion of a number of colleagues and myself which involved a relentless effort to amend the Maastricht Bill. MARC organised a popular petition to the House of Commons with over 280,000 signatures—no small achievement for an organisation that had to start from scratch without the support of any political party or trade union or any other body with a ready-made national membership and administration. Although it did not succeed in its immediate objective of obtaining a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, the campaign did generate huge media interest and began the process of swaying public opinion. This is now—The Sunday Times has shown—80 per cent. in favour of a referendum on monetary union, which is now the key issue … Lastly let me rebut the silly suggestion that a referendum should be advisory rather than binding. The issue to be decided, let me repeat, is whether we are to continue as a parliamentary democracy or not. That decision cannot be taken by a single parliament for all future generations, any more than a board of directors can merge a company without reference to a general meeting of their shareholders. The source of sovereignty and legitimate authority is the people."
  I agree.
  Nobody who has studied that which monetary union would involve throughout Europe denies that if Parliament decides to join the single European currency there would be a massive shift to Europe of areas of decision making—that if we signed up for the single currency, there would be a substantial change to the constitutional decision-making powers of this Parliament. Clause 1(1) would ensure that the people would have to be consulted in a referendum.
  Part of the problem when discussing the single currency is that the debate is against the background of the UK agreeing that it would not oppose other EU member states going ahead with monetary union. I mention that because, as with many European matters, the negative as well as the positive often has an impact on what may or may not happen.
  Another cornerstone of the unwritten constitution is the right of Members of Parliament to ask questions and have them answered. That right, coupled with parliamentary privilege, means that hon. Members can raise matters on behalf of constituents without the risk of action outside Parliament, and all that is done at no direct cost to constituents. Powers ceded by Parliament or given away affect that cornerstone. Again, the unwritten constitution and the citizen's rights and freedoms are affected. I will say more about that aspect later.
  Another constitutional area under discussion is the proposals for or assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. I will confine my remarks to the proposal for Edinburgh, although the problems and principles apply to all three. Clause 1(1) would ensure that any proposal put before Parliament will be debated against the background that whatever is decided by Parliament will have to be put to the people in a referendum. That means that if, heaven help us, we ever had a Labour Government, its Front Benchers would be led by a Scot educated at a fee-paying selective Scottish school. It would have a Cabinet in which the majority of the key posts, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Secretary of State for Scotland and Patronage Secretary—who has been in and out of the Chamber all morning—will not only be Scots but be from Scottish constituencies. In addition, many of the Ministers of State will be Scots from Scottish constituencies. English Members, representing 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom
  734
  population, would be right to say that the Scots were running the United Kingdom Parliament. Consequently, clause 1(1) would force that subject to be at the forefront of the debate.
  The debate would probably run as follows: the Scots would be running the Westminster Parliament, yet they would also run Scotland separately. English Members would be unable to vote on matters devolved to Scotland, yet Scottish Members would be able to vote on English education, law and order, local government, transport, the environment and other purely English legislative proposals. Scottish Members would be unable to ask questions or to have debates on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament or Assembly. They would become part-time Members of Parliament and probably should be paid part-time salaries. The cry would be throughout the country: "Is that fair?" Fair, it will not be. The constitutional change would be substantial, which is why clause 1(1) would properly require the matter, after it had been decided by Parliament, to be put to the people in a referendum.
  The United Kingdom constitution is not cast in stone. It has evolved since 1707 to meet the needs of the times. Its great strength has been its ability to change. It has changed because Members of Parliament have introduced change, and they have done so by consultation and agreement and in the knowledge that a future Parliament could not be bound by their decisions. There is no consultation or agreement about laws imposed on us by Europe, especially by the European Court of Justice. Is it any wonder that there is ever-increasing concern in the country?
  Any proposal to change the way in which we vote in general elections may also be caught by clause 1(1). If so, any proposal for a change to a proportional representation system of voting may have to be put to the people in a referendum.
  Claus 1(2) would determine the way in which the question would be asked in a referendum. Parliament would have debated the proposed change, in both Houses, and those debates—from the experience of previous constitutional debates—would be fairly protracted, lengthy and contain considerable detail. I imagine that they would have been fully reported by the media, so no one would be able to claim with any confidence that the issue was too complex to be put to the people. The people would have followed the debates with interest and, as in the Scotland Act 1978 and the Referendum Act 1975, the question put in the referendum would be
  "Do you think that these changes should be brought into force?"
  The changes would be clearly stated, whatever they were, so the people would be asked, for example, "Do you wish to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh: yes or no?" or "Do you wish to join a single currency: yes or no?" The clause would address the point that many constitutional experts have made about the difficulty of asking a clear and simple question. In my experience of the Scotland Act 1978 and the following referendum, it was easy to explain what that was about. I say that because I was not on the losing side in that referendum, although I was on the losing side in the 1975 referendum.
  Clause 2(1) deals with the conduct of a referendum. It sets out clearly how a referendum should be carried out. There would be no problem, because we have already had the experience of the referendums that I have

  735
  mentioned. I will not go into detail because the process would be fairly straightforward. Clause 2(2) provides for the conduct of the counting of the votes, and gives details of the counting officers' duties.
  Clause 3 is important. It provides that no court
  "shall entertain any proceedings for questioning … the numbers … or the validity of anything done or purporting to be done under"
  the Bill if it becomes an Act. That is to prevent unnecessary interference through the courts.
  Clause 4 cites the name of what will become the Act. The schedule sets out the form of the ballot paper.
  It would be wrong of me not to draw attention to the final part of clause 1. I want to draw particular attention to it. Subsection (7) reads:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that fewer than 40 per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted yes, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of the provisions which were the subject of the referendum."
  That is important. That was set out in the Scotland Act 1978, and the provision worked superbly. About one third voted for, about one third against—with those voting for slightly more than those voting against—and one third did not vote. As we in Scotland say, "They didna' care". Of course, they had already been told that if they did not vote their potential vote would be treated as a no vote. That was explained. I think that some lessons were learnt.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister would like to say a few words about my Bill. That being so, I shall not detain the House too long. However, with constitutional change of the sort and magnitude that I have described, I have taken the precedent of the 1978 Act as my guide. It worked well at the time and I believe that it would provide the right levels of checks and balances that are normally expected when substantial constitutional change is to be workable and acceptable. The alternative might create severe political instability.
  I believe that my Bill is a necessary measure. Something of its sort will have to be put on the statute book because of the instability that we are experiencing, caused largely by public debate and the pressures that have been mounted by Sir James Goldsmith and others who wish to interfere with the way in which we run things in Parliament.
  I make no apology for defending Parliament. I believe that this is the finest Parliament anywhere in the world. We do not get everything right and we do not have all the correct procedures. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I can say, however, that if my grandchildren inherit what I inherited—the unwritten United Kingdom constitution and all the protections to which I have referred—I shall have passed on to them an extremely valuable inheritance.
  If we continue to allow the erosion of Parliament's decision-making powers and if we shackle future Parliaments, or if we seek powers in a way that means that Members can no longer ask questions affecting the rights of their constituents, as is happening progressively, we shall have undermined the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. That would be foolish and unwise.
  It would be foolish and unwise of the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, to expect to run Parliament and to run a parliament at
  736
  Edinburgh at the same time, without that process producing a massive constitutional backlash. Against the background of pressures from Europe and those for constitutional change that have not been thought through adequately and fully, and the instability that could ensue and risk the break-up of the United Kingdom that I visualise if the Scots were to be foolish enough to think that they could have their cake and eat it by having the running of this place in their hands—and the running of a parliament in Edinburgh—I have introduced the Bill. I firmly believe that we need such a measure to ensure that we move forward sanely and sensibly on the basis of consultation and consent.
  2.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) for today giving us an opportunity to consider the arguments for and against the principle of referenda as possible tools in the machinery of government that are available to the Government of the day. Regardless of how this debate might develop and of how the wider discussion of these issues may progress outside the House, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute on a more fundamental issue.
  The Bill seeks to put in place a statutory requirement for consultation through the referendum process. But consultation—a readiness to be open to the advice of the electorate and the responsibility of representing the views of the electorate—is the very business of the House and of Members of Parliament. The role of the constituency Member of Parliament is the very bedrock of the system of representative democracy that we have created in this country over very many years, and we are responsible for maintaining it as an effective and valued service.
  I acknowledge—as I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members do—the example set for us all by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, and the conscientious and assiduous manner with which he has represented the views, needs and aspirations of his constituents since he was first elected to the House, in 1979, for the constituency of Perth and East Perthshire. The role of the constituency Member of Parliament, as he well knows, is not an easy one—we can all testify to that—but it is a vital one if our constituents and the electorate more widely are to continue to place their trust in us faithfully to represent their views and interests.
  There is no question but that the issue of referendums has been much in the minds of some people. It has, of course, been even more in the minds of an even greater number of journalists and other members of the press and media. Their efforts to talk up the role of referendums has been of more than passing interest to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is therefore useful for us to have a chance to air—or in some cases, I hope, to put in perspective—the benefits that might be expected to flow from a use of referendums that is different from what we have previously known in this country.
  I have been struck by the way in which hon. Members have occasionally been seduced by the propaganda about referenda. There is a tendency to think that a referendum will provide an instant "fix" when Governments are faced, as they must be on occasion, with difficult decisions. This Bill takes as its starting point the fact that the system of parliamentary democracy that the United Kingdom enjoys

  737
  is somehow no longer robust enough to ensure that decisions taken in this House and in another place will properly reflect the people's consent.
  It is right that I should make it clear from the outset that I do not accept such a viewpoint. Parliamentary democracy, as practised in the United Kingdom, is precisely about the need to ensure that decisions are taken by Governments in the light of and with the mandate of the population. That mandate is exactly what is tested at every general election, when the people of the United Kingdom are invited to consider clear statements of policy set out in the party manifestos. We hope that there will be clear statements of policy from the Labour party in due course.
  Mr. John Marshall: You'll be lucky.
  Mr. Kirkhope: Indeed; as my hon. Friend says, I might be lucky.
  People then make their choices and elect a representative whose job it is to represent their views and give effect to the policies that he or she was elected to follow. That is certainly a role that has been performed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside over the years.
  The process of electing representatives and, through those representatives, of formulating a Government is central to the way in which these islands are governed. The general election campaign provides the electorate with the opportunity to test the policies of competing candidates and their parties and proposals. They may do that not on one isolated issue considered apart from the realities of the broader national requirement, but on the full range of concerns which a Government must be prepared to address.
  By comparison, a referendum can be a pale and limited thing indeed. That is not to say that a referendum may not engender excitement. Indeed, I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is getting excited.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Not very.
  Mr. Kirkhope: I must urge him not to get too excited in view of the time available.
  We must be clear, however, that excitement and involvement of the people are not necessarily the same thing. The experience of the 1975 referendum undoubtedly caused a great deal of noise and excitement, as some of us may recall, but is interesting to note that the turnout at the poll did not reflect any great improvement in the extent to which the attention of the electorate was engaged. Indeed, at about 64 per cent., the turnout was considerably lower than we have come to expect at a general election and, if repeated at a general election would, I suspect, be considered a condemnation of the policies and personalities being, put to the electorate.
  A distinction is often made between referendums and plebiscites. "Plebiscite" is. of course, much the older term, going back—if they will forgive me—to the vote of the plebs in Rome in the 4th century BC and it was used for the popular consultations in France from 1793 onward. "Referendum" in its current sense appeared in English only in the 1880s, although the Swiss cantons had decided issues ad referendum 200 years earlier.
  738
  Eighty years ago, "referendum" was the term used by reform movements throughout the English-speaking world to denote the idea of putting issues directly to the electorate. "Plebiscite" was the term used to describe the efforts by the League of Nations to settle boundary disputes on the principle of self-determination after the first world war. It was also used by the Nazis when they sought endorsement for their hideous policies. The word "plebiscite" has tended to be applied to an ad hoc reference to the people of a specific question and, in particular, of one involving approval for a man or a regime. However, there is no agreed usage.
  Referendums as a means of making government decisions or giving legitimacy to them have a history that is almost as old as democracy itself, but they have been invoked only sporadically. A few admirable democratic societies have never tried the device while some authoritarian ones have grotesquely abused it. In the populist progressive upsurge at the beginning of this century, referendums were welcomed by some as a liberating force and as a way of purifying government by enlisting the people against the politicians.
  Before the first world war, the most significant development of the referendum as a political institution—[Interruption.] I am hoping that the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) are listening carefully to this. I am sure that it will at least be instructive to them in relation to the constitutional changes that the Labour party may be foolishly considering.
  Before the first world war, the most significant development of the referendum as a political institution undoubtedly occurred in Switzerland and the United States. Since 1848, and still more since 1870, the Swiss have accepted the principle that almost every major national decision could become the subject of a popular vote but, in the 1930s, Hitler's plebiscites—with their 99 per cent. affirmatives—cast a cloud over the whole idea of referring specific questions to the voters.
  Of course, referendums continued to be used. They have been used continually in Switzerland as well as in California and other states in the United States of America and intermittently in places where they had become a prerequisite of constitutional change. I emphasise that, because Labour's plans for constitutional change may well mean that it will want to investigate the matter much further.
  The overwhelming bulk of referendums outside Europe and the old British Commonwealth have been attempts to seek endorsement for a new regime and its constitution, or to demonstrate approval for an established one. Such attempts almost always seem to be successful. Australia stands out as the only country in which referendums have been defeated more often than not. Even in Europe, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden—and, of course, Switzerland—are the only countries in which there have been Government-sponsored referendums that failed to secure a nationwide majority.
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that referendums were nearly always successful. Will he cast his mind back to 1979, when there were Government-sponsored referendums in Wales and Scotland? In Wales, a majority were against what the

  739
  Government wanted; in Scotland, the number voting for the Government's wishes was far lower than the number required by the House of Commons. Does that not demonstrate that in those two countries there is no enthusiasm for the policies that Labour presented then, and still presents today?
  Mr. Kirkhope: That was a marvellous intervention, which underlines the point that we are making. It will put the Labour party in an enormous quandary. If its members were sensible enough to listen to my hon. Friend's comments, they may now want to review their position and, perhaps, abandon their unwise and negligent approach to the constitution.
  Western democratic states have not been eager to exploit the referendum as a serious decision-making instrument. Switzerland stands out as the only country that has become addicted to the referendum. I shall return to that point later, because it is a useful example of what is wrong with the referendum process when it is used as a palliative in place of firm government.
  Apart from Switzerland, countries that have solved one problem by referendum have shown no observable tendency to use the device repeatedly. Switzerland and Australia offer evidence for the proposition that referendums are essentially conservative in nature, although the lesson from the American states is less clear. Particularly in federal societies, voters are cautious about giving new powers to the central authority. Nearly all the negative votes have been repudiations of change. The 85 per cent. vote against right-hand driving in Sweden in 1955 is the most spectacular example—I think the House requires some examples—of rejection of an innovation on which the establishment was agreed; and the way in which the establishment later circumvented that awkward vote is one of the most intriguing commentaries on the limitations of referendums—along with the helpful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am reluctant to intervene on my hon. Friend. Let me point out, however, that my Bill is exclusively about constitutional change. Let me also point
  740
  out that, given that this week we have considered a Northern Ireland Bill one of whose clauses concerned referendums, I think it legitimate for me to say that my aspirations are not unrealistic.
  Mr. Kirkhope: I did not mean to suggest for a moment that I was critical of my hon. Friend or any of his aspirations. I was merely trying to give the House the historical background to constitutional reform, as I think that I am obliged to do. It is important to establish the nature of referendums, the way in which they have been prepared and proposed and the way in which they have operated.
  The great majority of referendums have taken the form of a single question put to the elector in an isolated context. Occasionally, more than one question has been put on the same issue. Examples are the referendums on land reform in Denmark in 1963, constitutional change in France in 1945 and electoral reform in Ireland in 1968. But Ireland in 1972, New Zealand in 1949 and 1967 and Italy in 1978 offer the only examples of entirely separate issues being put on the same day—except, of course, for Switzerland and Australia, where a battery of questions has been common. However, even they did not reach the Californian record of 47 different propositions on a single ballot. Several separate questions can be merged into one question, as in France in 1969, and occasionally the elector has been faced with a multiple-choice question.
  Of course, when a voter is asked to approve a constitution his single yes or no applies to a host of propositions about the management of his country. As I have said, in general elections under our constitution electors make a choice based upon a wide range of propositions. That is part of the democratic system that we normally pursue.
  The wording of a referendum question can also be a matter of controversy. Obviously, if the question is on a large battery of issues, perhaps read for the first time by the voter in the polling booth, the phrasing can have a decisive influence on the result. But when the issue stands by itself and is well publicised—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 10 May.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    DISABLED PERSONS (SERVICES, CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    REGULATION OF FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [19 April]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 10 May.

    REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [22 March].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 10 May.

    ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    WATER (CONSERVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

    WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    HOSTAGE RECOVERY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

  Education
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  2.31 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I have instituted this debate because I strongly believe that there has been a decline in relative and absolute standards of education in our country. I remember that in 1960 when my late father went as a visiting professor to North-Western university in America, he came back and said that his students in Glasgow were two years ahead of the students at North-Western. When I was a student, my professor of history went to John Hopkins university in America and his colleagues there said that the students at St. Andrews were two years ahead of American students. I do not believe that such boasts could be maintained today.
  Standards have declined both relatively and absolutely and, of course, a second factor is that education is the key to the success of our country. We have limited natural resources and depend for our future prosperity upon the skills of our people. Thirdly, education provides the opportunity for children from deprived backgrounds to leapfrog from inner-city decay and decline to successful careers. Historically, grammar schools provided the opportunity for bright children from poor homes to enter university and go on to successful careers.
  There is much evidence that absolute standards have declined. For example, a study of O-level scripts in the 1980s and a comparison with GCSE submissions in the 1990s concluded that pupils' spelling, grammar and punctuation had measurably worsened since 1980. There was a comment in The Times of 9 April that prospective employers and university admission tutors have reported a growing inability among many otherwise gifted students to use appropriate English. We are talking about university admission tutors. If such tutors have reported inability to use appropriate English among the brighter members of our population, what has happened to the less bright children?
  The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has estimated that British 10-year-olds are two years behind their continental counterparts. In The Times Education Supplement on 15 March, Exeter university said:
  "British secondary pupils start from a lower level and then make less progress than students abroad".
  An Exeter professor said:
  "We do seem to be underperforming in comparison with European and Far Eastern countries … it is a real concern we are lagging so far behind."
  Similar algebra problems were given to English and Scottish students and to those from elsewhere. They were solved by 11.3 per cent. of the British students, 12.5 per cent. of the Germans, 16.6 per cent. of the Polish and 23.9 per cent. of the students from Singapore. At the age of 14, the figures were 14.4 per cent. for Britain, 17.6 per cent. for Germany, 2.9 per cent. for Poland and 30.7 per cent. for Singapore.
  In an article in The Times Education Supplement on 5 April, Brenda Leonard said:
  "The spread of semi-literacy must be stopped.
  744
  Anyone who is involved in training post-16 year olds tells the same story—that every day they see evidence of children who have been failed by the education system.
  Youngsters … have emerged at the end of 11 years of compulsory education with only the barest knowledge of the English language."
  This morning, as I often do, I visited a school in my constituency. I saw that the children were doing some mathematical sums. The first thing that they were asked to do was to multiply 25 by three. They were not eight, 10 or 12-year-olds—they were 14-year-olds.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Not possible.
  Mr. Marshall: I have come straight from the school. The answer is 75, of course—I am glad that we have an accountant as a Minister. The fact that 14-year-old children could be asked to multiply 25 by three tells a story about education in this country.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhead is chief inspector of schools. If St. Christopher is the patron saint of travellers, Christopher Woodhead is the patron saint of all those who wish to be upwardly mobile in our society. He has shown that pupils achieve less than they should. Half of all primary schools and 40 per cent. of all secondary schools achieve less than they should. More than half of all 11-year-olds are below expected standards in maths and English. At 14, 45 per cent. of pupils fail to meet expected standards in English, maths and science.
  On 4 January, Sir Geoffrey Holland, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, said that education in Britain was placed 35th in the world. The Times of that day said that the results in education were
  "far lower than its funding deserves."
  The figure for 16-year-olds passing GCSE in maths, the national language and one science is 27 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 62 per cent. in Germany and 66 per cent. in France.
  Given a simple addition and subtraction, 4 per cent. of the bottom 40 per cent. of 13 year-olds in Britain could answer correctly, but, with a far more complicated sum, 76 per cent. of German children of the same age could do so.
  Sir Geoffrey Holland said that 13-year-olds in Britain are two years behind their continental counterparts. We need a change in emphasis on standards of spelling, punctuation and arithmetic. I object most strongly to those patronising people who say that those are middle-class values. A decent education is the birthright of every child. It is especially important for those who live in our inner cities, as education is the escalator of opportunity—it gives children the chance to escape from a life of mediocrity and under-achievement.
  Why have we done so badly? It is not that we do not spend enough money. There has been a failure to recognise the wide variety of talent and ability. There are the very academic, the average and the non-academic, who will be blessed with other talents. For too long, we have ignored the very academic child. I remember interviewing some teachers and asking all of them, "How do you deal with the non-average child?" They all concentrated on the below-average child. God must have loved the average child, because he made so many of them. Nevertheless, other countries deal a better hand to all children.

  745
  When I visited Israel, I went first to a very academic school, rather like the traditional British grammar school, where the results were very good. I then went to the technical school at Ramat Gan, which taught children how to cut diamonds because that was the local industry. I then went to a school in Jerusalem that was training children to be motor mechanics and hairdressers. People said to us, "You may wonder why we are training children in these skills." They explained that it was so that all the children would have a job when they left school. Indeed, almost all the small garages in Jerusalem are owned by graduates of that school.
  I have visited the curriculum centre in the London borough of Barnet, where people are trained to become bricklayers and motor mechanics. There is an enthusiasm among the teachers and the pupils that we do not always find in other schools. It is wrong to describe such training as education for failures; it is a recognition that it is an appropriate education for people with those particular skills. It is significant that, where people have been given such an education, truancy is low.
  I asked the person in charge of the centre how many truants there were. He said that there was none because the pupils loved what the centre was teaching them and knew that they were being given a passport to a job when they left the school.
  In our secondary schools, there should be greater selection, more training, more setting and more vocational training. However, the real problem can be found well before children go to secondary schools, because the primary schools have failed to recognise the need to push children as far as possible. I once asked the headmistress of a primary school whether she set homework. She said, "Homework—that is rather unfair to some children because they would not do it." Instead, she is unfair to all the children by giving them no homework. Their love of English was to be gained from "Neighbours" rather than reading a book. Their love of spelling was to come from the spellcheck of a computer. Their mental arithmetic was to come from pressing buttons on a calculator. That is not the way to educate children, but it is the path that we have gone down for too long.
  I have just carried out a survey of schools in my constituency, when the question of homework was raised. Some of the schools were very good. For example, in the Menorah junior school, the children in the sixth form are set 50 minutes of homework a day. Another school said:
  "The children will possibly"—
  possibly, not probably—
  "get homework twice a week. Sometimes parents need to take holidays in school time and may ask for their children to be given homework for that period."
  How does the school react to that enthusiasm for homework? It does so with the words, "This is not possible."
  Another school said that homework is set only at weekends, and when another school was asked about its policy, there was silence at the end of the telephone line. Then it commented:
  "We do homework as and when. We do not want to overload the children. They need some time off."
  Another school said to my assistant:
  "Of course we have to remember with homework that the teachers have to correct it, and we have to take account of the fact that teachers might be tired."
  746
  I would prefer to hear of pupils who were tired because they had done some homework, than of pupils who had not had the opportunity to do it at all.
  We must not talk solely about academic standards. We should recognise that the children of today are entering a much more complex world than that of 20 or 30 years ago. The temptations of drugs, for example, are just as potent as the temptation of cigarettes was when some of us were slightly younger. The traditional standards by which most people once lived are under attack as never before. What does it profit a child if he obtains four A-levels and loses his soul to drugs? Education is more important than creating only academic standards. It is also important that the right ethos is inculcated in our children. Some of the denominational schools do a magnificent job, but the quality of religious education in some schools is rather pathetic.
  I never thought that I would have to quote the editor of The Observer in support of a course of action, but I should like to refer to an article that he wrote on 2 March 1996, in which he said:
  "The second fundamental fact of British education is its surrender to the dictates of social engineering rather than universal high standards".
  The Times said that the
  "most important"
  thing that we need to do is secure
  "a change of philosophy in schools".
  For far too long, progressive methods of education have failed. We want an end to calculators and "Neighbours", and an emphasis on spelling, mathematics and the beauty of the English language.
  We also want an end to the philosophy that schools should be expected to underperform because of the social mix of their pupils. If Office for Standards in Education figures have shown one thing, it is that some schools in deprived areas can do very well and others half a mile down the road very badly. The schools doing very well are providing the sole opportunity for their pupils to leapfrog out of the vicious circle of deprivation and decline into which they were born, into a prosperous and successful career.
  We also need to look at some of the examinations. I do not know whether the introduction of the GCSE has been an unmitigated success. When I was talking to a history teacher the other day, I was appalled to hear him say that pupils who had succeeded in their GCSE examinations did not know how to write an essay, and that they needed to spend the next two years learning how to do so before they could do their A-level examinations.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State never try to tinker with A-levels. They are the guaranteed gold standard of success. We do not want that gold standard to be debased by people saying, "Well, we shall make it easier for students to pass." An examination that is made easier for people to pass ceases to be an examination and ceases to set any standards.
  Lord Melbourne is reputed to have said to Queen Victoria:
  "I don't know, Ma'am, why they make all this fuss about education; none of the Pagets can read or write, and they get on well enough."

  747
  The reason why I have made a fuss about education this afternoon is that I believe passionately that there is a need for improvement in our education system and that that need is urgent. Otherwise, this country will go down relative to others.
  Equally important, we shall condemn a whole generation, who will not be able to look forward to using their talents to the full. If we deny a generation of schoolchildren that right, we are denying it to them not just for the 11 years that they are in school, but for their many years of life after that.
  H. G. Wells said:
  "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
  I believe that we are nearing the situation in which we could lose that race. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some optimism rather than my slightly more jaundiced approach.
  2.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): As is conventional, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). However, I am entitled to say that his speech was one of the best researched and best argued speeches that the House has heard for a considerable time and I am certain that it will read as well as it sounded when it was delivered. My hon. Friend has established an enviable reputation for his concerns about educational matters.
  It is a coincidence that my hon. Friend and I have both visited schools in our constituencies this morning. The small difference is that while my hon. Friend was visiting those at the upper age range I, as Minister with responsibility for the under-fives, among other things, was visiting the nursery school range and I now sport the evidence—namely the paint stain on my jacket, for which I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I assure you that the damage is not nearly so serious as that suffered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in a well publicised incident recently.
  In the time available, I want to address a number of issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South raised and to confirm to him and to the House that raising standards, which was the core of my hon. Friend's argument, has been at the core of the Government's education policies. The reason for that is simple, and my hon. Friend alluded to it. Our economic prosperity depends on well-educated and skilled people. That has always been the case, but the challenge is growing as more and more countries raise their levels of achievement.
  We have raised standards—I can assure my hon. Friend of that—and we have done it through the hard work of pupils and students, through the dedication of teachers and not least through a series of education reforms, many of which were bitterly opposed by the Opposition.
  Since the first GCSE examinations—I strongly defend the quality of those examinations—the number of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more passes at grades A-star to C has risen significantly from 33 per cent. to more than 43 per cent. We have also seen the proportion of 17-year-olds achieving two or more A-level passes
  748
  more than double since the Government took office in 1979. As my hon. Friend is well aware, almost one in three young people now enters full-time higher education compared with fewer than one in eight in 1979.
  What are our reforms? The introduction of the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements were and remain crucial to raising standards in our schools. We have acted to remove overload and we have placed greater emphasis on the essential basic skills of literacy and numeracy. I join my hon. Friend in agreeing utterly that those are the key areas, especially in primary schools.
  We have been committed to setting schools free—free to develop their particular strengths and to give parents and pupils greater choice. We now have more than 1,100 self-governing grant-maintained schools, educating one fifth of our secondary pupils. Those schools are popular with parents because they achieve results. GM school pupils achieved higher levels in last year's national curriculum assessments than local education authority school pupils at each key stage and in every subject. At GCSE, nearly half those in GM schools achieved five good passes, compared with 39 per cent. in LEA schools.
  Our emphasis on increasing diversity among schools has given parents a real and better choice in deciding the type of education that they want for their children. By allowing schools to specialise in particular subjects we have extended diversity and contributed to raising standards. City technology colleges, for instance, teach pupils of all abilities, with particular emphasis on subjects such as mathematics, science and technology. Last year's GCSE results show that they are starting to succeed in tackling underachievement in the inner cities. So it is scarcely surprising that those colleges are popular with parents, and the original 15 CTCs typically receive at least three applications for every pupil place.
  The introduction of performance tables to provide clear and accurate information has supported parental choice and stimulated schools to raise standards. Research shows that tables are increasingly being consulted and valued by parents and students.
  I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the sterling efforts of Her Majesty's chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, in seeking to raise standards. The creation of Ofsted and the introduction of a universal independent inspection system have been fundamental to our efforts to improve education. Since Ofsted was established in 1992, more than 7,000 schools have been independently inspected, and in his recent annual report the chief inspector said that there were clear indications that the processes of inspection and action planning were helping schools to improve teaching methods. As my hon. Friend will be aware, from this month, inspection will include the identification to the heads and teachers concerned of both excellent and poor teaching.
  The inspection arrangements also now identify schools that are failing to provide an acceptable standard of education. I shall spend a little time talking about that, because for far too long schools have been able to continue failing their pupils. Legislation that we have introduced is now ensuring that those schools are finally being turned round, or where that is not possible, closed. To date, some 150 schools have been deemed to be failing. Inspectors who revisited 59 of those schools over the past two terms found that almost all had improved, four fifths of them substantially. It is vital that the House

  749
  should be aware of that good news, because in some cases schools have been delivering poor quality education for several years, and it is the Government's reforms that have succeeded in turning them round.
  Through our improving schools programme we are helping to raise standards for all pupils, and in particular seeking to help schools with serious weaknesses. Measures taken include providing extra resources for LEAs to target such schools in this year's school effectiveness grants for education support and training.
  My hon. Friend has showed great diligence in his research on international comparisons. I shall certainly read his speech carefully, but I hope that he will accept from me that valid international comparisons can be notoriously difficult to make. It is always possible to find a survey which shows a particular country in a less than favourable light, but quality evidence is hard to find. The last major international comparison of pupils' performance took place in 1990, and covered mathematics and science. Those findings suggested that English pupils at nine and 13 were mid-ranking in both subjects, and by no means way behind our competitors. Nevertheless, I entirely accept that we must continue to raise our standards. That is why the Government have set up a more detailed study—the skills audit—into levels of achievement in four or five of our major competitors; the results will be published this summer.
  More widely still, we are participating in the third international mathematics and science study, which compares the attainments of nine and 13-year-olds, again
  750
  in mathematics and science, in 45 countries. Those results will be published from the end of the year, and we shall then have a much clearer picture of where we stand in relation to the rest of Europe and the world.
  Although the Government's reforms have significantly raised standards and enhanced choice, I stress the fact that we are not complacent. We still have some way to go to compete with the world's best education standards, and we plan to build on our successes with a host of new initiatives.
  My hon. Friend specifically mentioned levels of literacy and numeracy. The 1995 national curriculum assessment results showed that about half our 11-year-olds reached or exceeded the expected levels in English and maths, and about two thirds did so in science. Those results are disappointing, and show that we must continue our drive to raise standards in schools—a drive that has been the purpose of all our reforms, such as the national curriculum and the improving schools programme.
  Time does not allow me to answer all my hon. Friend's questions at this stage, but I have welcomed the opportunity that he has provided to debate the Government's education priorities. Our record is one of which we can be justifiably proud, but we are not complacent. We shall continue to take steps to raise standards, to increase participation and to improve choice and diversity in the education system.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Smoking (Public Places)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) to what extent the targets for effective smoking policy in public places have been met in the last 12 months; [26593]

  (2) what steps he will take to improve the voluntary imposition to smoking controls in public places; [26578]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce statutory protection of the public from passive smoking. [26579]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1992, the Government's target was that 80 per cent. of public places should have effective smoking policies by the end of 1994. The report "Smoking in Public Places, 2nd Survey Report, " a copy of which has been put in the Library of the House of Commons, shows for eight categories of establishment the percentage with an effective smoking policy are:

  Category

  Percentage

  Shops

  63

  Advice/money transactions

  48

  Travel

  38

  Health

  71

  Formal education

  77

  Informal education

  62

  Food/entertainment

  37

  Sports/recreation

  48

  The report relates to a survey carried out in 1995. The Government's position is that non-smoking should be the norm in all enclosed public spaces visited by the public, with facilities as appropriate for those who wish to smoke. In 1991, the Department of the Environment, jointly with other Departments, published a code of practice on smoking in public places which provides practical guidance to owners and managers on implementing suitable policies on smoking. The Government will continue to make copies of that code freely available. The essence of a voluntary approach to smoking in public places is that the public should make their views known without Government interference.

  The report shows that the voluntary approach is working, albeit more slowly than had been hoped. The Government had no plans to introduce statutory protection of the public from passive smoking beyond that which already exists.

DEFENCE

  Government Contracts
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the annual cost to his Department of allowing defence companies to claim the costs of marketing their products abroad as overheads on non-competitive Government contracts; [26184]

  (2) what is the annual cost to his Department of allowing the costs of entertainment to be included in the overheads on non-competitive Government contracts by companies claiming the costs of marketing their products abroad. [26185]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The financial information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, these costs are the subject of detailed negotiations with individual companies, to ensure that they comply with the criteria laid down in Government accounting conventions for the pricing of non-competitive contacts. Briefly, such costs must be necessarily incurred and be fair and reasonable; they must conform to an appropriate classification into "product groups", which must be agreed by my Department and they must not relate directly to a contract, in which case they would be directly charged to that contract and not be attributed to overheads.

  Cyprus (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 April,Official Report, columns 501-3, in respect of the soldiers convicted of killing a Danish tour guide in Cyprus, if he has conveyed to the Danish Government the content of the reply; and if he will make a statement. [26551]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Danish Minister of Defence, Mr. Hans Haekkerup, on 3 April to make clear the Army's abhorrence of the disgraceful conduct of the three convicted riflemen.

  Marine Services Organisation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) of 28 February,Official Report, columns 553-54, on the market testing of the Marine Services Organisation, what were the reasons for non-compliance with the management requirements of the task which led to the elimination of the in-house team. [26693]

  Mr. Soames
  The in-house team's bid for the ports element of the marine services market test was ruled to be non-compliant since the proposed management arrangements were judged to be inadequate for the effective control of the task and to carry an unacceptably high risk of failure, with consequent financial and operational penalties to my Department. Specific areas of concern included the absence, under the in-house bid team's proposals, of a single focal point at each naval base responsible and accountable for all aspects of the provision of ports services. In addition, levels of delegation to junior staff were judged to exceed what was considered desirable.
  289
  There would also have been no acceptable system of tasking and prioritising the resources available at each base from the outset of the new operation. The risk assessment associated with these management weaknesses took into account the increase in the marine service tasks to be performed and the reduction of resources with which to undertake them; circumstances which underline the need for effective management arrangements to be put in place. The in-house bid team was ruled non-compliant accordingly and eliminated from this element of the market-test competition.

  Land Mines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the chiefs of staff concerning the military utility of anti-personnel land mines. [27025]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not normal practice to give details of discussions between Ministers and their advisers. Our policy on anti-personnel mines reflects our judgment of the balance to be struck between humanitarian goals and the continuing needs of our armed forces until there is international agreement on a total ban on such mines, or viable alternatives are developed.

  Kaymar Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's offices used telephone numbers(a) 01–374–0075 and (b) 01–434–1162 in each year since 1970. [26694]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 18 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley),Official Report, column 583.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Machine Guns
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of machine guns and semi-automatic rifles for which import licences were granted for each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figures by(a) domestic police and armed forces end use and (b) others. [26427]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  DTI licences for the import of machine guns and semi-automatic rifles are issued only to those individuals or companies who have a valid authority, granted at the discretion of either the Home Secretary, the Scottish Secretary or the Northern Ireland Secretary, to hold or to trade in such weapons.

  The numbers of these types of firearms for which import licences were specifically applied for each of the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  1991: £26,709

  1992: £ 7,908

  1993: £14,571

  1994: £23,166

  1995: £31,233.

  290
  It should, however, be borne in mind that some licences are not used or are only partly used.

  It is not possible from import licensing data to provide details of the number of weapons destined for police possession. The armed forces are exempt from the Firearms Act and from DTI import licensing.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  KPMG
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the consultancies let to KPMG in each of the last three years and the contract fee in each case. [25559]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 25 April,Official Report, columns 261-62.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many HIV positive cases were recorded for prison inmates in England and Wales during 1995. [26545]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 26 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question asking about the number of HIV positive inmates during 1995.
  Thirty three new cases of HIV positive inmates were notified by establishments to Prison Service headquarters in 1995. An average of 69 inmates were known to be HIV positive at any one time during that year.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates have been put on report in each prison in England and Wales for having in their possession unauthorised drugs, since 1 January. [26304]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked met to reply to your recent Question concerning the number of inmates who have been put on report in each prison in England and Wales for having in their possession unauthorised drugs, since 1 January.
  Provisional figures for the numbers found guilty at adjudication of unauthorised possession of controlled drugs are shown in the attached table.
  291

  Proved adjudications for drugs possession—January-March 1996 (provisional)

  Number

  MALE ESTABLISHMENTS

  Prisons and remand centres

  886

  Remand centres

  171

  Brinsford

  42

  Dorchester

  3

  Exeter

  1

  Feltham

  26

  Glen Parva

  23

  Gloucester

  27

  Hindley

  33

  Lancaster Farms

  19

  Northallerton

  11

  Norwich

  1

  Reading

  4

  Rochester

  1

  Local prisons

  535

  Bedford

  4

  Birmingham

  35

  Blakenhurst

  1

  Bristol

  5

  Brixton

  20

  Bullingdon

  2

  Camp Hill

  1

  Canterbury

  9

  Cardiff

  10

  Chelmsford

  6

  Doncaster

  43

  Dorchester

  8

  Durham

  60

  Elmley

  10

  Exeter

  9

  Gloucester

  4

  Highdown

  67

  Holme House

  11

  Leeds

  4

  Leicester

  36

  Lincoln

  3

  Liverpool

  62

  Manchester

  64

  Norwich

  5

  Pentonville

  19

  Preston

  1

  Shrewsbury

  7

  Wandsworth

  24

  Wood Hill

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4

  Open prisons

  14

  Ford

  2

  Hewell Grange

  2

  Kirkham

  2

  Morton Hall

  3

  North Sea Camp

  4

  Usk

  1

  Closed training prisons

  166

  Dispersal prisons

  9

  Parkhurst

  5

  Wakefield

  3

  Whitemoor

  1

  Category B trainers

  19

  Albany

  6

  Blundeston

  2

  Dartmoor

  9

  Maidstone

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  Category C trainers

  138

  Acklington

  36

  Aldington

  6

  Brockhill

  6

  292

  Proved adjudications for drugs possession—January-March 1996 (provisional)

  Number

  Buckley Hall

  8

  Camp Hill

  17

  Downview

  2

  Elmley

  1

  Erlestoke

  8

  Guys Marsh

  1

  Highpoint

  1

  Holme House

  1

  Littlehey

  1

  Moorland

  4

  Ranby

  7

  Risley

  21

  Stafford

  8

  Stocken

  1

  Verne

  3

  Wayland

  4

  Wealstun

  2

  Young offender institutions

  174

  Closed young offender institutions

  92

  Aylesbury

  5

  Brinsford

  21

  Feltham

  13

  Glen Parva

  19

  Guys Marsh

  1

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  Moorland

  11

  Onley

  6

  Portland

  7

  Stoke Heath

  8

  Open young offender institutions

  27

  Thom Cross

  25

  Usk

  2

  Juvenile young offender institutions

  55

  Brinsford

  20

  Feltham

  8

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  Onley

  5

  Portland

  5

  Stoke Heath

  3

  Thorn Cross

  3

  Wetherby

  9

  FEMALE ESTABLISHMENTS

  Adult Female establishments

  16

  Local prisons

  16

  New Hall

  2

  Risley

  14

  Walton Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which wings in HMP Walton are currently closed; which wings at this establishment are planned to be closed in the near future; what are the reasons for each of the closures; and if, once the areas closed and planned to be closed have re-opened, there will be no slopping out. [26436]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: 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 26 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the closure of wings at Liverpool prison.

  293
  Liverpool's H Wing closed on Saturday 23 March 1996 and is awaiting major refurbishment, including the provision of integral sanitation. All other wings at Liverpool have been refurbished and include such sanitation. There is no slopping out at Liverpool or at any other establishment in England and Wales.

  Risley Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister with responsibility for prisons last visited Risley prison. [26334]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: I visited Risley prison on Wednesday 10 April.

HEALTH

  Chief Executives (East Sussex)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the provision of £700,000 for the pensions following the early retirement of the chief executives of East Sussex health authority and the East Sussex family health services authority. [26423]

  Mr. Malone
  I understand that these pension provisions were made in accordance with the national health service superannuation scheme and are a matter for East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. Julian Wellesley, for details.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many occasions in 1995 patients were turned away from St. George's hospital, Tooting, because the bed capacity of the hospital was complete; and if he will make a statement; [26582]

  (2) What has been the number of staff redundancies amongst nursing staff at St. George's hospital within the last 12 months. [26586]

  (3) how many patients were operated on privately at St. George's hospital Tooting, after referral by a general practitioner to that hospital, during 1995; [26588]

  (4) how many operations were cancelled at St. George's hospital during 1995; [26581]

  (5) how many patients have had to wait for four hours or more in the accident and emergency services at St. George's hospital, Tooting, as a result of a shortage of hospital beds since 1 January 1996; [26583]

  (6) how many patients had to wait overnight in the accident and emergency services at St. George's hospital, Tooting, during 1995; [26585]

  (7) what was the average length of time that (a) a general practitioner fundholder patient and (b) a patient of a non-fundholding general practitioner waited for an orthopaedic operation at St. George's hospital, Tooting, once a general practitioner has made referral, in 1995; [26587]

  (8) on how many occasions in 1995 St. George's hospital, Tooting, was accepting only emergency bed service referrals. [26580]
  294
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, chairman of St. George's Healthcare national health service trust, for details.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion has taken place between his Department and the NHS trust management of St. George's hospital, Tooting, regarding any future possible bed closures. [26556]

  Mr. Malone
  The National Health Service Executive holds regular business planning meetings with national health service trusts, including St. George's Healthcare NHS trust. No proposals for future bed closures have emerged from those meetings. The trust opened 16 additional beds on 1 April, and plans to open two additional paediatric intensive care beds later this year.

  Funding (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount by which current national health service funding in the Doncaster area is under target; what action he plans to take to meet the target; and if he will make a statement. [26646]

  Mr. Horam
  Doncaster health authority is £2.8 million or 2.2 per cent. under target in 1996–97.

  We plan to move all health authorities to their weighted capitation target as soon as it is practicable.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the estimated total cost in 1996, 1997 and 1998 of additional payments to health authority managers who recruit general practitioners to become fundholders; [26795]

  (2) what new financial incentives are to be offered to health authority managers to persuade general practitioners to become fundholders. [26794]

  Mr. Malone
  Performance-related pay is awarded at the discretion of employing authorities, who decide locally what objectives are set for particular posts.

  Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was provided by the Trent regional health authority, prior to its dissolution, to the Sheffield centre for health and related research. [26812]

  Mr. Malone
  Trent regional health authority provided the following funding to the Sheffield centre for health and related research.

  £

  Purpose

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Operational research

  56,000

  130,000

  70,000

  Purchasing effective care

  —

  30,000

  16,000

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what employees at the Sheffield centre for health and related research are paid directly or indirectly by funds
  295
  made available through the national health service executive or by other NHS funds; and if, in each case, he will list their name, current salary and remuneration package. [26813]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health and National Health Service Executive fund some research and development work carried out at the Sheffield centre for health and related research, through the university of Sheffield. The centre is part of the University of Sheffield. Current information about its employees and their remuneration is a matter for the university.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which staff from the Trent regional health authority transferred to take up posts at the Sheffield centre for health and related research, or took up posts at that centre consequent on the dissolution of the regional health authority. [26847]

  Mr. Malone
  Three staff formerly employed by Trent regional health authority's operational research division took up employment with the Sheffield centre for health and related research in 1994.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 477, what exceptions were made in providing redundancy terms more favourable than those listed in section 45 of the General Whitley Council handbook or circular HSG (94) 18, following the dissolution of the Trent regional health authority; in each case, what were the circumstances in which this was done; and by how much the terms agreed exceeded those set out in the above guidance. [26848]

  Mr. Malone
  No exceptions were made.

  Departmental File Records
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the five-year rule for keeping and destroying departmental file records was introduced; if he will now review its usefulness; if the five-year rule applies to the departmental solicitors' records; what representations he has had from the National Audit Office concerning the destruction of five-year-old records; when the records pertaining to the extra-statutory payments for general practitioner fundholders' management allowances were destroyed; and if he will make a statement. [27070]

  Mr. Malone
  Since the 1960s the guiding principle for Government record keeping is for Departments routinely to review the need to retain records once their business use has ceased. This is set out in detail in the Public Record Office's "Manual of Records Administration", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Following a thorough review of departmental records management in 1995–96, all important Department of Health information is kept for at least two years and the need to keep it is reviewed when it is between two and five years old. These procedures apply to all departmental records including those for departmental solicitors.

  No representation have been received from the National Audit Office on this issue.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out in descending order the funding allocation per head of population to each health authority in England. [26890]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning local reduced availability of NHS dental treatment; and if he will make a statement. [26979]

  Mr. Malone
  We receive letters from hon. Members and from the public about access to general dental services. Health authorities can advise patients on where best to seek national health service dental treatment locally.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out in descending order, by health authority in England, the incidence of(a) dental caries in five-year-olds, (b) adults with no natural teeth and (c) oral cancer. [26891]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the latest information on the incidence of oral cancer in each of the former regional health authorities in descending order. Information on dental caries in five-year-olds and adults with no natural teeth is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 16 February at column 737, for information on the mean number of decayed, missing and filled teeth of five-year-old children in each health authority in 1993–94.

  Provisional crude rates and numbers or oral cancers1diagnosed in 1990 in England and Wales

  Regional Health Authority (as at 1990)

  Rate per 100,000

  Number

  Mersey

  7.76

  187

  North Western

  7.08

  283

  Northern

  6.25

  193

  Yorkshire

  6.20

  227

  Wales

  5.84

  168

  East Anglian

  5.63

  116

  Wessex

  5.61

  166

  South East Thames

  5.29

  195

  West Midlands

  4.97

  261

  Trent

  4.79

  225

  North West Thames

  4.72

  168

  Oxford

  4.55

  116

  South West Thames

  4.54

  137

  South Western

  4.26

  140

  North East Thames

  3.98

  150

  Total

  5.37

  2,732

  1 Oral cancer is defined as: cancer of the lip (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, 140), tongue (ICD9 141), gum (ICD9 143), floor of the mouth (ICD9 145), unspecified parts of the mouth (ICD9 145), oropharynx (ICD9 146), nasopharynx (ICD9 147), and hypopharynx (ICD9 148). Cancers of the salivary glands (ICD9 142) have been excluded as they are not normally grouped with oral cancers.

  Manchester Health Authority
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors were taken into account in making the current year's allocation of funding to Manchester health authority; and if he will make a statement. [26892]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1996–97 we have maintained continuity and stability of funding by ensuring that no health authority lost resources. All health authorities received a cash uplift of 2.73 per cent. for Manchester health authority this meant a cash increase of £6.2 million.

  We have also ensured greater equity in resource allocation by using growth principally to move under-target health authorities closer to target. As Manchester health authority was more than 10 per cent. over target it received no allocation for growth in 1996–97.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the business case was completed for the development funding of Read codes; when Treasury approval was obtained for the scheme; what is the total discontinuation compensation payment agreed under the terms for the purchase of the rights from Mr. Read; what payment has been made to(a) Loughborough university and (b) Mr. Read under the rights purchase agreement; and if he will make a statement. [27065]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State(Mr. Sackville) gave him on 18 October 1995 at column 280–81.

  Details of negotiations conducted on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are confidential.

  Part of the agreement to make Read clinical codes crown copyright is that the purchase price is not divulged to third parties.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the revisions to his Department's objectives for export promotion since those listed in table 1.3 of "Overseas Trade Service: Assistance to Exporters", a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 293; and if he will make a statement. [26703]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our objectives and achievements, including for trade and investment promotion, are contained in the departmental report for 1996, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The National Audit Office report (HC 293) on services to exporters provided by the FCO and DTI through their joint export promotion arm Overseas Trade Services shows that the FCO's overseas posts provide valuable assistance to existing and potential British exporters and investors overseas. The NAO concluded that the OTS services it examined in four south-east Asian countries had helped introduce around 1,000 British companies to
  298
  those markets over two years. These services, which cost around £4.5 million to provide, helped generate additional exports for British companies worth around £345 million: a gearing of almost 1:80.

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26680]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department and agencies have no contract with Serco Ltd.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26632]

  Mr. Hanley
  We consider the use of private finance as the preferred option for all proposed capital projects. No projects under the private finance initiative scheme have yet been agreed. It is not yet possible to make an accurate estimate of the revenue implications of potential PFI projects.

  EU Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council and the intergovernmental conference ministerial meeting on 22 April. [27169]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A items listed in document 6507/96, which will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available, were approved except item 6 of the former Yugoslavia which became a B item for substantive discussion.

  The Council took note of resolution in EP documents 5779/96 (PE-RE-24) and 6210/96 (PE-RE 27). Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of the House as soon as they are available.

  The Council agreed conclusions on former Yugoslavia; the critical dialogue with Iran; and the US/'Helms/Burton' legislation on trade with Cuba.

  A declaration on the latest developments in Lebanon and conclusions on the situation in Niger were agreed. The Council also expressed its sympathy for the families of victims of the terrorist attack in Cairo on 18 April.

  The Council discussed the MEDA regulation on aid to countries in the Mediterranean. While no agreement was reached at this Council, the presidency expressed hope for agreement during the next Council scheduled for 13 May. Ministers also discussed former Yugoslavia; and Slovenia.

  The Council discussed the continuing export ban on British beef products. The Secretary of State underlined the urgent need for progress towards lifting the ban.
  299
  In the margins of the Council, partnership and co-operation agreements were signed with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

  The sixth EU/Gulf Co-operation Council joint Council and ministerial meeting also took place, followed by a dinner. Ministers discussed the prospects for a free trade agreement and agreed to set up a joint EU/GCC working group on regional security in the Gulf.

  The second ministerial session of the IGC also took place on 22 April. Ministers considered a range of issues, under the broad heading of "the Citizen and the Union" on the basis of eight questions in a presidency note (doc No. Conf 3843/95) which has been placed in the Library of the House. The issues included: the workings of the justice and home affairs pillar; EU citizenship; fundamental rights; the employment and environment provisions of the treaty; subsidiarity; and transparency.

  We reiterated the positions that the UK representative had already set out in the two preceding working party sessions on 1 and 2 and 15 and 16 April, in particular that intergovernmental co-operation was the appropriate model for justice and home affairs and that, in general, this was working well; that businesses, not new treaty provisions on employment, created jobs; that neither strengthening the concept of EU citizenship, nor writing fundamental rights into the treaty which were already protected in national laws would be likely to bring Europe closer to the citizen; and that subsidiarity should be further entrenched in the treaty.

  The ministerial session was preceded by an exchange of views with the European Parliament President and two representatives of the European Parliament.

  European Bodies (Costs)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on increases in the costs of(a) the European Union Commission, (b) the EU Country Auditors and (c) the European Court, since 1990; and what are their estimated costs in 1996. [26317]

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

  I presume my hon. Friend refers to the cost of the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Court of Justice. The information is provided in the table:

  Costs of the European Commission, European Court of Auditors and the European Court of Justice

  1990 (ecu)

  1996 (ecu)

  Average annual growth (Per cent.)

  European Commission

  1,505.0

  2,696.7

  10.3

  European Court of Auditors

  53.4

  56.2

  3.1

  European Court of Justice

  66.9

  169.7

  17.7

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1990 are outturn figures and have been taken from the 1990 European Court of Auditors report. The figures for 1996 are taken from the adopted European Community Budget.

  300

  2. The calculation of average annual growth has been based on the outturn for 1990–94 as shown in the relevant European Court of Auditors reports, and planned expenditure for 1995 and 1996 taken from the adopted European Community Budgets for those years.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost of the Agriculture Directorate General for 1996; and what is the cost of the Agriculture Commissioner's cabinet. [26316]

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

  I am afraid the 1996 EC budget does not show the information requested. I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts the European Commission direct.

SCOTLAND

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what part-funding contribution his Department has made towards the development of Read codes for computerised health and hospital information systems. [27064]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Scottish Office department of health has not made any contribution towards the funding of the development of Read codes.

  Historic Scotland (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set Historic Scotland for 1996–97. [27541]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have set Historic Scotland the following key performance targets for 1996–97:

  Target

  Protecting Scotland's Built Heritage

  Number of monuments scheduled

  370

  Weighted number of listed building resurvey units

  176

  Percentage of scheduled monument consent cases resolved within 12 weeks

  81 per cent.

  Percentage of listed building consent cases resolved within 28 days

  97 per cent.

  Number of historic building repair projects newly assisted by grant

  145

  Total value of grand-assisted repairs in Progress

  £33.5 million

  Backlog of conservation of monuments in care

  reduce

  Promoting and Presenting the Built Heritage

  Number of visitors to monuments in care

  2.4 million

  HS market share compared to major paid heritage attractions in Scotland

  47 per cent.

  Percentage of satisfied visitors (based on surveys)

  95 per cent.

  Average spend per visitor

  £1.02

  Agency management

  Percentage efficiency gains/savings on all non-grant expenditure

  1.5 per cent

  Total agency income

  £9.9 million

  Further Education
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his report on the discharge of his duties for further education in Scotland as required under section 1 of the Further and Higher Education Scotland (Act) 1972; and if he will make a statement. [27542]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend's report on further education in Scotland in 1995 has been published today and has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The report, entitled "Further Education in Scotland 1995: Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland" shows that further education colleges have continued to raise standards and that progress has been made in the use of performance indicators as part of their quality assurance arrangements. They continue to make an impressive contribution to the training needs of individuals and of employers and are to be congratulated on the 6 per cent. increase in student activity and 4 per cent. efficiency gains which they achieved in the 1994–95 academic year.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the copyright licensing agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26711]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The Department is discussing detailed arrangements with the copyright licensing agency to determine what, if any, need it has for a licence to ensure compliance with copyright law.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State

  Pupils of Primary and Secondary school age whose education is provided by Local Education Authorities by LEA of provision LEA of residence and age, for each (LEA in England1

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Provision

  Political control of authority2

  All Pupils

  Pupils resident in other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Corporation of London

  Independent

  169

  8

  0

  161

  4

  0

  95.3

  50.0

  0.0

  Camden

  Labour

  8,628

  8,954

  1,931

  943

  4,453

  1,205

  10.9

  49.7

  62.4

  Greenwich

  Labour

  16,734

  12,891

  1,598

  994

  2,292

  279

  5.9

  17.8

  17.5

  Hackney

  Labour

  13,277

  7,468

  444

  929

  1,075

  127

  7.0

  14.4

  28.6

  Hammersmith

  Labour

  7,254

  5,766

  530

  627

  2,702

  331

  8.6

  46.9

  62.5

  Islington

  Labour

  12,131

  7,053

  424

  1,710

  2,371

  177

  14.1

  33.6

  41.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Conservative

  5,142

  2,802

  478

  1,323

  1,562

  298

  25.7

  55.7

  62.3

  Lambeth

  No overall control

  15,309

  7,212

  167

  1,137

  1,226

  62

  7.4

  17.0

  37.1

  Lewisham

  Labour

  16,492

  10,117

  1,084

  1,078

  2,016

  207

  6.5

  19.9

  19.1

  Southwark

  Labour

  17,014

  9,241

  159

  1,722

  2,544

  86

  10.1

  27.5

  54..1

  Tower Hamlets

  Labour

  16,808

  11,393

  943

  321

  785

  99

  1.9

  6.9

  10.5

  Wandsworth

  Conservative

  13,089

  8,438

  1,206

  1,391

  2,550

  325

  10.6

  30.2

  26.9

  Westminster

  Conservative

  7,362

  6,393

  1,158

  1,719

  3,670

  695

  23.3

  57.4

  60.0

  Barking

  Labour

  12,107

  8,901

  977

  848

  969

  126

  7.0

  10.9

  12.9

  Barnet

  No overall control

  18,859

  16,148

  2,981

  1,535

  3,887

  739

  8.1

  24.1

  24.8

  302
  for Education and Employment if she will list the revenue spending estimated by her Department in connection with the private finance initiative for (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26626]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated recurrent spending by this Department, including the Employment Service—but not including independent education institutions or local authorities—in connection with projects undertaken through the private finance initiative cannot, yet, be accurately calculated for 1996–97 and 1997–98. None was paid in 1995–96. As the hon. Member will surmise from the answer to her question of 19 April, this Department estimates that a number of projects will come forward over the next few years. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 6 December,Official Report, column 311.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evidence she has indicating whether some local authorities are now delegating a smaller proportion of their budgets to schools in the primary, secondary or special school sectors when compared with 1993. [26790]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to my hon. Friend when the local management of schools budget statements produced by local education authorities for 1996–97 have been analysed by the Department.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will show for each English local education authority (i) the total number of pupils in each authority's(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, (ii) the total number of pupils and percentage at (1) primary and (2) secondary level who are educated outside their home local education authority, (iii) the total number and percentage of pupils in each authority at (x) primary and (y) secondary level who come from another local education authority and (iv) the political control of each local education authority. [26789]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available information is shown in the following table:
  303

  Pupils of Primary and Secondary school age whose education is provided by Local Education Authorities by LEA of provision LEA of residence and age, for each (LEA in England1

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Provision

  Political control of authority2

  All Pupils

  Pupils resident in other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Bexley

  Labour (minority)

  16,254

  12,887

  1,884

  610

  1,474

  181

  3.8

  11.4

  9.6

  Brent

  No overall control

  17,147

  10,878

  2,092

  1,167

  1,162

  246

  6.8

  10.7

  11.8

  Bromley

  Conservative

  18,928

  14,928

  2,660

  1,172

  2,006

  243

  6.2

  13.4

  9.1

  Croydon

  Labour

  21,992

  14,836

  549

  1,127

  1,470

  144

  5.1

  9.9

  26.2

  Ealing

  Labour

  19,304

  12,507

  1,400

  1,022

  824

  123

  5.3

  6.6

  8.8

  Enfield

  Labour

  18,943

  15,619

  2,635

  746

  2,133

  367

  3.9

  13.7

  13.9

  Haringey

  Labour

  14,836

  8,324

  1,160

  992

  1,305

  122

  6.7

  15.7

  10.5

  Harrow

  No overall control

  14,045

  10,478

  69

  1,131

  1,384

  6

  8.1

  13.2

  8.7

  Havering

  Labour (minority)

  16,757

  14,122

  1,010

  401

  1,127

  245

  2.4

  8.0

  24.3

  Hillingdon

  Labour

  16,501

  12,471

  1,950

  412

  840

  192

  2.5

  6.7

  9.8

  Hounslow

  Labour

  14,711

  12,720

  2,088

  750

  3,016

  420

  5.1

  23.7

  20.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  Liberal Democrat

  8,423

  6,714

  1,290

  509

  1,498

  294

  6.0

  22.3

  22.8

  Merton

  Labour

  10,718

  7,530

  681

  966

  1,338

  189

  9.0

  17.8

  27.8

  Newham

  Labour

  20,826

  13,839

  415

  283

  511

  58

  1.4

  3.7

  14.0

  Redbridge

  No overall control

  16,569

  12,882

  2,805

  1,059

  1,340

  330

  6.4

  10.4

  11.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  Liberal Democrat

  8,901

  7,711

  23

  1,023

  3,120

  6

  11.5

  40.5

  26.1

  Sutton

  Liberal Democrat

  11,259

  9,833

  1,776

  305

  1,921

  467

  2.7

  19.5

  26.3

  Waltham Forest

  Labour (minority)

  16,216

  11,564

  309

  416

  485

  29

  2.6

  4.2

  9.4

  Birmingham

  Labour

  86,199

  60,665

  5,954

  1,102

  1,296

  249

  1.3

  2.1

  4.2

  Coventry

  Labour

  23,960

  17,262

  2,293

  217

  400

  62

  0.9

  2.3

  2.7

  Dudley

  Labour

  23,033

  18,234

  321

  667

  1,173

  115

  2.9

  6.4

  35.8

  Sandwell

  Labour

  23,978

  17,969

  964

  853

  1,425

  125

  3.6

  7.9

  13.0

  Solihull

  Conservative/Independent

  15,667

  13,139

  554

  1,195

  2,258

  76

  7.6

  17.2

  13.7

  Walsall

  No overall control

  21,515

  17,399

  2,468

  391

  1,513

  247

  1.8

  8.7

  10.0

  Wolverhampton

  Labour

  19,474

  14,410

  1,937

  477

  547

  97

  2.4

  3.8

  5.0

  Knowsley

  Labour

  14,095

  8,996

  484

  852

  569

  45

  6.0

  6.3

  9.3

  Liverpool

  Labour

  39,712

  27,780

  3,949

  1,151

  1,265

  216

  2.9

  4.6

  5.5

  St. Helens

  Labour

  13,916

  11,058

  1,032

  435

  894

  101

  3.1

  8.1

  9.8

  Bolton

  Labour

  21,534

  16,220

  1,133

  307

  813

  106

  1.4

  5.0

  9.4

  Bury

  Labour

  13,562

  10,601

  38

  493

  862

  0

  3.6

  8.1

  0.0

  Manchester

  Labour

  36,234

  22,099

  441

  1,530

  1,100

  35

  4.2

  5.0

  7.9

  Oldham

  Labour

  19,211

  15,921

  780

  545

  2,082

  142

  2.8

  13.1

  18.2

  Rochdale

  Conservative/Liberal Democrat

  17,679

  12,524

  783

  201

  298

  37

  1.1

  2.4

  4.7

  Salford

  Labour

  17,773

  11,876

  32

  1,030

  430

  0

  5.8

  3.6

  0.0

  Stockport

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  21,157

  15,672

  397

  527

  502

  53

  2.5

  3.2

  13.4

  Tameside

  Labour

  18,099

  13,600

  83

  468

  842

  2

  2.6

  6.2

  2.4

  Trafford

  No overall control

  15,845

  12,572

  1,248

  312

  1,207

  88

  2.0

  9.6

  7.1

  Wigan

  Labour

  24,218

  19,595

  482

  457

  1,487

  38

  1.9

  7.6

  7.9

  Barnsley

  Labour

  16,843

  12,683

  182

  101

  221

  12

  0.6

  1.7

  6.6

  Doncastor

  Labour

  24,052

  18,113

  2,471

  110

  218

  51

  0.5

  1.2

  2.1

  Rotherham

  Labour

  20,167

  17,149

  1,555

  224

  1,278

  132

  1.1

  7.5

  8.5

  Sheffield

  Labour

  35,472

  26,096

  1,507

  140

  152

  40

  0.4

  0.6

  2.7

  Bradford

  Labour

  41,715

  30,124

  4,465

  203

  238

  73

  0.5

  0.8

  1.6

  Calderdale

  Labour

  15,457

  11,866

  1,674

  327

  437

  61

  2.1

  3.7

  3.6

  Kirklees

  Labour

  30,179

  22,651

  1,648

  252

  315

  49

  0.8

  1.4

  3.0

  Leeds

  Labour

  52,294

  39,372

  4,901

  411

  1,017

  201

  0.8

  2.6

  4.1

  Wakefield

  Labour

  24,608

  18,454

  1,102

  168

  528

  86

  0.7

  2.9

  7.8

  Gateshead

  Labour

  14,346

  10,787

  1,247

  193

  407

  41

  1.3

  3.8

  3.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Labour

  18,931

  14,091

  1,721

  275

  848

  169

  1.5

  6.0

  9.8

  North Tyneside

  Labour

  14,480

  11,076

  1,101

  482

  291

  29

  3.3

  2.6

  2.6

  South Tyneside

  Labour

  12,363

  9,598

  226

  63

  330

  43

  0.5

  3.4

  19.0

  Sunderland

  Labour

  24,088

  19,097

  823

  174

  436

  116

  0.7

  2.3

  14.1

  Isles of Scilly

  Independent

  149

  135

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Avon3

  No overall control

  66,251

  49,416

  6,458

  272

  716

  94

  0.4

  1.4

  1.5

  Bedfordshire

  No overall control

  43,353

  32,984

  4,003

  666

  679

  135

  1.5

  2.1

  3.4

  Berkshire

  Labour/Lib.Dem./Independent

  54,526

  42,123

  6,652

  659

  1,463

  433

  1.2

  3.5

  6.5

  Buckinghamshire

  Conservative

  47,936

  38,070

  7,416

  809

  991

  284

  1.7

  2.6

  3.8

  Cambridgeshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  49,412

  37,823

  3,835

  439

  372

  47

  0.9

  1.0

  1.2

  Cheshire

  Conservative/Liberal Democrat

  73,291

  58,810

  6,886

  569

  2,259

  341

  0.8

  3.8

  5.0

  Cleveland4

  Labour

  48,708

  36,847

  686

  121

  259

  22

  0.2

  0.7

  3.2

  Cornwall

  Liberal Democrat

  33,784

  27,117

  2,267

  49

  242

  32

  0.1

  0.9

  1.4

  Cumbria

  Labour (minority)

  34,880

  28,059

  3,466

  78

  326

  111

  0.2

  1.2

  3.2

  Derbyshire

  Labour

  68,438

  53,656

  4,992

  580

  600

  94

  0.8

  1.1

  1.9

  Devon

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  70,030

  54,831

  6,477

  174

  504

  93

  0.2

  0.9

  1.4

  Dorset

  Liberal Democrat

  41,553

  34,683

  4,723

  343

  1,298

  331

  0.8

  3.7

  7.0

  Durham

  Labour

  44,904

  35,708

  2,789

  134

  133

  49

  0.3

  0.4

  1.8

  East Sussex

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  43,568

  32,676

  2,732

  288

  707

  120

  0.7

  2.2

  4.4

  Essex

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  110,044

  89,399

  8,633

  395

  1,021

  181

  0.4

  1.1

  2.1

  Gloucestershire

  No overall control

  37,530

  30,262

  4,087

  262

  837

  111

  0.7

  2.8

  2.7

  Hampshire

  Lib.Dem/Labour/Independent

  112,859

  84,996

  1,425

  731

  1,128

  112

  0.6

  1.3

  7.9

  304

  305

  Pupils of Primary and Secondary school age whose education is provided by Local Education Authorities by LEA of provision LEA of residence and age, for each (LEA in England1

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Provision

  Political control of authority2

  All Pupils

  Pupils resident in other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Hereford and Worcester

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  48,319

  39,159

  4,097

  557

  1,196

  145

  1.2

  3.1

  3.5

  Hertfordshire

  No overall control

  70,804

  58,063

  10,259

  1,462

  3,260

  758

  2.1

  5.6

  7.4

  Humberside5

  Labour

  68,697

  63,305

  3,604

  195

  1,183

  64

  0.3

  2.2

  1.8

  Isle of Wight

  Liberal Democrat

  8,515

  6,779

  1,123

  0

  1

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Kent

  No overall control

  110,701

  89,348

  14,079

  458

  1,212

  281

  0.4

  1.4

  2.0

  Lancashire

  Labour

  109,120

  82,431

  4,151

  376

  835

  79

  0.3

  1.0

  1.9

  Leicestershire

  No overall control

  68,540

  53,395

  6,243

  226

  486

  35

  0.3

  0.9

  0.6

  Lincolnshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  42,080

  34,861

  4,200

  257

  929

  143

  0.6

  2.7

  3.4

  Norfolk

  Labour (minority)

  49,887

  41,295

  4,765

  127

  542

  109

  0.3

  1.3

  2.3

  North Yorkshire6

  No overall control

  48,620

  40,067

  4,582

  293

  1,888

  338

  0.6

  4.7

  7.4

  Northamptonshire

  Labour

  45,803

  35,908

  5,256

  267

  749

  143

  0.6

  2.1

  2.7

  Northumberland

  Labour

  22,661

  19,259

  3,202

  369

  553

  107

  1.6

  2.9

  3.3

  Nottinghamshire

  Labour

  75,259

  57,288

  6,137

  305

  730

  110

  0.4

  1.3

  1.8

  Oxfordshire

  No overall control

  38,310

  29,716

  4,208

  299

  1,680

  230

  0.8

  5.7

  5.5

  Shropshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  30,637

  24,175

  1,450

  200

  582

  59

  0.7

  2.4

  4.1

  Somerset

  Liberal/Democrat

  32,639

  24,811

  1,613

  276

  242

  48

  0.8

  1.0

  3.0

  Staffordshire

  Labour

  79,671

  61,819

  5,829

  701

  1,266

  171

  0.9

  2.0

  2.9

  Suffolk

  Labour/Liberal

  44,737

  35,565

  5,471

  561

  728

  140

  1.3

  2.0

  2.6

  Democrat

  Surrey

  Conservative/Liberal Democrat

  60,363

  45,849

  4,885

  1,824

  2,221

  202

  3.0

  4.8

  4.1

  Warwickshire

  Labour (minority)

  35,078

  26,972

  3,146

  997

  915

  174

  2.8

  3.4

  5.5

  West Sussex

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  45,961

  38,568

  4,103

  540

  1,450

  181

  1.2

  3.8

  4.4

  Wiltshire

  No overall control

  43,105

  31,569

  3,443

  323

  472

  70

  0.7

  1.5

  2.0

  England

  3,502,657

  2,686,084

  276,885

  64,532

  124,667

  17,717

  1.8

  4.6

  6.4

  1 For LEAs in existence immediately prior to Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 1996

  2 Political control immediately prior to Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 1996

  3 Avon has now become

  Bath and North East Somerset (No overall control) Bristol City Council (Labour)

  North West Somerset (Liberal Democrat minority)

  South Gloucestershire Council (No overall control)

  4 Cleveland has now become

  Hartlepool Borough Council (Labour)

  Middlesbrough (Labour)

  Redcar and Cleveland (Labour)

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (Labour)

  5 Humberside has now become

  Kingston-upon-Hull City Council (Labour)

  East Riding Authority (No overall control)

  North East Lincolnshire Authority (Labour)

  North Lincolnshire Council (Labour)

  6 North Yorkshire has now become

  York City Council (Labour)

  North Yorkshire (No overall control).

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Residence

  Political control of authority1

  All Pupils

  Pupils whose education is provided by other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Corporation of London

  Independent

  28

  25

  5

  20

  21

  5

  71.4

  84.0

  100

  Camden

  Labour

  8,978

  6,353

  1,000

  1,293

  1,852

  274

  14.4

  29.2

  27.4

  Greenwich

  Labour

  16,816

  12,157

  1,497

  1,076

  1,558

  178

  6.4

  12.8

  11.9

  Hackney

  Labour

  13,935

  9,785

  679

  1,587

  3,392

  362

  11.4

  34.7

  53.3

  Hammersmith

  Labour

  7,445

  5,010

  449

  818

  1,946

  250

  11.0

  38.8

  55.7

  Islington

  Labour

  11,338

  7,569

  721

  917

  2,887

  474

  8.1

  38.1

  65.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Conservative

  4,282

  2,882

  347

  463

  1,642

  167

  10.8

  57.0

  48.1

  Lambeth

  No overall control

  17,059

  11,251

  573

  2,887

  5,265

  468

  16.9

  46.8

  81.7

  Lewishim

  Labour

  17,270

  10,980

  1,187

  1,856

  2,879

  310

  10.7

  26.2

  26.1

  Southwark

  Labour

  16,339

  9,286

  350

  1,047

  2,589

  277

  6.4

  27.9

  79.1

  Tower Hamlets

  Labour

  17,001

  11,737

  947

  514

  1,129

  103

  3.0

  9.6

  10.9

  Wandsworth

  Conservative

  12,568

  8,413

  1,118

  870

  2,525

  237

  6.9

  30.0

  21.2

  Westminster

  Conservative

  6,369

  4,523

  706

  726

  1,800

  243

  11.4

  39.8

  34.4

  Barking

  Labour

  11,682

  8,529

  972

  423

  597

  121

  3.6

  7.0

  12.4

  Barnet

  No overall control

  18,391

  13,655

  2,583

  1,067

  1,394

  341

  5.8

  10.2

  13.2

  Bexley

  Labour (minority)

  16,328

  12,665

  1,866

  684

  1,252

  163

  4.2

  9.9

  8.7

  306

  307

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Residence

  Political control of authority1

  All Pupils

  Pupils whose education is provided by other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Brent

  No overall control

  18,187

  13,872

  2,472

  2,207

  4,156

  626

  12.1

  30.0

  25.3

  Bromley

  Conservative

  18,321

  13,764

  2,541

  565

  842

  124

  3.1

  6.1

  4.9

  Croydon

  Labour

  21,919

  16,042

  782

  1,054

  2,676

  377

  4.8

  16.7

  48.2

  Ealing

  Labour

  19,337

  14,401

  1,633

  1,055

  2,718

  356

  5.5

  18.9

  21.8

  Enfield

  Labour

  19,090

  14,848

  2,534

  893

  1,362

  266

  4.7

  9.2

  10.5

  Haringey

  Labour

  14,830

  9,798

  1,580

  986

  2,779

  542

  6.6

  28.4

  34.3

  Harrow

  No overall control

  13,775

  10,558

  574

  861

  1,464

  511

  6.3

  13.9

  89.0

  Havering

  Labour (minority)

  16,683

  13,810

  868

  327

  815

  103

  2.0

  5.9

  11.9

  Hillingdon

  Labour

  16,826

  12,646

  1,916

  737

  1,015

  158

  4.4

  8.0

  8.2

  Hounslow

  Labour

  15,096

  11,449

  1,762

  1,135

  1,745

  94

  7.5

  15.2

  5.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  Liberal Democrat

  8,299

  6,081

  1,074

  385

  865

  78

  4.6

  14.2

  7.3

  Merton

  Labour

  10,601

  7,392

  706

  849

  1,200

  214

  8.0

  16.2

  30.3

  Newham

  Labour

  21,130

  14,385

  531

  587

  1,057

  174

  2.8

  7.3

  32.8

  Redbridge

  No overall control

  16,417

  12,920

  2,645

  907

  1,378

  170

  5.5

  10.7

  6.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  Liberal Democrat

  8,135

  5,481

  163

  257

  890

  146

  3.2

  16.2

  89.6

  Sutton

  Liberal Democrat

  11,851

  8,990

  1,425

  897

  1,078

  116

  7.6

  12.0

  8.1

  Waltham Forest

  Labour (minority)

  16,442

  12,113

  513

  642

  1,034

  233

  3.9

  8.5

  45.4

  Birmingham

  Labour

  87,001

  63,326

  5,916

  1,904

  3,957

  211

  2.2

  6.2

  3.6

  Coventry

  Labour

  24,036

  17,183

  2,282

  293

  321

  51

  1.2

  1.9

  2.2

  Dudley

  Labour

  22,788

  17,963

  343

  422

  902

  137

  1.9

  5.0

  39.9

  Sandwell

  Labour

  23,761

  17,727

  982

  636

  1,183

  143

  2.7

  6.7

  14.6

  Solihull

  Conservative/Independent

  14,870

  11,319

  534

  398

  438

  56

  2.7

  3.9

  10.5

  Walsall

  No overall control

  21,580

  16,555

  2,318

  456

  669

  97

  2.1

  4.0

  4.2

  Wolverhampton

  Labour

  19,517

  14,933

  1,988

  520

  1,070

  148

  2.7

  7.2

  7.4

  Knowsley

  Labour

  14,527

  10,534

  710

  1,284

  2,107

  271

  8.8

  20.0

  38.2

  Liverpool

  Labour

  39,395

  27,770

  3,848

  834

  1,255

  115

  2.1

  4.5

  3.0

  St. Helens

  Labour

  13,698

  11,225

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  Labour

  21,543

  15,864

  1,036

  316

  457

  9

  1.5

  2.9

  0.9

  Bury

  Labour

  14,157

  10,235

  55

  1,088

  496

  17

  7.7

  4.8

  30.9

  Manchester

  Labour

  36,177

  24,363

  493

  1,473

  3,364

  87

  4.1

  13.8

  17.6

  Oldham

  Labour Conservative/Liberal

  18,897

  14,244

  650

  231

  405

  12

  1.2

  2.8

  1.8

  Rochdale

  Democrat

  17,858

  13,471

  858

  380

  1,245

  112

  2.1

  9.2

  13.1

  Salford

  Labour

  17,307

  12,072

  80

  564

  626

  48

  3.3

  5.2

  60.0

  Stockport

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  21,016

  15,597

  388

  386

  427

  44

  1.8

  2.7

  11.3

  Tameside

  Labour

  18,059

  13,263

  117

  428

  505

  36

  2.4

  3.8

  30.8

  Trafford

  No overall control

  15,954

  12,313

  1,300

  421

  948

  140

  2.6

  7.7

  10.8

  Wigan

  Labour

  24,390

  18,893

  493

  629

  785

  49

  2.6

  4.2

  9.9

  Barnsley

  Labour

  16,915

  13,107

  256

  173

  645

  86

  1.0

  4.9

  33.6

  Doncaster

  Labour

  24,044

  18,328

  2,467

  102

  433

  47

  0.4

  2.4

  1.9

  Rotherham

  Labour

  20,032

  16,002

  1,438

  89

  131

  15

  0.4

  0.8

  1.0

  Sheffield

  Labour

  35,579

  26,721

  1,560

  247

  777

  93

  0.7

  2.9

  6.0

  Bradford

  Labour

  42,034

  31,652

  4,758

  522

  1,766

  366

  1.2

  5.6

  7.7

  Calderdale

  Labour

  15,208

  11,694

  1,669

  78

  265

  56

  0.5

  2.3

  3.4

  Kirklees

  Labour

  30,254

  22,996

  1,678

  327

  660

  79

  1.1

  2.9

  4.7

  Leeds

  Labour

  52,106

  39,133

  4,868

  223

  778

  168

  0.4

  2.0

  3.5

  Wakefield

  Labour

  24,589

  18,087

  1,038

  149

  161

  22

  0.6

  0.9

  2.1

  Gateshead

  Labour

  14,250

  10,902

  1,312

  97

  522

  106

  0.7

  4.8

  8.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Labour

  19,347

  13,922

  1,652

  691

  679

  100

  3.6

  4.9

  6.1

  North Tyneside

  Labour

  14,183

  11,398

  1,169

  185

  613

  97

  1.3

  5.4

  8.3

  South Tyneside

  Labour

  12,374

  9,408

  258

  74

  140

  75

  0.6

  1.5

  29.1

  Sunderland

  Labour

  24,043

  19,043

  755

  129

  382

  48

  0.5

  2.0

  6.4

  Isles of Scilly

  Independent

  148

  135

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Avon1

  No overall control

  66,175

  49,188

  6,449

  196

  488

  85

  0.3

  1.0

  1.3

  Bedfordshire

  No overall control Labour/Liberal

  43,134

  33,031

  4,016

  447

  726

  148

  1.0

  2.2

  3.7

  Berkshire

  Democrat/Independent

  54,874

  42,347

  6,396

  1,007

  1,687

  177

  1.8

  4.0

  2.8

  Buckinghamshire

  Conservative

  48,298

  39,973

  7,783

  1,171

  2,894

  651

  2.4

  7.2

  8.4

  Cambridgeshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  49,356

  38,110

  3,915

  383

  659

  127

  0.8

  1.7

  3.2

  Cheshire

  Conservative/Liberal Democrat

  73,224

  57,324

  6,677

  502

  773

  132

  0.7

  1.3

  2.0

  Cleveland3

  Labour

  48,649

  36,715

  674

  62

  127

  10

  0.1

  0.3

  1.5

  Cornwall

  Liberal Democrat

  33,820

  27,315

  2,317

  85

  440

  82

  0.3

  1.6

  3.5

  Cumbria

  Labour (minority)

  34,817

  27,824

  3,400

  15

  91

  45

  0.0

  0.3

  1.3

  Derbyshire

  Labour

  68,346

  54,256

  5,090

  488

  1,200

  192

  0.7

  2.2

  3.8

  Devon

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  69,960

  54,926

  6,479

  104

  598

  95

  0.1

  1.1

  1.5

  Dorset

  Liberal Democrat

  41,378

  33,618

  4,412

  168

  233

  20

  0.4

  0.7

  0.5

  Durham

  Labour

  45,151

  36,194

  2,830

  381

  619

  90

  0.8

  1.7

  3.2

  East Sussex

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  43,487

  33,144

  2,877

  207

  1,175

  265

  0.5

  3.5

  9.2

  Essex

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  110,825

  90,685

  9,034

  1,176

  2,307

  582

  1.1

  2.5

  6.4

  Gloucestershire

  No overall control Liberal Democrat/Labour/

  37,482

  29,777

  4,057

  214

  352

  81

  0.6

  1.2

  2.0

  Hampshire

  Independent

  113,044

  85,551

  1,665

  916

  1,683

  352

  0.8

  2.0

  21.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  48,903

  39,262

  4,135

  1,141

  1,299

  183

  2.3

  3.3

  4.4

  Hertfordshire

  No overall control

  69,952

  55,604

  9,716

  610

  801

  215

  0.9

  1.4

  2.2

  Humberside4

  Labour

  68,599

  52,867

  3,608

  97

  745

  68

  0.1

  1.4

  1.9

  308

  309

  March 1996

  January 1994

  Residence

  Political control of authority1

  All Pupils

  Pupils whose education is provided by other LEAs

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  5-10

  11-15

  16+

  Isle of Wight

  Liberal Democrat

  8,518

  6,780

  1,124

  3

  2

  1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Kent

  No overall control

  110,551

  89,127

  13,965

  308

  991

  167

  0.3

  1.1

  1.2

  Lancashire

  Labour

  109,348

  83,010

  4,332

  604

  1,414

  260

  0.6

  1.7

  6.0

  Leicstershire

  No overall control

  68,689

  53,379

  6,286

  375

  470

  78

  0.5

  0.9

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  42,066

  35,448

  4,162

  243

  1,516

  105

  0.6

  4.3

  2.5

  Norfolk

  Labour (minority)

  50,340

  41,291

  4,750

  580

  538

  94

  1.2

  1.3

  2.0

  North Yorkshire5

  No overall control

  48,752

  38,728

  4,356

  425

  549

  112

  0.9

  1.4

  2.6

  Northamptonshire

  Labour

  45,830

  35,412

  5,196

  294

  253

  83

  0.6

  0.7

  1.6

  Northumberland

  Labour

  22,475

  18,924

  3,142

  183

  218

  47

  0.8

  1.2

  1.5

  Nottignhamshire

  Labour

  75,319

  57,245

  6,131

  365

  687

  104

  0.5

  1.2

  1.7

  Oxfordshire

  No overall control

  38,396

  28,474

  4,063

  385

  438

  85

  1.0

  1.5

  2.1

  Shropshire

  Labour/Liberal Democrat

  30,677

  23,972

  1,471

  240

  379

  80

  0.8

  1.6

  5.4

  Somerset

  Liberal Democrat

  32,755

  25,364

  1,682

  392

  795

  117

  1.2

  3.1

  7.0

  Staffordshire

  Labour

  79,870

  61,899

  5,890

  900

  1,346

  232

  1.1

  2.2

  3.9

  Suffolk

  Labour/Liberal Democrat Conservative/Liberal

  44,437

  35,253

  5,435

  261

  416

  104

  0.6

  1.2

  1.9

  Surrey

  Democrat

  60,038

  46,327

  5,256

  1,499

  2,699

  573

  2.5

  5.8

  10.9

  Warwickshire

  Labour/(minority)

  34,594

  26,971

  3,111

  513

  914

  139

  1.5

  3.4

  4.5

  West Sussex

  Liberal Democrat (minority)

  45,867

  37,670

  4,003

  446

  552

  81

  1.0

  1.5

  2.0

  Wiltshire

  No overall control

  43,145

  32,111

  3,526

  363

  1,014

  153

  0.8

  3.2

  4.3

  England

  3,502,712

  2,686,098

  276,903

  64,587

  124,681

  17,735

  1.8

  4.6

  6.4

  1 Political control immediately prior to Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 1996.

  2 Avon has now become Bath and North East Somerset (No overall control).

  Bristol City Council (Labour).

  North West Somerset (Liberal Democrat minority).

  South Gloucestershire Council (No overall control).

  3 Cleveland has now become Hartlepool Borough Council (Labour).

  Middlesbrough (Labour).

  Redcar and Cleveland (Labour).

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council (Labour).

  4 Humberside has now become Kingston upon Hull City Council (Labour).

  East Riding Authority (No overall control).

  North East Lincolnshire Authority (Labour). North Lincolnshire Council (Labour).

  5 North Yorkshire has now become York City Council (Labour).

  North Yorkshire (No overall control).

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances claimants of jobseeker's allowance may receive travelling expenses from the Employment Service for the journey that they make to attend the jobcentre for their fortnightly review; and if she will make a statement. [27029]

  Mr. Forth
  As now, under jobseeker's allowance the Employment Service will not pay travelling expenses to claimants for the journey that they make to the jobcentre for their normal fortnightly attendance.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances an unemployed person may make a new claim for jobseeker's allowance by post; and if she will make a statement. [27032]

  Mr. Forth
  People wishing to make a new claim for jobseeker's allowance will normally be given an appointment to attend their local jobcentre in person for an interview with an employment officer. This ensures that they have access to the Employment Service's range of services and opportunities at the earliest opportunity. Making a new claim by post will however be allowed when exceptional adverse weather or other local 310
  circumstances prevents the jobseeker from the reaching the jobcentre, or when the jobcentre itself is closed to the public due to some exceptional circumstance. Arrangements will then be made for the jobseeker to attend the jobcentre in person for a full interview as soon as the situation allows. Jobseekers who live at a considerable distance from their nearest jobcentre will also be able to make a new claim for JSA by post, if attendance at the jobcentre would require them to be absent from home for more than eight hours. The Employment Service will arrange for them to have a full interview with a visiting officer at a location convenient to their home within four weeks of the date of claim.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend the voucher scheme to include all three-year-olds. [26209]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is important to get provision for four-year-olds right before extending the voucher scheme to cover three-year-olds. We will consider such an extension in due course.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a further statement on future school inspection arrangements. [27496]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer to the answer I gave on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1017. Having consulted Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools on future school inspection arrangements, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now asked him to consult on more targeted arrangements to come into effect from September 1997 for secondary schools and September 1998 for other schools. The chief inspector expects to initiate this consultation next week.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 [26166]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, no funding became available through the private finance initiative in 1995–96. Current estimates suggest that capital spending on projects by the private sector will be £4.6 million in 1996–97 and £27.3 million in 1997–98.

  Court Costs
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the costs of(a) out-of-court settlements and (b) awards made in court, for each of the last three years and so far this year; and what were the annual legal costs incurred. [26008]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Chris Mullins, dated 26 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about costs of cases settled outside court, awards made in court and legal costs.
  Unfortunately, information about the size of out of court settlements and awards is not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. The Court Service does not collect figures for legal costs for all cases.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the proposal in recommendation 1286 (1996) of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe for a permanent intergovernmental structure to deal with issues relating to children; and if he will make a statement. [26097]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have been asked to reply. This proposal is still under consideration.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Extradition Warrants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the procedure by which extradition warrants are prepared and completed in the United Kingdom and transmitted to the relevant authorities in the Irish Republic; and if it is standard procedure for the Irish authorities to confirm the completeness and correctness of documentation prior to its submission to court. [26363]

  The Attorney-General
  Applications for arrest warrants in the United Kingdom are made on behalf of the relevant police force to a justice of the peace or, in certain cases, to a judge.

  The applications are prepared and conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service, or as the case may be, the Crown Solicitor's Office in Northern Ireland. When a warrant is obtained in a case in which extradition is sought from the Republic of Ireland it is personally delivered by the police to their counterparts in the Republic. Thereafter, the matter becomes one for the Irish authorities.

  A warrant cannot be executed in the Republic of Ireland until it has been endorsed by a Commissioner of the Garda. In "accusation" cases, there is an additional requirement in that the Commissioner can not endorse the warrant without the authority of the Irish Attorney-General. Under Irish law the Irish Attorney must direct that the warrant not be endorsed unless he is satisfied that there is a clear intention to prosecute based on sufficient evidence. To enable the Irish Attorney to discharge this duty I supply him with a certificate confirming the prosecuting authority's intention to prosecute, a statement detailing the facts of the case and statement of the relevant English law. If the Irish Attorney is satisfied, the warrant is endorsed and the accused is arrested and brought before the court. This additional requirement does not apply where the person named on the warrant has, following an examination of the evidence, been committed for trial or has escaped from custody following conviction.

  Extradition
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications for extradition have been submitted to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland in each of the past 10 years for terrorist-related offences; how many in each year have been successful; and how many in each year have been rejected on the basis that they were incorrectly prepared. [25932]

  The Attorney-Genera
  Applications for extradition for alleged "terrorist-related offences" have been brought before the Irish courts in 23 cases in the past 10 years. Fifteen of these cases were brought by the authorities in Northern Ireland and eight by the authorities in England.

  In five cases the individual concerned has been extradited. In a further five cases the individual has fled following a successful application or appeal and in two of these has subsequently been arrested in the UK.

  Extradition has been refused on the ground of defects in the papers in three cases. Two cases were refused in 1986 on the ground that the warrants were defective and one case was refused in 1996 on the ground that the original warrant was not produced.

  In seven cases the individual has successfully appealed against an extradition order and in three further cases appeals are pending.

  Details are not included of cases not yet before the courts.

  Table 2: Number of medical cases referred to a medical board relating to occupational asthma in 1991

  All boardings

  Males not diagnosed

  Males diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Males diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Females not diagnosed

  Females diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Females diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Cardiff

  59

  16

  14

  16

  4

  Nil

  9

  Swansea

  15

  5

  1

  6

  1

  Nil

  2

  Glasgow

  85

  37

  6

  27

  9

  2

  4

  Stoke on Trent

  54

  13

  8

  23

  2

  3

  5

  Sheffield

  84

  34

  11

  25

  5

  3

  6

  Manchester

  113

  64

  7

  15

  18

  1

  8

  Newcastle

  92

  49

  8

  28

  4

  Nil

  3

  London

  91

  36

  2

  39

  3

  Nil

  11

  Total all boards

  593

  254

  57

  179

  46

  9

  48

  Table 3: Number of medical cases referred to a medical board relating to occupational asthma in 1992

  All boardings

  Males not diagnosed

  Males diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Males diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Females not diagnosed

  Females diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Females diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Cardiff

  144

  51

  12

  47

  11

  3

  20

  Swansea

  23

  12

  1

  7

  1

  Nil

  2

  Glasgow

  100

  44

  4

  26

  14

  4

  8

  Stoke on Trent

  171

  63

  21

  53

  16

  1

  17

  Sheffield

  363

  178

  31

  82

  49

  10

  13

  Manchester

  305

  205

  17

  21

  49

  8

  5

  Newcastle

  303

  211

  1

  63

  21

  Nil

  7

  London

  150

  58

  6

  46

  23

  2

  15

  Total all boards

  1,559

  822

  93

  345

  184

  28

  87

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims under the industrial injury scheme were made by people suffering from occupational asthma; how many of these claims were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful broken down by region and gender in each case in the past five years. [25781]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables. A breakdown by gender is available only in relation to medical boarding and is set out in tables 2 to 5. Industrial injuries disablement benefit is not normally payable for assessments below 14 per cent.

  Table 1

  Calendar year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Number of claims to occupational asthma

  1,518

  1,584

  1,751

  1,703

  1,690

  Number not referred for medical assessment1,2

  925

  25

  193

  181

  3N/A

  Number not diagnosed by medical board2

  300

  1,006

  1,048

  1,016

  3N/A

  Notes:

  1 Only claims which satisfy employment rules are referred for medical examination.

  2 Claims may not necessarily be decided during the year of receipt.

  3 N/A-not available.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency Central Data Unit and based on 100 per cent. count.
  315

  Table 4: Number of medical cases referred to a medical board relating to occupational asthma in 1993

  All boardings

  Males not diagnosed

  Males diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Males diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Females not diagnosed

  Females diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Females diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Cardiff

  122

  44

  2

  41

  13

  6

  16

  Swansea

  19

  8

  1

  7

  2

  Nil

  1

  Glasgow

  122

  75

  3

  21

  13

  1

  9

  Stoke on Trent

  160

  72

  13

  50

  6

  1

  18

  Sheffield

  426

  234

  27

  95

  43

  5

  22

  Manchester

  270

  184

  8

  29

  40

  4

  5

  Newcastle

  269

  179

  3

  56

  20

  1

  10

  London

  170

  83

  11

  23

  32

  7

  14

  Total all boards

  1,558

  879

  68

  322

  169

  25

  95

  Table 5: Number of medical cases referred to a medical board relating to occupational asthma in 1994

  All boardings

  Males not diagnosed

  Males diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Males diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Females not diagnosed

  Females diagnosed 1-13 per cent.

  Females diagnosed 14-100 per cent.

  Cardiff

  113

  48

  7

  35

  12

  3

  8

  Swansea

  35

  15

  1

  15

  1

  Nil

  3

  Glasgow

  88

  57

  2

  21

  4

  Nil

  4

  Edinburgh

  72

  35

  1

  18

  9

  Nil

  9

  Stoke on Trent

  179

  77

  15

  53

  16

  3

  15

  Sheffield

  300

  154

  13

  74

  33

  6

  20

  Manchester

  289

  200

  16

  26

  34

  4

  9

  Newcastle

  285

  179

  4

  70

  26

  1

  5

  London

  161

  92

  7

  32

  24

  3

  3

  Total all boards

  1,522

  857

  66

  344

  159

  20

  76

  Source Tables 2-5: Benefits agency disability benefit centres and based on 100 per cent. count.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many full assessments have been made where the absent parent is in receipt of income support(a) in total since April 1993 and (b) in each year since April 1993; [26566]

  (2) in how many cases awaiting full assessment the absent parent is in receipt of income support. [26567]

  Mr. Andrew 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 Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  The number of cases awaiting assessment in which the absent parent is in receipt of Income Support is not known. The Agency is unable to identify the benefit status of the absent parent before completion of the maintenance assessment process, since there may be considerations that affect the benefit status between the time of receipt of the relevant maintenance form and the completion of a full maintenance assessment.
  However, the number of full maintenance assessments where the absent parent is in receipt of Income Support is available from a 5% scan of the live cases on the Child Support Computer System. As at 31 March 1995 there were 88,900 absent parents in receipt of Income Support and as at 30 November 1995 there were 103,900.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many full maintenance assessments were made by the Child Support Agency(a) in total since April 1993 and (b) in each year since April 1993; [26558]
  316
  (2) how many cases have been cleared without a full maintenance assessment having been made by the CSA (a) in total since April 1993, (b) each year since April 1993; [26559]

  (3) into what categories cases cleared without assessment by the CSA are placed; and what are the numbers in such categories (a) since April 1993 and (b) each year since April 1993; [26560]

  (4) how many cases of good cause for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency were accepted (a) in total since April 1993 and (b) in each year since April 1993; [26561]

  (5) how many reduced benefit directions have been made (a) in total since April 1993 and (b) in each year since April 1993. [26562]

  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 Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments and good cause decisions.
  The number of full and interim maintenance assessments made by the Agency from April 1993 to March 1996 is shown on the attached table. The table also shows the number of cases cleared due to good cause accepted, reduced benefit directions imposed and other clearances.

  317
  The Agency does not have a business need to record routinely all the specific reasons why a case is cleared other than by a maintenance assessment, so we cannot provide a more detailed breakdown of these cases. Other reasons for clearances without a maintenance assessment include the following:-
  benefit ceased—for a variety of reasons
  MAF withdrawal: including reconciliation cases and those where the PWC has requested cancellation (e.g. in private cases)
  no qualifying child

  Number of cases with:—

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total from April 1993

  Full maintenance assessments

  132,139

  187,220

  110,187

  429,546

  Without full maintenance assessments (interim)

  73,303

  63,616

  17,689

  154,608

  Other clearances

  130,790

  317,313

  198,978

  647,081

  Good cause accepted

  31,749

  41,666

  38,963

  1112,378

  Reduced benefit directions imposed

  n/a

  n/a

  27,478

  127,478

  1 These cases form part of the 'Other clearances'.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases have there been where the parent with care has made no contact with the CSA after issue of the maintenance application form.[26563]

  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 Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 April 1996.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance application forms.
  Full details of the numbers of parents with care who have currently made no contact with the Agency after the issue of a maintenance application form are not available as local Field offices (where the bulk of pre maintenance assessment work is now carried out) do not have access to the full functionality of the Child Support Computer System (CSCS).
  However, all CSCS functions will be provided to the Field offices on a phased basis beginning later this year.
  The figures that are available show that in April 1995, the six Child Support Agency Centres had 98,000 such cases, and this has now reduced to 68,000.
  In all cases, other than the 16,000 cases that were temporarily deferred at the beginning of 1995, where a maintenance application form is not returned, the Agency takes the following steps:
  Where a prescribed benefit is in payment, after 14 days the Agency issues a reminder. If there is still no contact from the parent with care, the Agency tries to make contact to establish if a Good Cause investigation is appropriate. If there is still no contact from the parent with care or Good Cause is not accepted, a reduced benefit direction is considered.
  Where a private client does not return a maintenance application form, the requirement to cooperate condition does not apply. In such cases the Agency sends a reminder to the client after two weeks; if there is still no reply, the Agency can take no further action and no follow up contact is made.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care who had not returned their maintenance application forms to the CSA had their cases deferred in December 1994. [26564]

  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.
  318
  no jurisdiction
  death of AP, PWC or qualifying child
  Information on reduced benefit directions imposed became available in 1995–96; prior to this figures were not collected.
  You may be interested to know that information for 1994–95 and 1995–96 on full maintenance assessments, interim maintenance assessments, other clearances, good cause accepted and reduced benefit directions implemented is shown in the CSA Statistical Information placed in the House of Commons Library every month.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency deferred cases.
  16,000 cases were referred during the period January to March 1995 as a result of the parent with care not returning their maintenance application form (MAF) where the MAF had been issued before July 1994. These cases, where action has been deferred at the present time, should not be confused with the deferred take-on of pre-Agency existing income support cases.
  The cases where a maintenance application form has not been fully completed or returned have had action on them deferred until further notice. However, they remain on the books and can be re-started at the request of the client.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many income support cases deferred in December 1994 have yet to have their case taken on; [26565]

  (2) how many of the parents with care whose cases have been deferred are estimated to have ex-partners who are on income support. [26568]

  Mr. Andrew 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 Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases deferred in December 1994.
  It is not possible to give an exact figure for the approximately 300,000 Income Support cases deferred in December 1994 that are still outstanding. To obtain this figure a clerical examination of all the deferred cases would have to be made to find the number of cases awaiting action.
  However, the most recent estimate, based on a sampling exercise, suggests that the number outstanding has reduced to around 200,000.
  This reduction is due to a number of reasons. The Agency recommenced take on of these cases in November 1995, in line with the agreement made with the Secretary of State to recommence take on by December 1995; also, in some cases where Income Support has ceased and the parent with care has made a fresh application for benefit, the Agency will have become involved and these cases will

  319
  have been taken on; in other cases the parent with care will have requested that the Agency take on the case and this will have been done; finally, some clients will no longer be claiming Income Support.
  It is not known precisely how many of the deferred cases have ex-partners who are on Income Support; we will not know their circumstances until we have received a completed maintenance enquiry form. However, experience tells us that a significant number of the absent parents involved are in receipt of Income Support, thus providing little incentive for the parent with care to pursue the case with the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

WALES

  Private Health Diagnosis
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of Welsh health authorities and trusts concerning the efficacy of the guidelines for private practice diagnosis followed by NHS treatment; what recent representations he has received concerning the level of private practice diagnosis preceding NHS treatment; what statistics he has collated on the trend in such patterns of procedure; what assessment he has made of its impact on NHS waiting lists and times; and if he will make a statement. [25393]

  Mr. Hague
  None. It is for the management of NHS trusts to ensure that consultants have agreed up-to-date job plans which set out their fixed commitments and other responsibilities to the NHS, and that the rules regarding private work are observed.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what were the staff-to-student ratios in further education in Wales in(a) 1980–81, (b) 1994–95 and (c) on the latest data for which figures are available;[26469]

  (2) what was the staff-to-student ratios in higher education in Wales in (i) 1980–81 (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) the latest date for which figures are available. [26476]

  Mr. Richards
  Full information is not available for the years requested. Information for the earliest and latest years available is shown in the following table.

  Ratios of full-time equivalent student numbers to full-time equivalent academic and academic related staff numbers in Wales

  Academic year

  1980–81

  1982–83

  1993–94

  University of Wales1

  6.2

  6.1

  9.0

  Other Higher Education2

  8.1

  8.8

  16.7

  Further Education

  8.1

  9.2

  14.1

  1 As at December of each year.

  2 Includes higher education provision at further education institutions.

  Source:

  Universities Statistical Record and the Welsh Office Annual Monitoring Survey.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the institutions of Welsh higher education categorised by their financial status as determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. [26470]
  320
  Mr. Richards
  Information about the financial status of individual institutions is a confidential matter between the individual institutions and the funding council. Nine institutions are currently designated as being in a satisfactory financial position, four are marginal; and one is unsatisfactory.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the capital funding of Welsh higher education institutions in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 and indicate in (i) cash and (ii) real terms the amount of capital funding per student. [26472]

  Mr. Richards
  The amount of capital funding for Welsh higher education institutions in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 in cash and real terms was as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  21.534

  21.930

  30.893

  30.893

  25.297

  24.620

  The amount of capital funding per student is as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  376

  383

  493

  493

  392

  382

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of Stew for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the amount of capital funding he plans to make available over the next three years and indicate in (i) cash and (ii) real terms the amount of capital funding per student in each of these years. [26473]

  Mr. Richards
  The indicative capital allocation for higher education for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 in cash and real terms is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  23.681

  22.430

  21.158

  19.552

  14.538

  13.139

  The amount of capital funding per student is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  Cash

  November 1994 prices

  363

  344

  326

  301

  222

  200

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the number of students
  321
  in higher education in Wales who did not complete their studies in each of the last three years; and what estimate he has made of the impact of the changes in the value of awards made to students and the development of the student loan scheme on the student drop-out rate. [26474]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not currently available but it is being collected by the higher education statistics agency and will be available in due course.

  The introduction of loans has given students more money for their living costs. Borrowers do not have to begin repaying their loans until at least the April after they leave their courses, and then only if and when their income exceeds 85 per cent. of average earnings. There is no reason, therefore, why students should be unable to continue their education as a result of the shift from grant to loan.

  For students who do find themselves in financial difficulties institutions can use access funds to help. In 1993–94 and 1994–95 some 4,000 students in higher education institutions in Wales received help from the access funds. In both years, no students in these institutions, who were refused help from the access funds, failed to start or to continue their courses because of financial considerations.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on jobs in higher and further education of the funding announcements for 1996–97. [26475]

  Mr. Richards
  The financial provision for higher education for 1996–97 assumes an efficiency saving of 2 per cent. over 1995–96. For further education the planned efficiency saving is 5.3 per cent.

  It is for institutions to decide how they manage the resources made available to them by the higher and further education funding councils for Wales, including the numbers of staff they employ.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent in(a) cash and (b) real terms per student in higher education in Wales in (i) 1980–81 and (ii) 1994–95. [26477]

  Mr. Richards
  The information in respect of 1980–81 is not available. The provision in cash and real terms for 1994–95 was £5,004.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the projects in Wales undertaken through the private finance initiative which have already been agreed, giving an indication of the money being spent in each of the financial years over which each project is planned to be undertaken. [26471]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  One project under the private finance initiative has been approved by the Welsh Office so far, a multi-storey car part at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. The development will be paid for fully by those using the car parking facilities and therefore there is no cost to the Department. Other projects are under consideration. Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected.

  Health Innovation Zone Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been approved under the health innovation zone scheme(a) in the south Wales industrial valleys and (b) elsewhere in Wales; and in which financial years. [27069]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are(a) the competitive tender procedures and (b) the quality standards to be applied to applications for funding under the primary care development fund; what proportion of the allocated sums available under the fund was spent in 1995–96; what assessment he has made of the rate of allocation in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement; [27067]

  2) on what date, and for what reason, the health innovation zone was transformed into the primary care development fund; what expenditure has been approved under the fund; and if he will publish the fund's terms of reference. [27068]

  Mr. Hague
  The primary care development fund has no formal status; it is a term used by the Department to refer to a number of budgets used to promote health care in the community. These budgets fund a number of centrally-promoted activities but health professionals and others may also bid for money to undertake worthwhile projects throughout Wales. There are no formal terms of reference but the Department expects a project to improve patient care and quality standards are determined on a case-by-case basis. The health innovator zone remains in place and benefits from many of the projects.

  No sum is specifically allocated for such projects.

TREASURY

  Public Service Pension Schemes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an explanation of the differences in the figures for the liabilities of the main unfunded public service pension schemes set out in(a) the answer to the hon. Member for Dover of 26 April 1993, Official Report, column 289 and (b) the answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 26 February, Official Report, columns 358-59 showing which elements are due to (a) timing and (b) other factors. [25858]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures for the capital value of the liabilities of unfunded public service pension schemes are estimates based on data which become available at periodic intervals and, in some cases, in a very limited form. The £170 billion relating to 31 March 1991 was subsequently revised to £185 billion when more reliable data became available.

  Various factors have contributed to the increase in liability between 1991 and 1993. In the case of deferred benefits and pensions in payment, which are linked to the retail prices index the increases implemented from April 1991 and April 1992 amounted together to just over 15 per cent.
  323
  For employees, liabilities increase in line with pay levels, and some groups had significant pay awards during this period. Other contributing factors affecting the increase include the overall increase in numbers, that is, the number of employees, plus deferred pensions, plus pensions in payment, and the increase in amounts of pension resulting from a large number of redundancies and premature retirements.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the RPI for each month together with the annual increase since June 1983. [26744]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is available in tables 11 and 12 of the publication "Retail Prices Index", ONS Business Monitor MM23, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth can expect replies to his correspondence of 23 January and 6 March which refers to Mr. Peter J. Hewer of 3 Heyville croft, Kenilworth; and what are the reasons for the delay which has so far occurred. [26755]

  Mr. Jack
  I replied to my hon. Friend today.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of measures taken to resolve the BSE problem as decided by 17 April for the first full year and subsequent years, setting out the net cost after recalculations required by the British rebate system, setting out the amounts in sterling, and proportions due net from the UK and the EC. [26758]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Estimates for 1996–97 to 1998–99 are in the table:

  Estimated cost of measures in the UK taken in response to BSE situation up to 17 April

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Net cost borne by the UK

  750

  600

  570

  Net contribution from the EU

  260

  140

  110

  Total cost

  1,010

  740

  680

  The table takes account of the following measures:

  (a) the compensation arrangements for cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain;

  (b) the new calf slaughter premium;

  (c) the package of aid for the renderers and the abattoir and cutting industries announced on 3 April and 16 April respectively;

  (d) additional running costs for the agriculture departments to enable more activity by the meat hygiene service.

  The table does not make any allowance for the possible cost of intervention in the beef sector.
  324
  The figures for the net contribution from the EU take account of both the UK's contribution to additional EU spending and the effect of additional receipts on the UK abatement.

  Uncollected Taxes
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is owed to the Inland Revenue in uncollected taxes; and how much has had to be written off in each of the past five years. [26802]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]The following table shows the figures for the amounts of uncollected tax owed to the Inland Revenue as at the end of October 1994, the latest date for which figures are available. The amounts represent tax assessed and collectible but not paid as at that date.

  Type of Tax

  Amount £ million

  Corporation tax

  561

  Corporation Tax Pay and File

  158

  Capital Gains Tax

  151

  Income Tax (excluding PAYE)

  2,250

  PAYE (including sub-contractor's deductions)

  647

  Advance Corportion Tax

  4

  Income Tax on Interest etc.

  2

  Petroleum Revenue Tax

  5

  Total

  3,778

  The amounts of tax remitted or written off for each of the last five year are as follows:

  Year to end October

  Amount remitted written off £ Million

  1994

  1,159.2

  1993

  1,580.2

  1992

  1,694.2

  1991

  883.9

  1990

  568.8

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present.[17499]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer in May 1993, Treasury Ministers have made nearly 100 overseas visits. Details are as follows:

  Place visited

  Reason for visit

  Chancellor

  1993

  6-7 June

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  6-7 July

  Japan

  G7

  12 July

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  18-19 July

  Germany

  —

  1-2 August

  Brussels

  EC Finance Ministers

  12-13 September

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  325

  Place visited

  Reason for visit

  25-29 September

  Washington

  IMF

  24-25 October

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  21-22 November

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  5 December

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10-14 December

  Brussels

  European Council

  28 December-5 January 1994

  Indonesia

  Trade delegation

  1994

  5-10 January

  Philippines

  Trade delegation

  27-30 January

  Davos,

  World Economic

  Switzerland

  Forum

  8-9 February

  France

  Speaking engagement and bilateral meeting

  13-14 February

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14-15 March

  Detroit

  G7 Jobs Conference

  20-21 March

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22 March

  Sweden

  Bilateral meeting

  7-9 April

  Greece

  Informal ECOFIN

  15-16 April

  Warsaw

  Bilateral meeting

  17-19 April

  St. Petersberg

  EBRD

  24-26 April

  Washington

  G7

  15-16 May

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  5-6 June

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6-7 June

  Paris

  OECD

  23-25 June

  Corfu

  European Council

  29 June

  Cologne

  Bilateral meeting

  8-10 July

  Italy

  G7

  11 July

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  27 July

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9-11 September

  Dusseldorf

  Informal ECOFIN

  18-19 September

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  26-28 September

  Malta

  Commonwealth

  Finance Ministers

  28 September—4 October

  Madrid

  G7

  9-10 October

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  21 October

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6-7 November

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  18 November

  Chateaudun

  Anglo-French Summit

  4-5 December

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8-10 December

  Essen, Germany

  European Council

  1995

  31 December 1994—5 January 1995

  Malaysia

  Trade delegation

  5-10 January

  Thailand

  Trade delegation

  11-12 January

  Vietnam

  Trade delegation

  16 January

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  26-29 January

  Davos,

  World Economic

  Switzerland

  Forum

  3-4 February

  Toronto

  G7

  20 February

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19-20 March

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  7-9 April

  France

  Informal ECOFIN

  24-27 April

  USA

  G7

  14-17 May

  Ukraine

  Bilateral meeting

  21-22 May

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  25 May—6 June

  India

  Trade delegation

  15-17 June

  Canada

  G7

  18-19 June

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  25-27 June

  Nice

  European Council

  10 July

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  18 September

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  29 September—1 October

  Valencia

  Informal ECOFIN

  2-6 October

  Jamaica

  Commonwealth

  Finance Ministers

  6-9 October

  Washington

  IMF

  22-23 October

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  26-27 November

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14-16 December

  Madrid

  European Council

  29 December-1 January

  Paraguay

  Trade delegation

  1996

  1996

  1-5 January

  Argentina

  Trade delegation

  6-9 January

  Chile

  Trade delegation

  9-13 January

  Brazil

  Trade delegation

  19-21 January

  Paris

  G7

  326

  Place visited

  Reason for visit

  22 January

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11 March

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14-20 March

  South Africa

  Trade delegation

  20-24 March

  Zimbabwe

  Trade delegation

  12-14 April

  Verona

  Informal ECOFIN

  14-16 April

  Sofia

  EBRD

  20-23 April

  Washington

  IMF Spring meetings

  Economic Secretary

  1993

  1 June

  Paris

  OECD

  14-16 July

  New York and Washington

  Trinidad Terms

  16 September

  Hanover

  Financial Services Conference

  20 September—1 October

  Caribbean

  Commonwealth Finance Minister's Meeting

  11-13 October

  Brussels and

  Financial Services

  Luxembourg

  Regulation

  1994

  21-29 April

  Japan

  Trilaterals with Securities Regulators

  16-20 May

  New York and

  Industrial Finance

  Los Angeles

  Initiative

  18-23 September

  Saudi Arabia,

  Accompanying the

  United Arab

  Prime Minister on His

  Emirates and

  Business Programme

  South Africa

  24-25 October

  Dubai

  British Bid Business Forum

  1995

  3-6 January

  New York/Boston

  GATT Talks

  9-11 April

  Switzerland

  Meetings with Swiss Ministers of Finance and Economy

  10-12 May

  Washington

  GATS/FS

  29 May—1 June

  Hong Kong and

  To discuss

  Korea

  GATS/Financial Services

  15 June

  Halifax, Canada

  Halifax Summit

  1996

  15 April

  Toronto, Canada

  British Invisibles Conference

  Chief Secretary

  1993

  3-10 July

  Mexico and Chile

  Bilateral visit (at FCO's expense)

  1994

  5-12 March

  Brazil and Chile

  Bilateral visit and attending the Chilean Presidential Inauguration (at FCO's expense)

  27-28 June

  Spain

  Bilateral visits

  1995

  1-6 June

  Oman and Saudi

  International relations

  1996

  1-2 April

  Lille

  Jobs Conference

  Paymaster General

  1993

  7 June

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  21-22 July

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  15 November

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  1994

  25 July

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  15-16 November

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  327

  Place visited

  Reason for visit

  1995

  24 July

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  17 November

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  1996

  21 March

  Brussels

  CIPFA Conference

  Financial Secretary

  No visits made.

  Because of the way out records are currently maintained, to give details of the size, composition and disaggregated costs of travel in each case by both Ministers and officials would entail disproportionate cost. Nonetheless, all costs, including those of the Minister involved are rigorously scrutinised, and the compositions of delegations are kept to a bare minimum.

  In total the costs of Treasury Ministers' overseas travel by financial year is as follows:

  1993–94:£147,000

  1994–95: £123,000

  1995–96 (to date): £110,000.

  The names of non-ministerial members of delegations are, by convention, not given.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding was provided for Professor Harash Narang's experiments and research into a urine test to detect BSE in cattle. [23227]

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations were carried out by his Department into the request by Harash Narang for research funding for a live test for BSE in cattle; and if he will make a statement. [23353]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 and 29 March 1996]: Dr. Narang has not made any formal request to MAFF for research funds for work to develop a live test for BSE in cattle. Were he to make any such application it would be subject to the normal scrutiny procedures required to demonstrate that it was scientifically valid and a practical research proposal. We are in contact with Dr. Narang's sponsor, and are hoping to supply urine samples under a blind system to be agreed.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his decision not to be the Green Minister for his Department. [25846]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on22 November 1995, Official Report, column 200.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of claims and the amount claimed in 1995 for set-aside on land for each county of England. [26743]
  328
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am unable to provide the information requested by the hon. Member at this moment. However, I will write to him with this information as soon as it is available

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Inspection
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the Federal Aviation Authority in respect of the FAA inspection programme of foreign countries in each of the last five years. [26912]

  Mr. Norris
  Ministers have not met the FAA to discuss its international aviation safety assessment programme. However, officials have frequent contacts with the FAA and have discussed aspects of the IASA programme on a number of occasions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections have been undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority on aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom, but using United Kingdom airports in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [26904]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Crew and Nantwich on 7 March 1996,Official Report, column 309. The CAA has since carried out checks on aircraft registered in Liberia, Nigeria and Swaziland.

  Aircraft Operating Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory requirements must be met by an aircraft operator before an operating licence can be issued. [26914]

  Mr. Norris
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers sets out the criteria for granting operating licences in all EC member states. The Licensing of Air Carriers Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 2992) make provision for implementing the Council regulation in the United Kingdom.

  Aircraft Leasing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many requests for(a) dry leasing and (b) wet leasing of aircraft have been refused by (i) his Department and (ii) the Civil Aviation Authority for each of the last five years. [26907]

  Mr. Norris
  The following table shows the number of lease applications which have been refused approval over the last five years:

  CAA

  DOT

  Total

  Wet

  Dry

  Wet

  Dry

  1991

  1

  2

  3

  1992

  1

  1

  2

  1993

  6

  1

  —

  7

  1994

  1

  —

  1

  1995

  3

  2

  5

  329
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures airlines are required to follow before they are permitted to(a) dry lease and (b) wet lease aircraft. [26906]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed a copy of these procedures in the Library.

  M5 Viaduct
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to correct the structural weakness to the M5 Golden Valley viaduct between Cheltenham and Gloucester to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [27058]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency programme is to strengthen or replace the structure during the years 1997–98 and 1998–99, subject to resources being available.

  Lane and weight restrictions are in force on the structure to limit traffic loading.

  Investigations have been in progress since the loading restrictions were imposed to determine the levels and extent of structural weakness. These investigations are part of the exercise to establish whether it is most cost effective to strengthen or replace the structure.

  Greenford Roundabout
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work is currently being undertaken at the Greenford roundabout; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [26745]

  Mr. Norris
  These works are part of the implementation of priority (red) route measures for the A40 by the Traffic Director for London and will provide for full traffic signal control of Greenford road roundabout. The scheme is intended to create better lane discipline and reduce accidents. The cost of the scheme is approximately £210,000.

  Drivers' Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the security arrangements surrounding the issuing of drivers' licences to private car owners; and what checks the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency undertakes to ensure that a single licence number is not used by more than one person. [26770]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency does not divulge details of the checks carried out before driving licences are issued. Each licence bears a driver number which uniquely identifies the holder.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the conviction in Nottingham of an individual for a drink driving offence in Kent on the basis of a misdirected driving licence. [26901]

  Mr. Norris
  The police are investigating this matter.

  Aviation Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings his Department has had with representatives of the Jamaican Government in respect of a service between Manchester and Jamaica. [26749]
  330
  Mr. Norris
  Negotiations were held with representatives of the Jamaican Government on 24-26 January 1996 to discuss liberalising the existing air services agreement, including a request for a possible service between Manchester and Jamaica. Agreement was not reached and both sides agreed that a further round would be held later in the year.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans lie has to give to enforcement officers powers to seize and impound unlicensed heavy goods vehicles. [26771]

  Mr. Norris
  I am considering this in the light of the report on the roadside survey of illegal operators in October 1995, which was published on 24 April.

  Network SouthCentral
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bids for Network SouthCentral offered new rolling stock. [26701]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of unsuccessful franchise bids are commercially confidential.

  London and South Coast Ltd. will be investing in a programme of improvements to existing rolling stock in order to improve the reliability of the Network SouthCentral fleet. Certain trains, which will be used for express London-Brighton services, will be refurbished.

  DriverRegulation
  Mr. Allen
  the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum hours (a) bus drivers and (b) lorry drivers can drive without a break; and what plans the Government have to harmonise the regulations so the same hours rules apply to both. [26775]

  Mr. Norris
  For both goods and passenger vehicles to which the European Union rules apply, four and a half hours. For passenger vehicles operated under the UK rules, five and a half; for goods vehicles operated under the UK rules, there is no limit on continuous driving but a driver must not drive for more than 10 hours a day. We have no plans to change the UK rules.

  Articulated Lorries
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make the fitting of the HOPE anti-jacknifing device compulsory on articulated lorries. [26888]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons his Department published a rail privatisation update leaflet in March; how many copies of this leaflet have been published; how much they cost to produce; how they are being distributed; and, in what numbers and at what frequency his Department intends to publish further rail privatisation update leaflets. [27027]

  Mr. Watts
  The rail privatisation update leaflet provides factual information to rail passengers about progress with railway privatisation and up-dates a similar
  331
  leaflet published in March 1994. The leaflet has been delivered to all manned railway stations in the United Kingdom, where it has been placed in racks for customers to pick up if they wish. A total of 250,000 leaflets were produced at a cost of £19,800. Distribution costs were £7,215. The overall cost per leaflet was about 11p. We have no plans at this stage for a further leaflet.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand the computer link between magistrates courts in South Wales and traffic area offices to the rest of England and Wales. [26774]
  332
  Mr. Norris
  A joint working group which includes officials from the Department of Transport and the Lord Chancellor's Department is currently examining arrangements which would provide for the transfer of information about penalties and convictions for operators of heavy goods and passenger vehicles to be passed from the magistrates courts to the traffic area offices.

  Experience gained from the manual trial of transfer of information between Gwent magistrates court and South Wales traffic area office will be taken into account in the recommendations of the joint working group.

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

Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order seeks to harmonise Northern Ireland's road traffic laws in relation to prosecution and punishment of road traffic offenders with those in force in Great Britain under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In particular, this revision of the law would introduce a penalty points system in Northern Ireland for road traffic offenders together with new dual level fixed penalties.
In brief, this order has three main parts. Part II deals with the trial of road traffic offenders and with evidence and production of documents to courts. Part III makes provision for the sentencing of offenders, endorsement of licences and disqualification. This part introduces penalty points for certain road traffic offences. Under this system road traffic offences would be divided into endorsable and non-endorsable offences. All endorsable offences would carry a number or range of penalty points and these would be endorsed on the counterpart of an offending driver's licence. On accumulation of 12 or more penalty points within a three year period the driver would be disqualified. The aim of the penalty points system is to provide for offences of varying gravity and to render any person who repeatedly commits endorsable road traffic offences liable to disqualification.
The proposed order also specifies offences which would carry obligatory disqualification in their own right and those where a court would have discretion to disqualify. In addition, provision is included introducing a new extended driving test for those disqualified on conviction of certain serious road traffic offences and for an experiment in the use of rehabilitation courses for drink drivers.
Part IV sets out the existing fixed penalty procedures and introduces two levels of fixed penalty. The present fixed penalty (£20) would continue for non-endorsable offences and a second level (£40) would be introduced for endorsable offences. These amounts would be subject to review.
The order creates five offences. These relate to failure to produce driving licences and certain information to courts, providing false statements in response to notices to owners seeking details of the driver of a vehicle at the material time and to the unauthorised removal of fixed penalty notices fixed to vehicles.
As your Lordships will appreciate, it is a matter of considerable concern that Northern Ireland's road casualty record is worse than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. In recent years there has been a substantial reduction in the number of road traffic deaths and serious injuries and it is encouraging to see, in 1995, a 29 per cent. reduction in fatalities and serious injuries when measured against the 1981 to 1985 average. However, our target is to achieve a one-third reduction by the year 2000 and there is much to do.
Among the measures being taken to achieve this reduction is a review of Northern Ireland's road safety laws. A Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 dealing with road safety and related matters was enacted in November of that year. This, the offenders order, follows on from the 1995 order and revises the law relating to the prosecution and punishment of road traffic offenders. Its provisions are designed to increase the contribution which road traffic law can make to road safety and in particular to reduce the number of casualties on our roads in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. We welcome the order, in particular Article 41, the extended driving test for those disqualified on conviction of dangerous driving, motor manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. Article 36 seems to be an imaginative scheme—an experiment in the use of courses for drink drivers which brings about a reduction in the length of disqualification. We welcome the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that welcome. It is important that we reduce casualties on the road. We appreciate the support of your Lordships' House. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
11.11 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the draft ombudsman order, I speak also to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
These orders are designed to update and replace the two 1969 Acts of the
Stormont Parliament which established the offices of Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Commissioner for Complaints.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration investigates complaints of maladministration against the Northern Ireland government departments and their agencies whereas the Commissioner for Complaints

1355
investigates similar complaints against local and public bodies. Both offices are traditionally held by one person, commonly known as the ombudsman.
Some of the changes in the orders flow from various Select Committee reports on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recommendations and follow similar changes in Great Britain. The title Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is to be changed to Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
There is provision for the removal from office of an ombudsman or Commissioner for Complaints who is incapable, for medical reasons, of carrying out his or her duties and is unable to resign. An acting ombudsman would be appointed to cover the period when the post is vacant pending a permanent appointment.
The original provisions which would have enabled the charging of fees for investigations by the Commissioner for Complaints have been removed as they are no longer considered appropriate. The existing time limit within which a complaint must be lodged with the Commissioner for Complaints has been simplified. Instead of a limit of two months from the time when the complainant first had knowledge of the action in the complaint or six months from such action, the complainant will now have up to 12 months from the day on which he or she first had knowledge of the matters alleged in the complaint. These limits are in line with those in the ombudsman order.
Other changes will bring within the remit of the Commissioner for Complaints, the administrative actions of staff in certain tribunals, and also extend the list of bodies subject to investigation. Before sitting down I would like to pay tribute to the quality of those people prepared to take on the position of ombudsman and Commissioner for Complaints in Northern Ireland. Recently retired Mrs. Jill McIvor set very high standards while in office and we are certain these will be well maintained by her successor Mr. Gerry Burns. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
11.14 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this order seems a little overdue. The Act which it is updating is more than 25 years old, as the noble Baroness has indicated, and during that time rather a lot has happened both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. I think it is generally conceded that overseeing quangos is a particularly important business in Britain. One has only to look back to some of the examination by the Nolan Committee to demonstrate the truth of that. But I think in Northern Ireland the responsibilities can be a great deal more substantial than they are in Great Britain, and certainly unaccountable quangos are highly undesirable in themselves.
One of the problems in Northern Ireland appears to be that many people seem to be entirely unaware of the existence of these bodies. Just to take an illustration,
1356
I understand that in the past two years there have been only six complaints about health in Northern Ireland made through the commissioner. I find it hard to believe that that represents the degree of potential complaint that there could have been within the National Health Service. There appears to be rather a worrying level of stoicism. The commissioner, Mrs. McIvor, is quoted as saying that only one in 10 people know there is an ombudsman at all. That being so obviously it represents the truth of the matter—what do the Government propose to do about it? Will they take some additional steps to publicise the existence of these bodies? It is highly desirable that they should do so.
I have just one further question. In the event of any new quango being appointed, would there have to he a new order putting it under the ombudsman's jurisdiction? It would be helpful to know that. Finally, Article 15 gives the ombudsman powers similar to a court to carry out his investigations. That is conceded as necessary. But are the people who are to be investigated by him to be warned about that before the investigation takes place? It is important to have an answer to that question. Having said that, I welcome the proposals that the noble Baroness has put forward.
11.17 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a curiosity that both posts are required to be specified by separate orders but they are held by the same person. I endorse the words that the Minister directed towards Mrs. McIvor who has discharged her duties with great distinction. I also endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I believe it is not a case of stoicism in Northern Ireland but a case of lack of knowledge. If an individual member of the public simply does not know that there is a remedy by way of the ombudsman complaints procedure, that is a serious defect. If only 10 per cent. know of it, surely there ought to be some effort by the government publicity machine, which is effective in Northern Ireland, to bring this to the attention of the general public. Other than that, somewhat belatedly we welcome these orders.
11.19 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their interest in these two orders. I assure them that while it has taken more time to bring this legislation forward than either of the noble Lords are happy with, that does not mean that the job has not been well done in the meantime. The action has been rather better than the paperwork.
As regards the number of complaints, we also watch that situation carefully. There are many reasons for the low number of complaints. I hope that the main reason is a positive one in that many of the matters which might be raised are dealt with before that stage is reached. I assure noble Lords that when my colleagues and I reply to unhappy people who write to us, we explain that this route is open to them. I believe that is of value. I shall refer the comments about lack of knowledge of the procedure involved to the ombudsman as that is a matter for him. However, the annual report of the ombudsman is always given maximum publicity and the

1357
citizens' charters have also enabled other routes and other definitions of people's rights to be made available. I believe that we can build on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked if there was a mechanism for bringing new bodies within the scope of the order without actually introducing a new order. Any new bodies that were to be added would automatically be added to the list of bodies within commission jurisdiction. The commissioner for complaints order also contains power to make a subordinate order to add bodies to those within the commissioner's jurisdiction. There is no intention whatever in Northern Ireland to create bodies that do not automatically fall within this power.
The noble Lord also asked whether there was a case for a mandatory warning as regards the powers of the ombudsman. The ombudsman has total discretion in the way in which he or she conducts investigations. It would be for him or her to consider the need for some warning in a particular case.
It is the Government's view that the provisions in the order in relation to obstruction and contempt are clear and should leave the body being investigated in no doubt as to its responsibility to co-operate with the investigation and as to what the penalties would be were it not to do so. However, I will ensure that the noble Lord's views are drawn to the attention of the ombudsman. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
11.21 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased that we have an opportunity today to discuss the 1996 Finance Bill and I look forward to an interesting debate. The Bill, which has already been debated in another place, implements the 1995 Budget, which was designed to further the Government's overall economic policy. That policy is aimed at sustained economic growth, increased employment, and rising living standards based on sound public finances and low inflation. As well as the headline measures of the 1995 Budget, the Bill before us also continues the important work of preventing the growth of tax avoidance and closing loopholes.
1358
The 1995 Budget was delivered against a background of strong economic fundamentals. This was no accident. The Government have had to make a number of difficult decisions on both tax and spending over the past three years. But being in government is about having to make hard decisions and sticking to one's principles. As a result of the decisions taken, this Government are now able to build on the hard-earned gains that have been made. The Budget cuts taxes to leave people with more of what they earn and save. At the same time the Government have demonstrated their willingness to spend more on the public services that people care about while keeping a firm control of public spending generally. Taken together, the tax and spending measures in the 1995 Budget keep Britain on course to be the enterprise centre of Europe.
The Government's tight control of public spending has significantly improved the public finances of the country. The last three years have seen public spending plans reduced by £53 billion. It is because of the progress that has been made in this area that it has been possible to allocate more resources to priorities that the Government and the public are agreed upon. In 1996–97 there will be £878 million more for schools, £1.3 billion extra current spending for the NHS and resources for 5,000 extra police. Although the Budget reduces planned spending overall by £3¼ billion, greater use of private finance will improve the efficiency and value for money of investment in public services. We are aiming to get the share of national income taken up by public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP. The signs are there for all to see that we are on our way to meet this target by 1997–98.
I now turn to the Bill. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that we have a long Bill before us today. However, when looking at the Bill's length one needs to remember that as a result of a deliberate attempt to make parts of the legislation self-contained and easier to use it is sometimes necessary for the legislation to be longer in places. It should also not be lost on the Opposition that two significant deregulatory and simplifying measures account for a large proportion of the Bill. The measures on corporate debt represent a major reform and simplification, and the self-assessment measures contained in the Bill represent the final part of a major change. The Bill also contains the legislation that is needed to introduce a new tax to help the environment (the landfill tax). This new tax will provide incentives to produce less waste, recycle and re-use more waste and send less to landfill. It has been widely welcomed. I am sure the House will appreciate that any new tax will inevitably involve a considerable number of pages of legislation to ensure that all aspects of the tax are covered.
I now turn to the detail of the Bill and begin with those clauses covering indirect taxation. Clause 1 of the Bill introduces a measure that has been welcomed up and down the country. It cuts the duty on spirits by 4 per cent. (equivalent to 27 pence a bottle) and helps maintain the domestic base of one of our most important export industries. There is no doubt that this measure has lifted spirits far and wide, but just as importantly, it will go some way towards assisting the economy and

1359
the employment situation in Scotland. Clause 2 has also been welcomed by those who prefer a glass of wine in that it reduces duty rates on wine or made wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent.
Clause 4 increases the duty on petrol and diesel by approximately 5 per cent. above inflation, in line with the Government's November 1993 commitment. This measure continues to encourage fuel efficiency while helping to control harmful emissions. Many environmentalists continue to argue for greater increases in these duties. I believe there is a reasonable balance in the proposals that the Government brought forward in 1993 and are enacting for this year by means of Clause 4.
Clause 9 increases the duty on tobacco in line with the commitment given in November 1993 and further demonstrates the Government's commitment to using taxation as a means of encouraging further reductions in smoking. The duty on hand rolling tobacco was frozen, however—a positive response alongside Customs and Excise's excise verification work in combating a particular focus for smuggling.
Clauses 10 and 11 concern betting duties. Much has been said about the impact the National Lottery has had on the bookmaking, pools and racing industries. The Government have listened to the concerns that have been raised and have acted. General betting duty has been cut by 1 per cent. with the cut being shared by the punter and the racing industries. Pools betting duty was cut by 5 per cent. with a further 1 per cent. cut being passed on to the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.
Clause 14 increases the rates of vehicle excise duty on cars, taxis and light goods vehicles. The increase is broadly in line with inflation and it is worth making the point that car vehicle excise duty is still lower in real terms than 10 years ago. Clause 18 introduces measures to exempt vehicles over 25 years of age from paying VED. This measure has been well received by many, including the vehicle preservation movement, and recognises the important part that vintage, veteran and classic vehicles play in our heritage.
Clauses 25 to 38 cover the various VAT measures in the Bill. The Government have looked at deregulation and reducing the real burdens on businesses. We have shown our commitment to business in the past and will continue to do so. We now have the highest VAT threshold in Europe and as a result have taken many small businesses out of VAT altogether. The changes to the second VAT directive will remove uncertainty in a number of areas and should make it easier to administer. Clause 26 will specifically provide a VAT-free trading environment for certain specified EC commodities, including some metals, foodstuffs and chemicals. We have also made changes to the VAT payment on account (POA) scheme, which requires the largest VAT payers with a liability in excess of £2 million to make two monthly interim payments of their VAT liability each quarter. These interim payments will be halved, which will improve businesses' cash flow, and businesses will also be given the option to pay the actual monthly
1360
liability rather than the preset amounts if that suits their circumstances better, which will contribute to improving the cash flow of larger businesses.
Earlier I mentioned the Government's determination to counter avoidance. As I conclude my brief remarks on the VAT measures in this Bill, perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 31, "Groups: anti-avoidance". It had become apparent that there was a willingness on the part of a minority of users to manipulate the grouping rules in the furtherance of VAT avoidance schemes. With that in mind we have increased the discretionary powers available to the commissioners of Customs and Excise for determining the operation of the grouping rules. This measure will provide a comprehensive and flexible counter to the serious threat from avoidance in this area. Grouping is a massive deregulatory facility which the Government are anxious to preserve. Properly used, the facility puts businesses operating as a number of individual companies on the same footing as single companies organised on divisional lines. That saves groups some £400 million in VAT a year which they would otherwise have to suffer, as well as reducing accounting costs considerably. The measures are not designed to recoup any part of this acceptable loss. Rather they are designed to halt the growth in avoidance schemes which rely on manipulation of the facility to secure advantages well beyond those intended. Unless such deliberate avoidance is tackled effectively the future of grouping could be jeopardised.
Clauses 39 to 71 introduce measures related to the new landfill tax. Back in the 1994 Budget, we announced that this important new tax would be introduced. Full and wide consultation has taken place and I am pleased to note that the new tax has been well received. We believe the new tax will contribute to the protection of our environment by encouraging waste producers to produce less waste, to recover more value from waste (for example, through recycling or composting) and to use more environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal. I am sure noble Lords will welcome these measures as they not only have a positive effect on the environment but also have a positive effect on the tax on employment, as a result of the decision to use the revenue raised from landfill tax to reduce employers' national insurance contributions from April next year.
I turn now to direct taxation. Clause 72 sees us return to our tax-cutting agenda by reducing the basic rate of income tax from 25 per cent. to 24 per cent. It also allows for the lower rate band to be increased by £700 to £3,900, which is £500 more than required by indexation, and for the basic rate limit to be increased by £1,200 to £25,500, which is over indexation by £200. Clause 73 reduces the tax charge on savings income from the basic rate to the lower rate of 20 per cent. Clause 74 increases personal allowances allowing all taxpayers to gain. When one considers some of the measures that I have just mentioned, it will be clear for all to see that they take us closer to our goal of a 20 per cent. basic rate and clearly demonstrate our determination to allow people to keep more of what they earn and save. That point is further reinforced when one considers that since 1979 this Government

1361
have continually lowered income tax rates. That has continued to such an extent that we now have the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years.
Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill set the main and small companies' rate of corporation tax at 33 per cent. and 24 per cent., respectively.
Clauses 80 to 105 cover the measures in this Bill which relate to the taxation of corporate debt. The measures are a major simplification, bringing the tax treatment of all corporate debt from bank loans to complex instruments in line with accounting practice. The measures will make paperwork easier and cheaper for firms and it is no surprise to learn that the reforms that we are putting in place have been widely welcomed. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that the Government made a number of amendments in this area during the Standing Committee stages in the other place. As a responsible Government we are always prepared to listen. We sought to address all the major points made in representations on the detail of the proposals.
Clauses 111 to 120 contain a package of measures to stimulate the use of share schemes for more junior management and lower paid employees. We see these measures as important in encouraging direct employee participation in their businesses through wider employee share ownership.
Clauses 121 to 142 contain the final tranche of legislation required for the introduction of self-assessment. The provisions contained in this area have been developed with the help of extensive consultations and the tax return has been trialed by real taxpayers. We believe that self-assessment will introduce a clearer and more streamlined system, making it easier for taxpayers to understand their liabilities, with one tax return covering all aspects of a person's tax affairs for the year; one tax bill for the year; and one set of dates for paying tax. We also believe that it will bring major savings for the self-employed, with annual compliance cost savings of up to £250 million, once the new system has bedded in.
This year's Bill contains three main provisions on inheritance tax. Clause 183 raises the inheritance tax threshold to £200,000—£40,000 more than required by indexation. That change safeguards the hard earned wealth of ordinary families and will mean that only one in 45 deaths will lead to an IHT bill for heirs. This particular measure also marks another important step towards the Prime Minister's long-term aim to abolish inheritance tax.
Clause 184 gives a further boost to investment in unquoted, often small and growing family companies, by extending 100 per cent. business relief to all unquoted shares in qualifying companies, regardless of the size of the holding. Clause 185 improves the IHT relief for agricultural assets.
Finally, Clauses 186 to 196 contain measures to adapt the present rules for stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax on share transfers to cater for the introduction of paperless share transfers.
I believe that this Bill contributes to helping people keep more of what they earn and save by reducing the basic rate of income tax to 24 per cent., widening the
1362
lower rate band by some £700 and cutting the tax on income from savings to 20 per cent. for basic rate taxpayers; to protecting family savings by increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £200,000; and to continuing to reinforce Britain's status as the enterprise centre of Europe by having a tax system that encourages wealth creation and keeps business taxes and employment costs low.
This Bill implements many important parts of the Budget—a Budget that was designed to build on the foundations already in place for sustainable growth, low inflation and higher living standards for all; a Budget designed to promote sustained economic growth and increased employment and ensure that the economic fundamentals of sound public finances and low inflation remain in place. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
11.38 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the rather subdued speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, this morning. He has plenty to be subdued about. In the course of his remarks, he did not refer to the fact that when the Finance Bill went to the other place it was 406 pages long but when it emerged from there and came to this House it contained 461 pages. I doubt whether even the most thorough examination advocated in this place by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who is an expert in these matters, would have enabled the Bill to have passed through the House with the degree of expedition that is normally required on a reasonable reading of standing orders. However, it is a Bill.
I do not want to depress the noble Lord too much. What I have to say this morning will, I hope, be full of cheerfulness. But I observe that he did not find it wise to refer to the recent court judgment, which looks as though it will make a substantial impact on the Treasury in respect of refunds due on VAT to companies that have been engaged in what are called "interest-free sales transactions". The press puts the figure at £5 billion. I do not want to comment on that; I certainly would not invite the noble Lord to be more particular. But my guess would be somewhere between £2 billion and £3 billion. At any rate, it is interesting to find that the Government's attention to VAT is likely to be more detailed in the future.
When the Government approach the country on the question of taxation in the most self-congratulatory terms, normally they mean income tax. That is the only tax that really concerns them. They always ignore the fact that the amount of VAT levied has roughly doubled since they took office and is a great burden on the bulk of the population.
The noble Lord rests the Bill on the Government's economic expectations and performance, the statistical detail of which I am sure my noble friend Lord Eatwell, when he winds up the debate, will deal with far more adequately than I can ever do. But, according to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the benefits that we now have are a result of sound money and sound administration.

1363
We are now approaching the sunny uplands. What the Government have not dealt with so far is the question of unemployment.
Unemployment remains the greatest problem that the country faces. We are a talented nation. In our island's history we have excelled in the fields of exploration and science, both theoretical, abstract and applied. We have a great history in engineering and in administration, not only in our country but in the territories that we once held in the Empire. There is enormous artistic talent within the country and an enormous sense of citizenship. We are well blessed with the people that we have in the United Kingdom. They are one of our greatest assets. They have enabled us progressively—sometimes a little violently, but not much—to make fair progress in ameliorating suffering, not only among our own people but for other peoples of the world. They have enabled us to make great advances in medicine and in other fields. Our inventors are probably second to none.
We therefore have substantial assets in our country—the people. We have a reasonable climate within which to operate. We are not without our natural minerals either and, according to my late right honourable friend Aneurin Bevan (to what effect I do not know), we are surrounded by fish—though that may be subject to query at the present time.
We have enormous assets in the United Kingdom, and I do not like those who decry their own people or minimise their importance. They are the most precious and the greatest jewels in the crown that we hold. In wartime we freely acknowledged that fact. Suddenly, those working in the coalfields, on the land or in the factories, instead of being classed as "hands for hire" or "hands wanted", became elevated to the saviours of the country, as indeed they were in the years of the war from 1939 to 1945. Then, anybody who dreamt of casting aspersions upon the working population of our country would have been howled out of town.
Those were the days of the working man, the ordinary person of Britain who worked extremely hard in order to secure our victory, as indeed did noble Lords here. We did not hear then of shedding labour. We heard of people whose efforts, not only on the battlefield, on the sea or in the air but in the factories, were held in high esteem. They even had works councils in various factories on very much the same lines, though much more comprehensive, as those envisaged in the social chapter, which is so much denounced. In fact, joint works councils and joint consultation were instituted throughout the war industries and our war industries would not have prospered as much as they did without them.
So there we have another precious asset. What are we doing with it? In 1945 and even before, and for some 20 years afterwards, the rate of tolerable unemployment never exceeded 3 per cent. If it went much above 2.5 per cent. there was an unholy row and unease throughout the country. Now the acceptable figure is apparently between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. That will not do.
1364
It is not as though the Government themselves are devoid of sensibilities. In many ways they are devoid of any fundamental philosophy other than that which was enshrined—though it is slowly disappearing—in the doctrine enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when it was every man for himself and there was no such thing as society. That divided our society and that thinking is something that we now have to abolish. We must get back to a reasonable co-operation, not only among the ordinary working people themselves in the factories but also between them and management.
Much has been said about the social chapter. I regard it as an irrelevance because it was used by the Government in another place to scare their supporters into accepting Maastricht. It was used by my party largely to get our Members to lobby against its abolition in order to gain support from them for Maastricht as well. That is why there was unanimity. When my party comes to power shortly, it will no doubt produce its own domestic legislation which will be in far less ambiguous terms than the social chapter. If we win the election, we will provide a social chapter and we will not have to bother Europe at all.
When the Government get into any kind of difficulty, they do not think. Many of their Ministers do not have time to think. I have touched on this point on a number of occasions when I have had the privilege to address your Lordships' House. The day is only 24 hours long; there is a certain amount of time for sleeping, eating, doing one's toilet and all the rest of it and interviewing people. The time for thinking and for reading is very small. So the Government have been tempted over the years whenever they are in difficulties to go to consultants. They have gone consultant mad. They spend around £500 million a year on consultants when they ought to be able to make up their own minds on principle.
They also run to economists, of whom I am sorry to say I do not hold a very high opinion. That is a general professional observation very often made by accountants in regard to their colleagues, who are the economists. They operate on the basis of certain econometrical assumptions which are fed into a computer and produce a whole number of equations and a whole number of answers according to whichever model they adopt, forgetting of course that by the time the result has come out of the computer the facts that were put in have already become obsolete.
Economists assume that people behave reasonably. My Lords, they do not. Economists assume that people operate on certain standard assumptions. They do not. In many cases it depends on what side of the bed they get out of in the morning. If a person is in control of a very large company, that can have quite considerable effects not only upon the company but on the economy at large. Economists also tend to assume—I would not dream of associating my noble friend on the Front Bench with this observation—that they do not have to make allowances for the size and scope of enterprises.
According to a Written Answer given in another place (at col. 704 of Hansard of 14th March) there are some 3.5 million enterprises in the United Kingdom, of which

1365
2.5 million have no employees at all. They are one-man businesses. Those are joined by 790,000 which do not employ any more than nine people and 107,000 which employ between nine and 20 people. What we find is that there are only 8,000 firms which employ more than 200 people—0.2 per cent. of the total number of enterprises. There are just 8,000 enterprises with between 100 and 199 employees.
The larger firms are almost impervious to the actions of government. The Government can fulminate about employment and wage rates and about the necessity for keeping wages down and within controlled limits. But the top firms ignore that altogether. They plan two years ahead. They not only plan their price structure two years ahead; they plan even their wage rates two years ahead and the publicity expenditure to get the turnover that they want. They largely ignore the Government, apart from occasionally giving them party subscriptions because they like the smiles on their faces. So parts of the economy take a long-term view and other parts take a short-term view. It is very difficult to find out which, so it is very difficult to predict the course of the economy.
The unfortunate point is this—at the moment both political parties, or perhaps I should say all three, are completely united in their economic remedies. They have all formally endorsed, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the economic policies put out by the European Commission in the form of its White Paper on growth, competitiveness and unemployment. Therefore they are committed to deflationary policies. There was a time when political controversy was respectable. You could actually talk and argue about the things in which you believed. Apparently, one is now so terrified of what the press will say if one makes any definite policy statements that one clouds one's policies in a sea of ambiguities that are meaningless to everyone. We should get out of that. Surely we know one another well enough in this place and in another place to say exactly what we mean and what we believe in rather than hedge everything under the 11th Commandment of "Thou shall not commit thyself", which is what is happening at the present time. That is why the British people are becoming a little restive.
Moreover, unfortunately they are fearful. They are fearful of unemployment, they are fearful about their security, they are fearful about their old age and they are fearful about the effects of crime. There is fear in the land. If we acted to abolish or to try to alleviate fear, if occasionally by a display of the utmost good humour or at any rate a sense of humour, it would help. We have not done that. In the past 20 years we have gone progressively into saying "We have nowhere else to go. Under which wing can we go? With whom can we associate?", rather than enunciating our own standpoints and our own culture subject to our own arguments and our own disputes.
I am very optimistic that this will eventually happen and that even the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and myself may occasionally be able to have a pleasant joust across the Chamber with the utmost good humour. That is what has to be done. At the moment the parties, when
1366
they are not snarling at each other like little boys, are hiding behind a lot of ambiguities for which the public do not care.
At any rate I am very optimistic about it all. I can see a time coming when all these constraints will depart, when we can all say exactly what we mean and argue with one another with the utmost good humour; but above all apply ourselves to the greatest task of all—of seeing that unemployment never stalks this land again.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have had a clear statement from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on the Budget for which we are very grateful. It was a subdued statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will make up for that when he replies to the debate. We have also had a vigorous and optimistic statement from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in which he took quite a sideswipe at those of his colleagues who are economists. We shall have to see how that is responded to later.
For my part I should like to examine some of the underlying assumptions behind the measures contained in the Finance Bill and in so doing it may be necessary to go over some of the ground which we covered in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on 20th March on economic strategy. That cannot be avoided, but at least we can update some of our views.
Before passing to that I would like to make specific reference to the landfill tax to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred. I am among those who support the thrust and objective of this tax. However, it has been brought to my notice that it is, like all new measures of taxation, bringing in its train some anomalies and difficulties. One of the major difficulties is the great increase in costs that it will impose on local authorities. Therefore, it seems desirable that some way of mitigating that, during the period when other ways of disposing of waste can be developed, should be seriously considered. I have no doubt that the Government will be doing that. Also, a number of specialised enterprises which have developed ways of disposing of the inevitable waste from their processes over the years, will be particularly hard hit and they will be unable to do much about it. I know that representations in these cases have also been made.
I turn to the underlying assumptions. We need to consider these carefully not only as justification for the measures taken, but more significantly in relation to the future conduct of economic affairs and future budgets. I would like to indicate one or two of the basic assumptions in order to examine how robust they are. We have talked about estimates of growth in the economy on a number of occasions and we know that the Chancellor indicated his firm view in the Budget Statement that growth this year will be at 3 per cent., but so far it is much nearer 2 per cent. If it is to achieve 3 per cent. there will need to be a very substantial increase in the final stages of the year, which can only come from a great increase in domestic consumption, which itself can contain risks of overheating. We have

1367
been through that before. The general consensus among economists—if I dare mention that name—is that growth will be somewhere between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. for the year as a whole. It will be interesting to know whether that is now the Government's revised view and what impact that will have on future economic policies.
The reduction in the rate of inflation has been a great achievement. It has been maintained at a much lower level than in the recent past and let us hope that will continue. But let us not become too euphoric about it. The level of inflation in the UK is higher than among 12 of the other European countries. Our inflation rate is only lower than the rate for Spain, Italy and Greece. Therefore, that suggests that we have to continue to be very vigilant in this area. We cannot just sit back and assume that all is going well—not, at any rate, by comparison with what others are achieving.
A particular anxiety which has been indicated recently is the way in which monetary growth is developing, particularly M4, which is broad growth in the money supply, including not only money in circulation, but also deposits. For the fifth month running that has exceeded 10 per cent. and that is noticeably above the Government's target. In their early days the Government were much concerned with monetary targets although they have changed their emphasis on this since. Nevertheless, the rate of money supply is of importance. For example, Professor Congdon, who is one of the Chancellor's "wise men", has stated in his most recent broadsheet,
"If broad money growth remains above 10 per cent."—
which it has been for the last five months,
"a return to inflation rates of more than 5 per cent. is inevitable, sooner or later".
What are the Government going to do about that area? The amount of money in circulation and on deposit in the United Kingdom is noticeably above that in some other European countries, particularly in Germany, France and, indeed, in Italy. In those countries it is 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. below and therefore they seem to have this matter more under control.
Perhaps one of the most worrying aspects of the underlying assumptions relates to public borrowing. The latest figures on PSBR for the financial year just ended show an overshoot of over £3 billion over the Government's forecast of £29 billion. The Chancellor's comment on that was that he considered that it was within the margin of error. All I can say is that it is a pretty hefty margin of error.
The reason for this shortfall appears to be one-third due to an increase in expenditure, but two-thirds due to reduced tax take. A large measure of the reduced tax take must come from the fact that growth has not been as buoyant as anticipated. But there is also something of a conundrum over VAT returns. I understand that there will be a special inquiry into this. This situation will be exacerbated by what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to; namely, the recent Court of Appeal judgment disallowing VAT on interest-free finance. It is reported in the press that that may cost the Government
1368
as much as £5 billion in returned tax: it might be less than that, but we do not know. At any rate, it will be a substantial figure. It will be interesting to know how the Government propose to treat it. For example, will they be making provision for it in the contingency reserve for next year?
We need to consider also the general state of investment because that is one of the recurring themes that we have been talking about in connection with economic policy. If investment shows signs of declining or not increasing, then the impact on future economic prospects can be very serious. What I find particularly disturbing is the report that manufacturing investment in the fourth quarter of last year had been reduced by 5 per cent. The CBI has recently issued a rather pessimistic statement in its quarterly survey about sentiment in the manufacturing sector, which is suffering particularly from reduced export prospects as a result of the weakness in the economies of Europe and elsewhere.
So we really need to look at this matter very seriously and to see what can be done to stimulate investment in the private sector. What is equally worrying is what is happening to investment in the public sector. Table 6.4 on page 120 of the Red Book, shows that it is the Government's intention to reduce public sector capital investment over the next four years from £21.7 billion in 1995–96 to £19.2 billion in 1998–99, which over four years will represent a reduction of 11.5 per cent. That is very serious if at the same time as there is an apparent weakness in private investment, the Government are pursuing a policy of deliberately reducing public investment. Surely, then, our future economic prospects will be jeopardised.
In the same table the Government give their views on how the private finance initiative will operate in that period. They expect it to rise from £0.6 billion in 1995–96 to £2.8 billion in 1998–99. In other words, they are assuming that the reduction in public capital investment will be offset by growth in the private finance initiative.
That assumption has been seriously queried in a recently published report by the Treasury Select Committee of another place issued on 1st April. It doubts whether this degree of substantial growth in the private finance initiative will take place. It asks, first of all, a leading question, which I believe we are all entitled to ask; namely, what is the Government's objective now as regards the private finance initiative? Originally, it was to supplement public investment, but now it appears to be quite definitely to replace it. Is that indeed where we stand? If that is so, the outlook appears to be pretty bleak because, according to the report, there are, for example, substantial delays in the bidding procedures. Furthermore, the cost of bidding is now discouraging many in the private sector from doing so.
The Select Committee considers that a large number of unsuitable projects are being put forward for private investment. There seems to be a directive within government circles that all projects for investment should be put out for private investment whether or not they are suitable. At any rate, that is the view of the

1369
Select Committee. There is still uncertainty about how risk should be shared between the public and the private sectors, and that is causing problems.
Turning to the health sector, it is proposed that private investment should make a substantial input, but there are still major uncertainties over the constitution of the health service under the present arrangements and about the funding arrangements. It is feared that the risk might ultimately have to be borne by the private investors if trust hospitals get into serious financial difficulties. I should declare an interest because I am involved in some bids in this area and we are concerned about that added risk on top of the normal risks that any business faces.
The conclusion of that very important report, which I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate at greater length on a subsequent occasion, is that the Select Committee regards it as unlikely that the levels of private finance investment estimated by the Government to offset their intended reduction in public sector investment will take place. It would be useful to know what the Minister thinks about that.
In conclusion, there are doubts about some of the basic assumptions underlying the Finance Bill, and that clearly limits the freedom of action with regard to the next Budget. What is particularly worrying is what is happening in investment in both the private and public sectors. Unless we can sort that out, the risks that we run are not only short term, but could be longer term as well.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a very difficult debate in which to take part because it brings together—or clashes together—what in another place is done at separate Sittings. In another place, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is treated as an occasion for the discussion of the economic policies of the Government and the general way in which they are handling the economy. The later stages, Committee and Report, are devoted on the whole to discussions of particular changes in tax arrangements, such as increases or decreases in tax and whether there should be any such changes, whereas today we are compelled to discuss all those matters in one Sitting—and that on a Friday morning.
I must advise my noble friend the Minister that much as I admire the way in which he opened the debate and much as I respect his technique in handling the House on these matters, this is a very bad way for your Lordships' House to be treated. We ought to have at least one occasion, say, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when the general state of the economy and the general trend of measures are discussed. We should then have another separate day or days—perhaps it should be days—when we can discuss the detailed financial proposals, such as proposed changes in tax.
I am well aware of the fact that we in this House cannot vote on changes in tax, but I think that it is unrealistic not to acknowledge that what is said in this House both on the general policy matters to which I have referred and on particular changes in taxation can
1370
have a considerable impact because your Lordships' House is known to contain a great deal of financial experience, having Members who have been former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Chief Secretaries and economists—both academic economists and economists in practical business. Although we cannot amend the Finance Bill, I believe that if its provisions are firmly and clearly debated in this House we can so influence opinion that it is likely, perhaps at another stage or on another date, that amendments will he put into effect in due course. Therefore, I advise my noble friend that, despite the admirable way in which he opened the debate, this is necessarily a difficult debate and it is not one which will make full use of the experience, knowledge and qualities which noble Lords possess in these matters.
I know that the usual channels have no use for the Finance Bill. That is why it has to be considered at one Sitting, and on a Friday at that. The usual channels take the view that because for some years this House has largely faded out of financial discussions we should just let the Finance Bill go through and save them the trouble. However, I beg my noble friend to try to get into the head of the usual channels—if they have a head—the point that the standing of this House is of very great importance to the future of this House and that unless this House can maintain its reputation—a reputation that can be well supported by its experienced membership—it may well be that in another Parliament steps will be taken by another government of a very adverse nature indeed. However, if this House and its reputation are fortified by intelligent, informed and experienced discussions, any government (however radical they may be) will hesitate to make any radical approach.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend another question about the procedure being followed. As I understood him, he said that the enormous length of this Bill—again, that enormous length does not help when it has to be discussed in just one Friday Sitting—was designed to tie up so many loose ends that in the future it will be easier to legislate on such matters. Is he telling the House that this Bill is designed so to simplify the procedure of Finance Bills that in future such Bills will be shorter and less complicated because the main structure will be clear and well understood? I thought that he was near to hinting at that, but I am not sure that he went quite so far as to say that that was the intention. However, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, that would be a good explanation of why the Bill is this enormous length.
Again, some explanation is required as to why this House—indeed, both Houses—should have to cope with a Bill of this length unless there is some purpose behind legislating so lengthily. A good purpose would be to tighten the system so that future Finance Bills can be a good deal shorter. Again, that would facilitate fuller discussions, particularly if the usual channels would modify the rather murky flow of their liquid and allow at least two full days for discussion on finance.
I refer to one or two specific matters, the first of which is landfill tax. My noble friend the Minister was full of enthusiasm for it. Not everybody is full of

1371
enthusiasm for it. I have had a letter from a very distinguished firm that deals with these matters called Brunner Mond. I have no other connection with it. That company says that it will be adversely affected by the landfill tax, which will impose very heavy burdens on it if it is introduced. For some of these companies, in its proposed form the tax will be very damaging. I would be grateful if my noble friend would consider that. If when he comes to wind up he refers to the matter, that will be very helpful.
An even more serious problem is the effect that the withdrawal of tax concessions on saving schemes will have on the provision that a great many people now make for the future education of their children. In view of the high level of school fees, it is the practice for parents to start a savings scheme at an early stage which mounts up so that when the child attains the age of 13 or so and goes to a fee-paying school there is a fund available to help pay the fees. As I understand the Bill, that tax concession is to be removed from these schemes. Therefore, it will be made much more difficult for parents who wish to send their children to fee-paying schools to take financial precautions in advance to ensure that they are able to do so.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some reassurance on the point. It seems odd that any government, particularly a Conservative one, should go out of their way to make the problem of parents who want to send their sons or daughters to fee-paying schools much more difficult by removing a tax concession which has existed for a number of years. I am sure that it is a matter of carelessness rather than malicious intent, but I hope that my noble friend will have a look at the matter and will be prepared to indicate that the Government will give consideration to it. My noble friend the Minister was full of the concessions and improvements to be made but did not spend very much time on those additional areas where tax was to be imposed. These savings arrangements, which have been in operation for a good many years, are a very good example of that. It is a great pity to make those operations more difficult. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to indicate either that the Government are reconsidering it or that he will go back to his financial colleagues and suggest that in the Budget the tax additions should be removed.
A number of matters of this kind arise interestingly in debating this Bill, but it is extremely difficult under the present system to have specific points discussed. However, the one or two points that I have mentioned are of considerable importance. I do not believe that they are particularly complicated. I believe that the Government, who are very properly reducing tax in a great many areas, ought to look carefully at those areas in which they are withdrawing tax concessions, since when a tax concession is withdrawn it must, in the nature of things, give rise to difficulties to those concerned. In the particular example that I have quoted—parents who desire to send their children to fee-paying schools—it is important that the Government should show sensibility and sensitivity.
1372
It is good that your Lordships' House has had an opportunity to discuss the Finance Bill, however briefly (and perhaps confusingly). I hope that in future there will be a greater opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, I ask my noble friend the Minister, despite the difficulties that he quite obviously faces, whether he is prepared to answer the various questions put to him as to concessions that may well be made on the Finance Bill. This is the moment to discuss it. With an election pending there is time and opportunity to make a concession or two that may be of great value to the persons concerned and may do something to assist the standing of the Government.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in a debate on the Finance Bill. He is correct and consistent in saying that we do not have enough time to debate the Budget. I tried partially to correct this earlier in the Session when I was lucky to be able to propose a general debate the day after the Budget Statement. It is my hope that such a practice can continue as a normal part of our debates so that, while we may not discuss the Finance Bill, we can discuss the Budget Statement at a fairly early stage. Perhaps the usual channels can look into that.
Another aspect to bear in mind is that the merger of the expenditure and taxation parts of economic policy has reduced the time allowed for discussion of economic affairs. In the days when we had an autumn expenditure Statement and a spring Budget we had two bites at the cherry and two occasions on which to debate it. Now we have only one Budget and one opportunity. When the Finance Bill comes along we have no way of discussing expenditure, unless we choose to do so. We have only the taxation aspects to discuss. The expenditure decisions are there only implicitly and not explicitly. I believe that whoever devised that great unifying scheme has done a disservice. Obviously, the Government have to anticipate tax cuts in November when the elections are held in June. That will not be an easy matter.
I should like to begin by discussing specific taxation, because that is what the Finance Bill is about. Later on, I shall remark upon general issues. I welcome the green taxes. It is good that we put more and more emphasis on taxation both as a matter of revenue raising and as a way of carrying out environmental improvements. Some noble Lords may have seen the calculations of Professor David Pearce of University College London. He has looked at the total social cost of private transport, which is enormous.
To the extent that we can divert people from private to public transport, it is all to the good. If we have to tax vehicles, that would be a good thing. The Minister said that the real cost of vehicle excise tax had fallen. I deplore that. There is no reason for doing that. If anything, the tax should at least be indexed, if not more than indexed, to follow the same principle as the Government have rightly followed with petrol.

1373
We have had debates in the past about pollution caused by cars. As we know, the bulk of the pollution is caused by a small proportion of the cars on the road. They are mainly four or five year-old cars. When the Government next think about vehicle excise duties, they should consider taxing older cars more heavily. They can do what they like about vintage cars. That is a frivolous problem.
By the same token, I welcome also the landfill taxes. Problems have had to be ironed out, as noble Lords have said. But, in general, if we can direct our taxation away from productive factors (labour and capital) and more towards the consumption of natural resources and despoliation of the environment, the better off we shall all be. That would be welcome.
There are other things to say about this issue. In a sense, what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said is one aspect of the matter. We should not worry about high or low taxation. I shall not worry about that. We want to know the overall impact of taxation on, for example, families. In the final analysis, does the Minister know? Let us take two-parent families with children. Does the Budget help them or does it not? That is the type of issue that should be addressed. He may not have the answer immediately, but I would appreciate it if he would write to me on that point.
As the Minister knows, his noble friend Lord Skidelsky has argued that the present taxation system is biased against families. I do not know whether or not that is true. It would be nice to have matters laid out in the Budget Statement. It might say, "Okay, this Budget has the following effects on different types of families (single-parent families, two-parent families, with or without children, the elderly and so on)." I know that at the moment we have the tools to do that. They have been produced by the economists of whom my noble friend Lord Bruce does not approve. It would be good if the Budget document showed what would he its impact on different social groups and social classes. It would also be good to know what would be the impact of the various environmental taxes on, say, the emission of greenhouse gases, or what have you. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that point in his reply or write to me about it.
I welcome the fact that in the treatment of savings under Clause 73, we are progressing slowly from income tax towards expenditure tax. I should like income tax to be converted into an expenditure tax. That is the only logical and fair way of taxing, because what we want is not to tax income but to tax expenditure. To the extent that we can tax consumption rather than savings, we should have a more growth-oriented policy than previously.
I come now to more contentious items. As the Minister knows, I do not think there is anything such as low taxation or high taxation; there is adequate taxation. One should have enough tax to cover expenditure. We should stop having all these fantasies about real and deep cuts in expenditure, because there are none. They are basically cuts in projections. There has been a growth in irresponsibility in fiscal policy by constantly harping on cutting taxation and lower taxation, especially income taxation.
1374
We have let the public sector deficit get out of control. I invite the Minister to look at page 45 or page 75 of the Red Book. He will see that the path laid down in the 1994 Budget for a return to a balanced budget has slipped. It had slipped by the time the Red Book came out. It has slipped since. So much so that, according to the Maastricht criteria, we have a 6 per cent. plus ratio of deficit to GDP. There is no way—referendum or no referendum—that the Government responsible for taking this country into the single currency will be able to deliver a 3 per cent. budget deficit without excruciating pain. I am saying this right now: whoever is in charge will have to take drastic action. We have all this fuss about why we are not a tax-cutting party—the Minister's party wants to be a tax-cutting party. I should prefer it to be a fiscally responsible party. That is more important than cutting taxes. We cannot go on with a system whereby every day we promise that the day after tomorrow we shall be prudent, but in the meantime we shall, just this once, have a little extra bite at the cherry. We cannot go on in that way. That has been going on for far too long.
We do not have to balance the £50 billion, which we once saw two years ago in the borrowing requirement, but £32 billion is not a small sum of money. If the gross projection is not fulfilled, the projected PSBR for the next year will be higher in money terms and higher in proportionate terms, because the growth projection will not be according to what the Government fantasise. Therefore we shall be once again at 5 per cent. or above in terms of the ratio of deficit to GDP. That is nothing of which to be proud.
We no longer live in Keynesian days when the deficit had good positive effects—multipliers and all that. We live in different times. Deficits are not good. That is shown by the fact that the yield on gilts that the UK Government have to pay is more than 1 percentage point above what the German and American Governments have to pay. That is basically the extent to which our fiscal policies are costing us extra money. I should like a firmer commitment from the Chancellor—I have no hope that he will give it—in the next Budget that he will get hold of the problem and do something about it.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I do not worry about inflation getting out of control. I am not worried about M4. I have never been a monetarist and never shall be. One of the factors which makes inflation lower has nothing to do with fiscal monetary policy. It has to do with the fact that we are now in a much more global world, and the price of manufactures is falling world-wide, because of the entry of Asian countries into the manufacturing world.
As long as the economy is open to those competitive forces we shall benefit from low inflation. I worry much more about any deviation from openness in the economy in relation to low inflation than about M4 and so forth. The M4 statistics are now so distorted that even Sir Patrick Minford, who was another high priest of monetarism, has stopped believing in M4. Fashions change. However, I believe that the inflation figures, such as they are, are not a cause for concern. I know that the Government are puzzled about the fact that

1375
manufacturing employment has stayed up while manufacturing output has been flat. That is an interesting problem to which I once offered an answer. I know that the Government carefully read all that I write. They should perhaps reread what I wrote about a month ago. There is an idea that we are switching from exports to domestic goods. That has a bigger effect on employment in manufacturing than on output.
When the Budget was first introduced I said that it was precipitate to have given a tax cut. I maintain that view. I maintain the view that the slippage in PSBR is not accidental and should have been foreseen. However, to the extent that it was not foreseen, I hope that the next Budget will not again rely on cosmetic projections of expenditure and try to run away with tax cuts, but will tackle the problem of the budget deficit. In that respect, future generations will be paying the cost of the present generation's frivolities. I believe that we should take the matter seriously and not politically.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I welcome the opportunity of debating these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, taxed my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish with delivering a subdued speech. I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, himself deliver a subdued speech, at least not in the 17 years which have expired since he took his place on the Benches opposite.
I was a little perturbed that, in listing the important objectives of policy to which the Government are committed, my noble friend on the Front Bench put inflation at the end of the line. He repeated that in his final paragraph. I am sure that that was merely to accommodate the elegance of what he was saying rather than that it had any psychological importance. Nevertheless, it is a matter of considerable importance, and it is inflation that I propose to discuss.
I wish to begin by referring to an exchange which took place in your Lordships' House on 13th March, following the publication of the minutes of the meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. In trying to be helpful—that is always a mistake, but I shall later explain exactly why I did so—I said to my noble friend:
"Why is it that every time they agree to reduce the rate of interest, the rate of interest on the Government's own borrowings goes up? Why was it when on the last occasion the rate of interest was reduced to 6 per cent. the yield on the Government's last issue of gilts promptly went up to 8.3 per cent.?".
My noble friend Lord Mackay wisely said that he did not know. I always admire a Minister who says that he does not know. Apart from the fact that it is true, it saves the subsequent embarrassment of having to try to produce reasons for something which is wrong.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will convey my respects and best wishes to him. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, being unencumbered with the experience which comes from holding high office, promptly said:
1376
"My Lords, may I help the Minister by telling him the answer?".
I leave out a few words in the middle of his remarks because they were a compliment to me and I am rather choosy about where compliments come from. The noble Lord went on to say:
"essentially what the market is saying, as was apparent yesterday, is that it expects the Chancellor as soon as possible to reverse those cuts".
At that stage my noble friend on the Front Bench said:
"Perhaps I should say that the noble Lord [Lord Peston] is right".—[Official Report], 13/3/96; col. 847.]
Unfortunately, my noble friend was wrong in saying that the noble Lord was right because in fact the noble Lord was wrong. The reason why the yield on gilts went up was that the reduction in the rate of interest led the markets to doubt the Chancellor's commitment to his inflation target. Therefore, they had to factor in an additional insurance premium against the risk of the Government living up to their target.
It is most important that we should understand that that is what is happening. Inflation has been the bane of this country for the best part of 50 years, ever since 1945 and until a few years ago when the Government, in particular my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided that the time had come when something serious must be done about it. Inflation destroys the competitiveness of British industry; it destroys the competitiveness of our exports; it destroys investment; it destroys savings; and it creates great social tensions. We can see that clearly by looking at the history of this country under successive governments. I wish to underline that because, if anything, Labour Governments were worse than Conservative Governments, so they can take no pleasure whatever from anything that I am about to say—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Oh!
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Opposition Chief Whip that in the past Chief Whips never intervened in debates on the ground that they did not know what the debates were supposed to be about. That was a very wise course indeed.
However, the record rate of inflation was scored by a Labour Government. I did not wish to rake up the past in that way but I was provoked into doing so by the sub silentio intervention of the noble Lord opposite. Inflation is the bane and the blight of this country's economy, and that of many other countries too. It is absolutely essential that the Government maintain both their nerve and commitment in that respect.
It is necessary to look at how important those figures are. There are two ways in which one can look at them. One can either say that, with inflation running at its present rate of 2.9 per cent.—however, the Government produce so many different figures that one can always toss a penny and hope that it comes down heads up, in particular if it is a two-headed penny—and a rate on long gilts of 8.2 per cent., one has a real rate of 5.3 per cent. Long term, at least over the past 100 years, the real rate of interest has fluctuated on one side or the other of 3 per cent. Therefore, we in this country are sustaining and bearing

1377
the burden of a real rate of interest which is at least 50 per cent. higher than the real rate of interest which exists in the economy as a whole. One can look at the matter in various other ways.
Incidentally, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is not in the Chamber today. I always welcome the opportunity, which rarely arises, of complimenting him on what he says. He has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the real rate of interest in this country is excessive, and indeed it is. It impacts directly in terms of hard cash on the public-sector borrowing requirement. In turn, inflation reacts on all kinds of other expenditure because so many social benefits and other benefits are tied to the rate of inflation. Therefore, it is desperately important that the Government maintain their policy on this matter.
I wish briefly to refer to another matter which is closely linked with inflation and which attracts a great deal of interest. It is the lack of the feelgood factor. Whenever you have a straightforward problem for which there is a very simple explanation, you can always rely on economists to provide very long, intricate and often misleading explanations of what has happened. But the real answer is that inflation is just like any other drug of addiction. When you take a shot, you are on a high. When it wears off, you have an appalling hangover so you take another shot of the drug. You go through that again and again. Each successive time that you have a shot of the drug of addiction, whether it is one of a banned substance or inflation, you go through exactly that cycle.
For example, you can see that in relation to the unemployment figures. Every time you have a shot of inflation, it produces a higher peak of unemployment than was produced the time before. When you decide finally that you must come off it, the withdrawal symptoms are quite horrendous. At present we are seeing the withdrawal symptoms as a result of the determination to eliminate inflation from the body politic. That is exactly what we are seeing. We must live through that. We have had two generations who have become used to the drug of addiction and we must now get them off it. That is another reason why it is important that the Government should adhere to their targets on that front and, indeed, if anything, improve upon them.
Because there is plenty of time, I propose to turn to another point, which is a finance point but not perhaps related directly to the Budget; that is, the meeting of the 14 gentlemen of Verona which took place last night in:
"The uncertain glory of an April day".
My excuse for mentioning this is that one of the subjects which the finance Ministers discussed is what is to be done about the "ins" and "outs" when there is a single currency.
I very much regret to say that, unfortunately, we put the item on the agenda. But I wish to spend a few moments looking at that. Those of us who believe in a single currency—and according to the press reports,
1378
13½ finance Ministers at Verona agreed with a single currency—do so because we believe that it is in the interests of both the European Union and our own country. We may be wrong but, nevertheless, that is what we think. If you then see somebody depriving themselves of what we think is a great benefit there to be taken, you do not get critical of them; you do not upbraid them; you do not send for the police. If somebody shoots themselves in their foot, you sympathise with them. That should have been the attitude at Verona, but it was not.
There was discussion of what you should do about what was described as competitive devaluation. I do not know whether any of those gentlemen live in the real world, but, as Mr. Lamont discovered when he had that slight altercation with Mr. George Soros, it is not Mr. Norman Lamont who sets the rate of exchange but Mr. George Soros and the market. It cost Mr. Lamont £1.5 billion—or to be more exact, it cost you and me £1.5 billion, because the taxpayers have to pay that money—in order to bring home that lesson. If you have open markets and no exchange control and freedom of movement of capital, which we have now had in the European Union for a good many years, what governments can do about manipulating the rate of exchange is very limited and transitory. You do not really need to do anything about it other than sympathise with the people who follow mistaken policies.
I wish to take an interesting example of that because it shows how much misunderstanding there is on this matter. Frankly, the general position is that devaluation and a weak currency are a burden and a detriment. A strong currency increases your competitiveness and makes the economy stronger.
While I was mulling over what I should say to your Lordships today, I found a report in the Daily Telegraph for which the headline reads:
"Strong franc cramping L'Oréal style".
Of course, L'Oréal is a very prominent French company and according to the Daily Telegraph the strong franc was cramping its style. However, I then turned to the Financial Times. Your Lordships should remember that the Financial Times is writing for the people who are putting their money where their mouth is. That is an important distinction. They are not economists but are writing for people in the markets, in the real world, who are dealing with real money. The Financial Times states:
"L'Oréal produces 11th year of growth".
It refers to the group's 11th year of double-digit growth. If that is the penalty that must be paid for a strong currency, I can think of a large number of companies which could well do with a problem of that kind.
But I make that point simply to reinforce my general argument that a strong economy, despite the fears that seem to have been produced by some of the gentlemen of Verona, and a strong currency, are good and not bad. I hope that the Government's determination on those points remains firm.
12.58 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, perhaps I may take up 60 seconds of your Lordships' time to speak in the gap. I apologise because what I have to say is almost certainly out of order, but it is not often that one has a Minister representing the Treasury within hearing range.
The point that I wish to make to your Lordships is that we have the filthiest currency and the filthiest notes in the whole of the developed world. I served for 43 years in one of the clearing banks and I made that point to the authorities. I was told that we could not afford anything better. Two days ago, we had a debate on tourism. I doubt whether the Government have done a cost-effective exercise. It makes an extremely bad impression on tourists. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to take up with the Treasury that simple issue.
I conclude by saying how much I agree with every word that my noble friend, Lord Cockfield, said.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I begin my remarks by apologising to the House for my late arrival for the debate. I had not anticipated the expedition with which the House dealt with Northern Ireland matters and I apologise to the Minister.
Having heard the attacks on economists from all sides of the House today, I wonder whether I should have turned up at all. However, it was worth turning up because I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for yet another elegant summary of yet another long and complex Finance Bill. His presentation was, as we have come to expect, clear, concise and gently misleading. He managed to present an image of economic competence and command where this Bill presents mismanagement and confusion. He painted a picture of an economy in rosy-tinted good health whereas the reality is a faltering and distinctly unbalanced recovery. As they say on the stage, "It's the way he tells 'em".
The Finance Bill is not only long, it seems never to have stopped growing. When consideration of the Bill began in another place in January, it was, as was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Bruce, just 480 pages long—already one of the longest Finance Bills in history. During its passage it grew by 13 per cent., the Bill before your Lordships' House now having 462 pages. If the Government were as successful in growing the economy as they are in growing their legislation we might all be better off. That might seem to be a trivial comparison—a "cheap shot" as our American cousins say—but this overgrown Bill and Britain's struggling economy are not unconnected.
The Bill contains some of the most ill-thought out, most muddled, and hence, most potentially damaging financial legislation that has ever been brought before this House. Only a government machine which could have produced the shambles and waste of the poll tax could also have produced this legislation. It is worth examining it closely to see exactly why the Bill has grown to its current size.
1380
On 26th February, while the Bill was in Committee in another place, the Government introduced 166 amendments which dealt with the taxation regime involved in "loan relationships", set out today in Chapter II of the Bill under Clauses 80 to 110. The amendments were produced at the very last minute, published just the day before they were due to be considered, without any notice and without any briefing notes. The performance of government Ministers in Committee was both embarrassed and embarrassing.
Loan relationships cover a vital area of the financial interconnections between firms and the relationships between firms and banks. The declared aim of this section of the Bill was the simplification of the taxation of profits and gains arising from such interconnections and to close loopholes which encourage abuse. Those are worthy aims. Yet what we have before us today is a chapter which is ill-thought through, conceived in haste and born in chaos.
The same may be said of Chapter V of the Bill, which represents yet another attempt to get self-assessment right. The Minister told us that it was the "last tranche" of legislation on self-assessment. I would advise him not to take a small wager on that matter. Just as last year, the Government are further amending the legislation on self-assessment, even as that legislation has come into effect, 20 days ago. So far as concerns millions of Britain's small businesses, self-employed and professional people, it is doubtful whether there has been a more significant contribution to human misery than is manifest in the Government's handling of the fundamental change in the taxation system. The legislation is a muddle, the rules are arcane, and the responsibilities and penalties for mistakes which apply are imposed on the general public in a manner which is entirely unreasonable and unfair. Not only that, it actually puts taxes up too.
I would be most grateful if the Minister would explain what is the £850 million increase in taxation which is attributed in Table 5b.2 of the Red Book to "self-assessment". Exactly how is that increase in taxation being brought about? As self-assessment is a matter for the self-employed, that must be an extra £850 million of taxation levied on the self-employed and hard-working people of this country. They deserve an explanation. Therefore, on loan relationships and on self-assessment this is the Red Tape Finance Bill.
Yet, there is no reason whatever why either of Chapters 2 and 5 should be in the Finance Bill at all. Both pieces of legislation are entirely to do with the management of taxation and have nothing to do with the actual raising of taxation. Neither actually belong in a Money Bill. Both could have been contained in a tax management Bill which would not be a Money Bill. By placing the legislation in a Money Bill the Government have both placed it under the necessarily restricted timetable of the Finance Bill and have ensured that your Lordships' House had neither the opportunity effectively to debate such measures nor to amend them in Committee. The Minister owes us an explanation as to why that device of preventing the House commenting on the legislation effectively has been used.

1381
We also need an explanation of what is happening to the Government's finances. As has been said by other noble Lords, the borrowing figures released last Thursday revealed a PSBR in excess of £32 billion, over 10 per cent. up on what was forecast just six months ago. Let us remember that only 18 months ago, in the Budget delivered in November 1994 which set the financial stage for 1995–96, the Government were forecasting a PSBR of just £21 billion. So borrowing is yet another growth area for this Government. For example, can the Minister tell the House exactly how much the national debt has increased since April 1992, the date upon which the present Administration took office?
However, even more interesting than the Government's addiction to debt are the explanations which the Treasury offered for this increase in the PSBR. In the Financial Times of 19th April, the Treasury is reported as admitting that a substantial part of the oversight was due to nearly £3 billion less in tax being collected than had been planned in the Budget. About half the shortfall in corporation and income tax receipts could, the Treasury declares, be explained by forecasting errors and lower than projected economic growth. But the Treasury could not account for the shortfall in VAT receipts; nor did it reveal what it intends to do about the VAT shortfall.
On top of that VAT shortfall, we must now add, as my noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, the bill for the refund of VAT which, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal yesterday, has been improperly levied on interest-free loans offered by retailers right back to 1973. The Paymaster General, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, is reported as saying that the Court of Appeal's decision could have "implications" for taxpayers. Can the Minister tell us just what those implications might be? More precisely, can the noble Lord tell the House exactly what is the Treasury's estimate of the taxpayers' liability if the decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House? Are estimates of a new £5 billion hole blown through the Government's finances accurate? If not, what is the accurate estimate? Further, what do the Government intend to do about the VAT shortfall and the extra VAT levies that they must now pay back?
We are well aware that VAT is the Government's tax of choice. The VAT junkies—the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the effects of addiction, and the Government are addicted not only to occasional inflation but also to VAT—can never come across a VAT rate without wanting to put it up. So how will they deal with their extra VAT bill?
It is particularly striking that the PSBR this year is £32 billion. Noble Lords will recall that that is just about the level of the PSBR which was contained in the Red Book of 1992, the Red Book on which the Government fought the 1992 election. We are all well aware that much of the Red Book is an elaborate work of fiction, but it is at least worth reflecting on the fact that, after four solid years of tax increases—increases in income tax, increases in VAT, increases in council taxes, new insurance taxes, new air travel taxes; an accumulation
1382
of tax burdens which, even after this Budget, has left the typical family £670 a year worse off—after all that extra revenue pouring into the Government's coffers, public borrowing is back exactly where we started.
Why should that be? With the share of taxation in national income higher than it ever was under a Labour Government and set to rise yet further, why should the Government still be piling more and more debt, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, on the backs of future generations? The answer, of course, was contained in the Treasury statements to which I referred earlier: the poorer than expected performance of the economy.
Since the Budget there has been a clear deterioration in the performance of the British economy. That was made abundantly clear in the latest CBI industrial trends figures published on Tuesday; and, indeed, in yesterday's retail sales figures and in today's figures on engineering output. The CBI reports that industrial output is down, that exports are down, that new orders are flat, that 16,000 industrial jobs have been lost in the last quarter, and that 11,000 more jobs are expected to go in the next quarter. On top of that, as your Lordships will be aware, investment fell by 5 per cent. in the last quarter of last year, after a year in which investment rates were running little above the dismal levels of the 1992 recession.
In the face of their persistent inability to secure a decent competitive increase in Britain's share of world trade, and their truly appalling record on investment, the Government fall back on the hope of a consumption boom to try to pull the economy out of recession, hoping that the liquidity produced by building society sell offs and maturing TESSAs will do the job that the Government are apparently incapable of doing.
Now that may happen. My noble friend Lord Desai has suggested that such factors may indeed produce growing demand this year. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has quoted on a number of occasions an article to that effect by my noble friend, but he has quoted it in a manner which clearly suggests that he has not read it. Had he done so, he would know that there is a sting in the tail of my noble friend's analysis. My noble friend points out that the only factors which are likely to give a boost to the economy this year are on the side of consumption—not investment or exports, but consumption. It is the familiar Tory road to economic ruin—a consumption boom. So even if there is an upturn this year, it will not be the sort of recovery that Britain needs which provides the secure foundations of competitive investment on which an economic future can be built.
But even that might not happen. Yesterday's numbers for high street sales show a very small increase. But why not? Why is the recovery not occurring? Why has the economic growth this year faltered? Why is investment stagnant and exports down? The CBI survey provides the answer: lack of confidence. It is lack of confidence in this Government's economic policies which lies behind the failure to invest. It is lack of confidence in this Government's economic policies which is leading to a haemorrhage of investment flowing out of Britain.

1383
The Government boast of the inflow of foreign investments into this country but fail to mention that that inflow is vastly exceeded by the outflow of investment from this country.
It is a lack of confidence among consumers. Consumers know that this Government's employment policy is a policy of insecurity. When you know that the Government are committed to making your job flexible, to reducing your security of employment, then you are naturally reluctant to make large expenditure commitments.
It is lack of confidence which is holding the British economy back—a lack of confidence in a Government who have consistently failed to produce an economic policy which will fit Britain for the challenges of the modern global economy. This Finance Bill is more of the same, entirely inadequate to the task of economic reconstruction which Britain needs.
This Government are a burden on the British economy. Their very presence in office is holding the British economy back. The conclusion is clear to all—one does not need to be an economist. No elaborate analysis is required. Sustained prosperity will not return until this Government go.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as usual in these matters, we have had an interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who thanked me for bringing forward the Bill today and for my opening speech in which I explained its provisions.
Perhaps I may begin on an equally pleasant note by saying that I read the Financial Times this morning. I am not sure whether this is true; I am not an entire believer in everything that I read in newspapers. But perhaps I should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am told that he is to take over as head of Queen's College, Cambridge, next year. I had better not speak of his economic career or I shall fall foul of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The article tells me that one of his perks is to live in the president's lodge on the banks of the River Cam in buildings dating from 1460. I have said previously to the House that I would not particularly like to have been a student of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, if I had read economics (which I did not do). But if the noble Lord wishes to entertain me and to give me a lecture about economics at dinner in the president's lodge on the banks of the River Cam, it might be an invitation that I should be unable to turn down.
However, as I congratulate the noble Lord, I find this fact interesting. This is a promotion for next year. He is looking after his career move next year. That suggests to me that he takes the same view as Members on this side of the House about the results of the next general election. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lord on his wisdom in looking into his crystal ball. I also congratulate him in all seriousness on his appointment.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, as usual, conjured up as bleak a picture as possible of the British economy. The time which elapsed between his description and that
1384
of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, meant that few noble Lords other than myself—I was taking notes—would relate the two speeches. I do not have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does not think much of economists; I believe that that message was received loud and clear by all the economists in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggested that we should cheer up: that we have substantial assets in our country. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, could take a little advice at least on that score from his noble friend.
I turn now to a number of matters raised by noble Lords. I begin with two points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which were not referred to by anyone else, as regards some of the detail in the Finance Bill. The first concerns loan relationships. I freely accept that those are not subjects about which popular television programmes would be made. The noble Lord suggested that we rushed the legislation and did not think it through. This is a major simplification of the part of the corporation tax code dealing with debt issued and held by companies. The reform has been widely welcomed. The clauses in the Bill were subject to wide consultation. They were well received and well supported by all sides in the Commons. Extensive government amendments in the Standing Committee, which the noble Lord criticised, sought to address all the major points made in representations on the detail of the proposal. As amended, I believe that this part of the Bill should not prove to be contentious.
As regards the self-assessment portion of the Bill, I take note of the noble Lord's advice to me not to put wagers on no other legislation being required. I believe that there is a difference between fine tuning and tranches of legislation—if I may slightly cover myself for the future.
The noble Lord referred to the figure of £850 million for 1998–99 in the Red Book. He suggested that it represented a hidden tax rise for the self-employed coming from self-assessment. The figure of £850 million in the Red Book is there mainly to cover the rises in profits which we expect to come between now and 1998–99 to be available for taxation at that time. It is not a measure of an increase that we expect to come from self-assessment but rather from increasing prosperity and success from this portion of business.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my intervention, perhaps I may ask a question on that. But, first, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words at the beginning of the speech.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has slightly misread his brief on the £850 million increase. It is due to an increase in profits taxation, not to a projected increase in profits. It is entirely due to the fact that profits will now be taxed on a current year basis instead of a past year. That raises profits taxation. It is not a projected increase in profits.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I said "mainly". I was about to say that profits from the self-employed are to be taxed, as I would expect the

1385
noble Lord to say, quite correctly, on a current year basis, just as employees are now, rather than on a previous year basis. Therefore tax has to be paid sooner. Since profits are assumed to be rising, there will be a cash flow yield to the Exchequer. I believe that we are nearly agreed on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised the point about the PSBR and the recent reports suggesting that the income from taxes is rather under the projections and therefore that the PSBR may be larger than projected. I wish to make a number of points. First, the PSBR is still on a downward trend. We see in the various figures that the Government's spending—it is an important aspect of the calculation which ends one up at the PSBR—is very close to budget forecast. We believe that continuing tight controls of that spending will ensure that the PSBR continues to come down.
As I think your Lordships know, we are considering why that undershoot has occurred. We shall consider with interest the conclusions of the group which is doing this work for us. My right honourable friends in the Treasury will then have to decide whether they need to take any steps to deal with any points that arise from the investigation into the reasons for the shortfall.
I have mentioned this point to the House on a previous occasion. On that occasion I was helped by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who gave me a clear and elegant economic description of what I was fumblingly trying to explain in more mathematical terms, and that is that the PSBR is the difference between two large figures, so, inevitably, the error in the PSBR is quite a large error every year, and has always been so for every government. Noble Lords should bear that in mind before they start to think that the end of the world has come as regards the PSBR.
Because it is the difference between two large figures, and one of those is Government expenditure—I listened, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he discussed this—if one wants the PSBR to be zero in a short period of time, and to balance budget, one has to do one of two things. Either one must increase taxes or one must cut expenditure drastically. Over the past three years we have attempted, and succeeded, in cutting government expenditure by a total of £53 billion.
From time to time in your Lordships' House I make suggestions for savings in the large Department of Social Security budget, and my noble friends make suggestions for savings in their budgets. I notice that we are not often met with support from the party opposite, but I do not complain about that, except to say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the party opposite does not seem to be prepared to accept that if we go down its road of not containing public expenditure, we would have to go down the noble Lord's road of increasing taxation. Indeed, three or four years ago when we were faced with a difficult situation we had to increase taxation, which is against our natural feelings. However, we felt we had to do that in the interests of the economy. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, approved of that. He might seek to give his Front Bench—both here and in the other place—
1386
lecture about the merits of that government policy because they do not seem totally to subscribe to it as they spend much of their time attacking us for having taken the difficult step of increasing taxation rather than see the PSBR expand further.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked me about the national debt. I suppose we move onto that subject quite naturally from PSBR. The net public sector debt rose to around 44 per cent. of GDP in 1994–95 from 27 per cent. in 1991–92. Of course there was a stage when we managed to repay part of that money in the late 1980s. However, it remains well below the level of 49 per cent. that we inherited in 1979. It is expected to fall back again in the years ahead, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will see if he looks at page 70 of the Red Book.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was concerned about rapid monetary growth although he was advised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that he should not worry too much about that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has a point there. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I agree that M0 and M4 are growing somewhat above their medium-term monitoring ranges, but there are other indicators that point to a much more subdued inflationary position. The Chancellor and the Governor take into account all the evidence before they decide the level of interest rates. I hope to return to the matter of inflation later. We expect it to remain low. We are enjoying the lowest run of inflation for almost 50 years. If the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is being advised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and myself not to worry too much about M0 and M4, perhaps that comforts him for the weekend at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the private finance initiative and the Government's own public sector capital spending. The PFI is not a device to reduce public investment; it is about harnessing private sector skills and making the Government the purchaser rather than the provider of public services. We believe that it will lead to better value for money. But, of course, by going down the PFI route one is also making substantial future commitments to buy services from the private sector. One has to take that into account when looking at the Red Book line on the public sector public expenditure position. We believe that the PFI is important, but I do not wish to delay your Lordships by giving many examples of PFI and how it is succeeding. For example, as regards my department, we hope shortly to announce a programme of co-operation between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Limited to shift from the rather antiquated method of paying benefits by books and giro cheques to one using plastic cards which we believe will be much better for all concerned. That is but one example of the benefits of the measure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I wish to discuss the landfill tax. Green taxes—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out when he said that he approved of them—are discussed in this country. We are aware of the need to look after our environment. That is particularly relevant in a small country such as ours. We are surrounded by fish, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, reminded us.

1387
We are a small country with a large population. In the main we are a densely populated country. It is important therefore that we look after our environment. As I said in my introduction, the landfill tax has been widely welcomed. It seeks to help us conserve our environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was worried about local authorities. They will benefit from the reductions in national insurance contributions. However, one cannot simply exclude local authorities from the tax because they use landfill sites a lot. They are principal waste tippers thanks to all of us and our consumption and our desire to have our dustbins emptied weekly. Therefore I do not think one can exclude local authorities from the landfill tax as that would send the wrong signal. But local authorities, like business—even those which use landfill sites heavily and dispose of much waste—must be sent a message that they must consider whether landfill is the best way to deal with their waste, or whether they can do more recycling and consider other ways (especially with regard to business) to reduce waste in the productive methods they use. This is a sensible tax and I hope it is one which will cause local authorities and business to sit back and think about the amount of waste they are disposing, how they can reduce it and whether they can recycle it.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked me about the family and income tax. That reminded me of the debate which my noble fried Lord Skidelsky introduced a few weeks ago. The figures all concern averages, but the most common type of family with children and two earners, one full-time and one part-time, with joint earnings of around £25,000 a year, will be £280 a year better off as a result of the tax proposals in the Budget, whereas taxpayers as a whole will, on average, be £190 a year better off. Looked at from that point of view, the results of the Budget would appear to be skewed in what I think the noble Lord would consider to be the right direction in favour of families.
The noble Lord also asked me about converting income tax into an expenditure tax. I understand that this is a favourite of some economists and theorists but these proposals begin to stumble on various practicalities, for example as regards what one does with savings and investment. Does one make those tax deductible? There are also questions as regards the tax rate one would have to charge. I believe I was reprimanded by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for being a VAT junkie. I suspect that if one were to shift to expenditure taxes, my dependence on VAT would increase considerably. These matters have to be balanced. There is a good argument for taxes on spending and that is why we in this country have gone over to VAT. However, as I said, the matters ought to be balanced.
I turn to one or two smaller, but still important issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Bruce and Lord Eatwell. They raised the matter of the court case reported today under the headline: "Vat man faces multi-billion pay-back". In the judgment handed down on 25th April the Appeal Court reversed, by a majority, earlier decisions by both the VAT tribunal and by the High Court. In this particular case the Appeal Court
1388
concluded that VAT had been incorrectly charged on interest-free credit provided by finance houses. Customs are appealing the decision to the House of Lords.
The amount of money at stake, as stated in the press reports, has been widely exaggerated, and was not provided by Customs and Excise. Businesses whose circumstances are the same as those of the appellant, Primback, in this particular case may wish to make claims for tax overpaid. Such claims, however, will have to be supported by appropriate evidence. Customs will provide guidance on that in due course.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about recent reports about school fees plans. The decision on this particular matter is one entirely for the Charity Commission Board under Section 3 of the Charities Act 1993. That Act gives a right of appeal against the commission's decision to the High Court. I understand that an appeal is likely in the case of at least one of the five institutions concerned. In the circumstances I am sure the House will understand that I am not able to discuss the merits of the commission's decision.
I will pass on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harrowby to my right honourable friends in the Treasury.
Perhaps I may address two final points. The first relates to unemployment, and was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I remind him that he, and we, ought to examine the international comparisons, as well as the position in our own country. The Government are very concerned about unemployment. We are very pleased, and I sometimes wish that Opposition spokesmen would sound as pleased, at the monthly decline in unemployment figures. They are now down by over three-quarters of a million from their high point in the recession that has now passed.
We are still not satisfied. Youth unemployment in particular is bad; although the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not mention that. I shall not use the figures that are used internally in the United Kingdom; namely, the claimant count; I shall use the international comparison figures, published by Eurostat. The last figures I have that provide those comparisons put the United Kingdom at 8.6 per cent. as regards unemployment. For Spain, the comparison is 22.6 per cent.; Italy 12.4 per cent.; France 11.6 per cent.; and Germany 9 per cent. In other words, the other big players are not doing nearly as well as we are.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to question him on this matter. Is he aware that the Eurostat figures are themselves based on figures provided by government? Is the noble Lord aware of a more detailed study by the Royal Statistical Society, a completely impartial body, which concludes that real unemployment is probably a million more than is stated in the current figures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have argued this point before. Of course the international figures are based on figures received from this country. However, they are not the same as the figures based on claimant count; they are based on different evidence, as

1389
well as claimant count, which comes through the three-monthly Labour Force Survey, which plays an important part in the compilation of these figures. It may not he the same report as that mentioned by the noble Lord, but one report I read recently stating that there was underestimation of unemployment in this country also earmarked exactly the same underestimation in most other countries. Therefore one has to take figures that are comparable, as these figures are. Quite simply, the position in this country is very much better than in most of our competitor countries in the European Community and indeed among all the big players.
Youth unemployment is a particularly serious matter. We are not good in that regard, and I have never pretended otherwise. It stands at 15.7 per cent. However, in Spain it is 41.8 per cent.; in Italy, 34.9 per cent.; in France, 27 per cent.; and the Germans do better, at 8.8 per cent. At 15.7 per cent., the percentage in this country is considerably below the countries quoted, except for Germany. We are trying to do our very best to tackle the problem in ways that are often explored across this Dispatch Box. The matter has to be viewed in an international context.
Le Monde recently commented:
"How does one interpret the incredible change in unemployment in Great Britain?"—
down, as I mentioned, by three-quarters of a million from its high point—
"If unemployment is dropping in Great Britain, it is because they have done everything to deserve it".
That says quite a lot from a French point of view about how successful we are being in coping with our unemployment problem.
The final point I wish to address is the matter of inflation, raised by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Cockfield quite rightly highlighted the question of inflation. He reminded the House of a question he asked me recently. I was grateful to him for appreciating that I accepted I did not know. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, then offered me some advice. I believe I went on to say that, as I found economists did not usually agree, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had offered me a totally agreed piece of advice. My doubt certainly turned out to be well founded. I asked three people in the course of the next two days, and received three or four different variations on the answer. They were sufficiently different to indicate that not everybody agreed on the matter. In addition, in March, for example, when we cut base rates, long-term interest rates increased around the world because of fears then about the strength of the US economy.
However, the real point that my noble friend raised related to the "drug" of inflation. He chided me for making inflation the last point in my short list. I assure my noble friend and the House that there was no pecking order in my list. It was done for the sake of elegance and all those other matters one takes into account when one writes a speech.
The battle against inflation is constant. It is never fully won. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, some of our European competitors are still doing better
1390
than we are; he is right. Nevertheless, we are below the European average, which at least is something. The noble Lord reminded us that others do better than we do and therefore, in the same way as I suggested we did better than others on unemployment, I must take the same lesson.
I assure my noble friend that the Government are determined to stick to their anti-inflationary policy. As I said earlier, we are enjoying the lowest run of inflation for 50 years. That helps our economy. We are being more open and transparent about the monetary framework. However, I assure my noble friend that the number one objective of the Government is to continue to bear down on inflation. Keeping inflation within its target figures is our top priority.
My noble friend made a very good point when he said that, in large part, the lack of a feelgood factor was due to the fact that for almost all his adult life the drug of inflation had been drip-fed to the British people. Getting people off the drug of inflation is just as uncomfortable as are the withdrawal symptoms from other drugs. However, I assure him that we intend to continue with the withdrawal programme.
This country has the lowest inflation for almost 50 years; we have the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years; the lowest mortgage rates for over 30 years; and, as I said, the lowest unemployment rate of any major European economy.
The Bill before the House today shows that we are committed to low taxation and a tax system that raises revenues in ways that do the least damage to the economy and encourage enterprise. The Government are not prepared to take risks with the recovery. We are making real progress towards our goal of making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. This Finance Bill ensures that the economy will continue to strengthen. It will improve incentives and boost enterprise. It is a Bill of action. It embodies our practices and our principles. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 16th April), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Trustee Investments (Division of Trust Fund) Order 1996
1.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for coming on again so quickly with another speech. However, noble Lords will be delighted to hear that this one is a good deal shorter than my two previous speeches.
I should explain that the second of the orders we are debating today, the charities order, revokes an earlier order made only last year, simply because the new trustee investments order before us today will cover all

1391
trustees, including charitable trustees. We shall thus have one order covering all trusts rather than two pieces of subordinate legislation.
The Trustee Investments Act 1961 extended the powers of trustees to make investments. The Act requires trustees who want to invest in shares to separate the trust fund into two parts, one of which must be invested in what the Act calls "narrower" investments and the other in "wider" investments. The first schedule, which has been amended over the years, sets out which forms of investment fall into the two groups. Broadly, "narrower" investments are fixed interest securities issued by public sector institutions and "wider" investments are a restricted range of shares listed on the stock exchange of countries in the European Economic Area.
The original Act required that the two parts that I mentioned should be equal in value when a trust fund was first invested. The order would change the ratio of 50:50 to 75:25, with trustees being allowed to use the larger part to buy "wider" range investments. My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced the Government's decision in a Parliamentary Answer on 21st November last year.
I should draw your Lordships' attention to two points. First, trustees are bound by the Act only if their particular trust deed does not itself define their powers of investment; or, of course, if the deed specifies that the trustees are to invest as the Act requires. Trusts which are formed without deeds, usually in the case of intestacies, must be invested as the Act requires. As your Lordships may know, almost all new trusts have their own powers which are often far wider than those contained in the Act. Secondly, the original division of a trust fund is a once-for-all event. So, over time, a fund may come to hold a much higher proportion of its assets in the form of shares than when it was first invested.
The 50:50 ratio has come under increasing criticism. The main concern has been that inflation has tended to erode the real value of the "narrower" range of funds. It has been argued that the interests of trust beneficiaries would have been better served if more of the assets were in the form of equity investments rather than gilts.
The Deregulation Task Force on Charities and Voluntary Organisations recommended in 1994 that the Trustee Investments Act should be reformed to widen significantly the scope of trustees' investment powers. Using powers under the Charities Act of last year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary changed the ratio for charitable trusts from 50:50 to 75:25 by an order which came into force in April last year. At much the same time, the Treasury published a consultation document proposing that that should be extended to non-charitable trusts. The Act does not allow the Treasury to go further than 75:25 by means of an order.
As the Government have already announced, we plan to consult widely on a more radical reform of the Act. I expect the consultation document to be published as planned by the beginning of next month. However, the Government decided that it would be wrong to allow the plans to produce a Green Paper to delay the useful, although limited, change before us today.
The proposal is widely supported by interested parties, and I hope that the order implementing it will similarly commend itself to your Lordships. I commend the orders to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these orders to your Lordships' House. I was intrigued that he argued that there needed to be change because of the impact of high levels of inflation on those trusts which have a relatively low ratio of investment in equity. I wondered whether he was sending us a signal about the Government's expectations about the inflationary impact of their policies.
It is also worth emphasising the point made by the Minister; namely, that the regulations will apply to small trusts, although there may be many of them, which do not define investment regulations within their own deed of trust. It is understandable that the Government should lay down a basic investment rule for those trusts which do not define the possible bounds of their investments. But if the Government believe that those ratios are appropriate, why are they not applied to all trusts? I appreciate that trustees must be approved. But if there is a rule of thumb which the Government feel is appropriate for trusts without an investment strategy embodied in their deed of trust, why does that not apply more widely?
That raises a wider and even more important issue concerning the position of trusts which invest predominantly in the shares of one company. The Baring Foundation, for example, was just such a trust. Is it appropriate that trusts should be allowed to follow that form of investment strategy which has nothing to do with the defined objectives of the trust and everything to do with the control of the company whose shares are held? It is essentially an anti-competitive strategy, blocking the possibility of proper competitive scrutiny of the management and operation of the firm by blocking potential takeover. It may reasonably be supposed that it was exactly that block to competition and to scrutiny which contributed to management complacency, and management failure at Barings, and to the consequential losses to the Barings bondholders.
Will the Minister tell the House whether he regards the investments strategies which concentrate on the shares of just one company as appropriate? Are they not highly risky? Are they not, as I explained, anti-competitive? Should not the investment strategy of all trusts be suitably diverse and suitably balanced?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a much wider point, which we would be unable to deal with in the kind of secondary legislation that is before us today. The original Act gives the Government only fairly limited powers to make changes.
The noble Lord made the quite correct point that most of the trusts affected by what we are doing today will be fairly small trusts. Most trusts have in their trust deed

1393
their own rules for the balance of investments. What we do today will only affect those trusts where that formula is not on their deeds.
The more general point raised by the noble Lord, who reminded us of the position of Barings and the Barings trust, where all the money was invested in the same company, takes the discussion a good deal wider. I note his points about anti-competitiveness and so on, but perhaps I may say to him that we are about to issue a consultative document and we intend to have a fairly lengthy consultation period. Indeed, it will be lengthier than we might perhaps have liked because the Summer Recess will intervene. That will make it a fairly long consultation period and everyone will have ample opportunity to give their views.
We are looking at more radical reform and perhaps the noble Lord, when he sees the consultation document, might like to respond to it along the lines of his worries. But these are complex issues and I should prefer to ask your Lordships to wait to see the detailed case set out in the consultation document that we intend to issue at the beginning of May.
The basic principle of trust law in England and Wales—that trustees must take the same care as an ordinary, prudent man would take, if he were minded to make an investment for the benefit of other people for whom he felt morally obliged to provide—forms the
1394
basis on which, we believe, trusts ought to work. We plan to build on that. If the noble Lord is content, perhaps I can invite him to await the consultation document and then he can respond and make the points that he made to me as part and parcel of the consideration that we will then give to what we do in this field in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities (Trustee Investments Act 1961) Order 1996
1.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before two o'clock.

  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Land Mines (International Ban)
  Land Mines (International Ban)
  Defence Minister's Remarks
  Defence Minister's Remarks
  Habitual Residence Test: British Citizens Returning from Liberia
  Habitual Residence Test: British Citizens Returning from Liberia
  Question for Written Answer, 15th April (Cost)
  Question for Written Answer, 15th April (Cost)
  Israel: Radio Report, 7th March
  Israel: Radio Report, 7th March
  Yahya Ayyash Assassination: Terrorist Operations
  Yahya Ayyash Assassination: Terrorist Operations
  The Gambia
  The Gambia
  Historic Scotland: Performance Targets
  Historic Scotland: Performance Targets