Sitting of 9 December 1996

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

    Civil Service (Impartiality)
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many statements he has made concerning the Government's policy in respect of impartiality in the home civil service. [6494]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am always ready to confirm the Government's commitment to a politically impartial civil service. I did so at the Dispatch Box just four weeks ago and I do so again today.
    Mr. Jones: Has not one of the principal victims of 17 years of Conservative Government been the home civil service? Have not the Government always attempted to bully and manipulate our civil service? Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell the House that in no way has he ever tried to bully or manipulate the Cabinet Secretary?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I realise that the Labour party has been out of power for a long time, but it grossly
    2
    underestimates the reserve and resilience of the British civil service if it thinks for one minute that it would be bullied or manipulated.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we are very fortunate in having an incomparable civil service in this country, nevertheless it has inflicted a number of wounds on itself in recent years by leaking?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole basis on which documents are now leaked is severely prejudicial to the good conduct of government in this country, and it is much to be deplored that it is encouraged and abetted ruthlessly and remorselessly by the Labour party.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not clear that the Government have been in office too long and that the widespread view, in all professions and at all levels, is that change is needed? Would that not also be a good signal and reassurance for the historical impartiality of the home civil service? The problem for the incoming Labour Government are the placemen and placewomen who have been put in charge of the quangos and who, overwhelmingly, are Tory friends and Tory plants.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If there were any validity in the idea that being in control for a long time demanded change, the first casualty would be Labour inner-city authorities, which have ruled their areas for much longer than we have ruled this country.

    London Docklands
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the purpose of his recent official visit to London docklands; and if he will make a statement. [6495]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I last visited London docklands at the end of September to open a new footbridge at West India quay. That marked another step forward in the regeneration of the docklands.
    Sir Michael Neubert: My right hon. Friend may be assured that he will always be welcomed as the architect

    3
    of London docklands development, for his part in the regeneration of east London and for redressing the imbalance between east London and traffic-congested Heathrow-dominated west London. Is he aware, however, that both the millennium project on the Greenwich peninsula and the proposed exhibition centre in the Royal docks will greatly benefit as potential sources of employment in the medium and long term from extra infrastructure, whether it be additional car parks to assist the river-road interface or an extra bridge crossing in the east of London? Will my right hon. Friend lend his good offices to progress in that direction?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. The regeneration of east London must be one of the largest and most successful regeneration projects anywhere in the world. The results are quite incredible. The number of people employed there has risen from 27,000 to 69,000; more than 170 km of new and improved roads have been built; there is 24 km of new railway; and there has been the creation of an inner-city airport. It is a remarkable tribute to the Government and was brought about and made possible only by removing the powers of inner London Labour authorities.
    Mr. Spearing: I share the view of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) in relation to transport infrastructure for public transport, particularly on the water, but I draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to Britannia village—the development opposite the exhibition centre at Victoria dock. Is he aware that of the 1,000 dwellings being constructed 75 per cent. are for sale and only 25 per cent. are for letting? The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for setting up the London Docklands development corporation. In view of the fact that the land was publicly owned and many of the relatives and descendants of those who worked in the docks are having difficulty finding rented accommodation, would it not have been more to his credit and, indeed, that of the Government if the proportion were nearer 50 per cent?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it would not. Such was the saturation by publicly owned and let accommodation that anyone wishing to buy accommodation had to leave, thus impoverishing the area. That was one of the reasons for the area's decline. In the years since its establishment, the London Docklands development corporation has created a better balance—though by no means a majority balance—to encourage young people who want to buy their own homes to stay in the area where they were born rather than leaving for more prosperous areas.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend mentioned London docklands and reference was made earlier to the Greenwich millennium site. Will my right hon. Friend give careful attention to the river's potential for transport and leisure, which presents terrific opportunities from central London to the centre of the universe at Gravesend?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that those matters are never far from my mind, but I must also bear in mind the fact that many people prefer to use other forms of transport and have not yet come around to
    4
    seeing river transport as their prime means of moving from one place to another. Such a change may be desirable, but this is a free society.
    Mr. Beith: What does the Deputy Prime Minister think would happen to investment in docklands and in similar areas—and to the financial services industry, which is well established in docklands—if Britain were on the outside of a functioning single currency? Is Britain's participation still a serious option for the Conservative Government, given the reaction of Conservative Members to what the Prime Minister said on Sunday?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend set out the advantages and disadvantages extremely clearly, and he made his personal position and that of the Conservative Government clear. After the election, the House and the country will realise that we shall carry those policies forward.

    Century Date Change (Computers)
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of the century date change on computer systems within the civil service. [6496]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Willetts): The effect of the century date change on computers is potentially a very serious issue for Government Departments, which we must address swiftly and thoroughly. A report from all Departments detailing the scope of the problem for each of them should be received in January. Every Department should have a costed plan in place by October 1997, and should have ensured full compliance of its systems, including testing, by December 1998.
    Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance. Does he agree that it will not be enough to ensure that the Government's own computer systems will be millennium compliant? What is he doing to ensure that systems in the private sector, with which the Government's systems are connected, are also safe? Will he give full support on Wednesday next week to my ten-minute Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill to ensure that all business computer systems will be safe in three years' time?
    Mr. Willetts: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts to improve understanding of this important issue. However, although the subjects to which he referred will be covered in our review to prepare for the year 2000, the Government do not believe that a new statutory requirement on businesses would be the right way forward.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have provisional figures been put on the cost of the necessary changes to computers by the millennium? Have the Government any idea what the cost will be? If so, have they built those costs into the Red Book projections?
    Mr. Willetts: Departments are assessing the costs of the so-called millennium bug, and we expect them to have

    5
    a fully costed programme to deal with the problem by October 1997. We cannot include costs when we do not yet know exactly what they will be.

    Civil Servants (Responsibilities)
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Cabinet Secretary to discuss the responsibilities of civil servants. [6497]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We meet to discuss civil service matters whenever necessary.
    Mr. Mudie: Will the Deputy Prime Minister place on record his regret at the two recent Government attempts to force civil servants to breach their political neutrality? Will he also convey to the Cabinet Secretary the thanks of the House for his prompt action to stop that happening?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as there is no validity in either of his suggestions, there is nothing for which to apologise. It does no good at all for the Labour party to try to undermine the credibility of our civil service and to think that the civil service would have any involvement in the politicisation of its activities. That is not compatible with Government policy and it is totally inconsistent with the high standards of the civil service.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is there not more than a whiff of cant in complaints about the politicisation of the civil service from a party which makes free and extensive use of leaked and stolen documents? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only example of such bullying of which I have been made aware in recent days has been the Leader of the Opposition's bullying of his own Members of Parliament when they dare to step out of line?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that there is a degree of hypocrisy which of course I deplore, and I deplore nothing more than the document from the Labour party's Campaign group, which suggested—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Come on!
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am coming on. That document suggested that Deputy Prime Minister's Question Time should be used to set the "sleaze agenda" and that, prior to my appearance before the Select Committee tomorrow,
    "we should publish a dossier of 'Hessergate' scandals."
    [Interruption.] I am only quoting from a Labour party document [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    If the House wishes to understand the lengths to which the Labour party is prepared to go, I will quote further. The document also states:
    "We should publish data on the 20 'sleaziest' quangos, i.e. those with the greatest number of Tory connected members."
    6
    It goes on to say:
    "These can then be presented as a 'random' selection."
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out, a degree of extreme humbug is represented by the Labour party.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that his co-ordinated group of privatised company cheerleaders has been forced to cancel its first rehearsal owing to lack of interest? And is that any wonder, given that up to 100 of his own Members of Parliament are refusing to support the Government's European policy in their election addresses? Is it not the case that the Tory party is a party that cannot be led, with a leader who cannot lead?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I see that the soundbite philosophy of the leader of the Labour party has now—some months later—percolated down to the deputy leader. I thought that we were talking about the behaviour of civil servants. Perhaps we should bear in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about a civil servant, as reported in the 29 November issue of the Financial Times:
    "I remind him that there is likely to be a change of government at the next general election and he must be careful that he does not become one of the Benefit Agency customers he is seeking to punish."
    I have never seen such a flagrant threat issued by a parliamentary Opposition to a civil servant—that if he did not kowtow to what is suitable for the Labour party he could be sacked if it won a general election.

    Juvenile Crime
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make representations to the Minister responsible for deregulation in the Home Office in respect of the extent of the bureaucracy involved in dealing with juvenile crime. [6498]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): The focus of the deregulation initiative is on legislation and procedures which affect the activities of the commercial and voluntary sector. However, the Cabinet Office has a continuing responsibility to ensure the minimum burden of paperwork throughout the public service. We have informed the Home Office and my ministerial colleagues of my hon. Friend's concerns.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the genuine concern following publication of the Audit Commission's report, which refers to the intense frustration felt by the Crown Prosecution Service and the police when dealing with juvenile crime? Of 7 million crimes committed by 10 to 17-year-olds, only 3 per cent. come to court, and for those cases to be dealt with 40 pieces of paper must be processed by the police. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is outrageous and that we must now try to introduce some common sense into the system?
    Mr. Freeman: In normal circumstances, when a juvenile offender makes a guilty plea, only five forms are

    7
    necessary, some of which are designed by the police for their own use. In other cases, there could be up to 10. I think that the Daily Mail article was exceptional and does not represent the realities of everyday life.
    My hon. Friend raises an important point, however. The process in the courts needs to be as simple as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), as Minister of State with responsibility for the police, are considering today the outcome of a review of paperwork on juvenile cases. I will convey my hon. Friend's concerns to them so that they can take them into account.

    Bolton Magistrates Court
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit the magistrates court in Bolton to discuss the appointment of new magistrates; and if he will make a statement. [6499]
    Mr. Freeman: In February this year, I appointed 18 persons to the Bolton bench. My advisory committee in Bolton is interviewing candidates for the list of recommendations for 1997.
    Mr. Thurnham: When can Bolton expect to see progress on its much needed new magistrates courts? Can the private finance initiative really deliver, or would it not be better to go back to the old system, when we were promised that the new magistrates courts would be built?
    Mr. Freeman: Many right hon. and hon. Members know the Bolton courthouse. It has an impressive facade, but not a very impressive interior. It is important that it should be rebuilt. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has confirmed that the private finance initiative is appropriate for rebuilding the courthouse. I am pleased about that, and I shall follow progress with great interest.

    Civil Servants (Numbers)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants were employed by the Government and by Government agencies at the latest available date; and what was the figure in May 1979. [6501]
    Mr. Willetts: When my hon. Friend asked me that question a year ago, the answer was that there were 506,000 civil servants—a reduction since 1979 of 31 per cent. There are now 487,000 civil servants—a reduction since 1979 of 34 per cent.
    Sir David Knox: That is a very creditable achievement. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there has been no deterioration in the service as a result of those reductions?
    Mr. Willetts: I am satisfied that there has been no deterioration in the service. Indeed, in many sectors our rigorous measuring of performance quality has raised the standard of service and recently we celebrated the improvements at the chartermark ceremony.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is it not therefore ironic that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget
    8
    speech that there would be additional appointments in Customs and Excise, the Health and Safety Executive and other areas, which he described as a "spend to save" package? Does that not show that over the past 17 years cuts have resulted in catastrophe?
    Mr. Willetts: The Budget's "spend to save" package was an important part of the Chancellor's programme for securing Government revenues, but it does not alter the fact that the Government are committed to reducing the size of the civil service while ensuring the highest possible standards of service to individual customers.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money for services provided by the Government is to test those services in the marketplace? Will he assure the House that the Government will press on full speed ahead to ensure that all aspects of Government are so tested and that there is less waste, therefore, in Government services?
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. Market testing is an important way of holding down civil service running costs. In a previous debate, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) announced that the Labour party would suspend all competing for quality initiatives—a spending pledge of £200 million per year, as those are the extra annual savings from our programme.

    Policy Co-ordination
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's co-ordination of policies as between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions. [6503]
    Mr. Freeman: The Government's policies are designed to benefit all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that in Yorkshire, due to pit closures and the loss of jobs and job opportunities, there is a serious lack of inward investment into my constituency and the Wakefield region? Is he further aware that as a result of the Government's policies the Yorkshire mining museum is under serious threat of closure, which would be a terrible disappointment to many of the mining communities, which would lose their culture? The imbalance between some regions is a serious problem. Will the Minister investigate the position in the Wakefield region, where inward investment is needed, and consider preserving the cultures and folklore of our communities?
    Mr. Freeman: There has been a tremendous increase in the flow of inward investment into the whole of the United Kingdom. There have, of course, been some very notable investments, particularly in the north-east and I was pleased to visit the rail freight terminal in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—or very close to his constituency—a year or two ago. On the specific question about the Yorkshire mining museum, I was unaware of that project. I will certainly look into the matter and, with the help of my right hon. Friends, write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. Dunn: As the question refers to the "English regions", does it not provide an opportunity for the

    9
    Minister to condemn completely the policy of regional government—which may well involve my constituency being governed from Guildford or Reading or, worse still, being taken into a revitalised Greater London council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which would be a nightmare for the people of north-east Kent?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as he has pointed out quite clearly the difference between the two parties. Not only have the Opposition promised a dozen or more referendums during any Parliament in which they happen to form the Government, but Labour is a party of regulation and not deregulation—which would mean new layers of government, not only in other parts of the United Kingdom, but in the English regions.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what ministerial visits he has made to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of recent Government policy.[6504]
    Mr. Willetts: None.
    Mr. Winnick: As the Tory parliamentary party is now in a state of open civil war, is it not perfectly understandable that such visits are not taking place? Is it not unfortunate that the poor old Chancellor is being targeted and witch hunted, day in and day out, by so many of his party colleagues? Bearing in mind what was said last Friday by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), is not the solution to give the British people a break and to have an early general election?
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is presiding over an economic recovery, which means that, for the fifth successive year, our economy is growing more rapidly than the French or the German economies. As for visits, all I can say is that, yesterday, the BBC visited Huntingdon, and it was a very successful visit indeed.
    Mr. Steen: Should not the Minister have visited Brussels? Had he done so, he could have said something about the waste management strategy and the fire regulations, which would put an additional £2 billion on to the price of running British industry. Should he not say something about that to the Commission in Brussels?
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend has a formidable record of campaigning on deregulation. On the fire regulations, I can assure him that, after the lengthy process of consultation that has been undertaken, they will not impose any significant extra burden on British business. No final decisions have yet been taken on waste packaging.
    Mr. Derek Foster: In his capacity as co-ordinator of Government policy, the Minister will be aware that clause 3 of the civil service code—introduced on 1 January 1996 by the Government, with all-party support—states that Ministers have
    "the duty not to use public resources for party political purposes".
    Is he also aware that I have tabled 18 questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Cabinet colleagues on the cost to taxpayers of the Chief Secretary's scare
    10
    over Labour's expenditure plans? Why has none of those questions been answered? What have the Government to hide? Is it that the Minister for open government, once again, is protecting the Chief Secretary—fellow of All Souls and master of sophistry?
    Mr. Willetts: The costings exercise was conducted entirely in accordance with the rules on propriety in the use of civil servants. If a Minister asks a factual question of a civil servant, a civil servant should answer it. The Opposition are so sensitive about this matter because the Chief Secretary identified 89 Labour spending pledges—costing £30 billion.

    Millennium Exhibition
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has to report on the private sector aspect of the financing of the millennium exhibition. [6506]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Good progress has been made in obtaining sponsorship beyond the core of original supporters, and leading UK companies have pledged support. Discussions with sponsors and potential sponsors are continuing.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless share my amazement that some companies—British and international—seem incapable of realising the opportunities offered by the millennium exhibition both per se and, less altruistically, in relation to the benefits that would accrue from their supporting it? In addition to the admirable efforts being made by him, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his colleagues' contacts with successful companies are harnessed so that the exhibition is the success that it deserves to be?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House realises the enormous opportunity for Britain in staking a claim to be the centre of world attention at the new millennium, and Greenwich could not be a more fitting home for that. A significant number of our leading companies have decided to support the festival, and many others are considering the situation. As the plans unfold, I have no doubt that the faith that has been shown in the project will increasingly be justified.
    Mr. Raynsford: The Deputy Prime Minister will know of the widespread support and enthusiasm felt in Greenwich and, indeed, throughout south-east London for the success of this most important venture. However, he will be aware of some press coverage suggesting that there may be difficulties in achieving a balanced budget. Is he able to inform the House whether, to his knowledge, Millennium Central will be in a position to present a balanced budget to the Millennium Commission later this week? If not, what further steps will he be taking to ensure that the project can be brought in on time and within budget?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will realise that it is an enormous project of huge significance to the immediate beneficiaries—the Greenwich community—but also one which has necessarily had to unfold in a

    11
    complex arrangement involving many different public and private sector organisations. The Millennium Commission will be considering the position this week. I very much hope that it will be able to make a favourable judgment, but it will have to take into account a range of submissions put to it by many organisations.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us strongly support the millennium exhibition, which is of great national importance and will confer tremendous benefit, but that at the same time many of my constituents hope that matching finance will not be found for 10 pinnacles along the River Thames between Kew and Hampton Court, called millennium markers, which would be hideous monstrosities that hardly anybody wants and which were not adequately consulted on by the local authorities concerned, namely Richmond, Hounslow and Kingston? I hope that matching finance will not be found and that that idea will be dropped.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As always, I will bear in mind very carefully what my hon. Friend has to say. However, I must point out that the focus of attention at this juncture in history is on the festival itself.

    Government Departments (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent review he has undertaken of his Department's effectiveness in the co-ordination of Government Departments. [6508]
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister keeps this under continual review.
    Mr. Grocott: On the co-ordination of policy on Europe, is it still the Deputy Prime Minister's position—a position that he explained repeatedly over the weekend, apparently without even blinking—that on Europe the Government are "one big happy family" and that any suggestion to the contrary is just malicious rumour drummed up by the press? To reassure those of us who are sceptical about that explanation, may we have one or two examples of warm messages of support for the Chancellor's position from the Secretary of State for Social Security, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Willetts: The weekend was illuminated by public remarks from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security, and they were all entirely in harmony with one another. If we are going to play this game of political happy families, it is the Opposition whose divisions on Europe should be investigated.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Perhaps my hon. Friend could persuade other Ministers to travel around the country a little more and co-ordinate their actions as they present Government policy, talking to employers and employees about the dreadful prospects for the country should the Labour party ever be elected to Government—dreadful prospects on issues such as the minimum wage, the social chapter, regulation and bureaucracy and, of course,
    12
    Europe. With their comrades in arms, the Liberal Democrats, a Labour Government would sell out Britain's sovereign powers to the ever-burgeoning Brussels.
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. Unemployment stands at 4 million in Germany and at 3 million in France, but it is down to 2 million here because of the success of our policies. For reasons that we cannot fathom, the Labour party seems to imagine that imposing the social costs and regulations that exist on the continent would enable us to improve our performance. That would just give us the levels of unemployment that countries on the continent suffer. The electorate will have to decide which party can best fight for Britain's interests in Europe at the Amsterdam European Council next June.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    International Aid Co-operation
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had over the setting up of an international association for non-governmental organisations in relation to the delivery of overseas aid. [6518]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): There have been no recent consultations over the establishment of an international association for non-governmental organisations. A number of NGO groupings already exist within the European Union and the United Nations system, as well as for British NGOs.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will delight in the admirable work done by so many agencies around the world in places where strife causes terrible humanitarian and medical suffering. So much has been achieved that it may seem churlish to suggest that international aid agencies could deliver their aid more efficiently and with greater accountability. Will my hon. Friend again examine the merits of setting up an international aid co-operation body to ensure that aid is delivered as efficiently as possible, to reduce suffering around the world, bearing in mind that that is the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent?
    Dr. Fox: We are constantly in dialogue with the NGOs. As I have said, there are a number of organisations in Europe and beyond. As independent organisations, it is for NGOs to monitor and evaluate their own performance to ensure that they remain cost-effective. It is not necessarily a matter for Governments.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Have the non-governmental organisations expressed a view on the Government's announcement, made at 2 pm today, of withdrawal from the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation? In international politics, is it not better to seek to reform institutions rather than to withdraw from them? I thought that that was the message in the Prime Minister's interview yesterday.
    Dr. Fox: Naturally, in the hour and seven minutes since the announcement, I have had no representations from the

    13
    NGOs, which, unlike the hon. Gentleman, have probably not had time to digest the information. The Government must ensure that they get value for money from any organisation they are in. If UNIDO reforms itself and is seen to offer better value for money in achieving its aims, the Government may reconsider their position. However, that is some way down the road, because we do not currently believe that it is fulfilling the criteria set out in advance.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my hon. Friend think that most of Britain's overseas aid can be delivered more effectively through bilateral arrangements, or does he believe that multinational organisations, such as the European Union or the United Nations, should be the main engine for getting the most help to the people who need it most? Given our record, surely bilateral aid has an important role in ensuring that the poorest people get the aid.
    Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend will not be surprised that the Government believe that our bilateral aid programme is better than that of many others. That is why, in this year's public expenditure survey round, our bilateral aid budget has been protected. I can confirm to the House that we expect the planning figures for the bilateral aid programme for the next three years to be no lower than the comparable figures published last year. Indeed, we expect them to be moderately higher.

    South Africa
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking within the current financial year (a) bilaterally and (b) within the Commonwealth and the European Union to assist the development of South Africa. [6519]
    Dr. Liam Fox: We expect to provide bilateral development assistance of around £20 million this year, mainly in the form of technical assistance, together with a further £15 million through the European Community. We have jointly funded projects with both the European Commission and the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Anderson: Although our development assistance to South Africa is much valued and highly appreciated, does the Minister agree that, in many ways, access to European markets is even more important and that there is a yawning gulf between the profession of support for South Africa by many of our European partners and their crass protectionism in practice—for example, that of the Dutch in cut flowers, and generally in agricultural products? Will he continue to act as the advocate of South Africa in European Union circles and be ready to embarrass our partners for their failure in that respect?
    Dr. Fox: The Conservative party is never afraid to be isolated in Europe on free trade or any other issue, and I am pleased to hear from the Euro-sceptic pro-free trade wing of the Labour party. It is extremely important for developing countries to have access to free markets. We believe that free trade and the encouragement of competition in a developing market are the best ways for any country to achieve long-term, sustainable prosperity.
    14
    I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that, in current negotiations with the European Union, we should be seeking not just rhetoric from our European partners, but action to back up what we sought in the first place—proper access to the European market.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Although I support aid to South Africa, we should ensure that it is not at the expense of the rest of southern Africa. Obviously, what happens in South Africa impacts on its neighbouring countries, such as Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we consider southern Africa and not simply South Africa?
    Dr. Fox: The aid to South Africa and to other southern African countries is certainly not mutually exclusive. As my hon. Friend knows from our conversations—I am aware of his interest in the subject—we give substantial bilateral aid to Africa. Indeed, three quarters of all bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries. Therefore, we are very well aware of the points that he has raised.

    Central Africa (Refugees)
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about aid for refugees in central Africa. [6520]
    Dr. Liam Fox: Since January, the UK has committed more than £7 million bilaterally to address refugees' needs in the great lakes region. It remains our aim to encourage the safe, voluntary return of refugees to their homes. We are prepared to continue to help meet urgent needs as they arise.
    Mr. Booth: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the crisis in central Africa illustrates the complexity of aid and that the only way to understand the success of the Government's aid programme is to aggregate not just the money, but the help provided to charities, the debt rescheduling and the humanitarian military aid?
    Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many different facets to aid. Let me add one that he did not mention: the ability to provide adequate information in crises. As has been mentioned in the House, the problem in the great lakes region has been bedevilled by a lack of information. My hon. Friend may wish to join me in paying tribute to the Canberra, which has provided such valuable information on the refugee crisis in that part of the world.
    Ms Short: Does the Minister agree that the real lesson of the tragedy in Rwanda and Zaire is the failure of the world community to take preventive action? The backing of World Bank and International Monetary Fund programmes has impoverished Rwanda and exacerbated ethnic tensions. May we have an undertaking from the Minister that, now that the cameras have moved away, long-term action will be taken to help refugees resettle, assist survivors of the genocide and bring those who are guilty of war crimes to trial? Can he explain why, in the face of all that need, the Government have cut their aid budget yet again? When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, overseas aid represented 0.52 per cent. of gross

    15
    domestic product; it is now down to 0.24 per cent. Only 14 per cent. of that is spent on direct poverty alleviation. Is the explanation that aid follows the sale of arms, as appears to happen in Indonesia?
    Dr. Fox: As I cannot debate the matter at length, I cannot correct the hon. Lady's figures one by one. She will welcome the new £10 million commitment announced by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 20 November which was designed to assist with resettlement and the immediate needs of refugees. That is extremely important.
    If there is a lesson for the international community in Rwanda and the great lakes, it is that any settlement must originate from the region; it cannot be imposed from outside. We welcome another conference being set up with the countries concerned. The world community cannot impose a settlement in the great lakes region; it has to come from the countries and the communities involved. Historically, outside involvement in the area does not work. A settlement needs to be found locally.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the situation in Zaire in respect of overseas aid; and if he will make a statement. [6521]
    Dr. Liam Fox: The situation remains very unclear. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports about 250,000 refugees and displaced persons, about 75 to 100 km west of Lake Kivu, but substantial numbers of refugees remain unaccounted for.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does the Minister agree that priority should be given to reconstruction in Rwanda itself, in view of the half a million or more Rwandan refugees still in Tanzania and elsewhere?
    Dr. Fox: Yes, and we have committed a substantial amount of aid for that purpose. We have committed more than £145 million bilaterally and in support of EU actions in the great lakes region since 1993. Our aim is broadly in line with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—in fact, I shall be visiting Tanzania in four weeks and I shall make those very points.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the fact that good government is the criterion for much of the giving of British aid, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to press home the importance of good government to the Governments of Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire?
    Dr. Fox: The Government, directly and through other organisations, make the question of good governance plain. Since my hon. Friend asks, there are four aspects to that: legitimacy, accountability, competence and respect for human rights and the rule of law. I am sure that the whole House is extremely aware that all those aspects have been called into question by recent events in the great lakes. The Government—and, I am sure, every democratic politician—take every opportunity to make those points to the Governments concerned.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will know, from his medical background, that example is better than instruction. He also knows that the people who are now
    16
    refugees in that general area, irrespective of the borders, need help with the diseases that are killing them, such as dysentery. Those are straightforward diseases that could easily be dealt with. How much urgency lies behind the Government's real commitment?
    Dr. Fox: There is, of course, a great deal of urgency. As I have said, we have committed a further £10 million in new assistance; but we are talking about the great lakes, not about Surrey, and one of our problems is getting access to the refugees and to some of the areas involved. For example, we have only recently—on 4 December—regained access to Uvira, and we expect the United Nations team to report back to us later today. When we have that information, we will be able to act.
    The hon. Lady is well aware that, to try to take precipitative action, without knowing exactly what we are dealing with—what numbers are involved, where the people are and what conditions they are kept in—is completely pointless. When I stood at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago, we were talking of the possibility of tens or hundreds of thousands of people dying because of the conditions in which they were living. Happily—to the surprise of all hon. Members, I am sure—the refugees turned out to have been in substantially better medical condition than many had feared.

    United Nations Aid Target
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effects of the Budget on the Government's plans to reach the UN target for aid expenditure as a proportion of gross national product. [6522]
    Dr. Liam Fox: Our position on that target is unchanged. We have agreed to move towards it, but not to a timetable for doing so. Levels of development assistance will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and other demands on public expenditure.
    Dr. Jones: Does not the Budget represent the latest in a series of cuts in the overseas aid budget, so that it is now expected to be only about 0.25 per cent. of gross domestic product—even less than the Irish aid budget? I remind the Minister of the explicit acceptance in the Conservative party manifesto for the 1992 general election of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. Does that not represent the latest in a series of Government failures to honour their manifesto commitments?
    Dr. Fox: I find that breathtaking, since the Labour party has not come forward with a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent., unless the deafening silence from Opposition Front Benchers is about to change. This country has more than met the other UN target—to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) did not refer—for combined private and official flows; we are at 1.38 per cent. [Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers scoff, but it makes no difference to those who receive aid whether the aid comes from the public purse or private flows. What matters is that they get the money for development. The unreformed left of the Labour party that I face this afternoon hates private money and would

    17
    rather see those who receive aid doing without the money than getting private money. Only the Netherlands exceeds the United Kingdom in the ability to provide private and public flows of money, and that is a record of which this Government are proud. The only appetites fed by soundbites are those of the media, not the hungry.
    Mr. Nicholls: The Government are paying out substantial sums of money and many of my constituents will think it rather odd that such sums, which might be spent in Teignbridge, are nevertheless derided by Opposition Members. A pledge has apparently just been made to increase the amount of money that a Labour Administration would pay; can my hon. Friend say how much that pledge might amount to?
    Dr. Fox: I am not that sure that, given my previous answer, that is something my hon. Friend wants to go into, because both parties are committed to moving towards 0.7 per cent., as has been pointed out already. The Opposition deride private money for some reason, yet it is private money that has been the motor for expansion of the developing economics. That is something we understand.
    Ms Short: In Africa.
    Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady says, "In Africa." That is exactly why we have targeted money, through our bilateral budget, on Africa and Asia. We know those countries are the poorest and that is why we have protected them in this year's Budget settlement. That is what the Opposition cannot stand.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the impact on the resources of the NAO of the repeated qualification of Department of Social Security votes and accounts. [6528]
    Sir Terence Higgins (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office's resources and procedures for certifying accounts provide for qualifying the certificate when necessary. Qualification involves additional costs for the NAO, including, for example, preparation and agreement with the Comptroller and Auditor General of reports on the accounts and consequent hearings of the Public Accounts Select Committee. However, as it is several years since the accounts all received unqualified certificates, the additional costs of qualification are not readily identifiable.
    Mr. Mudie: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, since its inception eight or nine years ago, the income support vote has not once been cleared by the auditors. Despite that, and the yearly attendance at the Public Accounts Select Committee by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, nothing seems to change, except the excuses given. How many more times will the Select Committee and the auditors have to go through that
    18
    exercise, costing the taxpayers billions of pounds, before someone is brought to account over that continuing and repeated shortcoming?
    Sir Terence Higgins: I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate on 16 October and I understand his concern. He will realise, of course, that that is a matter not for the commission but for the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Department. None the less, I have no doubt that the expenditure that the National Audit Office devotes to that problem and the work it is doing are worth while. I hope that that will eventually result in the hon. Gentleman's concerns being met more fully than they have been in the past.
    Mr. Steen: Would it not be a good idea to have targets for reducing the amount of bureaucracy in all Government Departments, including the Audit Commission, not just for skilled and semi-skilled workers but for unskilled workers? If the Government are committed to reducing the civil service, should not the Audit Commission be committed to reducing the number of bureaucrats?
    Sir Terence Higgins: I am not clear exactly who my hon. Friend means when he refers to the Audit Commission. He may mean the Public Accounts Commission, which has very little bureaucracy—as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will confirm. That is one of many aspects that the NAO has looked into, and it is important that it should do so.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff with no professional accountancy qualifications are employed by the National Audit Office; what proportion this represents of the total staff; and if he will make a statement. [6529]
    Sir Terence Higgins: The NAO employs some 728 staff. Of these, there are 419 qualified audit staff, 64 qualified accounting technicians and 98 people training for professional qualifications, making 71 per cent. of the total. It is important to note that a number of the remaining 29 per cent. have technical qualifications in other areas—for example, economics and operations research.
    Mr. Greenway: In making evaluations of, say, education or a Government Department, is the NAO qualified to make judgments on policy, as it did recently on education and the running of schools? Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us are puzzled that, in the middle of a financial evaluation, the NAO can make strong criticisms of the way in which schools are run? What does the NAO know about it?
    Sir Terence Higgins: A considerable number of accountants are involved, but there are also a number of experts in other disciplines—including, I think, education—who can look at the matter, given the responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO for education.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current acreage of the agricultural portfolio administered by the Church Commissioners. [6530]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): At 31 December 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the Church Commissioners' agricultural portfolio comprised 137,185 acres.
    Mr. Banks: That is an awful lot of acres, and I am sure that my constituency would fit easily into that area. What is the attitude of the commissioners towards fox hunting on their land? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of St. Luke and the five sparrows sold in the market for two farthings—
    "not one of them is forgotten before God".
    What does God think about the fox that is hunted to death? Ecclesiastes states:
    "a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."
    Given the fact that the Bible is quite clear that the destruction of animal life is anathema to the Lord, will the right hon. Gentleman—who obviously has the only hotline to God in this place—tell the commissioners to stop hunting on their land, otherwise their souls will be damned?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should reflect that, nowadays, we also have the urban fox. My advice is that he should get hold of a red coat, a nice black top hat, a handy and reliable donkey, a pack of old mongrel hounds and a nice ouzo stirrup cup and sound the tally-ho in Newham, North-West in pursuit of the urban fox, and stop worrying about the shire foxes.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not know the difference between a fox and a badger? Is he also aware that there are many fine examples of hunters in the Bible? Will he recite the legend
    20
    of St. Hubert to the hon. Gentleman? Will he ensure that the Church of England remains—at the very least—neutral on this subject?
    Mr. Alison: I can assure my hon. Friend about the last point. Fox hunting has a great many proponents and a great many opponents, and the balance has to be properly struck. That is why we leave decisions on fox hunting entirely to our tenants and do not attempt to overrule their preferences. I am glad to know of the affection of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for cats, as I understand that he is doing his best to preserve the lives of cats in the Greek islands. I very much hope that he is successful in that worthy, commendable and almost divine enterprise.

    Clergymen's Widows (Pensions)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last reviewed the level of pensions paid to the wives of deceased clergymen. [6531]
    Mr. Alison: Levels of pension benefit for both the clergy and their widows or widowers are reviewed every year at the commissioners' annual general meeting. The revised rate agreed at this year's AGM in June takes effect from 1 April 1997, when the full basic rate of a widow's or widower's pension will rise by 3.5 per cent. to £5,890.
    Mr. Cohen: When did the Church Commissioners last review the pensions and widows' entitlement for clergy who have served overseas? I understand that many people lose entitlement by ministering overseas. I am told that there even had to be a whip-round among the clergy for one bishop who had died. Have the Church Commissioners examined the position, and will they act on it and put some proposals before the House?
    Mr. Alison: I have certainly never received any correspondence or complaints about the level of pensions for clergy serving overseas; in nearly every case, that is because they serve with a properly funded charitable society that would be responsible for developing and maintaining a pension for them.
    Most clergy spend a period of their time in the parochial stipendiary ministry and then change for a time to some other engagement—for example, overseas. The period spent in the stipendiary ministry will entitle them at least to a partial retirement pension. However, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence of hardship, I shall certainly consider it.

MADAM SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about tomorrow's debate. The estimates day debate on the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service, etc., was incorrectly reported as being class XVIII instead of class XVII. As a result, the wrong motions were printed. The correct motions have now been printed and are available in the Vote Office. I confirm that the subject of tomorrow's debate, as announced in Thursday's business statement, is access to Government information.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In a democracy, politics and violence do not mix. Arms and explosives, illegally held and illegally used for political purposes, have for long bedevilled the politics of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, the lives of its people. They have to be removed from the scene. It is tempting to say that they must be eradicated. It is true that the police services on both sides of the border will continue to root them out where they can.
  I believe that the whole House will wish to pay a warm and grateful compliment to the outstanding recent successes of both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Vast potential for murder and destruction has been discovered, but it is unlikely that all the lethal weapons and other munitions in existence will be uncovered. In any case, time is very short, for the influence that those armaments continuously exert, even from their hiding places, obstructs the full success and, indeed, even the progress of the political process in which most of Northern Ireland's parties are engaged, together with the two Governments.
  Expressed briefly, the natural fear is that the armaments are held on to in order that one day they may be used. Otherwise, what is their purpose? If that were correct, it would not be compatible with the exclusive commitment to peaceful methods and to the democratic process that is rightly required of all who seek in this democracy to negotiate its future. If that is judged to be absent in any party, no matter that it be an elected one, others will not sit at the table with it.
  That is why such armaments have to be removed. That much almost everyone is agreed on: it is the easy bit. It gets harder when it is recognised that, illegal though it is to hold them, the yielding up of those armaments will be done either voluntarily or not at all. Therefore, to secure the best prospect of having them dealt with so that they are for ever out of harm's way, it is necessary to put in place a more sophisticated scheme than many would like.
  I acknowledge that; but to those who bridle at the notion of helping terrorists to decide to get rid of their weapons, I offer this thought. A weapon which, in accordance with any such scheme, is taken out of commission can never kill in the future, as it may have killed in the past. A weapon which is retained in terrorist hands may well kill again, unless it is seized by the security forces before it can do so, which cannot be ensured.
  No scheme of any kind can be constructed without a downside. But the thought that I have offered is the justification for seeking to put a well-judged scheme in place. That is the view of the Government; and we are fortified in that view by the international body, set up by the British and Irish Governments, when it reported in January this year.

  23
  The body's remit was to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue, and to report on the arrangements necessary for the removal from Irish politics of illegal arms. Chaired by Senator George Mitchell, working with former Prime Minister Holkeri and General de Chastelain, the body received oral and written submissions from each Government, from political representatives from all parties, from church and community leaders and many others.
  Following careful examination and consideration of the issue, the body published its report on 22 January this year. I shall call it from now on the Mitchell report. It noted that
  "everyone with whom we spoke agrees in principle with the need to decommission",
  and that differences in timing and context should not obscure
  "the nearly universal support which exists for the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."
  Her Majesty's Government's position on decommissioning is squarely based on the Mitchell report, which we fully endorse. We agree with the report's conclusion that decommissioning must continue to be a principal objective, and that it should receive a high priority in all-party negotiations.
  The Mitchell report can be seen as falling into two parts—for this purpose at any rate. The first examines the question when decommissioning should take place. The second deals with how it should take place. But this Bill is germane only to the second part of the report. It is an enabling Bill. Its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to give effect to Mitchell's recommendations as to how decommissioning will take place, at whatever time or stages may be decided.
  The latter issue is, of course, of crucial importance. It is currently occupying the parties and Governments taking part in the political talks, which have been in progress since 10 June.
  Strong views, as I am well aware, are properly held on every side. I do not intend today to seem to pre-empt, or even comment on, the negotiations. They are at an important stage at the present moment. I hope and believe that it will possible to reach a conclusion before Christmas.
  I can, however, say that all the participants want to see the total and verifiable decommissioning of all paramilitary arms at the earliest possible moment. Whatever may be finally agreed about that, however, there will be a need for a mechanism and a structure to enable decommissioning to be achieved. They also all support the guidelines on the modalities of decommissioning set out in the Mitchell report. I am sorry about the word "modalities"; it really means the ways in which decommissioning can be carried out.
  Since talks recommenced in September, after the break, it has become increasingly clear to both Governments that there was a need to introduce legislation to provide a firm statutory basis for decommissioning. Such legislation would be based firmly on the guidelines contained in the Mitchell report and would provide a context in which further discussion on decommissioning could progress.
  24
  So the Bill now before the House is, in parallel with proposed legislation which I understand the Irish Government intend to introduce very soon, designed to provide a statutory foundation for decommissioning, and the secure context in which discussions on decommissioning can move forward.
  Before I turn to the clauses of the Bill, when I shall relate them to the Mitchell report, I hope that it will be helpful to explain the general approach that we have adopted in framing the Bill. This approach is also, I understand, to be adopted in the draft Irish Bill.
  This Bill is intended to reflect, and enable effect to be given to, the six principles underlying the detailed guidelines which Mitchell has provided in paragraphs 39 to 50 of the report. Those were that the decommissioning process should: first, suggest neither victory nor defeat; secondly, take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission; thirdly, result in the complete destruction of armaments in a manner that contributes to public safety; fourthly, be fully verifiable; fifthly, not expose individuals to prosecution; and, sixthly, be mutual.
  Central to the Bill is the concept of a tightly defined and narrow amnesty. It will be available only to those who adhere to the strict terms of a decommissioning scheme, and only for offences that they technically commit in respect of anything done in accordance with such a scheme. Those offences are specified in the schedule. They are mainly of a possessory character.
  The Bill's provisions in no sense constitute some form of general amnesty covering other offences: the security forces will go on with undiminished resolution pursuing and bringing to justice those responsible for other crimes, irrespective of when or under what circumstances they were committed.
  An independent commission forms a further important element of the Bill, but it will not be established by the Bill. Rather, it will come into being on foot of an international agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That agreement will set out in clear terms the role and nature of the commission, and how it is to be constituted.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: With regard to the international commission, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is merely a technical commission and that it will never make political judgments?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The international commission's role will, like most other things, depend on what may be agreed in the course of the negotiations. Its purpose is to provide a means by which the process of decommissioning can be structured, supervised and implemented. Its full role, however, will depend on what is agreed, and that is a sensible basis for it at present.
  The Bill has 11 clauses and one schedule. Clause 1 defines the term, "decommissioning scheme", for the purposes of the Bill; generally, it is a scheme made by the Secretary of State to facilitate the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. The decommissioning scheme will be administrative in nature, allowing for simplicity of wording so that everyone involved in the decommissioning process is entirely clear as to what is required in order to act in accordance with the scheme.

  25
  That approach has the benefit of flexibility. It maximises our ability to make, amend, withdraw or replace a scheme with the minimum possible delay in the light of the situation on the ground, as it may develop.
  Clause 2 requires that the amnesty period during which firearms, ammunition and explosives may be dealt with in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, must be identified in the scheme. It also deals with its duration, in the first instance providing that it shall expire one year after the date when the Act is passed, but conferring power to extend the maximum duration for periods of up to 12 months, subject to express parliamentary approval, up to a maximum of five years from the date when the Act is passed.
  Clause 3 requires a decommissioning scheme to make provision for one or more specified ways of dealing with firearms, ammunition and explosives, while allowing the scheme to make provision also for others. The ways specified in clause 3 reflect the decommissioning methods identified in Mitchell's report.
  Clause 4 and the schedule give effect to Mitchell's recommendation that
  "the decommissioning process should not expose individuals to prosecution".
  It provides for an amnesty from prosecution for those who commit offences specified in the schedule, but only by virtue of anything that they do when acting in accordance with a decommissioning scheme.
  Clause 5 limits the use in evidence of information obtained as a result of a decommissioning scheme, and gives effect to paragraph 48 of the Mitchell report in this respect. It provides that, in criminal proceedings, a decommissioned article shall not be admissible in evidence, nor shall evidence be admissible of information derived from it, or of anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, or of any information derived therefrom. The restriction does not apply, of course, to proceedings for any offence alleged to have been committed with an article that had already been decommissioned at the time that the offence was committed, nor to evidence sought to be adduced on behalf of the accused.
  Clause 6 gives effect to the forensic testing recommendation of Mitchell. It prohibits certain tests and procedures in relation to decommissioned articles. But tests and procedures for safety and verification purposes are excluded from the prohibition, and so are tests or procedures in connection with the investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed after an article has been decommissioned.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The effect of clauses 5 and 6, but especially clause 6, is presumably to permit someone who has committed an offence with a weapon to dispose of the weapon from an evidential point of view by putting it into the decommissioning system. Whereas one might see justification for that in the overall objective—that is what an amnesty requires in order to be effective—is the amnesty permanent, or when the five-year period is up, if there is a return to violence, will it then be possible to re-examine the weapon to see whether it can assist in clearing up crimes that have been committed?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The scheme is self-contained and its purpose
  26
  is as expressed. It will last for five years. It will not be possible retrospectively to take advantage of whatever evidence might be available after the expiry of the scheme. That is my understanding; in case there is anything to add to my answer, I shall ask the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to deal with it in winding up.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the purpose is to enable someone who commits a possessory offence at the very least, by reason of his possession of an illegally held weapon, to come forward and to deal with it in one of the four ways specified in the Bill, without the risk of being prosecuted for the offence of possession, of which he would give evidence by virtue of coming along to the relevant place to take advantage of the scheme.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the case of a person who has committed a crime with a weapon that has been decommissioned, although any evidence culled from an examination of that weapon would be inadmissible, it would not debar the same person from being prosecuted on the basis of other evidence, such as eye witnesses to the commission of the crime?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am happy to confirm that the hon. and learned Gentleman's understanding is correct. The sole purpose of the amnesty provided for in the Bill is to prevent the technical offence of possession from being prosecuted, arising as it does by the action that is taken in accordance with the scheme. As a simple illustration, if there is a place at which articles must be dumped, someone who comes along carrying a pound of Semtex is not to be prosecuted by virtue solely of having had it in his possession at that time.
  Mr. Beith: I am sorry to press the Secretary of State, but I think he may be understating the effect, justified though it may be. The forensic provisions prevent any examination of the weapon from which it might be established that it had been used in a succession of crimes. A great deal of Royal Ulster Constabulary time could be wasted in trying to clear up those crimes, in the absence of that evidence.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: That, too, is correct.
  Clause 8 makes provision for decommissioning schemes in respect of arms, ammunition and explosives in England and Wales, and Scotland. It provides power by order to provide that any scheme made by my right hon. Friends to facilitate the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives, whether in England and Wales or in Scotland, and which includes provisions satisfying the requirements of clauses 2 and 3, shall be a decommissioning scheme for the purposes of the Bill, provided that it is also made for purposes relating to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
  I have introduced that into the Bill in order to meet the understandable sensitivity of those who saw an entirely unintended possibility that somehow it was considered less important to bring people to justice in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales or in Scotland.
  Such an order may substitute for any offence under the law of Northern Ireland set out in the schedule to the Bill a similar offence under the law of England and Wales, or Scotland.

  27
  That gives my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to secure the decommissioning of arms, ammunition and explosives in England and Wales and in Scotland if, in the light of progress with all-party talks and with the preparation of the Northern Ireland decommissioning scheme, such schemes prove to be desirable. As with a Northern Ireland scheme, it provides that a decommissioning scheme established for this important purpose shall not be capable of being used as an amnesty by those possessing illegal arms who are not genuinely involved with the decommissioning process. I understand that the chief constables in England and Wales and in Scotland are content with those arrangements.
  Clause 9 provides for the expenses incurred in connection with a decommissioning scheme or in connection with the commission. Clause 10 is a defining clause and clause 11 contains the short title and makes clear that, apart from the Bill's provisions, the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings is unaffected.
  I conclude with the following submissions to the House. In the context of Northern Ireland's affairs, the Government, in common with the vast majority of people in these islands, wish fervently to see an end to the illegal possession of arms. That would represent a very considerable step forward and we shall continue to do all in our power to assist such progress. What we shall not do is renege on the principles that have guided us by obscuring the hard, unpleasant but incontrovertible realities that lie at the root of continuing terrorist violence. We have heard Sinn Fein proclaim its desire for peace during the ceasefire and since its collapse. At the same time, the Provisional IRA has cast its grim shadow over the people's hopes, through its disgustingly callous actions. The first ceasefire has proved to be, in the words of Mr. Bruton, "a deception".
  Each successive terrorist attack serves only to reaffirm the urgent need to dispose of the instruments of such destruction. Bombs and guns do not just devastate lives: they destroy hard-won trust and entrench bitterness between those charged with the already formidable responsibility of finding a way forward. The Mitchell report has provided a template by which agreement on the means of decommissioning arms can be achieved. The Government hope that the political parties will arrive at such agreement as soon as possible and join in putting the report's recommendations into practice. Meanwhile, the Bill is a necessary and timely piece of preparation and I commend it to the House.
  3.51 pm
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Labour party welcomes the introduction of the Bill and echoes the Secretary of State's comments complimenting the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana on their record of finds so far—that has clearly helped the process in the past few months.
  As we made clear previously, we shall facilitate the Bill's speedy passage through the House. We welcome the fact that the normal procedures of the House are being employed for the Bill and that the usual Committee stage procedures will be followed. In the past—for example, with the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Bill
  28
  in April and May—we have supported the use of exceptional procedures to put new legislation swiftly on to the statute book. However, our co-operation on such pressing occasions should not be mistaken for a general willingness to override the conventions of the House. Exceptional procedures should apply in exceptional circumstances. In this case, I am sure that the good will on both sides of the House in support of moving forward sensibly with the legislation will ensure its speedy passage.
  The Bill has wider significance than the issue of decommissioning paramilitary weapons. It is also about working to create an environment where talks can take place and an agreement can be reached. It is a crucial measure that is designed to build confidence. No one can doubt that the provisions outlined in the Bill are needed desperately following the events of the summer—especially at Drumcree—and their aftermath. The anger and fear among the nationalist community after the rule of law was threatened and flouted at Portadown remains strong, as does the underlying fear and distrust of the Unionist community which was expressed at Drumcree.
  There is a fear that giving ground on the marches issue is just the tip of the iceberg—a small part of a much larger process that is continually undermining the Unionist way of life. I understand those fears and, in that context, we welcome this confidence-building measure. We also draw the attention of the House to the other confidence-building measures highlighted in the Mitchell report to which the Secretary of State referred, such as the policing and prison issues. We believe that rapid progress on those issues would also help the process of building trust across the communities. Urgent action is needed, too, to reduce the growing fear and worry in many people's minds over prospects for Drumcree mark 3 next year.
  Dr. Peter North and his two colleagues are due to report in January next year. I hope that the House will not mind if I take this opportunity to say that it is incumbent upon us all—Opposition, Government and Members from Northern Ireland—to do all that we can to respond positively to the recommendations of the North committee, and that we try to work together to ensure that we will not face Drumcree mark 3 in 1997.
  Decommissioning is an important area for confidence building. It has, as has been seen so far, proved a very demanding and difficult one. It is the baseline of any peace process. It is both an issue of confidence as negotiations progress and an objective in itself—in this case, as is often said, it is to take the gun out of Irish politics for good. But still, as we approach Christmas, people here in England—and even more so in Northern Ireland—will have on their minds as they shop for presents, "Will a bomb go off today?"
  The Bill can help take us down the road of decommissioning weapons. For the vast majority of people, it can begin the process of providing security. For the paramilitaries, too, it can offer a path out of their history of violence, terror, murder and mayhem. The question for us today is whether they will have the courage to take it. Will the IRA have the courage to call a ceasefire that is clear and unequivocal; that will end the violence for good; and this time to show by their actions that they mean it; a ceasefire—contrary to newspaper

  29
  reports today—that holds before, during and after Christmas? We want nothing less than an end to violence for good.
  Mr. David Winnick: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need for a ceasefire, and in the mean time I hope that the security authorities are fully alert to any possible IRA devices, be they in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. When my hon. Friend speaks about confidence building, will she express concern about Loyalist intimidation in Ballymena, where people going about their legitimate business of going to church are being intimidated? Should not we congratulate the Unionist mayor, who has gone out of his way to condemn the intimidation and, moreover, to show his solidarity with Catholics by standing outside the church as they go in?
  Ms Mowlam: I echo my hon. Friend's comments in relation to what we saw at Harryville not just over the past weeks but at the weekend. It is an example of vicious sectarianism, which does not reflect well on the community from which these people come. Let us make it clear, as my hon. Friend did, that what is happening at Harryville does not represent the views and beliefs of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend said, the courage of Councillor James Curry, mayor of Ballymena, should be acknowledged in the House, and we should support the actions that Ballymena council took. For the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, such sectarianism is not part of their beliefs or views in any way.
  Decommissioning is a central part of the peace process. Let us go back to the ceasefires of August and October 1994, when decommissioning was not high on the political agenda. Then in 1995, we all enjoyed the peace, and a gesture on decommissioning—as a small but essential act of good faith—was both desirable and thought possible. It became clear, however, that such a step was not one that paramilitaries on either side were willing to take. The absence of a small step began a process of retreat on all sides. If such a step was not possible, the argument went, how could Sinn Fein be trusted over their commitment to the peace process? To many people, it was just plain logic. If someone is committed to peace, the disposal of a few pounds of Semtex or a cache of rifles was not an impossible step to take. A stand-off was all that was achieved as trust and confidence declined. Sinn Fein's failure to agree with all the other parties at the Dublin forum on the importance of consent reinforced anxieties that the IRA was not serious, and that the ceasefire was merely tactical.
  As the Secretary of State said, a resolution of the issue was sought by the two Governments through the establishment, in November last year, of the international body. In its report, the international body took a pragmatic view on decommissioning. It said that the paramilitaries were unwilling to start to decommission before talks began, and that it was unacceptable to wait for decommissioning until the end of talks. Therefore, a compromise had to be struck. The compromise that it suggested was that
  "as progress is made on political issues, even modest mutual steps on decommissioning could help create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence."
  30
  Or, in the words of the Prime Minister, parallel decommissioning.
  Then we had Canary wharf. Instead of mounting trust and confidence, we have seen this year a painful deterioration of the peace process. Politicians followed what they believed was the best way forward, but there is now little trust and no confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the events at Harryville at the weekend and previously epitomise that deterioration.
  Given the weekend's events, it is sad to reflect on what we were doing a year ago. We had the successful visit of President Clinton, and were looking forward to a peaceful Christmas and the Mitchell report. We were talking about decommissioning then, and we are still talking about it now. Sadly, some people are now saying, "Why focus on discussing decommissioning in the talks process, when the people who speak for those with weapons are not all represented." That is to say that the present talks process can move forward on this issue only with the participation of Sinn Fein.
  At the same time, others hold the view that the decommissioning of weapons must begin before Sinn Fein can come into the talks with other parties—in short, Washington 3. The Mitchell report is realistic, and makes it clear that that will not happen. Why, then, are we in danger of going back into that political cul-de-sac two years on?
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Lady aware that the difference between last year and the events that have taken place since February this year make the basis of the Mitchell report irrelevant? As she well knows, the Mitchell report was based on a belief in the bona fides of Sinn Fein-IRA and in their good intentions about decommissioning, whereas the whole world knows that, at that time and since, they have been preparing for a further onslaught. Furthermore, the Mitchell report was based on a ceasefire that had held for 18 months—that was a valuable constituent part of its assessment. There is no longer a ceasefire.
  Ms Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation is qualitatively and quantitatively different from a year ago. I put it to him that however the talks process develops with regard to decommissioning and the achievement of another ceasefire, we have a chance of taking violence off the streets not just in Northern Ireland, but throughout Britain. To do that, we must—perhaps not in the same way—deal with issues similar to those that we were dealing with a year ago. Of course the context has changed—we have only to consider Canary wharf, Manchester and Thiepval to know exactly what has happened—but if we are to move the process forward in the months or years ahead, the same issues must be addressed in some shape or form. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there was then a ceasefire and now there is not.
  Decommissioning must be addressed at some point in the talks process, and the best time is when a ceasefire is on the table. We should welcome the fact that some people are considering how to deal with decommissioning both before and after a ceasefire. That is a positive step. I hope that the House agrees that we should consider the work of Senator Mitchell, John de Chastelain and

  31
  Hari Holkeri to overcome the present impasse, with or without a ceasefire. We must deal with the problem of a ceasefire at some point.
  I shall deal with some specific aspects of the Bill, whose purpose is to facilitate decommissioning, and ask the Secretary of State for clarification. He said that clause 1 dealt with decommissioning schemes. Clause 1(b) suggests that provisions other than those in the Bill could be made for such schemes. The Secretary of State said that the aim was to retain flexibility in the process, and I understand the thoughts behind that, but it would be helpful to hear some examples of what he has in mind. He also told us that clause 4(2) gave him power to add offences to, or remove them from, the list in the schedule. Will he give an assurance—as I think he did in reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—that, in circumstances in which "any offence" is affected, the provision will not apply retrospectively?
  Will the Secretary of State give some specific instances relating to clauses 5(4) and 6(3)(a), in which an offence might be committed by use of an article that had already been decommissioned? He spoke of limits and used the term "self-contained", but one or two examples would help us to understand exactly what is referred to in those clauses.
  The Secretary of State said, when discussing clause 8, that the scheme would apply in parallel in Scotland, Wales and England. Can he reassure us that the schemes in those countries will be identical to the one being introduced in Northern Ireland? He said that they would be similar, but we want to be told that they will be exactly the same.
  The Labour party has consistently maintained that the principles of consent, increasing co-operation across the island of Ireland, fair treatment and respect for both traditions should be at the heart of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. We have maintained that the most progress is made when the two Governments work closely together, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the framework documents are proof of that. We hope that, following today's meeting, the two Governments will continue to work closely together.
  The two Prime Ministers should spare no effort in their attempts to overcome the current differences between them—differences which, we believe, are not matters of principle. It is in all our interests for the IRA to call an unequivocal ceasefire, and for Sinn Fein to commit itself, in word and deed, to the path of peace and democracy. There are differences relating to process and practice, but we hope that, with good will and determination, a resolution can be found.
  We hope that the Government will maintain the determination that they have shown before to take the extra steps that are necessary to move the process forward. We know that their position in the House is not one in which any Government would like to be, and it is especially difficult for a Government who are trying to steward a process of delicate negotiations in which other parties in the House are involved. It is merely a statement of fact to say that the interests of any peace process are better served by a strong and stable Government than by a weak one. That is precisely why Opposition Members
  32
  have supported the Government in their efforts to bring a lasting peace to Northern Ireland, and we will continue to do so by supporting the Bill today.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) with great interest. I do not substantially or significantly disagree with anything that she said, with one exception. That relates to what was said by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I personally support the argument, which he briefly summarised, that the foundation of the Mitchell report is most substantially undermined by the fact that it was formulated on the understanding that Sinn Fein-IRA was genuinely committed to a peaceful solution.
  We know that Mitchell was wrong in drawing that conclusion at the time, although the evidence, of course, was not immediately available. In that sense, his entire report is established on a misunderstanding. Greater significance should be given to that in our wider consideration of the process, and of the point that we have reached.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Mitchell report's basic principles were reiterated in the joint communiqué of 28 February issued by the two sovereign Governments; that they quoted from Mitchell's two basic principles long after the ceasefire had been broken and long after that period of peace had ended; and that, in effect, when it was announced in the House, the joint communiqué was supported by the hon. Gentleman, who is now finding fault with it?
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is reading too much into my observation. Of course I stand by the position adopted by the Government in February and to which I have referred many times, as have other hon. Members. I was merely supporting the point made by the hon. Member for South Down, who said that, in that one respect, Mitchell was demonstrably wrong; but I certainly stand by the report's wider context, and it is essential that we build on it in the negotiations that are taking place. I hope that that at least partially reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me, but I will not give way again on the subject. Let us advance.
  The decommissioning of illegally held weapons is central to the Government's policy on Northern Ireland, and the Bill is self-evidently central to implementing the Government's policy on decommissioning. As the explanatory memorandum states, the Bill gives expression to the
  "guidelines on the modalities of decommissioning contained in the Report of the International Body."
  It is profitable, however, to view the Bill in the wider context of the process as a whole, as did the hon. Member for Redcar and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  33
  The entire policy was launched with the Downing street declaration, the third anniversary of which is in sight. The greater part of the declaration still stands as the guiding principles that should determine the way forward. The declaration extolled the virtue of
  "an agreed framework for peace"
  In that declaration, both Governments committed themselves to seeking
  "peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement",
  and undertook
  "to encourage, facilitate and enable such agreement."
  The declaration also made it clear that the principle of non-violence lay at the heart of the envisaged process. In paragraph 10, both Governments confirmed that only
  "democratically mandated parties that establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics."
  The Government have consistently argued that, if an organisation is truly committed to exclusively peaceful methods, it no longer has any need for weapons and explosives, and that a commitment to decommissioning is a logical expression of a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods. I have supported that position to the best of my ability.
  As we all know, the decommissioning issue has arguably caused more dissent, ill-feeling and rancour between the participants in the process and between commentators on the process than any other single issue. There should never have been any misunderstanding about the Government's position on decommissioning, either before or after the international body's report. On many occasions, my right hon. and learned Friend summarised the position that the Government held on decommissioning until the early part of this year, which was most succinctly expressed in the so-called "Washington principles".
  Hon. Members will recall the hostile reaction to that policy position, which was adopted by Irish nationalists, north and south, and by Republicans. It is worth recording, and right to recall in a debate on this Bill, that the Government were then accused—unjustly—of inserting preconditions that had not previously existed, of moving the goalposts, of changing rules after the contest had started, and of much else. The same accusations are being made today.
  Hon. Members may recall that, in June 1995, Mr. Adams, in an interview with The Irish Times, stated:
  "the demand for the surrender of IRA weapons as a precondition to negotiations by the British Government was never mentioned before August 31st, 1994."
  Many others echoed that point; and, today, they are re-editing the same theme in their accusations.
  The record should clearly contain the fact that, two months before the Downing street declaration, in a radio programme broadcast by Radio Telefis Eireann, my right hon. and learned Friend stated that the British position included prior decommissioning. I have a transcript of the relevant section, and recordings of the broadcast are available from RTE.
  On the same day as the Downing street declaration was published—in Dail Debates, volume 437, column 776—the Irish Foreign Minister acknowledged:
  34
  "Questions were raised on how to determine a permanent cessation of violence. We are talking about the handing up of weapons."
  The most graphic demonstration—to eliminate any shadow of doubt—that Mr. Adams himself knew the Government's position was that he condemned it publicly. In The Irish Times, of 8 January 1994—less than a month after the Downing street declaration, and 18 months before he claimed that the British Government had made up a new policy—Mr. Adams personally wrote:
  "Mr. Mayhew goes on to say, 'Well, the exploratory dialogue will be so that we can discuss with Sinn Fein how the IRA will hand over its weapons.
  "So, I say to myself, 'This is what they want. They want the IRA to stop so that Sinn Fein can have the privilege, 12 weeks later, having been properly sanitised and come out of quarantine, to have discussions with senior civil servants on how the IRA can hand over their weapons."
  Decommissioning must begin before the start of substantive dialogue—the Government said it, and the Irish Government said it. Mr. Adams knew the score, and he condemned it.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the parliamentary brief, Prof. Paul Bew has set out, in extenso, all the occasions on which Adams and representatives of the Irish Government acknowledged in publications and in statements in the Dail, on RTE and in other media that decommissioning was a necessary and integral part of any peace process?
  Mr. Hunter: I am aware of that work, and I corresponded with Prof. Bew about it more than once. I readily confess that I borrowed frequently from his research.
  In the course of time, the Government's policy changed, from an insistence on prior decommissioning to not merely considering but implementing Mitchell's suggestion that decommissioning might take place in parallel with talks. The merits or otherwise of the policy change were argued, and can still be argued, at very great length. However, the fact remains that decommissioning in parallel with talks—Mitchell's compromise to end the impasse—is the Government's position, which is one from which no Government should retreat.
  One understands that the Government are under pressure from the Irish Government—which is reflecting and expressing the opinion of virtually all nationalist politicians, north and south, and of the Sinn Fein political leadership, that further concessions should be made and a fast-track route to negotiations offered to Sinn Fein.
  The Government, in the judgment of many of my colleagues—it is a judgment I share—should stand firm in their insistence on Mitchell's decommissioning in parallel. They should also stand by the policy position which the two Governments jointly adopted in the aftermath of the Mitchell report—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to it. For the Provisionals to be readmitted to the process, there must be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, and the Provisionals, over a period that cannot be specified in advance, must establish their unequivocal commitment to peaceful means.
  To put it another way, and to reflect wording that I have heard the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) use, the genuineness of a future Provisional ceasefire

  35
  should be judged by the quality of the Provisionals' words and deeds, not just by the passing of a predetermined number of weeks or months.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Does it not follow that that period could therefore be very short if we were to consider the quality of words and deeds? If there is an end to punishment beatings and to people being placed in exile, if the whereabouts of the bodies of the disappeared is explained, and if there are signs that Sinn Fein-IRA is moving quickly, there could be three simple steps and an open door into the talks provided in the Prime Minister's recent statement.
  Mr. Hunter: If we were to indulge in a game of make-believe and think of various responses on the ground, I entirely agree that it is theoretically possible that the genuineness of a commitment to a ceasefire could be established in a relatively short time, but I will not be drawn too far down that path. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to reverse the principle that I outlined. What matters is the quality of the words and deeds that follow a ceasefire, not the quantity of a passage of time.
  Mr. McNamara: That is a point worth pursuing. The hon. Gentleman is arguing the Government's case. If we are looking at the quality of actions after a ceasefire has been declared, why can we not at the same time give a date and say that, by that date, we shall have judged the quality of what has been offered from the declaration of the ceasefire to that date?
  Mr. Hunter: I will not pursue that line too far. Certainly, as the hon. Gentleman says, I am adopting a position in support of the Government. I believe that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), will be winding up the debate. Clearly, he is far better qualified than I, but my short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, once we impose the artificial factor of a date, we shall be complicating and compounding the issue, not coming up with a simple solution.
  I was referring to the need for the Provisionals to establish a genuine commitment to exclusively peaceful means over a period that cannot be specified, and I was expressing the opinion that a change in Government policy would be undesirable. Indeed, it would be more than that—it would be disastrous. I believe that it would be received very badly by many hon. Members of all parties, and rightly so. I do not believe that any Unionist of honour and calibre could or would remain at the talks in such circumstances—as the Provisionals walked into the negotiations through one door, every self-respecting Unionist would walk out through another.
  Above all, the Provisionals would see such a concession by the Government as further evidence that eventually British Governments always give way to force or the threat of force. That would be their perception, and it would merely encourage them to remain intransigent, and to continue their ballot box and Armalite tactics.
  The modalities of decommissioning outlined by Mitchell in the report emerged from his dialogue with the two Governments and the parties. I have no reason to doubt that they reflect a consensus of opinion that was put to him.
  36
  I am concerned about only one aspect of the Bill. I accept the principle of amnesty from prosecution for people who handle weapons or explosives in the process of the decommissioning scheme. However, I am concerned about banning detective work on those weapons once they are in the possession of the authorities.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary will have spent a great deal of time trying to bring to justice the perpetrators of some horrific crimes, and I hope that it will continue to do so. It seems strange that a possible source of evidence, intelligence or information in the possession of the authorities as a result of decommissioning should not be available to the RUC. Perhaps I am missing the point. No doubt it will be forcefully explained to me in due course. I accept the principle of amnesty from prosecution for individuals handling weapons and explosives in the course of implementing the scheme, but I find it hard to accept that no further work should be done on those weapons.
  Apart from that point, I accept and support the Bill. However, my overriding reaction—this does not detract from or otherwise qualify my support for the Government and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—is that the Bill is unlikely to play a part in transforming the politics of Northern Ireland; nor will it feature in the long-awaited solution to the Irish question.
  I suspect that, at some time—perhaps in the not too distant future—Sinn Fein will announce a second ceasefire, but my understanding is that the Provisionals are not remotely interested in anything other than the remorseless advance of their political objectives. A future ceasefire would be purely tactical, just as the previous one was. There is no evidence that the provisional republican movement is preparing for anything other than a continuation of its Armalite and ballot box strategy. I hope that events will prove me wrong, but I fear that the provisionals are exploiting the good intentions of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and taking him for a ride.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: On behalf of some of my hon. Friends, I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State for their absence at the moment. Unfortunately, travel from Northern Ireland has been inhibited by the familiar problems with air traffic control. The flights this morning were running one and a half or two hours late. I should not be surprised if some of my colleagues who were hoping to take part in the debate arrived in the next half hour. I trust that they will be given some indulgence for their failure to be here at the beginning.
  In broad terms—very broad terms, subject to reservations that I shall mention later—I welcome the fact that the Bill is being introduced and debated. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to the situation in Northern Ireland a year ago. As she pointed out, President Clinton had just visited Belfast. It was a time of a significant outpouring of feeling, with people demonstrating their welcome to him and to the fact that Northern Ireland had been at peace for some time. They endorsed that peace, and wanted it to continue. They were also looking forward to Christmas.
  A year ago, however, we did not know that Sinn Fein-IRA had already decided to resume violence. Furthermore, the decision had been taken even before President Clinton arrived in Northern Ireland. As he

  37
  toured Northern Ireland and we celebrated the peace that then existed, construction of the bomb that exploded on 9 February in Canary wharf had already started, and the organisation had committed itself to the resumption of violence.
  Nor, in retrospect, should we have been surprised by that decision. Let us cast our minds back to September 1995, when the British Government were endeavouring to persuade the Irish Government to support the creation of what became known as the Mitchell commission, the international body on the decommissioning of weapons, and the notorious meeting in west Belfast attended by Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and two senior Irish civil servants—the Secretary to the Cabinet, Paddy Teahon, and a senior civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Sean o'hUiginn—when the Irish civil servants were told that, if the Irish Government endorsed and participated in the British Government's proposals to establish a commission on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, the ceasefire would be over and there would be bodies in the street.
  I should say in fairness that the threat was not uttered by Gerry Adams, but by a fifth person present at the meeting. However, I see no reason to doubt that the words accurately represented the views expressed by Adams and McGuiness, although in a somewhat stark form.
  Towards the end of November, as it became clear that the decommissioning commission was about to get under way, the decision was taken to end the ceasefire in circumstances that resulted in bodies in the streets. We should not be surprised by that, because the establishment of the international commission on decommissioning, with all its imperfections, was a clear signal to Sinn Fein-IRA that decommissioning was being treated seriously and would not be brushed aside.
  A year ago, it was clear that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, with all the difficulties involved, was being taken seriously, and that the Government would not consent to some arrangement whereby the issue was kicked into the long grass and forgotten. I trust that that continues to be the position of the Government and any future Government.
  Decommissioning must be treated seriously, as it affects issues of confidence. If it is not treated seriously, the communities in Northern Ireland will not have confidence in the peace process. Therefore, it affects the validity of the process itself.
  Some have asked us why we worry so much about it, as weapons—even those decommissioned as part of the beginning of a process—can always be replaced, and parties can make a commitment to peaceful means and then abandon it and return to violence as Sinn Fein-IRA did last year. However, we treat the issue of decommissioning as a litmus test of their intentions. Of course we want those intentions to be stated in clear words, but in view of the organisations involved, words alone are not sufficient, but must be reinforced by action. Although a variety of actions may be relevant, decommissioning would be an extremely good litmus test of their good intentions.
  The United Kingdom, for all its imperfections, is a democracy that substantially extends to Northern Ireland. As a democracy, we cannot give legitimacy to terrorism or the use of violence, so, in the words of the Downing street declaration, we have to insist that organisations that
  38
  have been involved in violence commit themselves to peaceful means, and show a willingness to abide by the democratic process. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) quoted the relevant paragraph of the Downing street declaration, which is still valid and which must remain the foundation of policy and of the approach to the problem.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, the report of Mitchell commission, which came in January 1995, has to some extent been undermined by events. The report was based on an assessment of the intentions of paramilitary organisations which has since turned out to be optimistic.
  The assessment reflected Mitchell's belief that there was a willingness on the part of paramilitary organisations to work towards the decommissioning of their weapons. As a result, when considering the ideas and proposals that Mitchell put forward, we must do so against the background that his assessment of paramilitary organisations' intentions was optimistic. We must not reproduce that optimistic assessment. In view of all that has happened over the past year, a healthy dose of scepticism—if I can use that word without causing fear among Conservative Members—is necessary in our approach to this matter.
  Indeed, in view of the events of the past year, I echo the comment made towards the end of his speech by the hon. Member for Basingstoke—one senses some unreality when considering the Bill, because one has difficulty believing that decommissioning along the lines it envisages will actually occur. To illustrate at least some hon. Members' sense of unreality about the process, one has only to call as witness the acres of empty Benches currently surrounding us. Other hon. Members evidently do not regard decommissioning as a serious prospect. None the less, it is important that the Bill be considered and enacted.
  In the report of the international body called the Mitchell commission, it was proposed—rightly so—that there should be an international verification commission in respect of decommissioning. That central concept is important: if decommissioning is to occur, we have to ensure that it is carried out properly, and that it does indeed occur.
  Most of the terrorist weapons and munitions held on behalf of Sinn Fein-IRA are not in the United Kingdom—there are some in Northern Ireland and some in England, and there might even be some on the continent, but most are in the Irish Republic. Indeed, it is no secret that most of those in the Irish Republic are in the south, in the area stretching between Limerick and Cork.
  The stores in that area were constructed to hide the large quantities of munitions that Sinn Fein-IRA obtained from Gaddafi's Libya, and most of that consignment of weaponry is still there. If decommissioning is to take place in respect of republican organisations' weaponry, most of the decommissioning will therefore take place in the Republic of Ireland. Against that background, it is necessary that we have an international verification commission so that we can be certain that such decommissioning is taking place on a proper basis.
  To make that point absolutely clear, let me state that we would not be satisfied with reliance on the words or statements of the Irish Government or its servants or agents in respect of decommissioning—we could not rely

  39
  on assurances emanating from such sources. In order to be sure that decommissioning takes place within the Republic of Ireland, it is crucial that we have independent verification that it is taking place: an international commission would provide that verification, independent of terrorist organisations and independent of the Government of the state in which such decommissioning takes place. Of course, the relevant Government will have an input, and there will be a variety of people on the commission or serving it, but the commission must have the character of independence, so as to enable us to be sure.
  There will be reservations about the fact that we do not have the detail in the legislation on that point to be sure that the commission will have the requisite quality of independence. Nor do we have sufficient detail in the legislation to be sure that the international verification commission will be able to conduct its work, because to do so it will require information. It will have to be able to acquire information, and it will have to be able to move on the premises under which it operates. It must be able to go where it wants and to see what it wants to see.
  One of our concerns is whether, if the commission were entirely dependent on the grace and favour of the Government of the country in which it was operating, we could be sure that it could acquire the necessary information and have the necessary capacity to conduct its inquiries, or to go where it wants to go and to see what it needs to see. The legislation, because of its framework character, does not give us the information to be sure on those points. Perhaps the points will be contained in the decommissioning scheme. I would welcome whatever information the Government can give us on that point.
  I am concerned especially because there is to be no statutory basis, as such, for the commission. It is clear from the legislation that the commission will be created as a result of an agreement with the Irish Republic under royal prerogative. I am concerned that the use of the royal prerogative to establish the commission may mean that the commission will not have the powers it needs. Perhaps it is intended to contain those powers within the decommissioning schemes, but we should be given some indication of that during the debate. I would welcome whatever the Minister has to say on that point.
  I had not intended to cover the technicalities just yet, but there are other general observations to be made about the legislation. Mitchell reported in January; consequently, it was in January that Mitchell pointed out the need for an independent international verification commission, and also made the point that that commission would need to have a legal basis in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
  We accept that central point. The point was made in January, and we are now in December. We have had more than 10 months of delay. It was immediately clear, on the publication of the Mitchell report at the end of January, that it would be necessary to bring forward legislation, and I and my colleagues made that point in January and February. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I, together with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), spoke to the Irish Government on that point on 11 March, we reinforced the need to bring forward legislation on that point.
  40
  We were given to understand, on 11 March by the Irish Government, that steps would be taken on the necessary legislation in advance of the elections in Northern Ireland. Those elections took place on 30 May. The Irish Government did not give us an undertaking that the legislation would be on the statute book and fully operational by then, but they did say that, before 30 May, we would see that the matter was being dealt with. That date came and no action had been taken.
  I note that the Secretary of State said today that the Irish Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation very soon. We had discussions with the Irish Government on that point in September—I have to acknowledge that they showed us a draft Bill, which was not that dissimilar from the Bill in front of us—and assured us that the legislation would be on the statute book before Christmas. I suppose that there is still a bit of time to go before Christmas, and that the Irish Government could rush the legislation through. I am not sure when the Irish Parliament rises for its Christmas recess, but I doubt whether the legislation will be on the statute book before Christmas.
  I refer to those matters to make the point that, in March and in September, we received assurances from the Irish Government on the necessary legislation as evidence of their good faith. The assurances given in March were not honoured, and the assurances given in September have not been honoured.
  Conclusions can be drawn from that about the seriousness with which the Irish Government are committed to decommissioning and to the talks. The failure of the Irish Government to honour their assurances on those matters raises serious questions in Northern Ireland about whether they are committed to the process or whether they are going through the motions. Those are serious issues, which the Irish Government have to address, and I am sorry to say that their conduct so far does not give us any reassurance.
  The whole process of decommissioning depends on whether those involved in terrorist operations in Northern Ireland are willing to commit themselves to peaceful means and to proceed along the path indicated in the legislation. There are several terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. Most of my comments so far have been directed towards Sinn Fein-IRA, but it is appropriate also to notice the existence of other terrorist organisations—the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Unlike Sinn Fein-IRA, those organisations have sustained their ceasefire, and we should recognise that they have done so despite considerable provocation.
  We expect, of course, that that ceasefire will be maintained. There is no justification for the resumption of violence, and we trust that that will not happen. We re-echo the many appeals that we have made to the leadership of those organisations to sustain their ceasefire. We note also that those organisations have indicated a willingness to decommission their weapons in parallel with Sinn Fein-IRA. That is consistent with the reference in the Mitchell report to mutual decommissioning.
  We trust that the commitments that have been made by the political representatives of those paramilitary organisations to decommissioning alongside Sinn Fein-IRA, when the time comes, will be remembered and adhered to. In a sense, the political representatives of those organisations have delivered post-dated cheques to

  41
  the rest of us, which will have to be called upon when the time comes. The time will come when a Sinn Fein ceasefire is also in place and what is now an academic issue will have to be put into practice.
  I see no advantage in insisting that other paramilitary organisations should commence decommissioning in advance of Sinn Fein-IRA, generally desirable though that might be. I see no point in pressing the matter when that might bring about the end of the ceasefires that are now in existence. While those organisations—the UDA and the UVF—have to make a commitment to decommissioning, and have to be prepared to implement it when the time comes, we must be realistic about the present situation.
  The time will come—if it does—when there is a ceasefire by Sinn Fein, and that will also raise the question of its entry into the talks. That matter has been the subject of some comment recently, and it is important that we should touch on it in our debate.
  We have said that the previous ceasefire was not a genuine one; we know that to be so, and we endorse the Prime Minister's comments at the weekend. We know now that work on the Canary wharf bomb was in hand a year ago, at the time of the presidential visit. We also know that, within a matter of weeks of the declaration of the ceasefire at the end of August 1994, Sinn Fein-IRA was taking steps to acquire safe houses and safe stores, and to put in place the stockpile of munitions that the police found in London a few months ago. We know that to have been the case, and we therefore know that the last ceasefire was not genuine. If there is a fresh ceasefire which raises the issue of entry into talks, and consequently decommissioning as proposed by the Bill, we need to know that it is genuine.
  Some three weeks ago, President Clinton stated at a press conference held shortly after his re-election that there needed to be a "genuine cessation" of violence, and those words carry with them the notion of permanence. He went on to say that the parties needed to know that the killing would not begin again, either in Great Britain or in Northern Island. That underlines the need for permanence and for any ceasefire to be effective throughout the United Kingdom.
  We are concerned that a ceasefire applicable only to Northern Ireland may be announced, and that there is an intention to continue violence in the rest of the United Kingdom. That will not be sufficient. Hon. Members must appreciate that the rest of the United Kingdom is perhaps under more threat than Northern Ireland from a continuing campaign by Sinn Fein-IRA.
  There is a strong belief within Sinn Fein-IRA that major terrorist incidents on the mainland—specifically in London—have driven the Government into making political concessions, and will do so in the future. That is its belief, and although hon. Members may consider it to be ill founded, it exists. Until Sinn Fein-IRA is disabused of that belief, there is no prospect of it making a genuine attempt to commit itself to peaceful means. However, a good first step would be for members of Sinn Fein-IRA to use terms that suggest permanence, and which show that they have turned away from violence and are committing themselves to exclusively peaceful means and to the democratic process.
  It is for Sinn Fein-IRA to find the words that carry conviction. As a general rule, we are reluctant to suggest the words that should or could be used, because they
  42
  would be taken as the maximum statement, which then would be whittled away. Obviously, we need an indication that it is repudiating violence, and we need a commitment to the democratic process, but we also need something that Sinn Fein has so far failed to provide—an indication of its willingness to accept the principle of consent. Although those would be positive indicators, words in themselves will not suffice, because of the deception during the previous ceasefire.
  Words must be matched by actions, and a range of actions can be undertaken. Again, I am reluctant to suggest any particular actions, as they could be seen as the maximum and could be whittled away. There are actions that suggest a genuine commitment to peaceful means and that a ceasefire is genuine, but equally there are actions that show that a ceasefire is not genuine.
  For an example of the latter, we have only to point to the horrific paramilitary beatings that occurred in Northern Ireland last weekend. We can also point to the continuing social and economic terrorism in parts of Northern Ireland, and to the attacks on the identity and culture of the British people in Northern Ireland that are continuing on a wide scale.
  One deprecates the reactions to those attacks, particularly when they take the form of the blockade of the Catholic church in Harryiville, Ballymena, which has been referred to tonight. I must state how proud we in the Ulster Unionist party are of the action taken by the Ulster Unionist mayor of Ballymena and by his councillors who turned out to support him and demonstrated their solidarity. Would that more people did the same, and would that that were done with regard to other analogous events—some of which have occurred quite close to Ballymena.
  Far too many incidents that show the absence of a commitment to peaceful means are going on in Northern Ireland. As the Prime Minister said the other day, we need to see words, actions and circumstances that are consistent with a commitment to peaceful means and to the democratic process. It is not particularly desirable to define those too closely, nor is it desirable to be drawn into discussions on time frames. If there is a genuine commitment to peaceful means and to the democratic process, it will be pretty obvious.
  Similarly, if there is only an ambiguous commitment and an attempt to re-run the insincere ceasefire of August 1994, it will also be apparent, and we should act accordingly. If, as is likely, there is no commitment to peaceful means and to the democratic process, the detailed provisions of the legislation will become somewhat academic. None the less, it is desirable that this legislation be on the statute book, so that the opportunity is there for the process to move forward if such a commitment is made.
  There are some minor comments on the legislation that I wish to make, some of which I have foreshadowed—particularly with regard to the constitution and powers of the verification commission. These are important matters, but perhaps it is more appropriate that they be teased out in Committee. However, it is important to put down a marker for that issue.
  We have concerns about the decommissioning schemes, as the legislation provides for schemes to operate for up to five years from the date of the legislation. There is an inconsistency here with the legislation under which the

  43
  talks are taking place which was passed in the spring of this year and led to the elections on 30 May. That legislation provided for a talks process which, beginning on 30 May, lasted for one year and was extendable to two years; so it is envisaged that the talks process is to last for two years, but that the decommissioning process is to last for five years.
  However, we are told that we are dealing with the concept of "parallel decommissioning". Something is out of sync, and I should be grateful for an explanation of this apparent inconsistency. I appreciate that this matter too is best pursued in Committee.
  The Bill contains provision for a very limited amnesty, and it is important that hon. Members appreciate how limited that amnesty will be. Use of the word "amnesty" in the context of the terrorism within the British Isles during the past 25 years quite understandably gives rise to sensitivities. None of us wants to see an amnesty for the crimes that have been committed, and I understand that that is neither the Government's intention nor what is provided for in the Bill.
  It is important that the community realises that this Bill does not offer any amnesty for terrorist crimes, and that the amnesty is there to facilitate the destruction, decommissioning or surrender of illegally held weapons and other munitions. There have been several weapons amnesties within the United Kingdom following particular incidents, and they have generally depended simply on the discretion not to prosecute. I can understand the need to provide a statutory basis on this occasion, but the amnesty will relate to the possession of illegally held weapons that have been decommissioned, and not to any terrorist crimes that have been committed.
  Having accepted that a limited amnesty exists, I must express concern about the provisions on forensic testing. I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this matter. He queried the Secretary of State, whose answer was most unsatisfactory. He merely acknowledged that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right; of course he was right, but what he was saying involved a significant criticism of the legislation, and that criticism was not answered.
  I can understand the idea that some forensic material should not be admissible in court, but that should not prevent the carrying out of forensic tests to determine whether the weapon decommissioned has in fact been used in the course of terrorism. That is an even more significant point for any decommissioning scheme for Great Britain.
  I understand the reluctance of some police forces in England and Wales to approve of decommissioning, because it could be used by criminals to get rid of hot weapons that have been used for what we in Northern Ireland call ordinary crime. That is undesirable, and a scheme should be applicable only to weapons held by or for the purposes of terrorist organisations. There should therefore be no objection to having a provision in the legislation for forensic tests. One could provide that such evidence would not be admissible in court, thus preserving the inducement to terrorist organisations to decommission, while still enabling us to verify that the right weapons are being decommissioned.
  44
  I welcome clause 8. It concerns a matter on which I have often pressed the Secretary of State and his colleagues, so I am glad that provision has been made. Were the clause not there, the legislation would send the wrong signals to the community in Northern Ireland, and could be interpreted by people on both sides of the fence as meaning that terrorist crimes there were not viewed as seriously as terrorist crimes in England and Wales.
  However, I am disturbed by the way in which the Secretary of State introduced the provision. He said that the schemes would operate in England and Wales only if, in the light of progress with all-party talks, they proved to be desirable. Such schemes are desirable irrespective of whether there is progress, and I trust that such a scheme will go ahead in Northern Ireland regardless. I am concerned about the contingent nature of the reference to the schemes in England and Wales. I hope that the Minister of State will address that point when he winds up. We can deal with other points of detail in Committee.
  The current inter-party talks have been dealing with these matters for some time, and at considerable length. As we said in our paper at the beginning of October, the issue of decommissioning should be dealt with satisfactorily. We see no reason for its having held up the talks for the past two or more months. We were not asking for everything to be concluded to our satisfaction, or for the legislation to be on the statute book and the commission in place, before moving on.
  We regard it as important, however, for the legislation to be put on the statute book, and for the international verification commission to be set up as quickly as possible. In the interval before the commission's establishment, some of those who are likely to serve on it should commence work to deal with the issues.
  We told the other parties in the talks at the beginning of October that, if we were given satisfactory assurances about the implementation of the legislation, the establishment of the commission and, crucially, the procedures that would apply if and when Sinn Fein entered the process, the talks could proceed to substantive issues. We regret the fact that our generous and reasonable position did not receive a sufficient response, especially from the Irish Government.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Trimble: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have spoken for long enough, and other Northern Ireland Members are waiting to speak, so I will ask him to follow up the point when he makes his speech.
  The Irish Government's delay in introducing legislation, and their failure to implement the assurances that they gave us in March and August leave a serious question in our minds about their commitment. We remember the comment made by the close adviser of the Irish Foreign Minister, that the talks were not worth a penny candle. I am sorry to say that the attitude adopted by the Irish Government in the talks in the past two months clearly shows that they have no commitment to the process. That is bad from the point of view of reinforcing the democratic process, which, at the end of the day, is what we are all supposed to be about.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that we are talking about something that may not happen, but if it does happen, it will be important for us to have considered it extremely carefully.
  No one could reasonably quarrel with the details of the Bill, which arise from the Mitchell committee's report. I accept the absolute need for clause 6 if the paramilitaries on either side are to have any confidence about the forensic testing of any weapons or other materials that might be surrendered. It is of the utmost importance that they should feel confident that the surrendering of such material will not be followed through in any way whatever.
  That does not mean that those who have been involved in evil and criminal offences will not be prosecuted, nor that the proper authorities should not pursue their researches to try to bring such people to court. Nothing should be done—especially not in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—that would in any way act as an inhibition on the proper surrendering of weapons.
  Earlier, I interrupted the Secretary of State to ask him about the role of the international commission: whether it was to be a technical body, supervising the military capacity, the giving up of arms and their destruction, or whether it was at any time to be given a political role that could take over the proper function of Governments or of parties to the talks. I did not get as clear-cut an answer as I had hoped for.
  It is important, in view of discussions and conversations that have been conducted in the past and of suggestions that have been made by members of parties, that at no time should any power of a political nature be given to the international commission dealing with the verification of the surrendering of arms. In particular, the commission should not take the political decision as to when it is right and proper to embark on a course of action: that should be the role of Governments and parties.
  It must be underlined that the surrender of arms will not necessarily be to either of the sovereign Governments. We seek only the verification of the armaments' destruction. The paramilitaries will look to the commission for protection of their position, for verification that they have surrendered what they claim to have surrendered, and for an assurance that no pressure will be exerted on them to surrender their arms to Government representatives.
  I believe that the people responsible for the breakdown in the ceasefire were no other than the IRA. They had no justification for breaking it. But the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been very sensitive to the criticism that they were dilatory in their approach to bringing Sinn Fein into the talks after the ceasefire was declared. I happen to believe that it was a mistake to start ratcheting up the hurdles over which Sinn Fein had to jump before it could enter the talks. That was, I believe, based on a misunderstanding of how the paramilitaries, especially the republican paramilitaries, viewed the situation.
  The republican paramilitaries regarded themselves as having instigated a ceasefire. Furthermore, they regarded themselves as a legitimate army—which no Member of this House would accept. They believed that they began
  46
  the ceasefire to facilitate the commencement of talks. In no way did they regard themselves as committed to the surrender of their arms or ammunition. Indeed, they found the idea that they should give up some arms tantamount to admitting that they were in the wrong and that they were being asked to surrender to superior force.
  The Government did not appreciate this attitude; instead, by imposing conditions on Sinn Fein's entry to the talks, the Government made Sinn Fein feel humiliated. As much as anything else, that led to a breakdown of confidence, just as there had been such a breakdown on the other side.
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I made? In January 1994, less than a month after the Downing street declaration and some eight months or more before the IRA ceasefire, Mr. Adams was perfectly well aware of the fact that the British Government were thinking in terms of prior decommissioning—indeed, he said as much in a newspaper interview on 8 January.
  Mr. McNamara: I am quite prepared to accept that Mr. Adams knew that; whether he accepted it is an entirely different matter. I believe we should recognise that the opportunity was lost.
  Today we are again losing an opportunity. For the life of me I cannot see why, if a ceasefire is declared, we cannot stipulate a date by when talks would commence. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that that would complicate and compound the difficulties; but if we want not just a declaration of a ceasefire but demonstrable action to show that it is in operation there can surely be no problem about declaring such a date. Without it, we will return to the problem of the past: the Government will keep extending the time limit, and there will be pressures to do so in this House from certain parties, sometimes on other issues, which will force an extension of the deadline. That has already happened before—
  Mr. William Ross: I am curious as to whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to detail to the House the measures that he believes the IRA and other terrorist organisations must take to convince him that they have given up on violence. Yesterday the Prime Minister made it perfectly plain that his attitude will be determined by the intelligence that he receives, not by the IRA's public pronouncements.
  Mr. McNamara: If we are to depend on intelligence operations, the information from which is given to the Prime Minister so that he can make his decision, hon. Members will be unable to examine that information. We will be left with judging by what we learn from the media and by what we are told. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a catalogue of items that would prove a cessation of violence, I do not think it would be right to go into that now—any more than the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party was prepared to do.
  The Government must be prepared to recognise the extent of the shock created by what happened at Drumcree, and the effect that it had not just on the nationalist community in Northern Ireland but on the rest of the United Kingdom. It was seen that the rule of law was flouted; in the face of a threatened mass mobilisation the police changed their minds. There are some on the

  47
  republican side who ask: what is the qualitative difference between Drumcree and other incidents when the rule of law has been broken or flouted? There are undoubtedly quantitative differences, but I am talking about the principle. There are people sitting in the talks today who took part in the disgraceful episodes at Drumcree—
  Mr. Trimble: Would the hon. Gentleman care to be more specific?
  Mr. McNamara: If the cap fits, the hon. Gentleman should wear it—
  Mr. Trimble: But the hon. Gentleman has no specifics.
  Mr. McNamara: It remains true that the organisation of the events at Drumcree amounted to a deliberate flouting of the law.
  I shall support the passage of this legislation because I want it to come into operation. If it comes into operation, that will mean that the talks are under way, with Sinn Fein present at them. I believe that by setting a date the Government would be putting Sinn Fein-IRA on notice to prove its integrity, its honesty and its sincerity. For the Prime Minister and the British Government, that would be far more sensible than spinning out the process into never-never land beyond 1 May.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wish to deal with two points that arose earlier in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that the hon. Member for Foyle had been taken for a ride. I do not know—time will tell—who takes whom for a ride in the business of politics in the north of Ireland, but whoever takes the hon. Member for Foyle for a ride will have thought long and hard about it and will have done something that nobody within or outside his party has ever done during his political career. I leave it at that. I assume no false modesty when I make a factual observation about something that I know rather well.
  The second point is the reference to the Irish Government made by the hon. Member for Foyle. It is not my business to look after any sovereign Government; I am usually at odds with them. I simply make the observation that the hon. Member for Foyle—
  Mr. McNamara: For Upper Bann, not for Foyle.
  Mr. Mallon: What a Freudian mistake! The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) doubted the Irish Government's commitment to decommissioning and to the entire process. Like me, he will be in Castle buildings tomorrow and, like me, if he has doubts, he can put them to the test by moving directly and immediately into the substantive negotiations. If he is right, he will have called their bluff and established whether that commitment exists. If the hon. Gentleman has that type of reservation, the obvious thing to do is to call their bluff and find out. That is the only way in which many things, not least the position of Sinn Fein, will be established in this entire process, whenever it ends—or perhaps I should say whenever it starts.
  48
  Four matters are fundamental to this debate on decommissioning. The first is simple and prosaic. Illegal arms can be removed from any society in only two ways: they can be taken out, or talked out. I wait to hear another alternative. They can be taken out through the efforts of the security forces and of Governments, or they can be talked out in a political context that is geared towards talking them out.
  Have the two sovereign Governments on the island of Ireland, despite their enormous panoply of power, security and extra-security measures, and legislative measures—the whole corpus of security that has existed in the past 25 years in Ireland, north and south—been able to decommission through security methods in the past 25 years? I wish that the answer were yes because things would then be much easier for people in the north of Ireland, much easier for everyone politically, and much more realistic in terms of the political process in which we are involved.
  Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
  Mr. Mallon: If the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) intends to say that decommissioning has taken place through the security process, I shall gladly give him the opportunity to confirm it.
  Mr. McCartney: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman about my powers as a clairvoyant. I can assure him, however, that the view of many people in Northern Ireland is that the two sovereign Governments have not really committed themselves to a process of taking arms out of circulation. Had they done so, we might not now be seeing a futile attempt to talk them out.
  Mr. Mallon: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has clarified the matter. I understand that clairvoyance means looking into the future; I asked for a judgment on the past. The hon. and learned Gentleman has just questioned the motivation and integrity of successive Governments in this House for the past 25 years. Not to take seriously the decommissioning of weapons through security methods is to breach the most fundamental element of integrity that any Government must show. I often criticise this and other Governments but I do not question their integrity in terms of their intention and effort to take out those arms.
  I am surprised that such a point should be made, given the evidence that exists throughout the north of Ireland—I say this not in a pejorative sense—of the inability to decommission through the security method. I do not call it a failure because it could not have been done successfully. Rather, it is an inability to decommission weapons through the normal security channels. Indeed, I have never heard anyone argue convincingly that decommissioning is a decisive security measure, however desirable it may be. Many senior security people have made it clear, publicly and privately, that it is essentially a political issue. It was never part of a realistic security strategy.
  That is the first basic point. From that premise stems a number of other factors. The second basic point, which is palatable to none of us who live in the north of Ireland or elsewhere, is that if we accept that first premise we must

  49
  view decommissioning and its successful conclusion as a voluntary exercise, which, logically and necessarily, requires the co-operation of those who hold the weapons. If we are serious about decommissioning or creating the context in which decommissioning can take place, we must—hon. Members will excuse the pun—all bite the bullet.
  As I said initially, we can either take out or talk out illegal weapons. Taking out did not work; talking out might work but it must be tried, otherwise the criticism of the hon. Member for North Down could be legitimate.
  The Governments, with their vast security operations, have been pursuing a decommissioning policy for years, rightly seeking out and confiscating illegal weapons wherever they can be found. They will continue to do that and I hope that they are successful. However, that should not be confused with the other element of the exercise. Some people want to treat decommissioning as a matter that can simply be pre-emptively imposed on the paramilitaries. They seem to think that simply by saying, "You must decommission", decommissioning will take place at some time in the future. That is a fallacy and nonsense, and it will not happen. Nor will it happen through a security operation or series of them, irrespective of their efficiency.
  When will people—I mean mainly Members of the House and in the political parties in the north of Ireland, who have come face to face with the problem and who have an emotional and a symbolic difficulty with it, as I have—start to recognise and explain to their followers that what they profess to accept involves a process of negotiations and a commitment to engage and persuade those who hold weapons that the political path is the only way forward? If we accept that there are only two options—to take illegal weapons out or to talk them out—we must accept that talking them out involves a political process. That involves negotiations, and that means negotiations with the people who hold the weapons. That is the difficulty. Biting that bullet will be the most significant factor in solving this part of the process, if the process ever starts.
  The third undeniable fact is that, according to the logic of the Mitchell report, which the Government have accepted and on which they have based the Bill, and which the hon. Member for Basingstoke has accepted, decommissioning will never happen unless it is a by-product of the political process. That is another difficult reality for all of us to accept. In terms of the Mitchell report implemented to the full, decommissioning will not happen unless it stems from a political process—in other words, derives from negotiations.
  The Mitchell report is clear that political progress and confidence must come first. That is, in any case, common sense to anyone who considers the context in which the paramilitaries on both sides operate. After the events of the past summer, that should be starkly etched on all our minds. Paragraph 16 of the report makes that clear. Paragraph 35 makes it even more abundantly clear that if we cannot take illegal arms out, we must talk them out, and there is only one way in which that can be done.
  The fourth factor identified by Mitchell is that decommissioning must take place on a mutual basis as between both sets of paramilitaries. In that case, decommissioning can come about only as a result of a fully inclusive negotiated process. To get IRA weapons
  50
  on a mutual basis as defined by Mitchell and as accepted by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in his speech, it must be mutual between two sets of paramilitaries: the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries. For that to happen, the harsh reality—like it or not, and some people do not like it—is that the representatives of the IRA will be there to take part in the negotiations.
  It is not enough to say that one accepts the Mitchell report if one does not accept its logic. If one accepts its logic, one must accept, reluctantly or otherwise, that the paragraph about mutuality means the involvement and presence of those who would speak for the IRA in the negotiations.
  One of the inconsistencies in the debate—in the talks, in the House and in Northern Ireland—is the refusal to face up to the logic of the international commission report that we have accepted. We cannot move away from the realities of it. If we do move away, we must ask ourselves whether we should go on to something new, or back to the original thesis that the arms can be taken out of the equation in some other way.
  Let us remind ourselves why the Mitchell report was written: because of the inability of the people of the north of Ireland and the two Governments on the island of Ireland to resolve the matter themselves: "mea culpa" on everyone's part. That is why Mitchell, de Chalestain and Holkeri came. That is why they met all the political parties and both Governments. They were invited by the Governments to come and try to solve a problem which could not be solved previously.
  I do not hear anyone disputing that, so surely we must accept the logic of the case presented by those who drew up the report. Mitchell cannot be accepted a la carte. One cannot take the little bits that happen to fit and discard the rest. One cannot say that it was relevant to a certain time, and that after a certain date it is no longer relevant. One cannot take the parts that suit one's own political view and dispense with the others.
  The real value of Mitchell's report is that he has taken away some of the more distracting elements and honed it down to the logic of the position in the north of Ireland and the possibility of achieving decommissioning, either through the security method or through the political process.
  There are other means by which to measure people's reactions. The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke of litmus tests. Let me present some litmus tests of the arguments that we have heard about decommissioning. I address these directly to the Government and to many hon. Members. Do we all accept that the way forward is to implement all aspects of the Mitchell report, or is there an à la carte approach to salvage the unreal preconditions that the report was designed to overcome? Can one have Washington 3 under any other name, while at the same time espousing the Mitchell report? Everyone should consider that as the first question. A remarkable stream of illogicality derives from that inconsistency. One cannot seek a precondition, as in Washington 3, while claiming to accept and support Mitchell.
  Secondly, I should like to hear those who would argue against that stating that there is no decommissioning because it is not possible in security and military terms, and will eventually come about through the political process. That will be shock for the body politic in the

  51
  north of Ireland—it was a shock for the body politic here, for me and for many others. However, if there is to be intellectual and political honesty, we must face that question and resolve it.
  The third litmus test concerns those who argue for preconditions. Do they accept that decommissioning requires an all-inclusive process? If so, how will we advance the condition necessary for that all-inclusive process which alone can deliver decommissioning? To be more negative: can we ever have decommissioning if the process is not all inclusive? To put it still more crudely: can we negotiate decommissioning without those who are charged by the republican movement to negotiate it? It is that difficult but, in many ways, that simple. It is simple in all its complexities and harsh in all its implications.
  We should consider what to do about the other Mitchell criteria. Is a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations being genuinely offered? They are the words not only of Mitchell but of a joint communique from the two Governments on 28 February following the breakdown of the ceasefire and the resumption of violence. In that joint communique—I think it is paragraph 28—the two Governments saw fit to identify that criterion as being fundamental to the entire process. If that joint communique means anything—and many on the Unionist side have invoked aspects of it—a meaningful and inclusive process must be offered to those who represent republican violence if there is to be a scintilla of hope of achieving decommissioning through the negotiating process.
  We must consider those points carefully. Of course, we can use forms of words to get around anything or to paper over the real problem. The Governments have primary responsibility for the security, protection and well-being of all those within their jurisdiction. On the island of Ireland, the two Governments are responsible for protecting the people: ensuring that there are no arms and, if there are, making sure that they are decommissioned. They are the custodians of the yearning of all the people of Ireland to see peace, stability and good order replace this conflict. They cannot share the blinkered view that the certainties of conflict are preferable to the risks of peace, or the delusion that political immobility will do anything except make us the victims rather than the masters of change.
  That is a bounden and an awesome responsibility of Government, and I believe that the two Governments are trying hard to fulfil it. The two Prime Ministers are meeting today, and tomorrow the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will again grapple with the problem at Castle buildings in Belfast. That problem affects us all and it will not be resolved until we are honest with ourselves and with everyone else and seek out its core and identify its remedy.
  I do not speak in the debate about the entry to negotiations on behalf of Sinn Fein—I know too much about violence in the north of Ireland and I know too much about that organisation. I know—with a certainty that I feel for little else—that I can be sure that Sinn Fein is sincere and genuine about its protestations of peace not when the Secretary of State makes a subjective judgment in a limbo situation that it may or may not enter negotiations, but when it sits with all the other political parties around the table, eyeball to eyeball. I will know
  52
  that it is genuine when it begins to face the realities with which those parties must grapple every day. I will know when Sinn Fein tells its supporters of the realities that it faces within the walls of Castle buildings or wherever it may be. I will know that that time has come when Sinn Fein promises to honour Mitchell principle No. 5 and says: "We did not get what we wanted, but we gave a commitment that, if we oppose anything, we shall do so only by peaceful, democratic means."
  That is how we will find out whether Sinn Fein is sincere. Why should we destroy the existing process by insisting on unreal preconditions, before or at the table, when we could enjoy the support and solidarity of all parties at the table to make decommissioning the precondition for rising from the table? That is the other harsh reality; that is when decommissioning will count. It should be the precondition for getting up from the table, not sitting down at it.
  I have no love for Sinn Fein nor any regard for the IRA, but I want to see them there because I want to address decommissioning. I want to solve the decommissioning problem and I know that it will not be settled in any other way. I want to help to solve the political problem but I know that that will not be possible until people face the realities head on. I know that all the parties involved in the discussions share my aims. However, it will take realism and political and intellectual rigour to face the realities rather than the shadows. It will take honesty as well.
  On that point, I must clarify some comments by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. He referred indirectly to bilateral discussions with my party. I am old-fashioned and I believe that bilateral discussions should be confidential, but I must set the record straight. He tried to blame us for the delay regarding the three points advanced by his party. First, he claimed that his party should sight the legislation. We agreed and suggested that he should go to the two Governments who held the legislation. He did so and his party sighted it. That was the first condition.
  The second condition was that there would be a reasonable period within which the proposed legislation would be introduced. As a small political party, we could not give that assurance, so we said go to those who might. They went to the Government and got that assurance, and we are debating the Bill today.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann made as his third point conditions for entry into negotiations. It was never anything that we discussed, because during all bilaterals and every discussion we have made it clear that we are dealing with decommissioning; that entry to negotiation is a matter, first, for this Government, based on their own legislation; secondly, for both Governments, based on the rules of procedure adopted by the talks parties for themselves; and, thirdly, that decommissioning was not a matter for Mitchell, because it ran counter to paragraph 34, which stated clearly that decommissioning would take place, and that it would be required to take place—not before, not after—during negotiations.
  For that reason, because it is so fundamental, I have to say that the hon. Member for Upper Bann's memory failed him when he made his three points.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for missing his remarks at the beginning of the debate.

  53
  My colleague and I were delayed because of a flight delay, which was due to the weather, although the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will probably blame it on Drumcree; he appears to blame everything that goes wrong on Drumcree. When he next considers that subject, he might like to bear in mind the fact that it was the threats of those on Garvaghy road that ensured that the police did not do their duty and make sure that people had free access to the highway—but I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to discuss Drumcree, as we are debating the issue of decommissioning. I am sure that we shall debate Drumcree on another occasion.
  I usually enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He has made many fine speeches, but his speech today was not one of them. I got the impression—I could be wrong—that his heart was not altogether in it, because at the centre of the argument with which he began was the necessity for him to believe that there was some prospect of the Provisional IRA genuinely ending its campaign of violence. I do not believe that any intelligent person can look at the behaviour of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein and feel that there is any genuineness or sincerity on their part about permanently bringing their campaign of violence to a conclusion.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh offers choices, although he limits them. He says that there are two ways in which decommissioning can take place, but he makes an assumption in offering that choice—that decommissioning might take place. I do not believe that it will. Indeed, I can only take the organisations that are holding on to arms at their word when they tell us that it will not take place. I shall develop that point further later in my speech.
  The issue of decommissioning has become all the more important because of the method that the Government have used on this occasion to set up a talks process. Decommissioning would not have become an obstacle if it had not been the intention of Her Majesty's Government to concede to pressure from the Government of the Irish Republic to bring terrorists to the talks table. We have had many types of political negotiations in the past, but the marked contrast is that, on all previous occasions, the talks were between legitimate—some would call them constitutional—political parties; on that basis, they might have had some difficulty in agreeing an agenda, but at least they came to the table with the level playing field that one would expect those involved in negotiations to have.
  The Government decided, however, that, because of the violence that was taking place, particularly the bombs in London and the mainland, they wanted—no doubt, from their point of view, for the best of motives—to draw the IRA into a situation where it would become politically more difficult for it to carry on its campaign, and dangled before it the prospect of being involved in negotiations. That caused a major difficulty, because it required the Government to sell the idea that other political parties in Northern Ireland should get down into the gutter with the IRA and talk on its terms.
  The Government set down criteria that they knew—rightly at the time—would never be met. I can recall the Secretary of State, back in 1993, saying on Radio Telefis Eireann:
  "The IRA will have to give up its guns and explosives to prove violence is over".
  54
  When the process began of bringing terrorists into talks, absolute proof was required that we had a permanent and complete cessation of violence, that if there was to be a ceasefire, it was for real: if the IRA—and, for that matter, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Freedom Fighters—was to be involved in political negotiations, we had to be absolutely certain that it was totally committed to peaceful means, to use the jargon from the joint declaration. The Secretary of State outlined in that broadcast, and, indeed, in many others, that, as evidence that it was totally committed to democratic and peaceful means of resolving our problems in Northern Ireland, the IRA would have to give up its guns and explosives to prove that violence was over.
  Just before the IRA ceasefire, the Secretary of State said:
  "the idea that I will talk to them now, or those who represent them and argue for them, is one that would turn the stomach of decent people through the length and breadth of this Province. If you bring a bomb with you then don't expect the British Government to dignify you with the status of a constitutional politician."
  I suspect that many people in Northern Ireland were saying, "Hear, hear!" to the Secretary of State as he made a common-sense utterance—the distinction between those who are legitimate politicians and those who are the front men for terrorist organisations.
  At that stage, it was clear that the Government's requirement was not that constitutional politicians should move to the position of terrorist leaders, but that terrorist leaders should move and prove themselves worthy to be involved in negotiations by being exclusively engaged in democratic politics, and doing so in a peaceful way.
  It was not very long, however, before the Government started to lower their sights; the Secretary of State was requiring only "substantial progress on decommissioning", and the rot was beginning to set in. It was not long before the Prime Minister told the House:
  "No one has asked for the total decommissioning of all weapons before talks begin … 'Show your determination to seek peace by beginning to decommission.'"—[Official Report, 24 January 1996: Vol. 270, c. 361.]
  We had moved from the situation in which guns had to be handed over to one in which the IRA had only to start the process. Then we moved to the famous Washington 3 proposal, which required paramilitary organisations to offer some arms
  "as a tangible confidence building measure and to signal the start of a process."
  Gradually, the Government's requirements were watered down. I find it laughable when I hear some nationalist and republican leaders—even those in leadership in the Irish Republic—chiding the Government for not moving. It flies in the face of what has happened over the past three years: the vast movement of the Government towards a position, while the IRA has not moved a centimetre from its position in 1993.
  The final move—sorry, I should not say "final", because it may not be the Government's final move. The Government's position was then to accept the findings of the report of the international body, one of which was that some weaponry could be decommissioned during the process—some and not all weaponry, and certainly not at the beginning of the process, with no indication that it must be other than at the very end of that process.
  Like many people in Northern Ireland, I had thought that that was the Government's final climbdown. However, many of us are a little nervous when we hear

  55
  the Prime Minister positioning himself to blame the intelligence services for a situation that may arise. He will allow Sinn Fein-IRA into the talks process on the word of the intelligence services that a ceasefire is genuine and for real.
  Are those the same intelligence service experts who advised the Prime Minister several years ago when he made a working assumption that the ceasefire was permanent? If the Prime Minister was betrayed—those were his own words—on the basis of information that he received from the intelligence services, what confidence can the community have that he will not be similarly fooled on this occasion, and that the IRA will not have conned the Government once again?
  No one is more easily conned than someone who wants to be. I do not doubt that the Government—indeed, everyone in the House—want a genuine cessation of violence by the Provisional IRA, but we would be foolish and lacking in judgment if we were to fall for the same trick twice by the Provisional IRA. I have no doubt that the Provisional IRA has no intention of committing itself to a complete and permanent cessation of violence. The evidence shows that the Provisional IRA has one objective, and it is prepared to use violence—or turn it off from time to time—if that helps it to achieve its objectives.
  Decommissioning means much more than simply taking guns out of the Northern Ireland process. One could easily accept the argument often advanced by the Social Democratic and Labour party that, if the IRA were to hand over its weaponry tomorrow, within a short time it could substantially replenish it. I am advised by the security forces that the IRA has sophisticated manufacturing means at its disposal. Even if it could not bring in weapons from outside, it would be capable of producing high-class weaponry. It is not simply a matter of getting weaponry out of existence—good and right though that would be. To use language on which I am not keen, we need confidence-building measures.
  We need tangible evidence that the Provisional IRA is serious. That tangible evidence does not come from the words that it uses in a statement. Whether or not it uses the P-word—permanently peaceful—we need actual evidence that it is not still targeting, training and recruiting people. We need to know whether it intends to continue its campaign. We know from sad experience that, while it was telling us that it was leading "the Irish peace process" and that everyone else was dragging behind, and how enthusiastic it was to have a peaceful and democratic resolution of our problems, it was stacking a garage in this city for another bombing campaign. It was buying vehicles that it could use to bomb Thiepval barracks in Lisburn. It is clear that there was no genuine intent on its part to have a permanent cessation of violence.
  It is incumbent on the Government to ensure not only that the Provisional IRA includes the necessary wording in its statement, and that the intelligence services have confirmed that the Provisional IRA is taking no action on any front, but that intelligence sources are allowed a significant period to test that fully and decommissioning takes place. That is the importance of decommissioning to me. It is tangible evidence that the Provisional IRA is serious.
  56
  I say that as someone who has seen no evidence that the Provisional IRA has any intention of calling a permanent cessation of violence, and of committing and submitting itself to the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The debate has already been referred to as an academic exercise. Few hon. Members believe that the Provisional IRA is about to rush forward with its weaponry and offer it up for decommissioning. The leadership of the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation has said that it does not intend to hand over one bullet or one ounce of Semtex until the end of the process, provided that it has what it wants out of that process. It is a thoroughly conditional preparedness to decommission. It says, "If you give us what we want, we'll hand over our guns." It is in effect saying that we can buy its weapons by concessions. That is the IRA's position—even so, I suspect that a few of its members would not want to hand over the stockpile of arms that they undoubtedly have in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.
  The Bill is likely to be one of the least used pieces of legislation that the House has ever debated or passed. I suspect that it will have dust on it, and that it will not be used that much by civil servants to determine whether the right means and methods are used to decommission weaponry. It gives me little comfort to know that this legislation will be on the statute book, because it is not backed up by any reality that decommissioning will take place. That is not to say that the Government should not go through with the exercise: the paramilitaries should abide by it, because they have no excuses for not decommissioning.
  The Mitchell report is clear. The international team said:
  "the paramilitary organisations will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations. That was the unanimous and emphatically expressed view of the representatives of the political parties close to paramilitary organisations".
  I part company with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, in that I have never given any commitment to the Mitchell report. I do not agree with it, and I never have. I support the six principles that are contained in it, but I do not believe that its proposals or recommendations are worthy of support. The proposals have no integrity.
  Mr. Mallon: Given the fact that the legislation is modelled on the modalities in the Mitchell report, will the hon. Gentleman vote against the Bill on the ground that it has no integrity?
  Mr. Robinson: I shall come to my attitude to the legislation. It does not follow from what I have said that I will vote against the principle of decommissioning in the legislation. Naturally, a series of amendments will be tabled in Committee, when attempts will be made to right the wrong of Mitchell and the Bill by seeking changes in the legislation and voting for such changes—if we are permitted to sit on the Committee; that is yet to be settled.
  The principle—if it can be called that—contained in the international body's report is that, because the paramilitary organisations say that they will not hand over any weapons, the overall principle should be given up, whether it is right or wrong. The body takes a purely pragmatic approach to decommissioning, rather than a principled approach. Because some people say that

  57
  decommissioning must happen before talks and others say that it will not, it adds those statements together and divides by two, ending up with the idea of some action during the talks. I see nothing very principled about that approach. I do not accept that politicians should reduce the level of the democratic process to suit those who have abused it and done everything possible to undermine it.
  The Mitchell report states:
  "We were told that the clearest demonstration of adherence to democratic principles, and of a permanent end to … violence, is the safe removal and disposal of paramilitary arms, and that at this time only a start to decommissioning will provide the confidence necessary for all-party negotiations to commence."
  I remind the House that everyone who has been present at the talks has signed up to the Mitchell principles, one of which is total decommissioning on the part of paramilitary organisations. Indeed, the Mitchell report goes further than simply agreeing that that should happen; according to the report, the principles should be not only laid down but honoured. That constitutes a requirement for something to be done.
  What disappoints me—that is an understatement—is that the Government are quite happy to move on to other matters. Having talked about the issue of decommissioning, which they define as "addressing" it, they are content to move on without actually doing anything about it—without requiring paramilitary organisations to decommission.
  The answer to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is simply this: the paramilitary organisations will not decommission unless they are required to do so. If they are left with the choice—if they are told that, unless they decommission, they cannot be part of the process—they will be far more likely to give in weapons than if they continue to be told, as the Government are now telling them, that perhaps at the end of the process they cart hand in a few guns. If the Government had said from the beginning, "These are the terms on which you can enter negotiations: it is a necessity for you to hand in weapons," it would have been clear to all that, if they wanted to be part of the talks, that was what they would have to do. Now they know that all they have to do is stand still, and the Government will move to their position.
  The legislation has a time frame. It suggests a five-year period—a lifespan of half a decade. I find that strange, although I am sure that the Minister will explain when he winds up the debate. The Bill runs parallel to the talks process. The two go together; one is intended to aid the other. Yet, under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996, the talks process has at most only another 18 months to go. I wonder why the Government have given the Bill a lifespan that extends beyond the period of the talks.
  It could be argued that the decommissioning schemes can run to up to 12 months, and that therefore a 12-month period should be provided for weapons that are surrendered on the last day of the talks, when agreement is finally reached; but even that does not stretch the period to five years. I wonder what the Government have in mind in keeping the legislation in being after the lifetime of the negotiations has ended. Are they considering another scheme? Have they other proposals on the shelf which they intend to bring out? Perhaps they will enlighten us before the evening is out.
  I am a little worried about dealing with legislation that leaves it open to the Government to design decommissioning schemes with which we may be entirely
  58
  unhappy. At this stage, we must take the Government very much on trust. I would not have thought it impossible for them to present us with a sample scheme, and I hope that they will do precisely that before the Committee stage is over. I should like to hear something about not just the Northern Ireland arrangements, but those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  In regard to the rest of the United Kingdom, if I said that I was uneasy it would minimise my concern far too much. I am deeply concerned that the Government are offering the House legislation to deal with Northern Ireland in this manner: they are saying that certain evidence can be destroyed when it relates to Northern Ireland but that, if the evidence relates to Great Britain, they will adopt a different course. I hope that the Minister will deal with that inconsistency; undoubtedly, either he or a colleague of his will have to do so in Committee.
  I have attempted to make it clear that, while legislation has been presented to us today, I have no confidence that it will ever be used. I do not believe that the Provisional IRA is serious about decommissioning, or, indeed, about ending its campaign of violence. To that extent, we must be engaged in an academic exercise. I regret to have to say that, but it is so.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Many of the issues, both general and specific, about which I had intended to speak have already been dealt with. It would be easy to dispose of some of our problems if they could all be fitted into neat and pithy aphorisms such as, "You can take the gun out of politics or you can talk the gun out of politics," but, when some of those pithy statements are examined, they turn out to be rather more complex than they seem.
  Let us examine the statement referred to by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Talking the gun out of politics means bringing members of Sinn Fein-IRA into the talks. On the present terms, they will come into the talks without having decommissioned any weapons. That means talking to them about how they are going to make a democratic commitment when they still possess weapons.
  That was recognised by both Governments from an early date. Paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration implicitly stated that those who wished to be involved in democratic dialogue would have to give up violence permanently. The fact that everyone considered that it would have to be permanent is evidenced by a number of statements. On 16 December 1993, in the Dail Eireann, Dick Spring made it abundantly clear that Sinn Fein-IRA would not be allowed to comment on the democratic process, take a look around to see what it offered and, if it did not offer anything that it should have offered, resort to violence again. The commitment had to be permanent.
  Our memories have been somewhat dimmed by the passage of time, but everyone will recollect that between 16 December 1993—the date of the joint declaration—and 31 August 1994, when the IRA declared its ceasefire, there was much talk about permanence. The IRA made many calls for clarification. All of us were told by the Irish Government and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that "complete" meant "permanent", but people who considered the language knew that "complete" was simply a definition of the ceasefire and

  59
  gave no hint whatever about its duration. The word "permanent" was a term of duration; the word "complete" was not.
  Of course, the British Government were more sceptical about the nature of the declaration than the Irish Government and the hon. Member for Foyle. After three months, the British Government assumed that the ceasefire was permanent, and worked on that basis. The difficulties thereafter have been outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who has recited accurately, as has the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), Sinn Fein's progress and the relationship of Sinn Fein to the British Government.
  As late as 28 August 1995, in response to a call from Mr. Albert Reynolds, Mr. Gerry Adams and the hon. Member for Foyle, at a peace conference at Killala, for Sinn Fein to be admitted without any decommissioning or pre-condition, the Northern Ireland Office stated that Sinn Fein's failure to decommission weapons of some sort before entry would be irreconcilable with the principles of constitutional democracy. In response to that impasse, the Mitchell commission was deputed to do what the Governments had been unable to do: to determine how one could compromise between Sinn Fein's demands and the requirement of democrats, principally the pro-Union parties, that they would not sit down and have discussions—nor could they—unless all the parties to those discussions submitted themselves to the principles of democratic procedure and permanently forsook violence as a means of attaining political objectives.
  The Mitchell report of the international body was supposed to solve that dilemma. The solution did not find favour with the majority of the pro-Union parties. I share the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, in that I never at any time endorsed the whole of the Mitchell report, or agreed to support it. I unequivocally support the six Mitchell principles, but that is an entirely different matter.
  The key paragraphs in the Mitchell report are paragraphs 34 and 35, which are repeated in all the Government documents, in the Command Paper of 16 April 1996 and in the Prime Minister's recent statement of policy. In particular, paragraphs 34 and 35 offer no foundation for an acceptable form of decommissioning. Paragraph 34 is nothing more than a suggested compromise between the pro-Union requirement that some decommissioning occur before the start of all-party negotiations, and Sinn Fein's declared position that there would be no decommissioning of any sort until an agreed settlement that it could endorse had been reached.
  The pro-Union position before the Mitchell report was similar to the British Government's position on 28 August 1995: to admit Sinn Fein into all-party negotiations before it had commenced a process of negotiation was irreconcilable with constitutional and democratic principles. The Government, however, suffered a sea change after the report.
  The suggested compromise in paragraph 34 of the report was that some decommissioning should take place during the process rather than before or after. The reasoning behind that suggested compromise is flawed
  60
  entirely in its basic premise that both sides were starting off from positions that were equidistant from the middle: Senator Mitchell's compromise. That was not true.
  The pro-Union parties were not involved in violence of any sort, did not support violence as a means of obtaining political objectives and were content to rely entirely on democratic procedures as a means of obtaining their goals, but Sinn Fein had a democratic mandate of some 15 to 16 per cent. and was a minority party. In the circumstances, Sinn Fein-IRA was dedicated not to democratic procedure—because a party with that proportion of support could never hope to achieve its objectives by democratic political means—but entirely to the gun and the bomb as the means for securing its political objectives.
  In the circumstances, to suggest that Sinn Fein-IRA should be admitted to the talks and be part of a process, and that it would drip feed small amounts of guns or Semtex in return for political concessions, was absolutely and totally undemocratic and unacceptable. The decommissioning of weapons is to be viewed not as a surrender by anyone to anyone, but as a mere acceptance of democratic principles and procedures as the basis for the settlement of disputes and the attainment of political objectives.
  The flaws in the reasoning in paragraph 34 are further illustrated by the next divine paragraph to which so much devotion is granted: paragraph 35. The suggestion in paragraph 34 is said to offer an opportunity to use the process of decommissioning to build confidence by offering progress on political issues as the price for modest mutual steps on decommissioning. Stripped of its political padding, paragraph 35 suggests decommissioning in return for political concessions.
  The suggestion of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that, faced eyeball to eyeball with democratic procedures and the arguments of democrats, Sinn Fein-IRA would somehow crumble, and feel shamed and unable to sustain its arguments does not bear thinking about.
  Mr. Mallon: We would find out.
  Mr. McCartney: With respect, democrats do not need to find out what the objectives of Sinn Fein-IRA are. It has been amply demonstrated not only that Sinn Fein cannot be trusted, but that it does not intend ever to use any methodology other than violence to attain its objectives.
  If paragraph 35 of Mitchell means—as I submit that it does—that there will be modest decommissioning in return for political concessions, it poses two questions. First, who will be the judge of whether sufficient political concessions have been made? Secondly, who will assess the worth of those concessions in terms of the guns and Semtex with which they are to be won? The answer is that the terrorists of both sides will determine whether the concessions they have obtained are sufficient to warrant some small or modest handing over of weaponry.
  It is possible to have a permanent cessation if we accept the IRA's price for a permanent cessation of violence. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked how we can talk guns out of the Northern Ireland context. Presumably, it will happen when those who employ bombs and weapons to secure their objectives decide that those objectives have been secured.

  61
  Peace can always be obtained at a price. Peace could have been obtained in 1939 or in 1940 by meeting Adolph Hitler's modest requirements. The principle is exactly the same in both cases, albeit Adolf Hitler was operating on a rather grander scale and had many more munitions than Sinn Fein-IRA. He had political demands in middle Europe, and he wanted them satisfied. When he failed to achieve them by negotiation, he went to war. But he did so only after negotiation failed. He got what he wanted through negotiation in Czechoslovakia, but he failed to do so in Poland. We are witnessing exactly the same type of anti-democratic and fascist activities by Sinn Fein-IRA.
  We can examine the principles of decommissioning only by considering the terms upon which decommissioning may be achieved, and by considering the relationship between the terms of any new ceasefire and the issue of decommissioning. The permanence of a cessation of IRA violence has a direct bearing on the issue of decommissioning and the modalities for its implementation—which is the subject of this Bill. The language used to describe any new cessation of violence must deal not only with the ceasefire's nature but with its duration.
  If a ceasefire is declared to be both complete and permanent, it would be difficult to discover any logical basis either for the retention of weapons or for objections to agreements providing for an immediate commencement of the decommissioning process. Conversely, a failure to declare that a ceasefire is permanent, coupled with a reluctance to decommission—either before, during or after negotiation—must be construed as a very strong indication of rejection of an absolute commitment to democratic procedure, and as a reservation that, if such procedure does not afford an acceptable outcome, there will be a return to violence.
  Those concepts were precisely encapsulated by Mr. Dick Spring's statement to the Dail Eireann on the day after the joint declaration. He said precisely that one cannot walk in, have a look at what is on offer within the democratic process and then reject it and return to the bomb and the bullet if it fails to measure up to one's expectations. The Irish Government and the Social Democratic and Labour party would expect pro-Union people to accept exactly that position. I believe that such conditions are wholly and totally unacceptable, and I think that the overwhelming majority of pro-Union people in Ulster feel the same way.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made some very perceptive comments, and he has grasped the essence of the position held by Sinn Fein-IRA. He said that the IRA was humiliated by the British Government's attitude after the ceasefire, which caused it to feel that it was being required to surrender, whereas the IRA's position was that it was a combatant and, in one sense, of equal status with the British state. He said that the IRA's attitude was that it would not surrender to anyone, that it held its arms legitimately and that it was a lawful force. I accept entirely his analysis of the situation.
  Those factors bear very heavily on the IRA's attitude to what is euphemistically called the peace process. If viewed from a pro-Union and democratic position, the peace process is about democrats negotiating together, on democratic principles and with democratic procedures, to discover a solution to a problem. That is how we on the pro-Union side regard the peace process. It is not regarded
  62
  in that manner by Sinn Fein-IRA. Sinn Fein-IRA does not think of itself as an unlawful organisation. It thinks of itself as the true spiritual and democratic heir of the Sinn Fein of 1918.
  In one sense, Sinn Fein-IRA does not even acknowledge as lawful the Government of the Republic of Ireland. It regards the course on which it is set as a national war, on behalf of the only people who really matter: those who truly know and hold the essential spirit of Irish nationalism. Therefore, in engaging the British Government, Sinn Fein-IRA does not wish to sit down and negotiate with lesser mortals and lesser parties—from the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party, right down to the humble United Kingdom Unionist party, not to mention the women's coalition and the Social Democratic and Labour party.
  Those parties and individuals are irrelevant to Sinn Fein-IRA. At best, they form part of the democratic window-dressing or backdrop against which Sinn Fein-IRA, as a combatant, will conduct not political negotiations but conflict resolution, or a peace conference, between itself and the British state, in which the two sides hold their weapons lawfully and legitimately. If it starts from the basic premise that it holds its weapons lawfully and legitimately, not only will it not hand over a significant amount of weaponry or engage in a process in which weapons are taken out of the political context, it will not hand over a single rusty revolver or a pound of sweating Semtex. The reason it cannot do so is ideological—[Interruption.] Those who have a more profound knowledge of weaponry are perhaps signifying that Semtex does not sweat, unlike dynamite or gelignite. I bow to their superior knowledge. I was aware of that difference, but I did not think it one of great substance. I know that there are those who turn their microscopic diligence to particularities, but I think that we should concern ourselves with broader principles of rather more importance.
  As I was saying, there is no way in which Sinn Fein-IRA will ever—before, during or after the negotiations—hand over any weaponry unless it is convinced of one of two things: first, that there is an immediate concession to its demands, which can be crystallised as "Brits out" and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis—that is unlikely to occur—or, secondly, that it is offered a political framework that might just, positively and without there being much doubt about it, offer to it within a span of perhaps less than 15 or 20 years the prospect that its objectives will be achieved. They are the only two possibilities, but there is no possibility whatever that it will throw away the only weapon—violence—which has ever succeeded in advancing its cause.
  In what other political or democratic setting would a party that can conjure up what was for it a very good election result of only 15 per cent. of the vote—obtained, I believe, by conning the electorate, or a sizeable proportion of it, into voting for it on the basis that it might engage in peace talks—have the clout and political influence with two sovereign Governments that Sinn Fein has demonstrated? No one is going to convince me—or, I hope, any other hon. Member—that the influence that Sinn Fein has had on Governments has been a product of rational thought or of powerful argument or analysis; it has been founded on nothing other than the bomb and the bullet. When I hear it being suggested that such people

  63
  might, when confronted with the views of democrats, be persuaded that they should give it all up, I almost abandon hope.
  I shall now comment on matters raised by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). She made a number of references to Drumcree, mark I, mark 2 and the possibility of turning our thoughts to mark 3. We should all understand that the events at Drumcree and Harryville are not conditions, but symptoms. They are symptoms of a majority who have lost confidence in the capacity of their Government to protect their citizenship and the value of that citizenship and to give them a sense that they are cared for and cherished equally with all other British citizens.
  There is a growing feeling, which is not lessened by terminology such as that used in the joint declaration, that the United Kingdom has no selfish, economic or strategic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland. When I recently had discussions with the Prime Minister and pointed out just how powerful that statement had been in knocking the confidence of the pro-Union people and of raising their anxiety about their constitutional position almost to the level of paranoia, he remarked that it was not a new statement; that it had been said before. Lest he was under any illusion that I was not aware that it had been said before, I told him that yes, it had been used before—by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) in a speech at Coleraine in, I believe, 1991—but I was able to enlighten the Prime Minister that that was not the real fons et origo: it was first used by Mr. John Hume on 19 September 1988 in The Irish Times when he was reporting the conclusions of his first series of meetings with Gerry Adams. That is the source of the statement.
  What we see manifested at Drumcree, and to some extent at Harryville, is a situation that has enabled the head of the community relations agency to state recently that there has never, since the agency was formed, been a worse, or more divided, or more bitter, difference between the two communities in Northern Ireland. It is something of a paradox that the two Governments should be striving for peace and telling the world that they are involved in a peace process when the main outcome of that process is the utter destruction of community relations in Northern Ireland. That tells us something.
  The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Redcar and others made powerful comments on how the rule of law had been flouted and breached at Drumcree. It was taken to be a dreadful thing. The people who assembled at Drumcree—I speak for perhaps 97 or 98 per cent. of those who were there—were not National Front louts or agents provocateurs out to stir up those called from every airt and part. They were solid.
  I went as an observer. I am not an Orangeman; I am not in the Black or in any of the Orange institutions, and I do not march on any occasion, so I went as an observer. I can tell hon. Members that 99 per cent. of the people assembled there were in employment. They were farmers, artisans, labourers and small shopkeepers—people who pay their rates and have no criminal record. They were the same sort of people as those who numbered nearly 250,000 and who, on 15 or 16 November 1985, protested on the streets of Belfast about the Anglo-Irish agreement.
  64
  The lesson to be taken from the presence of people in such huge numbers is that there is something wrong with the laws being imposed on them. It is easy to say—as some of those who have spoken today have done—that the law is being flouted. The law was flouted by John Hampden over ship-money—there is a statue of him in the Lobby—and by John Wilkes when he objected to general warrants. The law on what was once the poll tax was flouted by a large number of people and with a degree of violence. In all three instances, the law was changed because it was believed that the demonstrations showed that there was something wrong, not with the people who flouted the law, but with the administration or the imposition of the laws that the people were flouting.
  Governments should take note when a substantial number of people protest. The reasons for the protests should be considered, not simply swept aside.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not essential for the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland to respect each other? We know of the disgraceful situation in which people who want to go and pray are being intimidated. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the majority community has lost confidence in the United Kingdom when, for 26 years, successive Governments—this will continue if terrorism continues—have made it clear that, no matter what the cost in blood and money, we shall not give in to terrorism? The wishes of the majority community in Northern Ireland, whatever they may be at any given moment—we know what they are now—will be respected. There is no question of Northern Ireland being forced into a unitary state against its will. That is my view as well. Obviously, I take a different view from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. McCartney: I wish that what the hon. Gentleman has just said were true and that the perception of the majority—they are not all fools—was that successive United Kingdom Governments have given the people of Northern Ireland that assurance. With respect, that is not the case. I draw a clear distinction between democracy—the right of a majority to determine the constitutional identity of the state to which they wish to belong—and the ugly face of majoritarianism, when a majority think that they can do whatever they like because they are a majority. I am a pluralist. I believe that everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of religion, political aspiration or background, should have equal opportunities and an equal place before the law. We should be equal in all things and other cultures should be respected.
  I deplore the behaviour of those who are obstructing churchgoers at Harryville. I made it clear at the Northern Ireland forum on Friday that I thought that the behaviour of those attacking or intimidating churchgoers at Harryville was despicable and beneath contempt. I believe that those were the words that I used. Similar words were used by representatives of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party. I do not want it suggested, even indirectly, that, because one is a Unionist, one is some sort of sectarian bigot. Unfortunately, that idea has been put about and has seeped by osmosis into the minds and attitudes of many hon. Members, who unthinkingly suppose that a staunch Unionist is automatically an intellectual backwoodsman or religious sectarian bigot, properly belonging in the mid-16th century. That is far from the truth.

  65
  The Bill is welcome. It is a nice cart in which the carcase of decommissioning will ultimately be moved if we ever get the horse and some of the wheels back on. It is appropriate for doing a job, but that job has not yet been designated. I suspect, as does the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the dust will settle on the cart before it is ever put in motion to transport any weapons or Semtex to a place where they can be disposed of.
  I welcome the Bill. I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, which I hope will be dealt with later. Like him, I view with some suspicion the five-year time span for the decommissioning process, when the negotiations and the forum have a much more limited time span. I am sure that most of those anomalies will be explained.
  All hon. Members should realise that we are dealing with people committed to an idea that it is difficult for those who have not lived cheek by jowl with them all their lives to comprehend. The members of Sinn Fein-IRA are dedicated to their objectives. They have not moved an inch, nor will they. They have conned not only successive British Governments, but Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues.
  The infrastructure of the Mitchell report has been destroyed. I do not want to recite the details, but we all know that, when Senator Mitchell concluded in January this year that the intentions of those in Sinn Fein-IRA were good, they had been working away through November and December preparing for Canary wharf. They were even at it during the much-heralded visit to Belfast of President Clinton. It had all been organised. Further depredations were in preparation for Hammersmith bridge and Hammersmith itself, as recent finds showed, as well as Osnabruck, Manchester and Thiepval.
  Let us forget for a moment about the grand constitutional issue. If we were asked to enter into a business commitment in our everyday lives with business associates or people in whom we were required to put trust who had been behaving as Sinn Fein-IRA has behaved, with a similar track record for lies, deceit, perfidy and violence, we would say that we would rather not do business with them at all, but that if we had to it would be only with clear guarantees and absolute sureties that they would deliver on their bargain.
  First, we need the terms of the contract. The declaration of a cessation of violence must be complete and permanent. Secondly, they must give a physical earnest of their good intentions and back up their words by delivering a down payment of arms and bombs to show that they mean what they say. Thirdly, if they are committed to the democratic process, they will agree that negotiations on the political strand must go on without any connection with or interdependence on the decommissioning process. There can be no question of guns and bomb-making material being handed over in return for political concessions.
  With those safeguards, I would still have reservations, but I might be persuaded to forgive my brother 70 times seven times. My goodness, unless we are absolute fools, we need some form of guarantee. I do not see any forthcoming.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: First, I apologise for having arrived late as my flight was delayed by bad weather.
  66
  I welcome the Bill and I shall explain why it is essential. I believe that it was devised not in expectation but in hope, although that hope is fairly uncertain. In order to understand the Bill, it is necessary to examine the nature of terrorism in Northern Ireland in the past 25 or 26 years.
  In Northern Ireland, terrorism is not the spontaneous action of a group of people who feel aggrieved; it derives from a carefully conceived strategy that was created not by the IRA but by Mao Tse Tung in his formula for insurrection. That formula has been used by many in the past, including Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. It has been used by Sinn Fein-IRA for the past 25 years. It involves the structure of terrorism being carefully established, its final objective having been decided in advance.
  I shall not explain the strategy in detail, but say only that it involves setting up structures within every stratum of society—in educational establishments, community and housing groups, trade unions and the civil service. It seeks to permeate every level of society. It then involves various degrees of violence in an attempt to destroy the infrastructure by attacking and murdering members of the security services, the police and the Army, getting rid of political opponents and dominating certain parts of the region in order to affect every aspect of life there every day of the week and every week of the year. It involves continuing such action for as long as necessary.
  It is then possible to increase or reduce terrorist activity. In August 1994, when the level of attrition against the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland was at its highest, a saviour appeared for the IRA who suggested that its members might be interested in becoming bona fide democrats and entering the political arena on an equal basis with other politicians.
  Those of us who understood the strategy employed by the IRA knew that it was a falsehood. We knew that the IRA recognised the old adage that time equals space equals will and that from time to time terrorists can concede space. That is exactly what the IRA did. In August 1994, it conceded space for 17 months. That space gave it time to change the will of society not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom and further afield. That was a clever ploy that created a certain degree of complacency at the highest levels of society and at the heart of the British Government and other Governments who were interested in Northern Ireland affairs.
  Everyone is wise with hindsight and it is now obvious what the IRA was up to at the time. It had time to reorganise itself and move its personnel around in order to prevent the leaks that permitted the amount of attrition that the security services had achieved until then. However, those of us who recognised what was happening were concerned about another aspect of terrorism that permeates every level of society on a daily basis. I refer to the media. I do not suggest that all those in the media are fools, but many are impressed and motivated by what Sinn Fein-IRA hopes to achieve, and press activity often affects other parts of society and the attitude of other Governments such as that of the United States.
  At the time, many of us felt that we should find a means whereby international opinion could become better versed in the reality of terrorism. On that basis, the Mitchell commission was established and asked to examine from

  67
  an international point of view the problems created by terrorism in Northern Ireland and whether they could be dealt with effectively.
  I do not find much fault with the conclusions of the Mitchell commission. Its three members displayed a great deal of sincerity and in section III of the report set out valid principles. However, they might well have reached those conclusions without ever setting foot in Northern Ireland. The principles defined in section III are internationally accepted. Section VI of the report sets out guidelines on the modalities for decommissioning and contains a great deal of useful material. However, having accepted that, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that every aspect of the Mitchell report should be treated as if it were the gospel truth.
  My justification for that attitude is contained in paragraph 25 of the report, which states:
  "We"—
  that is, the commission—
  "have concluded that there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning as part of the process of all-party negotiations".
  Because that premise, or element of the commission's reasoning, was wrong, the logic—irrespective of how perfect it is—that ensues is flawed. In respect of the legislation, it is important that we should take the one thing that is necessary in order to progress the principles contained in the Mitchell report, without paying too much attention—I say this with the greatest respect for the three members of the commission—to the flawed reasoning that occurs in part of the report.
  I should first make my position clear by saying that my understanding of terrorism as perpetrated over the past 25 or 26 years by provisional Sinn Fein-IRA is that it intends never to abandon the strategy to which it is attached. It does not matter what we do—on that point I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I are not moving forward in the present process in the belief that the members of IRA-Sinn Fein are redeemable or that they want to be redeemed. They are committed to a strategy that is based on violence and that is intended to take them forward into the next millennium.
  It is a strategy not only of military terrorism, but of social and economic terrorism as well. We have seen social terrorism over the past two years, when Sinn Fein-IRA orchestrated activity on the Ormeau road and on the Garvaghy road that was in direct contradiction of the very principles for which the civil rights movement had marched 27 years earlier—the freedom to go anywhere on the public highway and the freedom to be treated equally with every other citizen in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein has told us, however, that that is not to be the case and that the Protestant community are not to be allowed to march or to engage in activities that they themselves are not prepared to sanction in certain parts of Northern Ireland.
  Much as I deplore the events in Harryville in recent weeks—here I add my voice to the condemnation already expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North
  68
  Down—that violence, albeit inexcusable, is reciprocal and is designed to drive people in Northern Ireland into ghettos. Why should the IRA want' to drive people into ghettos? One of the fundamentals of Mao's philosophy of terrorism is that the terrorists must totally dominate certain elements of the territory being contested so as to eventually provoke a civil war—a Bosnia-type situation. That is Sinn Fein-IRA's present objective.
  That is such a horrible thought that people will want to discard my words, saying, "He's off on a flight of fancy." I remind hon. Members that, in June 1995, when I explained that the Sinn Fein-IRA decision to call an end to the ceasefire had already been taken, people called it a flight of fancy. They did not want to believe that it could happen or that it would happen, so they turned their backs on the very thought. As legislators, we in this House have a greater responsibility—we have to face reality and understand our terrorists' overall strategy towards their ultimate goal if we are to take effective steps to counter that strategy.
  Although I spell out in some detail the direction in which IRA-Sinn Fein travels, that does not mean that I believe that it is inevitable that it will reach its goal—I do not. If, however, we honestly believe that we can somehow incorporate those people into the very heart of democracy, we are riding for a fall—and a mighty fall at that. We have to look at providing, sincerely and honestly, the opportunity for Sinn Fein to move into the democratic process. I cannot say that I do not want Sinn Fein to become part of the democratic process. I want to believe that that could happen, but I am convinced that it will not. If it does not happen, we have to marginalise it and every other terrorist organisation that might decide to test the will of Government, to test the democratic process and to test the will of society as a whole.
  We begin to do that by establishing an international commission for disarmament and verification of the process, so that we have a focus of attention, not only for the people of Northern Ireland or the people of the United Kingdom, but for the world as whole. The world has to understand that it is intolerable and impossible for a democracy—even one with all the flaws that our democracy has and that we in this place strive daily and weekly to put right—to accommodate 100 tonnes of modern, sophisticated weapons in the hands of terrorists.
  The very existence of this legislation and the establishment of a disarmament and verification committee challenges every terrorist who walks our streets. It challenges him physically, in terms of his right to have guns, bombs, mortars and all the various terrorist equipment that he may possess. It also challenges our society in terms of the psychological warfare that has been waged against us day by day and which we sometimes forget. It is so easy to forget the psychological warfare—the economic and the social warfare—when there is blood on the streets and people are shot to death or blown up. We tend to think of the physical pain and tragedy alone.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, after 28 years, the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland has largely come together to say clearly to Government and to terrorists that enough is enough and we will have no more?
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is absolutely right, but I think I begin to see—and,

  69
  God knows, we have waited long enough for it—in the Government, and indeed in the main Opposition party, a realisation that they too cannot for ever fall for the ploys and the propaganda of the people who have never stood by a single, solitary promise that they have made. One has only to consider the reports in the Sunday papers in the past couple of months to see how IRA-Sinn Fein dangles our democracy on a string. One minute it says that there will be a permanent ceasefire. Then it says that there will not be permanent ceasefire. Then it says that there will be a temporary ceasefire which could be extended. Or it says that there will not be a Christmas ceasefire this year for the first time in many years. There is no sincerity in any of those leaks. They are merely stories leaked to try to impress on the Prime Minister that he should take a course of action ultimately designed to further the interests of the IRA.
  The Prime Minister is in a position—like everyone in the House and in this country—to look coolly at the record of IRA-Sinn Fein over the past 26 years and ask, first, whether there has ever been any sincerity. Secondly, we should ask whether there has ever been any justification whatever for the death and destruction that has been visited on this nation—for Canary wharf, for Manchester, for Warrington, for Enniskillen, for the Droppin' Well inn, for Thiepval, for Osnabruck or for all the other acts of violence. There is no justification unless one believes the IRA's assertion that if a majority of people vote against its declared political aspiration, it has a right by force of arms to make people pay for using the democratic process.
  I say, on behalf of my party, and—I believe—on behalf of many people in Northern Ireland from both traditions and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom that we want peace. We want to be left at peace and we want to provide the opportunity for every individual, good, bad and indifferent at this time, to move into the democratic process, as is his right. But we cannot go on making excuses to incorporate in the system those who would turn democracy on its head. Those people have a choice. They must accept the system or they must be marginalised.
  I was interested in the words of the Prime Minister in his weekend interview when he said that if there was a ceasefire, he would not wait too long until he made a decision about whether it was genuine and people could move into the democratic process. That has been interpreted in some quarters as the Prime Minister saying that he will not wait too long before admitting people to the democratic process, but the Prime Minister knows that that is an impossibility. I shall give the House my interpretation of what the Prime Minister meant. He meant that we know beyond doubt the intention of IRA-Sinn Fein and, unless it stands that intention on its head immediately it announces a ceasefire, we do not have to wait too long before we can say that it is yet another tactical ploy and those people must be marginalised.
  The disarmament and verification commission, which I hope will be set up quickly under the terms of this enabling legislation, will—I hope—be a focus that will overcome the naive and sometimes malicious support that IRA-Sinn Fein finds in the most peculiar places—aye, even among those who sit on the Benches in this House. That support is sometimes naive, sometimes malicious and even treacherous and we have seen it all over the past few months and years. If we establish the commission, as
  70
  I hope we will, it must be done the moment the legislation goes through the House. There must be no delay, but difficulties could arise. Knowing the mechanics of setting up a disarmament and verification committee, my party suggested to the two Governments a way to speed that up. One could appoint a commission-designate. It would have no power to act as a disarmament and verification commission until the legislation, here and in the Irish Republic, was properly enacted, but it could do preparatory work that did not require the legislation. It could begin to consider the logistics, the technical and communications equipment that would be required and the personnel who would be needed. Of course, it could also begin—since it would itself be a user—to assist the preparation of the schemes, for the Irish Republic's jurisdiction, and the regulations, for this jurisdiction, that will be required to move the process forward. We found no great opposition from the Government to that suggestion, which could have been the beginning of the process and would have opened up progress along one track. Progress on one track would inevitably have opened up progress along the other, political track.
  We have heard fine words and avowals from the Irish Government about decommissioning and the beginning of the peace process. However, we have no peace process now. We have a political process, but there is nothing peaceful about the situation in which we live. Despite all their avowals, the Irish Government have refused steadfastly to progress one iota and have walked away from our suggestions. These are the people who tell us that they want to embrace Ulster Unionists and that they have a regard for us. They say that if only we would embrace them, their fondness would have no bounds. But the one thing that they cannot do is to meet their responsibilities—side by side with our Government—for the arms and explosives stored in their jurisdiction and within the British Government's jurisdiction.
  When President Clinton came to Ireland last year, he told us:
  "You must stand firm against terror. You must say to those who still would use violence for political objectives—you are the past; your day is over. Violence has no place at the table of democracy; and no role in the future of this land.'"
  Those words were applauded by everyone, yet they have easily been forgotten by the Irish Government. We all know that the Irish Government are beset by all sorts of internal problems, but it does not take a great deal—irrespective of one's personal problems—to display decency and honour when dealing with other people. That has not been evident.
  In the Bill, we see a manifestation of the resolve not just of the Government but of this House and this land to deal with the problem created by a minority who would use violence for political ends. Whether IRA-Sinn Fein co-operates or not, the Bill will provide a springboard to enable us to launch our counter-propaganda and public relations throughout the entire world. One does not create legislation or set up an international commission on disarmament and verification unless there is a real and tangible problem. For that reason, I welcome the Bill.
  I conclude with the words of someone who may not be known to everyone in the House, but who is known to most people in Northern Ireland—a gentleman called Father Denis Faul. In summing up what we are facing from IRA-Sinn Fein, he said,
  "Whatever happens ․ the militant side of Nationalism never intends to compromise on its demand for a United Ireland."

  71
  He went on to warn that
  "these Nationalists are convinced that their aspiration will never be realised through the democratic process—
  and it cannot be—
  but only through violence."
  Finally, he warned that
  "the Provisional IRA is determined that this outcome will, and can only, be achieved through them."
  I leave the House with the words of that good public figure, who has stood firm against terrorism within both traditions. These words should be remembered, and they will convince everyone who is genuinely involved in the search for peace that we in this House must put in place every possible device to frustrate the intentions of these evil men.
  7.35 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: In this important debate, I once again express my appreciation, and that of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, to the members of the security forces who have stood resolutely against terrorism over the many years that terrorists have imposed their onslaught of violence, terror, murder and destruction on our beloved Province and here on the mainland. I believe that they deserve our support.
  I trust that the Government will always realise that they owe it to the people of Ulster to bring peace and stability to our Province and to see that terrorism is destroyed. I must confess that, at times, many people—including many members of the security forces—are dismayed because often, and especially since the so-called peace process commenced, there has been a softly-softly approach against the terrorists. Instead of terrorists being hunted down and brought to justice, no one now seems to be permitted to rock the boat.
  It is interesting that in today's Daily Telegraph, Sean O'Callaghan—in admitting his part in IRA activities—said:
  "I wanted to bring some of the godfathers down with me. I wasn't to know about the embryo peace process."
  The report added:
  "because behind-the-scenes talks were going on with IRA leaders, whom he was implicating, the evidence against them that he gave to the RUC was not even forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  That statement is worthy of serious consideration, and we need a reply from the Government.
  There have been constant threats from those in the Sinn Fein movement who are supposed to be the political face of the IRA, although we know that they are one and the same. Mitchell McLaughlin said that, if the Prime Minister did not do or say certain things, there would be "lethal consequences". I have referred previously to a recent television programme on Martin McGuinness, one of the leading members of IRA-Sinn Fein. He is one of the leading members of the IRA, never mind Sinn Fein. The evidence produced by that programme, and the serious evidence given by those who lived under the terror of Martin McGuinness, must be tested in the courts, and I believe that the Government must not close their mind to that.
  72
  Sad to say, we are living in a time of constant violence. A newsletter this morning reported:
  "A 16-year-old boy was strung upside down on railings and beaten by a gang of men until both his legs were broken.
  The barbaric attack began with the youth being seized in an alleyway in the nationalist New Barnsley area of west Belfast late on Saturday night.
  His legs were tied with tape and he was hung upside down from railings and both legs battered with clubs."
  That violence against a 16-year-old boy was the responsibility of IRA-Sinn Fein, for which some people would try to apologise, and members of which hon. Members have even sought to bring into the Palace of Westminster to give them an acceptable face. The violence continues, and let no one suggest that the leopard has changed its spots, because IRA-Sinn Fein is the same corrupt organisation, the same bunch of murdering thugs, as it has always been.
  The same article also says:
  "In Londonderry, another 16-year-old was in hospital with head and arm injuries after being attacked and beaten …
  A 22-year-old man was attacked in the Monagh Road area of west Belfast, by a gang of five men brandishing iron bars and claiming to be from the IRA. He was taken to hospital suffering from cuts to the head and upper body and bruises to the body and the arms …
  A 20-year-old woman was punched in the face, dragged from her bed and thrown into another bedroom where her two-year-old daughter was sleeping.
  The men then beat her 27-year-old partner about the head and body with a hammer."
  That was the report this morning; that is the up-to-date news on those so-called converted terrorists. That is the bunch of thugs that we as parliamentarians are asked to sit down with and to accept as part of a democratic process.
  The reality is that violence in Ulster continues unabated. We talk about decommissioning, but there is no decommissioning of the mind-set of those thugs and murderers. Let us not talk about mindless violence, because there was a purpose behind every act of those who perpetrated that barbarity. They want to hold our community under the heel of terror.
  When we talk about the need for another ceasefire, we should realise that a ceasefire means only a cessation of firing. People say that, after the members of the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation have stopped firing their guns, they are to be accepted as democrats. Democracy does not permit people to hold an arsenal of weaponry that can bring destruction upon a civilised community. The process of destroying illegal weapons in Northern Ireland is based on the recognition that groups that claim to be committed to peace and democracy do not need weapons of murder and destruction.
  It is easy for people to put their tongue in their cheek, smile from the side of their mouth and say that they have renounced violence. The only proof of the pie will be in the eating, and the only way in which those people, or any organisation, can prove that they have renounced violence—that there is a permanent end, not only a cessation—is by surrendering their weapons of war, terror and destruction. No democrat needs an illegal arsenal at his disposal.
  No group that calls itself democratic has a right to the name if it makes threats, as Mitchell McLaughlin did, of lethal consequences if the Prime Minister does not say the right thing. That is a threat of further violence, and

  73
  Mitchell McLaughlin is not the only one to have made such a suggestion. Sinn Fein-IRA has constantly held the threat of violence over the heads of the people and the Government of the United Kingdom.
  When there was an IRA ceasefire in 1994, the Prime Minister said that he had to be sure that it was permanent before civil servants could begin exploratory talks with Sinn Fein, and he rightly requested that those involved in terrorist activity would openly state the permanency of the end of violence. Of course, we know that IRA-Sinn Fein was unwilling to make such a statement.
  The Prime Minister then weakened his demand, and said that the IRA need not use the word "permanent", but could use any group of words that meant that violence was over for all time and under all circumstances. As we all know, Sinn Fein-IRA remained tight-lipped, and waited for Dublin and America to act dutifully and pressurise the Government into capitulation once again, so the demand was even further weakened.
  The Prime Minister then came over to Northern Ireland and suggested that he had a working assumption that violence had ended. On the basis of that working assumption, what happened? The protection of the people of Northern Ireland was relaxed and put off guard, and a tranche of 100 concessions was offered. The Government printed all the concessions in a book, so that the whole world would know about them.
  It is amazing that, on the basis of a working assumption, with all the cuts that were going on, no expense was spared in printing the book and telling the world about the 100 concessions. The IRA pocketed every concession and reached out its begging bowl, knowing from what had happened throughout the process that, having got some, it could get more.
  The ceasefire was not a permanent end to, or a renunciation of, violence. I am glad that the Prime Minister admitted that fact in an interview this weekend. Talking about the pressure for a new ceasefire, he said:
  "What I do not wish to see would be a phoney ceasefire, a ceasefire simply to score public relations victories and to try and have Sinn Fein parachuted into the talks without actually giving up the violence that has sustained the IRA for so long. I'm not interested in a phoney ceasefire. In retrospect we had a phoney ceasefire; we thought we had a real one, and what did we subsequently find out? We subsequently found out that within days of declaring the ceasefire Sinn Fein/IRA were filling garages in London with semtex and explosives. That's not a genuine ceasefire."
  The Prime Minister said that this time we must ensure that
  "they're not targeting people, they're not buying arms; they're not preparing to go back to violence. And when Fm satisfied there is such a ceasefire, a genuine ceasefire, and it looks as though it is going to be sustainable, and I will not wait for too long to see if it is to be sustainable."
  The Prime Minister acknowledges that those of us who live in the Province and live day by day with the reality of the threat of terrorism know exactly what it is to have our families and friends constantly under threat from the murder gangs of the IRA. We know what it is to be continually targeted by the terrorists; we know what it is to realise that there are people out to destroy our families; in short, we know that the IRA has not changed. It has not been deflected from its path of war, nor have its members changed their hearts and moved to the pathway of peace.
  This is why we believe that all illegally held terrorist weapons must be handed in and destroyed. What is more, the terrorists' organisational machine must be completely
  74
  dismantled. The killing machine is still intact; none of the sinews of war has been disabled. The fact is that punishment beatings, intimidation, racketeering, targeting and recruiting continue. What is needed is the defeat of armed terrorists, not an accommodation with them.
  I remember when the Prime Minister and Albert Reynolds jointly issued the Downing street declaration, laying down their conditions for all-party talks. The Prime Minister elaborated on the meaning of the declaration's reference to parties committed to "exclusively peaceful means":
  "The IRA would have to hand in its huge arsenal of weapons,"
  he said. At the time, that was the British Government's standard. Four months later, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) reinforced that idea, when he said that no guns could be on the table, under the table or outside the door.
  It would seem that the people who made those commitments have very short memories. Only shortly afterwards, the British Government were willing to accept the token destruction of some weapons. Indeed, Albert Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, claimed that weapons were never even mentioned in the discussions, and formed no part of the Downing street declaration.
  Make no mistake: the issue will have to be dealt with. If Sinn Fein negotiators were allowed into the talks backed by IRA guns, they would resort to the threat of violence if those talks did not go their way. They would have no qualms about leaving bodies scattered across the countryside—just as they have done through all these years.
  The article by Sean O'Callaghan to which I referred said that what stirred him up more than anything else was when a woman was blown up by a bomb that he had set, and his IRA quartermaster asked him whether the woman had been pregnant. That, he said, would mean that two Prods had been killed for the price of one bomb. That was what really made him wonder what kind of an organisation he was working for.
  As long as the IRA remains in existence and retains one bullet or one ounce of Semtex, I do not think Unionists can ever trust their commitment to the democratic process. Let us therefore not look for a gesture or a fudge on this issue. We require the absolute and total surrender of illegal weapons. If the British Government were to stand by their original commitment, they would require the very same.
  My party will not oppose the Bill, but we do believe that there will be peace only when the weapons of war are finally removed from the hands of the murderers on the streets of Ulster. There is no place in a democracy for people with illegal weapons at their disposal with which they can threaten democrats who do not agree with them.
  The Government owe it to the people of the United Kingdom to rid our country of the scourge of terrorists, wherever they come from. That will leave the security forces as the only people with the right to protect the population of the United Kingdom. I salute the bravery of our security forces, and I ask the Government to untie their hands and permit them to go after the terrorists and bring them to justice.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Hamilton, after which there were delays at Glasgow airport.

  75
  I trust that both sides of the House are in agreement on the need to bring about an unequivocal ceasefire that will lead to all-party talks and decommissioning—and, I hope, the development of a permanent and peaceful settlement. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for all the hard work he has done in that respect, and I again urge Sinn Fein to try to persuade the IRA to bring about the unequivocal ceasefire that will allow Sinn Fein to enter the all-party talks.
  I believe that the British Government should face up to their responsibilities. They could and should do much more to encourage the restoration of a ceasefire. The Government must learn from their past mistakes. The last ceasefire was a missed opportunity because of a series of protracted delays, first over clarification, then over permanence and then over decommissioning. There were great hopes that the Mitchell commission would break the deadlock on decommissioning, but when the commission came out with its report, the British Government put up another hurdle by insisting on further elections as a precondition for talks.
  It was unjustifiable and deplorable on the part of the IRA to resume hostilities which led to the deaths and injuries of innocent people. I pay tribute to the former paramilitaries on the loyalist side who have managed to maintain their ceasefire; I hope that it continues. I note, however, that at least one person who was closely associated with one of the minor loyalist parties to the talks was involved in a trial at the High Court in Scotland and found guilty of an arms-related offence. But that did not disqualify his party from participation in the talks. I am not arguing that it should have done; I think that the talks should be all-inclusive, and that the British Government should be even-handed and consistent.
  The delivery of an unequivocal ceasefire, and signing up to the Mitchell principles, should be the only preconditions for admission to the talks. No more hurdles must be put in the way of Sinn Fein or any other party. Mitchell proposed that the parties consider a compromise under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, instead of before or after. That seems a sensible compromise, which should allow Sinn Fein to enter all-party talks soon, after an unequivocal ceasefire is declared.
  The Government could and should encourage such a ceasefire by announcing a timetable for entering the talks, instead of putting up more hurdles as outlined in the Prime Minister's statement of 28 November.
  Another lesson that can be learned from the previous ceasefire is that the peace process has a better chance of developing when the British and Irish Governments work in harmony and speak with one voice.
  I sense that, in recent weeks, the British Government have been listening more to the voice of the Ulster Unionists than to the voice of the Irish Government. I do not criticise them for listening to Ulster Unionists, who must be brought into the whole process, but the fact that the Government have apparently given more credence to them than to the Irish Government in recent weeks may have more to do with the arithmetical composition of the House than a genuine desire to develop the peace process.
  I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State: the Government's days are clearly numbered; this may be the Government's last chance;
  76
  why not take a risk for the sake of peace? It would be a tragedy if another opportunity were lost, simply because the Government wanted to buy a few more votes and a few more months in power. The cause of peace is much more important than that.
  8 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I have been present, on and off, for most of the debate and have listened carefully to what has been said, not only by the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman but by several late arrivals. I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that he was not the only hon. Member to have been delayed by the weather. Some of my colleagues were similarly held back. Indeed, we have all had some form of travel difficulty today.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who talked of nationalist concerns over Drumcree. I find it amazing that all that I ever hear about Drumcree is that nationalist fears have resulted from it. No one seems prepared to consider that the Unionists might also have fears over Drumcree, Bellaghye and the boycotts that people have suffered. That seems to have been quietly swept under the carpet.
  While the hon. Lady and other hon. Members are not unwilling to accept that the IRA has been the most active ingredient in promoting those confrontations on the streets, they seem to accept that those groups who call themselves "concerned residents" really represent the community and they would amount to nothing, were they not backed up by thugs with iron bars and balaclavas.
  There is also a great willingness on behalf of the RUC to deal with the obstruction of legal processions. I remind Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House that the legislation under which we now operate was originally introduced to restrict traditional processions in Northern Ireland. At the same time, however, it re-enacted legislation relating to the obstruction of legal processions. If the police paid more attention to that and less attention to the obstructionists' howls, many of the problems that have been encountered might have been avoided.
  I have difficulty with the fact that Unionists and members of the Loyalist institutions are asked to negotiate with those people. The perception of the Unionist population is fairly clear and accurate; it is being asked to negotiate with those opposed to the Union—those whom they perceive, to put it mildly, to support violence and terror—and ask them for permission to walk down the road. Once the people of Great Britain understand that that is what is happening, much of the violence in Northern Ireland over the past couple of years and the reasons for it become clear.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who have both left the Chamber, talked about the psyche of the IRA. The IRA and its fellow travellers object to the police because they try to ensure that the Queen's writ runs. They object to the present situation in the prisons because they call those thugs and murderers who are properly given long sentences "prisoners of war".
  Both the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and the hon. and learned Member for North Down are as well aware as I am that if the IRA, Sinn Fein and violent republicans in general ever admitted to themselves that

  77
  they were guilty of murder, rather than of killing someone in armed combat in legitimate battle; if they ever admitted to themselves that they were thugs rather than people imposing their authority on the population like some sort of thuggish police force; and if they admitted that their acts were illegal, their whole world would collapse. They could no longer rationalise the murders, the violence, the bombing and the intimidation of which they are guilty. It is to protect themselves that they claim that they are POWs. It is to protect their own mental stability—some of them have it—that they maintain that they are the legal descendants of old Sinn Fein and, even before that, of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. None of that has any legitimacy. They have been nothing but thugs and murderers from day one.
  The hon. Members for Redcar and for Falkirk, West said that the two Governments working together had made progress. The hon. Lady cited the Anglo-Irish agreement and the framework document. My view is simple. I must ask: progress to what and to where? Progress implies that one has moved from one position to another. We all know perfectly well that the IRA is interested not so much in political power as constitutional change, which diminishes the United Kingdom and takes us ever closer to a united Ireland. If the hon. Lady and those who think like her call that political progress, they are failing in their duty as spokesmen for any major or even minor party in this House. The duty of all hon. Members is to maintain the United Kingdom and those who fail to do that add to rather than diminish the violence and horrors of Northern Ireland.
  I was puzzled by the sheer blatant stupidity of what took place in Harryville in Ballymena. Over the weekend I began to wonder what was really going on and whether, rather than being stupid, there might be a deeper and more sinister motive behind that whole affair; a motive that may not have been there from the start but may have developed over recent weeks.
  I commend the hon. Member for Redcar for taking up and supporting the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the IRA will have to show by actions, not words, that violence has finished.
  The Secretary of State said that this is an enabling Bill. Thankfully, he translated the word, "modalities" for us. I was glad of that but sorry that he did not translate exactly what "decommissioning" meant. That, however, has become clear as the debate has developed. I was interested that individuals will not be exposed to prosecution over the surrender of weapons. I looked with a rather jaundiced eye at that part of the Bill—clause 6—and I was surprised that it will take up to five years to convince those people that they must give up their weaponry.
  Like one or two others, I must voice my abiding concerns about clause 6, which prohibits testing. It prohibits ballistic tests or any tests that might identify a weapon that was used in terrorist crime. Let us be clear about the sort of crimes in question. We are not speaking about someone who went out and shot his neighbour's pet rabbit or pigeon. We are speaking about guns that were used to murder people, to try to murder people, to rob banks or to intimidate. We are told that they will not be examined, and that evidence that might be gleaned from them will not be used to secure the conviction of a murderer.
  78
  Is that acceptable to the House? Is it acceptable to the chief constables in Great Britain, or are they not prepared to accept that aspect of the Bill, because they want to solve the murders and put the murderers away? That is exactly what the people in Northern Ireland want. I hope that the Government of the Irish Republic want it too. Some of the weapons were used to murder members of the Civic Guard and to commit other murders in the Irish Republic. I hope that the Government have the desire and the will to ensure that those who committed murders in that jurisdiction pay the price for their crimes.
  We know that the legislation passed in this House must be the same as the legislation passed in the Dail, so the Bill cannot be changed. It will be pushed through. If the legislation is not the same, there is no way that a cross-border body can deal with the surrender of weapons. That is what decommissioning means, although it is not popular to state it as baldly as that—it might annoy members of the IRA, I suppose, but I am not concerned whether they are annoyed or not, because I do not believe that they will give up any of their weapons anyway. If the legislation is to be enforced, it must be the same on both sides of the border. We may object, but not a jot or tittle, other than little problems of punctuation that may turn up, will be corrected. If the Irish Republic is not prepared to make the same corrections in its legislation, presumably they will not be made in ours either.
  I hope that as the passage of the legislation proceeds, the Government and those in the Dail who may want to question their legislation, will consider why we will refuse to use information that might put another murderer in prison, where he properly belongs.
  Let us be honest. If the Bill is not passed, there is no framework. It is therefore vital for the Bill to be passed, to create the framework, although as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, it is likely to remain unused. Nevertheless, we want it, so that there is a framework to enable weapons to be cleared if, by some unbelievable sequence of events, we ever get to that stage.
  Whenever the weapons are cleared, decommissioned or surrendered, and members of the IRA come to talks, they will be faced with a question that they have yet to answer positively: do they accept the principle of consent? Do they accept the right of the people of Northern Ireland to say "No, we are not going to have a united Ireland. No, we don't want the cross-border institutions so beloved of Members on both Front Benches. No, we will not be ruled in a way that takes us out of the United Kingdom, in the short or the long term"? Will the IRA sign up to that? What is the evidence that it ever will?
  Surely that evidence was set out elsewhere. It was made clear earlier this year, when the IRA refused to sign up to the reports of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin, on that very issue. Every other nationalist party, every other republican party and other odds and sods from elsewhere in the island of Ireland signed up to it. If members of the IRA could not sign up in those circumstances, they will not sign up to anything that would be acceptable to anyone but themselves. The plain truth is that the IRA has no intention of signing up to the principle of consent, now or ever. That would be such a psychological blow to the IRA that it could not come to terms with it.
  Similar problems apply to the time scale. We are told that there must be a time scale, but that must be related to the actions of Sinn Fein and whether or not the

  79
  conditions that allow talks to start are met. Because of the problems of the IRA ever meeting those conditions, no time scale is possible. The time scale is a red herring put out by the IRA to get itself into the talks on its terms, not on the terms set down by Mitchell, the Governments or anyone else.
  The record shows that where there is no disarmament when dealing with an organisation such as the IRA, civil war will resume at some point. It may resume, as it did in Angola and Cambodia after the elections, or in Northern Ireland's case it may resume when the talks are completed, before we reach the elections, but resume it certainly will, if the IRA does not get its way. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us that decommissioning should be addressed before anyone left the table. I fear that that is pie in the sky. We must ask ourselves what will happen when the IRA refuses to accept the result of talks, if by some strange chance we ever got that far.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh expressed his regrets that the IRA had not been defeated by the security forces. At some point we will return to that issue. It will come down to the IRA having to be defeated by the security forces. I am sorry to have to say that to the House, but it has been my view throughout my life.
  I have grown up among those people and known many of them as a boy, a youth and a man. As the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) knows, there were two incidents in my village fairly recently. I do not think that I misjudge or misread members of the IRA. I know how their thought processes work and I know the conclusions that they have reached. I know what I am up against. I wish that others, not only in this House but throughout the world, would accept the reality of the situation, rather than the airy fairy nonsense that so many of them accept as reality.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: As the House will have gathered, the Opposition support the approach to decommissioning that was embodied in the Mitchell report. Therefore, as the Bill stems from the report and its recommendations, we support the Bill.
  The compromise envisages some decommissioning taking place during the process of the talks. We believe—as do the Government—that decommissioning will help to build the trust and confidence necessary for a better future in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is enormously important in upholding the rule of law and underpinning the peace process by providing an assurance that any future problems will be solved by democratic means.
  As the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate, decommissioning must suggest neither victory nor defeat: it must be accomplished to the satisfaction of an independent commission and it must result in the complete destruction of armaments. It must be fully verifiable; it must not expose individuals to prosecution and it must be mutual. We embrace those principles and we also seek those goals. We believe that this measure contributes to fulfilling Mitchell's intentions.
  I have several questions regarding the detail of the Bill which the Minister may deal with in his winding-up speech, through correspondence or in Committee.
  80
  Hon. Members have referred to those issues during the debate, but they are important and it would assist us if the information could be provided before the Bill goes to Committee. The first point was raised by the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I ask the Minister to clarify the Republic of Ireland's position vis-a-vis decommissioning.
  We do not associate ourselves with the negative remarks on that subject as we believe that the Republic has been very steadfast and remains deeply committed to the process. However, it is known that a large quantity of the munitions involved is held in the Republic—that fact is not disputed. When talking about decommissioning, it would be fanciful to imagine that the former terrorists would bring their armaments across the border into Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Republic's actions are very important.
  On 29 October, the Minister of Justice for Ireland referred to a commitment by both Governments to publish draft enabling legislation and to introduce that legislation in respective Parliaments in the current Session so that the legislative framework would be enacted by Christmas. In the same speech, the Minister of Justice said that there had been considerable discussion with the Northern Ireland Office as there is a recognised need for a co-ordinated response and the implementation of complementary arrangements in relation to the stock of illegally held weapons. The Northern Ireland justice Minister went on to say that the Bills differed in some respects. Perhaps the Minister will explain in what respect they are different and how that affects the Bill. Although they may be only technical divergences, it may assist the Committee to know how the Bills differ.
  Secondly, will the Minister explain the thinking behind section 8? How does he expect it to operate? The section refers to the Act's implications in England, Wales and Scotland. Some hon. Members have referred to that issue during the debate and we need some details about how the relevant jurisdictions will implement the legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond tonight or have those details ready for Committee.
  The third issue was referred to by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is probably unfortunate that we are in the habit of using the word "amnesty" in relation to the legislation. To my mind, "amnesty" implies that people have been forgiven or let off in some way for crimes that they have committed. However, as I read it, the Bill provides an amnesty not for the person but for the weapon. Evidence regarding the weapon can never be used, but if other evidence is produced to implicate someone in a crime—if, for example, two people come forward and say "We saw this person commit the crime"—that person is just as likely to be prosecuted in future. I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Basingstoke and I do not think that he fully appreciates that point.
  Mr. Hunter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a distinction between not using the forensic evidence and not obtaining it? If forensic evidence is obtained, it may eliminate many hours of police work.
  Mr. Worthington: I appreciate the difference. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that we

  81
  have an amnesty for weapons in order to assure people that the evidence collected from the weapons will not be used against them in the future. If there is decommissioning and if there is the slightest suspicion that evidence from a weapon may be used against a person in the future, we can forget about that scheme.
  Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statement by the hon. Member for Basingstoke is based upon a misapprehension? He assumes that the international commission will surrender arms or that arms surrendered will go to either the Garda Siochana or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We are concerned about the destruction of arms and explosives and the verification of that, not about the people who will destroy them.
  Mr. Worthington: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. I do not think that any hon. Member has referred to my fourth issue. Will the Minister explain what is meant in section 7(2)(c) of the Bill which refers to conferring:
  "on members and servants of the Commission and members of their families who form part of their households, in such cases, to such extent and with such modifications as the order may specify any of the privileges and immunities set down in Parts II, III and V of that Schedule".
  What does that mean? What safeguards are provided? Does the section refer to some kind of diplomatic immunity? I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification of that.
  My fifth point regarding the Bill was also raised by the hon. Members for Upper Bann and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). What action will immediately follow the enactment of the Bill? In his statement on 30 October, the Secretary of State said it would be desirable to set up a committee of the plenary session talks to work out the precise role of the international commission proposed in the report by the international body. He spoke of the need to equip such a committee with a body of experts to work up the alternative approaches to decommissioning referred to by the international body. When the Bill passes through the House and the other place there will be no hiatus but will there be immediate action in that respect?
  We want to assure the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning means the end of violence without simultaneously insisting on total prior decommissioning which may erect a barrier to substantive talks that could bring about the desired decommissioning. It is ironic that the more barriers to talks one erects through insisting on total decommissioning, the less likely it is that decommissioning will occur at some future stage. The Mitchell report was commissioned to assist us in that regard and it produced a recommendation, which we have embraced.
  The IRA and Sinn Fein are being incredibly disingenuous if they do not see that it becomes impossible for their opponents to accept the genuineness of talks if, simultaneously, activities take place that undermine the talks for which Sinn Fein has clamoured. Sinn Fein must know that there is a strong suspicion—it was more than a suspicion, according to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—that the tactic of Sinn Fein-IRA is consecutively to use talks and violence. Confidence was very much destroyed by Canary wharf, Manchester, Thiepval and Osnabruck. IRA-Sinn Fein must realise that
  82
  such is the atmosphere of mistrust that it will have no one to talk to unless there is evidence of its bona fides, and unless there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, action as well as words.
  If at the same time as talks, people and places are targeted, that would be inimical to the talks process. If at the same time as talks, or preparation for talks, there is paramilitary training, that would be inimical to the peace process. If at the same time as talks, or preparation for talks, there are punishment beatings and intimidation, that would be inimical to the talks process. If at the same time as talks there are boycotts of totally legitimate businesses that happen to be owned by the other side, that would also be inimical to the talks process.
  All those activities raise question marks about the genuine intention of those seeking all-party talks. Such activities are utterly destructive to the chance of progress because they are destructive to the trust that is necessary. On the other side, if every tactic is used to prevent talks progressing to substantive issues, that is also destructive behaviour. All of us who advocate the democratic process have to prove that it works. We have to show that progress is possible. To sit at the talks table and put verbal obstacles to progress is to be destructive of a peaceful future. The issue of trust is key to this.
  There are many confidence-building measures that can and must be used. There is a heavy responsibility on all of us. The Prime Minister made a key statement on 24 January this year, when he said:
  "The Government believe that such an elective process offers a viable alternative direct route to the confidence necessary to bring about all-party negotiations."
  That statement was backed by many hon. Members. He continued:
  "In that context, it is possible to imagine decommissioning and such negotiations being taken forward in parallel."—[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 354.]
  There is a heavy responsibility on those who urged that the electoral process offered a way forward to all-party talks to demonstrate that it can work.
  Decommissioning is a two-way street. It is likely to occur only if we can show that the democratic process on offer is genuine. Decommissioning is most likely to occur, therefore, if it looks as though the talks are working.
  As we debate the Bill to provide the mechanism for decommissioning, we must continue to support the talks process. There is a heavy realisation that the talks may become comatose because of the approaching general election. That must not happen, because that lack of progress has its own big dangers.
  For our part, we will, as we always have, continue to support the Government through the Bill while we believe that they are genuinely seeking to move forward to all-party talks and a peaceful resolution.
  8.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), and I welcome his concluding remarks. I shall return to some of his points.
  I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate for their wide-ranging support for the Government's proposals in the Bill. A number of points were raised,

  83
  and I shall seek to deal with them during my remarks, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not specifically refer to them on each occasion.
  I welcome the support given to the Government's proposal by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. I shall touch on some of the issues in the clauses that she raised.
  The hon. Lady referred to the importance of the review carried out by Dr. Peter North. I particularly welcome her remarks on that matter. We shall look at what Dr. North recommends when his report is made available to the Government in a week or so. We shall look in particular at what recommendations are capable of negotiation and agreement between all concerned so that we can avoid a repeat of the Drumcree situation this year.
  Mr. McNamara: I thought that Dr. North's report was due in January, not in a fortnight's time.
  Sir John Wheeler: I said in a few weeks' time. The end of January is, alas, but a few weeks away.
  Ms Mowlam: I apologise for pressing this point, but if the Minister is suggesting that the report will be ready any earlier than two weeks, it is very important to get it into the public domain and for the Northern Ireland parties to discuss it as soon as possible, because it is important to build a coalition of support around them.
  Lady Olga Maitland indicated dissent.
  Ms Mowlam: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but to me "a few" means two or three weeks; the end of January is six weeks away.
  I do not want to push the Minister unreasonably, but it is an important report.
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I used the word "few". Others may have misheard and believed that I was referring to two. I understand that the report will be available at the end of January. I look forward to receiving it and to considering its recommendations at that time.
  The hon. Member for Redcar also referred to the events at Ballymena and to the courage of the mayor, Councillor Curry, and others, who demonstrated beyond any doubt the determination of all men of good will to stand out against the evil that is occurring there at the present time. I, too, salute the work of the mayor and others who sustained him during the past weekend.
  The hon. Lady raised a number of questions about clauses. On clause 1(b), we have no specific additional provisions in mind. The methods of decommissioning identified in clause 3, which reflects Mitchell's recommendations, seem to cover all the most likely and realistic options. Nevertheless, the Government will wish to preserve maximum flexibility in case other possible ways to decommission illegal arms are identified. Clause 1 preserves that flexibility, which I think the House will agree is entirely sensible.
  84
  The hon. Lady raised a point about clause 4(2). The schedule contains a comprehensive list of offences that may be committed during decommissioning and to which the Government consider the amnesty should apply. The Government will include the power to amend the schedule as a precaution, should the need arise at some future stage to amend the list to add or remove offences or descriptions of offences—for example, should future changes to the firearms or explosives law add or remove relevant offences.
  On clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6, the Government have in mind the situation where, having been decommissioned, an article is misappropriated and used to commit a crime. The Irish Government make similar provision in their Bill. For example, where a gun is handed over to a commission or designated person, it is regarded as having been decommissioned. If, having been handed over, it is stolen from storage prior to destruction and used to commit a crime, it is right that it should be available in evidence and that it should be forensically tested in relation to the alleged offence.
  The hon. Lady asked whether the England, Wales and Scottish schemes under clause 8 would be radically different. The answer is no. Decommissioning schemes made under clause 8 will automatically attract the Bill's provisions, including the core amnesty, evidential and forensic testing restrictions. The detailed modalities of a decommissioning scheme in Great Britain may differ from a Northern Ireland scheme, depending on whether different circumstances applied at the time the scheme was made.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) also asked a question on that theme. Any weapon decommissioned under the scheme will be permanently unavailable for testing, whereas the life of the Bill is only five years. Therefore, the Bill's benefits have a permanent effect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) also welcomed the Bill, and made a substantial speech in which he asked a number of questions.
  Mr. William Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of decommissioning, may I say that I assume that the Government have thought of the possibility of stolen weapons turning up among those that are decommissioned? Will they be returned to their original owners?
  Sir John Wheeler: The Government will want to contemplate that matter and make provision for that. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will pursue that issue in the Standing Committee, if he is privileged enough to be appointed to it; if not, I am sure that others will. I shall be pleased to consider what special arrangements can be made in those circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke raised a number of points on clause 6. He and others talked about testing and the serious effect on the investigation of crime. I contend that the exemption for testing would not necessarily preclude investigations of crime. Prosecutions are often mounted in the absence of the weapon used: other evidence of involvement in the crime often plays a more central role.
  If evidence against an individual that was unconnected with the decommissioning process supported a prosecution, that evidence would be used and the

  85
  prosecution could take place. The important point to remember is that it is our aim in the Bill to persuade those in possession of unlawful armaments to decommission them. If they feel exposed, they will not participate, and the arms will not be handed over. The removal from society of illegal arms and Semtex is clearly in the public interest, but without clause 6 there would be no decommissioning.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The provisions of clause 6 apply to weapons: they do not apply to individuals. Individuals will continue to be pursued by the authorities to the utmost degree. It is the weapon or the Semtex that will be exempt under the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but he knows that all bullet-firing weapons in Northern Ireland that are held under firearms certificates are presently recorded—they are taken in, fired and a match is kept. The forensic laboratories of the security forces also have a record of all weapons that have been used in terrorist crime, because the bullets fired are recovered. If we do not examine the weapons that are handed in, we will never be sure that all those that have been used in terrorist crime have been handed in. It is a way of checking the honesty of the people with whom we are dealing.
  Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which we should explore in Committee. If an amendment is tabled, the Committee will have to consider it; but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Bill's purpose is to set in train a decommissioning arrangement in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom so as to remove the stockpiles of illegally held weapons, Semtex, detonators and other munitions. If there comes a time when that is realistically expected, there must be the means to secure the delivery of those illegally held weapons. If we create a situation in which those who already hold illegal stocks of weapons will not play the game, we will lose out completely.
  A judgment must be made. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House finds it a distasteful judgment, as I do, but that is the reality of the problem with which the kernel of the Bill is trying to deal.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a number of key points in his speech, which I was glad to consider. He referred to the late arrival of sonic hon. Members. As someone who has travelled to and from Northern Ireland more than 300 times, I, too, am a victim of aircraft delays. The House will readily understand why some hon. Members were unable to be present.
  The hon. Gentleman welcomed the Bill. He referred in particular to the commission's powers. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that the Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government have accepted the international body's recommendation that decommissioning should be overseen by an independent commission. Such a commission should be established by international agreement, and could have conferred on it appropriate legal status, immunities and privileges under the Bill. I shall return in a moment to immunities.
  The commission would be capable of operating independently in the United Kingdom and the Republic, and would enjoy appropriate legal status conferred by
  86
  order. The eventual composition and size of the commission will depend on its role in the decommissioning scheme. What the Government expect it to do will, to a large extent, determine its membership and how it is staffed and otherwise resourced. The parties in the talks process are considering the commission's composition, role and terms of reference. The Bill intends to keep all options open. I hope that that will help and reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  The Government have no fixed timetable for the establishment of a commission. We do not rule out its establishment prior to the start of decommissioning, so that it can act in an advisory capacity to the two Governments, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said. The Government are committed to providing the necessary information and assistance to the commission to enable it to carry out its duties. We do not consider that the powers to search, to enter premises or to require the production of information are necessary or desirable, as we believe that decommissioning, once it occurs will—indeed, must—be voluntary and cannot be imposed.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann and others asked about the five-year limit. The overall time limit of five years has no particular significance. It does not mean that we expect the decommissioning process to last five years, although the possibility that it will cannot be discounted. We recognise that the decommissioning process may extend beyond the two-year period set aside for talks. We are, for example, looking for the decommissioning of all illegal arms, including those in the possession of groups that are not party to the talks process. I am thinking of organisations such as the Irish National Liberation Army and Republican Sinn Fein and, perhaps, others. If, as we all hope, decommissioning has been completed before the end of the five-year period, no subsequent order extending the maximum duration of the amnesty will be necessary.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised points about entry conditions. If there were to be a new ceasefire, we should need to take great care in assessing whether it was indeed unequivocal. In the making of that assessment, account would have to be taken of all the circumstances, including events on the ground. Reference has been made in the debate to some of those. For example, is targeting still going on? Are the terrorist gangs still fully equipped and preparing to mount operations? Are punishment beatings going on, and who is responsible for them? All the events that have been mentioned in today's debate would form part of the judgment that Her Majesty's Government would have to make.
  Mr. McNamara: If that is the case—no one would disagree with what the Minister said about all the issues that he has mentioned—why can he not say, "If you declare a ceasefire at such a time, provided that those matters are dealt with, we will then allow you to enter the talks"?
  Sir John Wheeler: If the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein were to make an announcement in clear, unequivocal terms, and follow up its statement and its language with clear action on the ground—by, for example, giving an instruction to stand down the so-called active service units—and if the evidence were so plain that no Member of Parliament, including those present this evening, doubted the reality of the position, it would be

  87
  comparatively easy for Sinn Fein to enter the talks process. If that were not the case, however, Her Majesty's Government would be obliged to take into account those circumstances, to look at events on the ground and to make a judgment. That is an inescapable burden that falls on the Government—a burden that the Government will not shirk.
  In saying that, I make it clear to the House that the Government are not attempting to erect barriers to Sinn Fein's entry into the talks process. We want an inclusive process. But if that process is to succeed, and if other parties to the talks are to remain in the same room, what Sinn Fein says must be absolutely true and beyond any question of doubt. I hope that I have made our position clear.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) also raised the question—as he just did in his intervention—of Sinn Fein's entry into the talks. As I have made clear, and as the Government have made clear on many occasions, the exclusion from the present talks process is a self-exclusion. It could end today. It is in the hands of the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein to take the action that would command confidence and permit it to enter the process: that is entirely a matter for it.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister used the word "action". He will recognise that there was a time when members of the IRA would never deny their membership. They changed that, and were prepared to challenge it at the time Daithi O'Connell was brought before the courts in Dublin. Does the Minister accept that words are not enough to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are genuine? References to a "resumed ceasefire" or to the "restoration of a ceasefire" are not enough either. That is not the ceasefire that the people of Northern Ireland want, because it was never real or genuine.
  Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the previous ceasefire, which we all welcomed, was nevertheless fraudulent: it did not deliver the integrity that the House, the public and parties in Northern Ireland sought. We cannot make that mistake again. If there is to be another ceasefire, it must be genuine, and perceived to be genuine by all who have an interest in the process; otherwise it will not work.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also raised points about the scheme. The Government intend the scheme, or schemes, to be appropriate to Great Britain, taking into account the different circumstances that may apply in the two separate jurisdictions—England and Wales, and Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about details of the scheme. Work on ways in which decommissioning take place in practice is certainly in hand, but it is not possible at this stage to finalise the detailed arrangements. Those are also matters in which the parties to the talks will have an interest. I can say, however, that the ways will encompass one or more of the decommissioning methods set out in paragraph 44 of the report of the international body.
  I very much hope and expect that all parties in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to examine any decommissioning schemes in draft. The House will also
  88
  have the opportunity to scrutinise both the content and the length of such schemes at regular intervals. That is the purpose of clause 2, and the intention behind it.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) asked about the relevance of the Mitchell report following the events of 9 February. The Government's view is that the only basis on which the process can move forward to a position in which decommissioning is actually likely to occur is the compromise favoured by the international body, providing for some decommissioning during the negotiations. I recognise the sincerely and strongly held reservations of principle expressed by many hon. Members about aspects of this, but unless we can move the process forward under the Mitchell proposals, no progress will be made.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the 100 concessions, to use his words. They were not concessions. They were moves, during the ceasefire period, towards normality. The Government made them in response to the decreased security threat, as was then the case. No one in Northern Ireland wants to live with all the security arrangements that then existed, but, in the wake of the resumption of violence, and under the advice of the Chief Constable, the Government have reversed some of those relaxations. We will take no risks with the security of people in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised "The Cook Report" television programme and the involvement of Mr. Martin McGuinness. Any evidence that comes to the notice of the authorities will be properly examined, but it is for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there is a case to take before the courts. There is no lack of willingness, however, to investigate such cases, if the evidence is there.
  In Committee, we will consider in more detail the points raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. I think that I have answered some of them already, but the timing of the introduction of the Irish Bill is a matter for the Irish Government. I have no reason to believe, however, that their earlier intention to introduce their Bill shortly does not still stand. Both Governments have worked closely together to prepare legislation that is entirely complementary.
  In the past few weeks, that detailed work has continued. The need for the two Bills to match each other closely has required the Irish side to take account of certain late changes to our Bill. They refer in particular to including Great Britain within the Bill's scope. The scheme in the Republic of Ireland requires a form of regulation that we do not need to have in our Bill, so there are those minor differences in the arrangements.
  Ms Mowlam: I appreciate the Minister giving way. In terms of timing, would the Minister help to clarify an earlier intervention? Would it be possible for him to give a commitment that the publication of the North committee report will be timed with a statement in the House, so that the House can respond to the report immediately?
  Sir John Wheeler: I cannot predict what the business managers may be willing to agree to at the end of January. I will, of course, take note of the hon. Lady's suggestion about a statement. She would agree, however, that it is important that, once it is available, the report should be carefully considered. If there is a need for any legislative

  89
  changes, the House would want to consider those at the earliest practicable opportunity. To that extent, I acknowledge the hon. Lady's concern.
  Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Minister's caution about promising statements to the House, because I am sure that the business managers of the House would have an interest in that. I notice, however, that the Northern Ireland Office rarely makes statements to the House and that there are oodles of matters on which it should, including its statement tomorrow morning in Stormont—a place where we will not be.
  Be that as it may, will the Minister give an undertaking that, as soon as he receives the North committee report, it will be published so that all parties in the House and the whole community in Northern Ireland can react to it and so that we have proper consultation before the legislation?
  Sir John Wheeler: I will of course take into account the hon. Gentleman's advice and find out what can be done to meet his objectives.
  I hope that I have dealt with some of the points of hon. Members. I look forward to pursuing those points in further detail in Standing Committee next week, when I hope we shall be able to make speedy progress with the Bill, which has received widespread support from the House as a whole.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  NORTHERN IRELAND ARMS DECOMMISSIONING BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

  (a) in connection with a scheme for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives, or

  (b) in making payments to or in connection with a Commission established to facilitate decommissioning—[Mr. Bates.]

  Question agreed to.

  CONTRACT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)),
  That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

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

    AIR CARRIER LIABILITY
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 523196, relating to air carrier liability in case of accidents, and endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the draft Regulation in the Council.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

    PROTECTION AGAINST THIRD COUNTRY LEGISLATION
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 957396, relating to the protection of Community interests against third country legislation, and endorses the Government's decision to agree at the General Affairs Council on 28th October to the adoption of a European Community Regulation providing such protection.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

  Policing the Streets
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: Earlier this year, two important reports were published that considered the effectiveness of police patrolling and the work of the bobby on the beat: the Audit Commission's "Streetwise" report, and the Police Federation's "Patrolling" report. Each made practical suggestions for improving police performance. I am grateful for the opportunity today to raise those and some other points. My remarks are intended to address national concerns, but I shall include some local examples to illustrate my points.
  The public hold in the highest regard police patrol officers and the bobby on the beat, and I believe that they are right to do so. I, too, want more officers to be working the streets and for them to do so more effectively—working to clear objectives, with better training, more responsibility and enhanced status. Such improvements would be to the benefit of our communities.
  The watchword today is "intelligence-led policing", and performance criteria stress the number of arrests being made by police officers. So the question is, "Is there really a role for officers on patrol, and especially on foot patrol?" My answer to the question, very firmly, is yes. The work of patrol officers is not simply about detecting crime: it is about maintaining order and tranquillity within a community. Too much emphasis on crime-fighting leads to a one-sided view of policing. People do not simply want criminals arrested; they also want daily problems solved: excessive noise, rowdy youths, double-parked cars.
  Just an hour ago, a constituent reported to me some problems occurring in Oldham road, Springhead, which is in my constituency. Although it is a good area, it seems to be afflicted temporarily with the problem of crowds of up to 60 rowdy and sometimes drunken youths gathering round local shops. Individually, they are probably not breaking the law; collectively, they are a real nuisance, causing problems for shopkeepers and residents. Simply put, good local policing will be needed to sort out the problem, and I am confident that our divisional commander will ensure that his bobbies soon put a stop to the hooligan behaviour.
  It is because of the same desire to maintain confidence and to reduce the fear of crime that I am so concerned about last Thursday's announcement that a local police station—in Milnrow, in Rochdale borough—is to close for health and safety reasons. I make a personal plea to the police authorities in Greater Manchester to ensure that that building is either put back into use or that an alternative facility is provided at the earliest opportunity.
  Far from being separate from intelligence-led policing, police patrolling is crucial to it. As one sergeant recently said to me:
  "It's not the police who solve crimes, it's the public. They provide the information. We just fit the pieces of the jigsaw together."
  Bobbies on the beat may not see the crimes taking place before their own eyes, but they talk to people on the streets, gather information and sense the atmosphere.
  92
  It is therefore disturbing to read the Audit Commission's finding that only 5 per cent. of police officers are debriefed properly at the end of a shift. If there is inadequate debriefing, the patrol officer is not being used properly, and, therefore, crime desks will not be provided with the intelligence necessary to ensure that criminals and crimes are targeted. I do not regard foot patrols as a panacea, but specialisms and targeting of particular criminals and particular crimes can and should be built around patrol work, rather than regarded as more important than it.
  Some of the basics of good policing were perhaps forgotten in the 1960s, when the mobility provided by cars and the communication values of radios were placed over the value of the officer working a beat. Policing became more reactive, and officers less approachable. I am glad to observe recent efforts to re-establish some of those lost links.
  In his most recent report, David Wilmot, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, stated:
  "Patrolling is an important function, not least because of the reassurance and perception of safety it conveys to the public. People want to see police officers on the streets."
  That is absolutely right. It is via patrols that the police deliver a service to the public, but I wonder whether the good intentions outlined in such reports are being put into practice across the country.
  I know from talking to the divisional commanders in Oldham and Rochdale that they want more officers put on the beat, and they are making sure that it happens. However, the Audit Commission revealed that only 5 per cent. of officers are on patrol across the country at any one time—one police officer for every 8,000 people. I have been trying to find out how many of those patrol officers are on foot.
  The chief constable wrote to tell me in October:
  "Across the Force area 4,013 officers are assigned to general police duties. The number on foot patrol duties vary from day to day at the discretion of the local Commanders. This allows for a highly flexible and unified response".
  However, it also means that we do not get to know how many patrol officers are on foot, and that patrols can quietly be used as a reservoir of manpower whenever something else turns up.
  The Audit Commission also revealed that the proportion of constables whose main duty was foot patrol varied from 23 per cent. in some forces to a staggeringly low 1 per cent. in others. It seems that we are never going to meet the public's demand for more bobbies on the beat unless we establish a baseline for the number of officers allocated to the task of patrol work, and, in particular, patrol work on foot.
  Chief constables are required annually to produce a local policing plan. I believe that it should contain a patrolling plan which sets out clear objectives for patrol work as well as the minimum target for the number of officers who should be on mobile or foot patrol at any one time in particular areas.
  Some police officers say that to produce such figures would reveal just how few police officers are on patrol at any one time. The Audit Commission notes that the police are always reluctant to admit how thinly the blue line is stretched, because it undermines one of the very things that the police want to do, which is to give the public reassurance. However, I believe that the public should be

  93
  made aware just how few police officers are available in the community. How else, for example, will they be encouraged to press for best practice or to pay for more officers? I am seeking a statement of minimum targets, not actual practice, so that, for the criminal, uncertainty will remain.
  I realise, of course, that for divisional commanders the task of allocating manpower is a thankless one. To meet competing demands, it will often be a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but unless targets are set publicly, the job of patrolling will always risk coming bottom of the list of police priorities.
  The policing plan drawn up by the chief constable should also clearly explain the force's approach to geographical policing and how it will allocate more officers to that work. The Audit Commission places great emphasis on the importance of that approach as a means of making policing and patrolling more proactive, problem solving, effective and satisfying for the officers involved.
  I am convinced that having officers take responsibility for the "ownership" of an area is vital. I am sure that the people I represent want to know that there are not just a couple of area constables working in the community but a much larger group of patrol officers who regard towns like Shaw, Milnrow or Lees in my community as their patch.
  My impression is that there has been some resistance to geographical policing in Greater Manchester because of fears that the command structure may be weakened if an inspector is too committed to just one part of a division. The answer is that implementation of geographical policing should be left in the hands of sergeants and experienced constables, rather than to the daily supervision of inspectors.
  I pay credit to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who, in his recent report, entitled "The London Beat", took up all the points made by the Audit Commission and pledged to take most of the steps recommended in it. I shall watch with interest how his positive statements are put into practice.
  Last year, the Police Federation reported that almost half the patrol officers wanted to transfer to a specialist unit. Why does the bobby on the beat want to get off the beat? It stems from the frustration of officers who are spending their time doing work that either seems to them to serve no purpose or which gives them no opportunity to get to grips with solving local problems. Too often, patrol officers say that they are treated like the lowest form of police life. It is important for the public to recognise those officers' responsibilities.
  Decisions on the street are made not by officers, but by constables with minimum supervision. They decide whether to make an arrest and whether to use force. They are the physical demonstration of lawful authority in our land, and their work can be demanding and dangerous, but, as the Audit Commission revealed, in some cases, foot patrol is carried out exclusively by probationers. The report referred to "deeply ingrained attitudes" that undervalue patrol work, and said that any move to a specialist post was viewed as an upward step. Plain-clothes officers are threatened with being "sent back to the beat" if they do not perform.
  One constable told me recently, referring to his superiors, "When we're in plain clothes, we get treated like adults. When we're in uniform, we get treated like
  94
  children." It is sad that only 5 per cent. of officers are consulted about the annual policing plans drawn up by the chief constable. Only one third of constables are consulted even about local priorities for patrol work, or feel that patrol work is valued by senior officers.
  That is the national picture. I should like to make it clear that I have the highest respect for, and a great deal of trust in, my local divisional commanders, and I know that they go out of their way to find ways of rewarding officers who prove themselves good bobbies, doing a good policing job. Personal recognition by the boss is a great morale booster.
  However, formal steps should be considered by all forces to raise the status of patrol officers. Increased training is one such step, together with the chance to undertake a wider and more satisfying range of police work, such as including experience of taking fingerprints.
  The need for new designations of police officer is perhaps more important. We need a rank between constable and sergeant. The Audit Commission suggests a rank of beat manager for an officer who is encouraged to develop skills, experience and contacts that can be applied to one community. Such officers would not only tutor probationers, as many experienced officers already do, but assist the sergeant in briefing and debriefing and assign voluntary or part-time officers to roles in the area, helping to put geographical policing into practice.
  Given the public demand for visible policing and the effectiveness of patrolling when done with clear objectives, we should consider how to supplement the number of full-time officers available beyond those who can be released by the civilianisation programme or by current plans for additional funding for the police.
  I shall not bandy words with the Minister about how many extra police officers are being allocated or have been allocated in the past. I am pleased that the Government are committed to increasing the number of police officers. I hope that the Minister will note that my party is, too. I note that the Labour party, not surprisingly, has once again refused to make any such commitment to expenditure.
  I pay tribute to the voluntary work undertaken by the 20,000 specials across the country, but the hours that they can be expected to contribute and the high drop-out rate in urban areas such as Greater Manchester make it difficult to justify heavy investment in their training and development, or in building a visible policing strategy that relies on them.
  I put it to the Minister that it is time to introduce a new category of retained police officer, similar to the retained firefighters who do a splendid job in many parts of the country, including Littleborough in my constituency. Officers in that category would be upgraded, better trained and paid specials, who could be rostered for an agreed and contracted number of hours each week, supplementing full-time officers in a wider variety of ways.
  I refer finally to communications between the police and the public. Greater Manchester police has recently embarked on the closure of its divisional control rooms and the setting up of four area operations rooms. I am told that teething problems continue some months after the launch of the project.
  Police officers keep telephoning me from across the country with one story after another, pleading with me not to reveal their names or the source, for fear of disciplinary

  95
  action. They tell me that unlimited overtime is being paid to plug some of the holes and deal with the problems. They tell me that breakdowns in the computer equipment break links with the police national computer, and that poor radio reception means that officers simply cannot understand one another, and have no confidence that their messages are being received.
  I do not know whether those allegations are true. Officers on the ground clearly believe that they are, but assistant chief constables denounce me as profoundly mistaken. As £11 million hase been invested in the project, perhaps they found it embarrassing to admit that problems are continuing. However, if they are, and that is being denied to ordinary officers who are experiencing them on a daily basis, the top brass are giving ordinary constables the impression that they are not listening to their concerns.
  The Audit Commission attributes the problem to civilian staff working in control rooms across the country without understanding the day-to-day realities of police work. I have certainly encountered that problem in Greater Manchester. That leads to a breakdown in communications. Those staff should spend time accompanying police officers on the beat, so that they understand the terminology and the way in which the police react in a variety of circumstances.
  Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the 999 system is overburdened. It is being used more than ever before, but not exclusively for emergency calls. The operator has to determine which are emergency calls and which are not. The sheer number of 999 calls now being made means that patrol officers are firefighting rather than solving problems.
  We need a 333 national line for non-emergency calls and crime-stopping information. The introduction of such a line will make people stop and think. If they have a serious concern to discuss with a police officer, but one that can wait 24 hours, for example, they should call 333. However, if it is really an emergency that requires a police officer immediately, they should call 999. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. It was recommended by the Audit Commission, and it is his chance of fame today to announce that the Government will take positive and practical action in that respect.
  Chief constables should set clear objectives for patrol officers, to raise the status of their work and put more officers into visible and effective geographical policing. The Home Office should publish guidelines to the effect that annual policing plans should make progress towards those ends, and I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.
  9.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. The debate comes a little earlier than we expected, but it deals with an important subject and he has raised some significant issues.
  The Government take the subject seriously. We fully recognise the value of patrol in delivering an effective police service and the need to keep under constant review how such important work can be made even more effective.
  96
  Indeed, the Government have an unparalleled record in supporting the police service in all aspects of its work. It ensures that the service is provided with sufficient financial resources. However, when it comes to the use of those resources, policing is fundamentally a local service and must be responsive to local needs.
  Local conditions and patterns of crime vary from area to area. It is, therefore, for police authorities and chief constables to determine the issues to be given priority in their local policing plans. I shall deal specifically with the issues which the hon. Member has raised, but first I should like to say a few words reminding the House of the resources that the Government have provided for the police service.
  I said that the Government's record is unparalleled, and so it is. Since we came to power total spending on the police has more than doubled in real terms. Total police service expenditure will have increased from just over £1 billion in 1978–79 to around £7 billion in 1997–98. The number of officers has increased by around 16,000. Civilian support staff numbers have risen by over 18,000. Constable strength is just under 98,000—an all-time record.
  Funding this financial year is nearly 4 per cent. higher or £247 million more than it was in 1995–96. In 1997–98 there will be enough provision for chief constables to recruit 2,000 additional police officers. Funding for the current year and the next two financial years will enable an additional 5,000 police officers to be recruited nationally. The hon. Gentleman may be especially interested to know that, as part of that additional funding, Greater Manchester will receive £1.9 million in 1997–98, which is sufficient to recruit 100 more officers. It is estimated that its force strength will increase this year by 105. It has also instituted an ambitious civilianisation programme, which is expected to result in the release of 300 officers for operational duties.
  I am delighted to say that in Greater Manchester there has already been a significant increase in patrol officers. In March 1981, there were 350 sergeants and 2,355 constables. In September 1996, the figures had risen to 395 sergeants and 2,815 constables. The chief constable is to be congratulated on that achievement.
  The Government provide the strategic framework for the police service in England and Wales. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, now consolidated in the 1996 Police Act, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has the power to set key national objectives for the police service. Those are determined in consultation with chief officers and police authorities. They reflect the major policing concerns of the public and give the police service a clear steer on national priorities.
  The key national objectives for 1997–98 are: to maintain and if possible increase the number of detections for violent crimes; to increase the number of detections for burglaries of people's homes; to target and prevent crimes that are a particular local problem, including drug-related criminality, in partnership with the public and local agencies; and to provide high-visibility policing so as to reassure the public. I assure the hon. Gentleman that chief officers are required by the Local Government Act 1992 to publish the percentage of uniformed operational constables' working time spent outside the station and in public. The final key national objective is

  97
  to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public. I shall come later to the hon. Gentleman's suggestions for changes in that respect.
  The objective on high visibility policing clearly reflects the importance that the Government attach to patrol work. Police authorities are required to have regard to those objectives when drawing up their annual policing plans, but all day-to-day operational matters are for chief constables to decide. How many officers are assigned to foot patrol is one such question and it would not be right to introduce a central requirement for patrolling plans to be produced.
  In addition to the key objectives, local priorities can be reflected in specific local objectives for each police force area. Those are set by police authorities in consultation with chief officers, not by chief officers alone, as the hon. Gentleman said. The Police Act 1996 also requires that police authorities consult their local communities on local objectives. In that way, local people can give their views on what goes into the annual policing plans. A two-way dialogue with the local community is crucial in enabling the police service to be responsive to local needs.
  Annual policing plans are published by police authorities. Assessments of how far the plans have been achieved are included in the authorities' annual report. There is therefore considerable scope for public involvement in the determination of policing priorities. Through putting plans in the public domain local people can then see what the force is doing and through the annual reports they can see how well it is doing it. I am satisfied that those arrangements are what is needed for assessing police performance.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Audit Commission's "Streetwise" report, which was published in February this year. That report contained a number of recommendations aimed at helping the police to target their resources more effectively and we welcomed the report. The complex nature of the recommendations means that they might take time to implement and the report recognises that. It is also essential that any changes lead to tangible benefits in the longer term. Already a management handbook, entitled "Tackling Patrol Effectively", has been produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Audit Commission, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, and the Home Office and it was issued to forces during the autumn. The handbook contains examples of good practice drawn from forces across England and Wales and I am sure forces will find these valuable.
  The handbook provides good practice advice on many of the issues the hon. Member has raised, such as measures for patrol work; geographical policing; problem-orientated policing; enhancing the status of patrol officers; and beat managers. The hon. Member also mentioned measures aimed at enhancing the status of patrol officers through the introduction of beat managers. As I mentioned, advice on and examples of those issues are covered in the handbook and West Mercia introduced beat managers in April 1995. Dyfed Powys has established them throughout its area. Through the handbook, other forces can learn from their experience and consider the adoption of similar schemes. Other forces have found other ways to enhance the role of patrol officers by specifying the skills and aptitudes that a good patrol officer needs. Officers can then be accredited in those competencies. Such schemes are running in Kent
  98
  and Merseyside. Again, forces will be able to refer to the handbook and cherry-pick those that they feel would work in their area.
  The hon. Member also raised the issue of whether a 333 line should be introduced. The Association of Chief Police Officers has asked the Police Foundation to undertake some research on non-emergency communications between the police and the public and that may shed some light on whether such a service would be beneficial. I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and his support for such a scheme. On present knowledge, however, it is not certain that such a service would have the effect that the Audit Commission or the hon. Gentleman anticipate.
  Emergency calls are just one of the many and various demands placed on our police service. A constant challenge for it is how to respond to those demands as efficiently and effectively as possible. Resources will always be finite and so it would be unrealistic to expect chief officers to increase activity on all fronts at once. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between putting officers on patrol and targeting resources at prolific offenders. Experience has shown that the targeting approach can be very effective in tackling crime.
  Forces have gained good results by the improved use of information and intelligence, by using targeted data against prolific offenders and by assigning responsibility for investigation to local units. In some areas where the police have adopted those approaches they have more than doubled their clear-up rates. That has all contributed to the reduction in crime that has been achieved in the past three years. In the 12 months to June 1996, 5.1 million offences were recorded in England and Wales—a drop of 10 per cent. since June 1993. In Greater Manchester, a 14 per cent. reduction was achieved. That overall improvement is not consistently reflected across all types of crime, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is extremely encouraging. The police service should be congratulated on its efforts to reduce crime.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to various policing models used in the fight against crime. It is for individual chief constables to decide whether those models are appropriate for their areas. A number of forces have introduced such models and found them to work effectively, but that will not necessarily be the case everywhere.
  Of course, the police, however effective, cannot do it all and the route to safer communities involves other agencies, the community at large, and other developments such as closed circuit television. CCTV does not replace officers, as some have said, but helps them do their job even better. It helps them detect and reduce crimes and convict criminals. It has been welcomed by the service and the Government fully support the introduction of new technology to fight crime. We are making £45 million available for CCTV through our challenge competitions. Our target is to have 10,000 new cameras in place over the next three years.
  My ministerial colleagues and I have already had the pleasure of launching dozens of CCTV schemes that have received funds from our very successful competitions. I am privileged to have been asked to launch one such scheme in High Wycombe tomorrow. High Wycombe has benefited from the award of a £50,000 grant in our first

  99
  competition. I am looking forward to seeing that system join the long list of those that are helping to fight crime and make our streets safer.
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth also mentioned special constables, an area of particular interest to me personally. People who give up their spare time to become volunteer police officers are fulfilling a vital role, working with the police at the heart of the community to beat the criminals. I was pleased to attend recently the launch of a scheme to boost recruitment of special constables in Northumbria. This campaign, which is part funded by the Government's specials challenge fund, is aimed at promoting the special constabulary to potential recruits. As I said on that occasion,
  "Specials are a shining example of partnership."
  Work has started on the findings of the special constabulary working group, whose report was published in August this year. The Audit Commission's recommendation that special constables who perform a stipulated number of hours a week should be paid a bounty will be considered in the light of the working group's recommendation that a bounty should not be paid
  100
  to specials. Whether or not a bounty is paid, special constables should not be asked to perform duties for which they have not been trained and properly equipped. Some £10 million of Government funding provided for the special constabulary over the last two years will help police forces to attain a common standard of equipment and training for their specials.
  In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we have a police service—from bobbies on the beat to the latest in technological innovations—that is second to none. The service is constantly facing new challenges and has an excellent record in responding to these. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is aware, Greater Manchester is one of several forces to have won the charter mark this year. That reflects just how well it is are responding, and the high-quality service it provides to the public. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the service as a whole has the resources it needs so it can continue to deliver those high standards, of which we in this country are justly proud.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested since 9 February, and are awaiting trial in Great Britain for offences which can be regarded as related to the situation in Northern Ireland. [6746]

  Mr. Howard
  Fourteen.

  Security Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the arrangements for co-ordinating the activities of the Security Service with those of police forces and other law enforcement agencies under section 1(2) of the Security Service Act 1989. [7171]

  Mr. Howard
  The arrangements, which were agreed between the Director General of the Security Service and the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, who was designated for this purpose, are set out in the annex to Home Office circular 46/1996 addressed to chief officers of police and others about the Security Service Act 1996. A copy of the circular is being placed in the Library.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) currently running and (b) planning to run during the next six months; and for each campaign (i) how much it will cost, (1) in total and (2) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [7416]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is currently running a campaign about the illegal carrying and use of knives. An information pack containing posters and background material has been sent to all schools and further education colleges in England and Wales, police crime prevention officers—CPOs—and local newspapers. A pre-recorded radio interview was sent to 110 local radio stations. Head teachers and college principals have been invited to display the posters and to consider using the support material in student project work. CPOs will invite local retailers and others to display the posters, and will work with local media to stimulate further cover.

  It is not possible to state an exact duration for the campaign because it does not use booked advertising space. Free site posters are displayed for varying lengths of time, but my Department's experience is that this can in some cases extend to several months. The total cost
  2
  of the campaign is £24,265. My Department funded the £20,289 production costs and the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office spent between them £3,976 on distribution. Euro RSCG WNEK Gosper carried out studio work for the poster and the Central Office of Information produced and distributed the radio tape.

  My Department plans to run two campaigns between January and February next year. These are:
  Fire Safety
  A television commercial to encourage the installation and maintenance of domestic smoke detectors: from I to 14 January. The total cost is £420,000, all to my Department. The advertising agency is Euro RSCG WNEK Gosper and media buying is undertaken by the Central Office of Information.
  Special Constabulary Recruitment
  Television and local press and radio advertising to encourage volunteers: from 13 January to 8 February 1997. Total projected cost is £855,000, subject to variance of about £20,000, depending on the number of respondents requesting further information. The advertising agency is Leagas Shafron Davis and media buying is carried out by the Central Office of Information.

  A third campaign will run from approximately 24 to 72 hours after the announcement of the date of the next general election, depending on the period of notice given. It is designed to advise the public of absent voters' rights. The budget will depend on media mix and costs of media space at the time, but is forecast to be in the range of £457,000 to £687,000. All costs will fall to the Home Office. Duration is also dependent on the media mix, but will be no longer than three days. Electoral registration officers will carry out supporting activity to inform voters of their rights. The advertising agency is Euro RSCG WNEK Gosper, with media buying handled by the Central Office of Information.

  None of the three campaigns uses promotions.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7545]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's spending on public information campaigns in each of the past five years and planned expenditure for the current year is set out in the table.

  Plans for publicity expenditure for 1997–98 have not yet been finalised and it is therefore not possible to provide estimates.

  Year

  Advertising (£)

  Other information material and services

  1991–92 Total

  7,275,940

  3,600,288

  1992–93 Total

  7,344,635

  5,638,982

  1993–94 Total

  9,090,222

  5,062,327

  3

  Year

  Advertising (£)

  Other information material and services

  1994–95 Total

  10,912,000

  3,190,358

  1995–96 Total

  7,609,227

  3,179,882

  1996–97 forecast total

  5,537,000

  3,317,000

  Prisons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief executive of the Prison Service to discuss availability of prison places; and if he will make a statement. [7905]

  Mr. Howard
  I have regular meetings with the Director General of the Prison Service covering a wide range of issues. The availability of prison places is one of those issues.

  Persons aged 10 to 16 convicted at all courts by age and month, 1995 England and Wales, all types of offence

  Age

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  All aged 10 to 16

  January

  16

  37

  100

  291

  666

  1,093

  1,464

  3,667

  February

  4

  33

  97

  293

  631

  1,078

  1,464

  3,600

  March

  9

  28

  118

  279

  707

  1,184

  1,601

  3,926

  April

  1

  31

  78

  200

  491

  875

  1,280

  2,956

  May

  4

  40

  92

  224

  586

  1,010

  1,414

  3,370

  June

  4

  35

  107

  258

  611

  1,073

  1,431

  3,519

  July

  4

  26

  75

  235

  564

  1,015

  1,488

  3,407

  August

  2

  27

  81

  231

  566

  1,076

  1,490

  3,473

  September

  3

  29

  85

  245

  520

  909

  1,371

  3,162

  October

  3

  34

  75

  257

  609

  1,085

  1,519

  3,582

  November

  7

  19

  99

  233

  590

  1,154

  1,569

  3,671

  December

  8

  23

  82

  164

  443

  824

  1,244

  2,788

  Total

  65

  362

  1,089

  2,910

  6,984

  12,376

  17,335

  41,121

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of pilot schemes on the electronic tagging of adults; and if he will include a statistical breakdown of the results. [7504]

  Mr. Sackville
  The report of the Home Office's evaluation of the first year of trials of electronic monitoring is due to be published later this month. It will include the relevant statistics.

  Chahal Case
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if compensation is to be paid to those released from prison arising form the Chahal case. [8120]

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal [8121]

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) 10-year-olds, (b) 11-year-olds, (c) 12-year-olds, (d) 13-year-olds, (e) 14-year-olds, (f) 15-year-olds and (g) 16-year-olds who were found guilty of offences (i) in each of the last 12 months and (ii) in total which would have made them eligible for electronic tagging under the new proposals; and if he will make a statement. [7503]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on 10 to 16-year-olds found guilty of all offences in 1995 is given in the table. Information for 1996 will be available in the autumn of 1997.

  It is proposed that a curfew order, with electronic monitoring, will be available to the courts for use with juvenile offenders under the age of 16 convicted of any offence subject to the restrictions set out in section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It will be for courts to decide whether to apply such an order in any particular case. It will be available initially on a pilot basis.

  Mr. Howard
  I have reviewed the cases affected by the judgment. I am considering what changes we might make to our appeals system to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Caddy Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the 14 cases, representatives of which have received notification that they are being reviewed as part of Professor Caddy's inquiry; and in which cases Mr. lan Feraday was a Crown witness. [7229]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 December 1996]: The representatives of the following individuals were advised that their cases would be examined by Professor Caddy as part of his inquiry.

  James Canning

  Derek Donerty

  Robert Fryers Patrick Hayes

  Hugh Jack Denis Kinsella

  5

  John Kinsella

  Ethel Lamb (deceased)

  Pairic MacFhloinn

  Sean McNulty

  Gerard Mackin

  Nicholas Mullen

  Jan Taylor

  Vincent Wood.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will write to the hon. Member in relation to those cases in which Mr. Alan Feraday was a Crown witness.

  Judicial Reviews
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many, and in respect of which judicial review application, his Department has been deemed to have acted illegally since May 1993. [7313]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 December 1996]: Since May 1993, the Home Office has been involved in several thousand judicial review applications. It has been successful in over 90 per cent. of them. The detailed information requested is not readily available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish a Government position paper on higher level vocational qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [8633]

  Mr. Paice
  A document which sets out the Government's current position on this matter is being published today. Copies are being placed in the Library. The document "Higher Level Vocational Qualifications—A Government Position Paper" invites those who have an interest in higher level vocational qualifications, in particular professional bodies and higher education institutions, to engage with the Department for Education and Employment, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) and the Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) to bring all vocational qualifications into the national qualifications framework.

  Education and Training (Teenagers)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve education and training for 14 to 19-year-olds. 18634]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today published a White Paper, "Learning to Compete: education and training for 14–19 year olds" (SO Cm 3486).

  "Learning to Compete" builds on the Government's achievements over the past decade in increasing choice, participation and attainment by young people in education and training in England. It sets out the Government's
  6
  vision for first-class education and training for the next century, based on the entitlement of all young people to learning, on the need for employability, and on the value of effective partnerships at national, regional and local level. It is designed to renew our drive towards the national targets for education and training, helping young people to play their part in a successful society, and Britain to strengthen its international competitiveness.

  The White Paper draws on extensive and invaluable consultations over the past year, in particular on the conclusions of Sir Ron Dearing's review of 16 to 19 qualifications. It proposes a wide-ranging programme of action for the Government and their key partners to improve young people's learning further, and to ensure their successful transition to employment and further learning throughout life. In particular, the White Paper:
  introduces from September 1997 a new learning credits entitlement for all young people aged 14 to 21 to career planning and learning opportunities up to level 3. This will improve young people's participation and attainment and encourage them to value their learning more. The Government have also published today a consultation document, "A Passport to Learning", on the detailed implementation of learning credits;
  enhances the breadth and rigour of the qualifications framework at key stage 4 and beyond, in particular by making part I GNVQs available from September 1998 to all schools who wish to provide them, strengthening GCE A-levels, GNVQs and NVQs, and promoting key skills throughout education and training;
  acts to make education for 14 to 19-year-olds more relevant to the world of work, by supporting innovative approaches to vocational study by 14 to 16-year-olds, introducing a new national record of achievement and encouraging more effective use of labour market information in making choices at 16;
  introduces a relaunch strategy—a new start for young people—to bring disaffected 14 to 19 year-olds back into learning with partnership projects at local level;
  introduces from September 1997 national traineeships to help 16 to 19-year-olds reach NVQ level 2 and acquire key skills with employers, taking forward the successful approach of modern apprenticeships;
  develops common principles to underpin the effective internal and external quality assurance of all 16 to 19 learning, including the introduction of an external inspection regime for work-based training providers and more consistent measures of performance;
  takes forward the application of common principles to the funding of learning in schools, colleges and work-based training, supporting good recruitment practice and effective teaching and training and rewarding successful achievement, in order to enhance choice, cost-effectiveness and fair competition; and
  introduces new funding arrangements from 1997–88 for training for young people, which are consistent with these principles and designed to reduce bureaucracy for training and enterprise councils and their providers.

  This programme of action demonstrates the enhanced capacity of my Department to make coherent policy in this key area. It will be supported by the expenditure plans for my Department set out in the Budget. The Government will work closely with their key partners and with providers to take it forward successfully.
  7
  Copies of the White Paper and the learning credits consultation document have been placed in the Library.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each year since 1991, for all English secondary schools, on the same basis as her Department's annual school performance tables, the average GCSE point scores, in five percentile groups ranked by their 15-year-olds achievements. [6406]

  School performance tables 1996 Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving

  5 percentile group

  Average point score1

  5 A* to C (per cent.)

  5 A* to G (per cent.)

  1 A* to G (per cent.)

  Number schools

  1

  60.8

  98.8

  99.4

  99.6

  218

  2

  55.8

  93.6

  97.1

  98.1

  219

  3

  50.1

  83.5

  92.2

  95.1

  218

  4

  45.0

  70.3

  93.5

  95.9

  219

  5

  42.8

  62.1

  93.8

  96.3

  218

  6

  41.5

  57.2

  93.7

  96.5

  219

  7

  40.0

  53.3

  93.6

  96.6

  218

  8

  38.5

  49.5

  92.4

  96.2

  219

  9

  36.9

  46.3

  91.2

  95.8

  218

  10

  35.6

  42.9

  90.6

  95.3

  219

  11

  34.1

  39.7

  89.1

  94.5

  218

  12

  32.3

  36.1

  86.3

  93.3

  218

  13

  30.6

  32.6

  85.5

  92.6

  219

  14

  29.1

  28.9

  84.0

  92.0

  218

  15

  27.2

  25.0

  81.4

  90.6

  219

  16

  24.9

  21.0

  77.4

  88.1

  218

  17

  22.3

  16.0

  73.4

  86.1

  219

  18

  14.9

  6.5

  52.6

  76.8

  218

  19

  1.3

  0.0

  0.0

  27.1

  219

  20

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  218

  1 The average point score has been calculated by using A*=8, A=7, B=6, C=5, D=4, E=3, F=2 and G=l.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what proportion of consultees who responded to the section on extending the freedom of grant-maintained schools in the White Paper, "Self-Government for Schools" were in favour of the proposed extensions. [6925]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]: We received 637 responses to the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools". More than three quarters were from LEAs and LEA-maintained schools. Less than 2 per cent. were from GM bodies and GM schools. The table gives the information requested.

  Proposal

  Number of responses commenting on the relevant proposal

  Number and percentage in favour

  To remove the requirement for GM schools to publish statutory proposals to:

  (a) open or close a nursery

  176

  7(4)

  (b) open or close a sixth form

  195

  6(3)

  (c) add or remove boarding provision

  152

  5(3)

  8
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]: The following list for 1996 shows the average GCSE point scores, in 5 per centile groups, ranked by their 15-year-old pupils' achievements. The figures are based on the school performance tables published in November and exclude data from the published schools that had fewer than 10 pupils aged 15. The averages quoted are simple averages, based on the sums of the percentages divided by the number of schools involved. Data for earlier years have been provided on a slightly different basis from those given in the reply to the hon. Member's questions of 7 November and 19 December 1995, Official Report, columns 960 and 1034 respectively.

  Proposal

  Number of responses commenting on the relevant proposal

  Number and percentage in favour

  (d) expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent.

  188

  5(3)

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a breakdown of(a) the £830 million available for education in 1997–98, according to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (b) the £875 million quoted in the departmental press release and (c) the £633 million available for local education authorities, showing how the above figures are intended to be spent. [7470]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The £875 million is the increase in provision for schools, colleges and universities between 1996–97, after adjusting for in-year changes, and 1997–98. Of this, £830 million relates to schools. The £633 million is the increase in local authority education standard spending-total education standard spending assessments plus recurrent specific grants to local authorities related to education-as announced by
  9
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement to the House on the local authority financial settlement on 27 November 1996.

  The breakdown of the £875 million increase is shown in the table:

  Increase in:

  £ million

  Education standard spending assessments1

  591

  New money for the nursery voucher scheme

  129

  Assisted places scheme

  22

  GEST

  22

  GM recurrent

  15

  OFSTED

  13

  Schools capital2

  9

  Specialist schools3

  7

  Other smaller items4

  22

  Sub total—schools

  830

  Further and higher education institutions

  45

  Total

  875

  1 After adjustments for changes in function and funding, in particular the national introduction of the nursery voucher scheme

  2 After allowing for contribution to LA challenge

  3 Includes an increase in capital provision of £3 million

  4 Including additional resources for ethnic minorities (section 11 grant), teacher training, changes to key stage 2/3 tests, the music and ballet scheme and literacy and numeracy centres.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when, by what mechanism and to which local authorities the £50 million in capital allowances announced in the Budget statement will be distributed. [7471]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I expect to make an announcement about the distribution of credit approvals to local education authorities and of grant to governors of voluntary-aided schools for 1997–98, including amounts over and above the previously announced baselines, later this month. A copy of the Department's letter setting out the basis on which these distributions will be made has been placed in the Library. Further support is also available through the specialist schools programme. The distribution of grant to the governors of grant-maintained schools is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much she estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7542]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total spending on advertising and publicity for the Department is as follows in financial years. Before the merger in July 1995, the Department operated separately funded programmes of publicity. This continued until the end of the financial year 1995–96.

  Department for Education:

  1991–92: £9.0 million

  1992–93: £8.0 million

  1993–94: £10.1 million

  1994–95: £9.4 million

  1995–96: £5.4 million.

  10
  Department of Employment:

  1991–92: £18.3 million

  1992–93: £7.2 million

  1993–94: £11.1 million

  1994–95: £11.1 million

  1995–96: £11.0 million.

  Current estimated spending for the Department for 1996–97 is £17.3 million. The budget for the next financial year is still under discussion, but is provisionally estimated as some £12.5 million.

  Personal Services Industry
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is her policy in respect of the continuing payment of jobseeker's allowance to people who have refused to take a job in the personal services industry; [7993]

  (2) if she will include in the next set of jobseeker's regulations an explicit provision that no jobseeker should have his or her benefit refused or reduced for refusing to take a job in the personal services industry. [7994]

  Mr. Forth
  I am satisfied that the legislation on refusal of employment already contains adequate safeguards. First a sanction can be imposed only when the opportunity of employment was notified to the jobseeker by a jobcentre adviser. Advisers will not suggest that people should apply for jobs that are obviously inappropriate, and Employment Service guidance is currently being strengthened to ensure that jobseekers are not submitted to undesirable or inappropriate vacancies. Secondly, no sanction is imposed if a jobseeker had good cause for refusing or failing to apply for an opportunity. Adjudication officers should take any relevant matter into account in deciding whether good cause was shown. Where appropriate, this must include the fact that the jobseeker refused the opportunity because of a sincerely held conscientious objection to the work concerned.

  Education and Community Values
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criterion was used by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in determining who should receive the questionnaire with the consultation document in the consultation exercise on values in eduction and the community; and if she will make a statement. [8098]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—SCAA—issued two separate questionnaires: one to a random sample of schools; the other to some 700 national and local organisations on SCAA's general mailing list. The questionnaires were designed simply to distinguish replies from these two samples. An independent research organisation is analysing the results. The consultation document remains available, although the consultation period ended on 29 November. SCAA will take account of all representations and will publish an analysis.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money was raised by local education authorities in each year since
  11(a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [7698]

  (2) how much local education authorities are required to raise themselves for the years 1996 and 1997 (a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry; and what is the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [7699]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities have discretion in setting council taxes. The revenue income of local education authorities between 1993–94 and 1996–97 has come primarily from the following sources: the authority's entitlements to revenue support grant and other special and specific grants; the authority's share of the amounts distributed from the non-domestic rates pool;

  Council taxes 1993–94 to 1996–97

  1993–94 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  Increase on previous year Per cent.

  1995–96 £ million

  Increase on previous year Per cent.

  1996–97 £ million

  Increase on previous year Per cent.

  England

  7,367.0

  7,709.0

  4.7

  7,999.0

  n/a

  8,630.0

  7.9

  West midlands

  401.0

  401.0

  0.1

  432.0

  7.8

  471.0

  8.9

  Coventry

  51.1

  56.8

  11.2

  60.1

  5.8

  61.7

  2.6

  The figure for English local education authorities for 1995–96 is not comparable with 1994–95 because police services were transferred from shire counties to police authorities on 1 April 1995.

  School Funding
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money her Department provided for schools in each year since 1992(a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [7697]

  (2) how much money will be provided to schools for the years 1996 and 1997 (a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry; and what is the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [7700]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The great bulk of money is provided by local education authorities. Since central Government support to local authorities is not hypothecated, it is not possible to say how much of this

  (a) Education SSAs

  SSA £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–981

  Coventry

  122.987

  111.417

  113.295

  115.727

  119.872

  119.759

  West Midlands

  1,132.269

  1,023.929

  1,019.255

  1,024.585

  1,072.402

  1,065.994

  England

  18,352.700

  16,530.700

  16,826.000

  17,024.100

  17,764.24

  17,838.306

  1 1997–98 figures are provisional.

  (b) Underlying percentage changes over the previous year

  1992–93

  1993–94 Percentage change

  1994–95 Percentage change

  1995–96 Percentage change

  1996–97 Percentage change

  1997–981 Percentage change

  Coventry

  7.4

  1.7

  2.6

  2.0

  3.6

  3.3

  West

  6.2

  2.7

  0.4

  0.4

  4.7

  3.0

  Midlands England

  7.1

  2.9

  2.7

  1.2

  4.4

  3.4

  1 1997–98 figures are provisional.

  12
  council taxes raised by the authority itself, or by the relevant billing authorities in the case of county councils; and any revenue raised from sales, fees and charges, which in turn depend on the range of functions carried out by the authority. The table shows the council taxes calculated by local education authorities to support their revenue expenditure each year from 1993–94.

  It is not possible to provide a comparable figure for 1992–93, as arrangements for raising taxes were different under the community charge system. The figures for English local education authorities are not comparable with those for west midlands and Coventry city council because the England figures include shire counties and inner-London boroughs, which are responsible for a different range of services from other education authorities. Figures for 1997–98 will not be available until authorities have set their budgets in 1997.

  support has been deployed for schools. Central Government plan financial provision for local authorities on the basis of standard spending assessments. The table sets out the education standard spending assessments between 1992–93 and 1997–98, but local education authorities are free to decide how much to spend on schools and other services in allocating their overall budgets. Because of changes in local authority functions, such as the loss of responsibility for most further education in 1993–94, the reform of inter-authority recoupment in 1995–96, and the arrangements for nursery vouchers in 1997–98, the cash figures are not comparable year-by-year. The tables therefore show (a) the unadjusted education SSAs for Coventry, the west midlands and England from 1992–93 to 1997–98 and (b) the underlying percentage changes after local authority changes of function have been taken into account.

  Feversham College, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to receive an application by Feversham college in Bradford for voluntary aided status; when she refused an earlier application; what were the main grounds for refusal; what contacts there have been since that refusal between her officials, representatives of the college and representatives of Bradford local education authority about the latest application: when she expects to announce a decision on the latest application; and if she will make a statement. [8005]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A previous application from the college was rejected last year, but my right hon. Friend indicated that she was ready to consider a fresh application. For the reasons for rejection, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him of 23 February 1995,Official Report, column 294. I understand that consultation is under way in Bradford on a possible new application from Feversham college for voluntary aided status. The officials met representatives of the promoters and Bradford LEA on 15 May 1996 and have kept closely in touch since then. We have made it clear that we are willing to offer such advice and help as we can. If the promoters decide to publish fresh proposals, these will come to my right hon. Friend for decision and will be considered on their merits.

  Museums and Galleries
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those museums and galleries which form part of universities in the United Kingdom and for which they have financial responsibility, direct or indirect, indicating the location, date of foundation, nature of governing body or bodies, name of the director, number of permanent staff, total annual running cost, number of visitor admissions per year, and any admission charge made, at the most recent convenient date. [8078]

  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFC—provides financial support for 23 museums, galleries and collections at 13 universities. In addition, it provides financial support for earth sciences collections at four of these institutions. The table lists the higher education museums, galleries and collections that receive support.

  "The Museums Yearbook", published by the Museums Association gives details of location, date of foundation, nature of governing body, name of director, permanent staff, number of visitor admissions each year and

  Pupils taking free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by region in England 1991 to 1996

  Position in January each year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  North

  88,703

  95,102

  99,500

  101,456

  100,589

  North West

  191,052

  207,690

  217,154

  218,516

  226,072

  East Anglia

  27,657

  33,369

  35,868

  36,607

  37,019

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  120,243

  130,571

  136,066

  137,382

  140,239

  West Midlands

  133,311

  148,944

  155,509

  154,062

  154,677

  East Anglia

  68,415

  78,212

  83,624

  85,763

  86,604

  Greater London

  169,787

  196,965

  219,229

  230,650

  241,705

  Other South East

  134,528

  167,783

  184,492

  185,469

  186,062

  South West

  68,272

  82,690

  85,684

  84,932

  87,459

  England

  1,001,968

  1,141,326

  1,217,126

  1,234,837

  1,260,426

  14
  admission charge made for museums and galleries across the UK. It is available in the Library. Details of the annual running costs are held by individual museums and galleries.

  Higher education museums, galleries and collections receiving HEFCE non-formula funding 1996–97

  Museum, gallery or collection

  Higher education institution

  Holburne Museum and Crafts Study Centre

  University of Bath

  Barber Institute of Fine Art

  University of Birmingham

  Earth Sciences Collection

  University of Birmingham

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  University of Cambridge

  Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

  University of Cambridge

  Whipple Museum of the History of Science

  University of Cambridge

  Earth Sciences Collection

  University of Cambridge

  Oriental Museum

  University of Durham

  Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts

  University of East Anglia

  University of Leeds Art Collections and Gallery

  University of Leeds

  Courtauld Institute Galleries

  University of London

  SOAS—Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art

  University of London

  Witt and Conway Photographic Collection

  University of London

  College Art Collection

  University College London

  Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

  University College London

  Manchester Museum

  University of Manchester

  Whitworth Art Gallery

  University of Manchester

  Earth Sciences Collection

  University of Manchester

  Silver Studio Collection

  University of Middlesex

  Museum of Antiquities

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Hancock Museum

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology

  University of Oxford

  Pitt Rivers Museum

  University of Oxford

  Museum of the History of Science

  University of Oxford

  Oxford University Museum (Scientific Collections)

  University of Oxford

  Earth Sciences Collection

  University of Oxford

  Museum of English Rural Life

  University of Reading

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will update her answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 536–38, indicating the number of children in receipt of free school meals, by region, in each of the last five years. [8184]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the take-up of free school meals in maintained schools in England in the years 1992 to 1996 is shown in the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Overnight Accommodation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will list the locations of the space set aside for overnight accommodation; what facilities are provided; what was the number of times the facilities have been used in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8299]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

DEFENCE

  Cyprus
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the units of British forces in Cyprus, indicating their combat capability. [7658]

  Mr. Soames
  The units of British Forces Cyprus are as listed. All are assessed as achieving a satisfactory level of combat capability.

  Headquarters British Forces Cyprus

  Headquarters Episkopi Garrison

  Headquarters Dhekelia Garrison

  62 Support Squadron Royal Engineers

  9 Signal Regiment

  259 Signal Squadron Royal Signals

  1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  1st Battalion The Kings Regiment

  16 Flight Army Air Corps

  Cyprus Logistic Unit

  The Princess Mary's Hospital

  Episkopi Garrison Medical Centre

  Medical Reception Centre Dhekelia Garrison

  RAF Akrotiri Medical Centre

  Joint Services Health Unit

  Cyprus Engineering Unit

  Dhekelia Garrison Workshop

  Command Pay Office

  Headquarters Education and Training Services

  54 Army Education Centre

  55 Army Education Centre

  Cyprus Defence Animals Support Unit

  Royal Military Police Cyprus

  11 Dental Group

  Cyprus Joint Security Unit

  Cyprus Joint Services Adventure Training Centre

  Troodos Station

  RAF Akrotiri

  12 Signals Unit RAF

  33 Signals Unit RAF

  84 Squadron RAF

  Provost and Security Services Cyprus

  Defence Fire Service

  Security Force Police.

  16
  Mr. McShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contacts he has had with representatives of the Greek Cypriot Government in London. [7669]

  Mr. Soames
  During the course of this year, the Secretary of State for Defence has had discussions in London with President Glavkos Clerides, Foreign Minister Michaelides, and High Commissioner Markides.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what overseas visits he has made in an official capacity since June. [7670]

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1 June 1996, the Secretary of State for Defence has visited the following countries in his official capacity:

  Australia

  Belgium

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Bulgaria

  Croatia

  Denmark

  France

  Indonesia

  Kuwait

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  Malaysia

  Norway

  Oman

  Poland

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Singapore

  Slovenia

  United Arab Emirates

  USA.

  RAF Logistics Support Service
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Royal Air Force Logistics Support Service. [8296]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The RAF Logistic Support Services will become an agency from 9 December 1996.

  The agency will provide a comprehensive logistic service to a range of customers including all three services, the procurement executive and the aerospace industry. This will include policy advice; the introduction to service and in-service support of aircraft and associated equipments; logistics consultancy and information technology services. The agency will employ approximately 1,100 staff, comprising RN and RAF personnel and civil servants.

  The first chief executive will be Air Commodore Ian Sloss who will be afforded the powers, responsibility and flexibility to build on the current organisation's expertise and high performance standards. The chief executive will

  17
  be directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Defence and to Parliament for the conduct and performance of the agency.

  The agency has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  (1) To produce 95 per cent. of task reports, within aerospace maintenance development and support and information date management, by the target dates agreed with the sponsor and to acceptable quality.

  (2) To evaluate 95 per cent. of all tasks within 25 days of receipt of the initial tasking documentation.

  (3) The logistics computer centre will process 95 per cent. of all business system changes within the timescale agreed with the originator of the request and to acceptable quality.

  (4) To develop a task and resource accounting management system—TRAMS—by 31 March 1997 to measure the delivery of logistics support service in peace and for operations as specified by the customer.

  (5) To implement TRAMS across the agency by 31 March 1998.

  (6) To establish baseline management metrics by 31 March 1998.

  (7) To implement a personnel strategy plan from 31 March 1997 and to achieve accreditation to Investors in People by 31 March 1998.

  (8) To meet an efficiency target of 3 per cent. for the financial year 1996/97.

  (9) To meet a proposed efficiency target of 3 per cent. for the financial year 1997–98.

  (10) To undertake, starting in April 1997, the British Quality Foundations' business excellence model self-assessment and to have a numerical assessment upon which to base future high level benchmarking exercises by November 1997.

  (11) To achieve BS EN ISO 9001:1994 certification for all departments outstanding by 31 March 1997; and to maintain BS EN ISO 9001: 1994 certification for those departments already certified for the period 1997–98.

  Copies of the agency's framework document and corporate plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Combined Arms Tactical Trainer
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Army's requirement for a combined arms tactical trainer. [8449]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A contract has been awarded to Lockheed-Martin Information Systems for two combined arms tactical trainers—CATT—to meet the Army's requirement for a new training simulation system. Lockheed-Martin was selected as the prime contractor following a full evaluation of the procurement options. The company has gained considerable experience of such systems through its development of the US Army's close combat tactical trainer. The contract, supported by a memorandum of understanding between my Department and the US Department of Defence, provides for substantial UK industrial involvement in high-quality work. GEC Marconi has been selected by Lockheed-Martin as its lead United Kingdom partner. It is planned that the British company will take over as prime contractor from 2003. The award of the CATT contract will initially sustain or create about 90 jobs ma)inly at GEC Marconi at Donnibristle, Fife. Further jobs will be created in the United Kingdom when CATT enters its production phase.

  Discharged Personnel (Allergies)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been medically discharged in each of the past 10 years because of allergic reactions. [6630]

  Mr. Soames
  This answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Flying
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the United States and Canadian Governments concerning low flying; and if he will make a statement. [7591]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend has not recently discussed military low flying with representatives of the United States and Canadian Governments. My officials, however, have regular discussions with their counterparts from these countries on a wide range of topics including low flying.

  Proposed Force Reductions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the scale of the proposed reduction in the size of(a) the Army, including the Gurkhas but excluding the Royal Irish Regiment, (b) the RAF and (c) the Royal Navy between (i) 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1999 and (ii) 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1999, under the Government's current plans; and if he will make a statement. [7590]

  Mr. Soames
  The total strength, trained and untrained, of the armed forces, including Gurkhas and other locally employed personnel, on 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1992 was:

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1990

  63,500

  161,500

  89,700

  1992

  62,400

  154,100

  86,000

  Under current plans, the total intended strength of the armed forces, inclusive of LEPs, on 1 April 1999 will be:

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  44,000

  115,000

  55,500

  Army Strength
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total trained strength of the British Army at(a) 1 April 1990 and (b) 1 April 1992, including the Gurkhas but not including the Royal Irish Regiment. [7589]

  Mr. Soames
  The trained strength of the British Army including Gurkhas but excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment and locally employed personnel was 144,800 at 1 April 1990 and 140,800 at 1 April 1992.

PRIME MINISTER

  IRA
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions, and through what arrangement he or his office has had communications with the IRA since 1 September 1994. [7199]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by Department each occasion when Her Majesty's Government have entered a scrutiny reserve at Council of Minsters meetings, indicating the matter concerned. [7531]

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements exist to prevent items coming forward for decision in the Council of Ministers where a member state's parliamentary scrutiny procedures have yet to be completed. The presidency may, nonetheless, occasionally place an item on a Council agenda for decision which is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a member state. Information on the occasions when the United Kingdom has as a consequence maintained a scrutiny reserve at the Council of Ministers is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the letter recently sent to him by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume); and (b) any documents which accompanied the letter or his reply. [7818]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: It is not my practice to reveal correspondence, either letters or accompanying documents, which are sent to me in confidence. As for my reply to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 28 November, Official Report, columns 460–61.

  President Mary Robinson
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if the present visit to Great Britain by President Mary Robinson is an official visit. [7817]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the oil-for-food deal between Iraq and the United Nations agreed in August to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [7523]
  20
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  UN Security Council resolution 986 (1995) will come into operation when the UN Secretary-General believes that conditions for its effective implementation have been met. We believe that it might be as early as this week.

  West Indies Guardship
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made this year to countries in south America and the Caribbean about the anti-drug work of the West Indies guardship, its access to territorial waters and its powers to board vessels registered in these countries; and if he will make a statement. [7950]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no such representations regarding the West Indies guardship—WIGS. I have, however, made representations to the Venezuelan Government, following the refusal by the Venezuelan authorities to grant permission to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Gold Rover, which operates in support of WIGS, for US law enforcement officers embarked on the RFA to board a Venezuelan flagged vessel suspected of drug trafficking. I made clear this Government's view that article 17 of the 1988 UN drugs convention, which the United Kingdom and Venezuela have ratified, provides the legal framework for maritime anti-narcotics co-operation.

  French Fishermen (Minquies)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EU Ministers in respect of rescinding the concessions granted to French fishermen to fish in the Minquies. [7791]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  None.

  Afghanistan (National Museum)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the unauthorised sale of items formerly held by the national museum of Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [8015]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We have received no such representations in recent years about the unauthorised sale of items formerly held by the national museum of Afghanistan. However, we regard the preservation of Afghanistan's cultural heritage as important.

  European Union (Government Policy)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote Government policy in support of the European Union. [6507]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government are tireless in promoting their European policy in the House and in public. Their overall position was set out in a White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations", earlier this year.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been allocated to clear land mines in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [6526]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UK has contributed £428,000, including our share of EU assistance, to humanitarian mine clearance work in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also seconded military personnel to assist in the establishment of the UN mine action centre in Sarajevo.

  High Commission Official (Bradford Visit)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whom a senior official at the British high commission in Islamabad was recently invited to visit Bradford; what was the purpose of the visit; if he will list those with whom the official had meetings; and if he will make a statement. [8004]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  No official of the British high commission has recently visited Bradford. An official from this Department called on councillors, community centres and the Bradford racial equality council in August as part of his preparation for taking up a post in Islamabad.

  Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to relocate which operational facilities from GCHQ Cheltenham; and to where. [7756]

  Mr. Rifkind
  None. However, GCHQ is currently undertaking a study into its requirements for future accommodation and related services. This study includes consideration of whether those requirements can be satisfied through the private finance initiative, and will include investigation of the possibility of collocating all the work currently carried out on the two Cheltenham sites.

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1994–95 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction over £50,000

  New construction under £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  220,410

  —

  —

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  55,000

  —

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  59,444

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  337,000

  —

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the European Union General Affairs Council on 25 November; and what decisions were taken. [8188]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes),Official Report, columns 461–63.

  Child Labour
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report "Helping Business to Help Stop Child Labour", produced by Anti-Slavery International; and what guidelines are provided to British Government employees working in, or visiting, foreign countries, with regard to the employment and treatment of children. [7246]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is Government policy that wherever British missions and British officials overseas employ local staff, it is done in complete accordance with local law.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial year 1994–95 in both cash and constant prices; [7140]

  (2) if he will list, by authority and service area, the surplus achieved on trading accounts by local authorities' direct labour or services organisations in Scotland for those services covered under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial year 1994–95 in both cash and constant prices. [7141]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 December 1996]: A detailed list, taken from annual reports submitted by authorities, of the surpluses and deficits achieved by direct labour and direct service organisations of Scottish local authorities in 1994–95 is as follows:
  23 24

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1994–95 in £s

  Local authority

  New construction over £50,000

  New construction under £50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  27,933

  —

  —

  Central RC

  (-21,343)

  21,871

  57,071

  277,398

  60,579

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  265,000

  —

  —

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  88,773

  —

  —

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  40,599

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  16,110

  —

  —

  Cunninghame DC

  —

  —

  740,000

  —

  —

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  65,458

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  2,163

  282,935

  —

  Dundee DC

  56,899

  5,990

  315,013

  —

  —

  Dunfermline DC

  44,083

  37,737

  81,687

  —

  —

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  363,821

  —

  —

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh DC

  (-25,781)

  —

  284,775

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  121,882

  —

  —

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  182,000

  —

  —

  Fife RC

  81,000

  14,000

  173,000

  962,000

  34,000

  Glasgow DC

  12,892,110

  —

  11,695,268

  —

  —

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  757,000

  175,000

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  82,647

  —

  —

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  2,748,000

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  37,450

  —

  —

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  181,442

  —

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  168,013

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  85,437

  —

  —

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  201,268

  706,523

  142,786

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  58,000

  —

  —

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  95,560

  —

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  335,782

  —

  —

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  (-22,822)

  —

  —

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  110,000

  —

  —

  Orkney IC

  (-46,000)

  —

  54,000

  304,000

  (-203,000)

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  151,653

  —

  —

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  1,359,836

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  28,000

  —

  —

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  14,000

  —

  —

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  57,000

  340,000

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stewartry DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  (-13,500)

  —

  —

  Strathclyde RC

  7,230

  1,242

  487,983

  537,129

  94,944

  Strathkelvin DC

  —

  —

  89,262

  —

  —

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  16,000

  887,000

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  36,000

  182,000

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  178,410

  —

  —

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  173,469

  —

  —

  Local Government Act 1988 surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1994–95 in £s

  Local authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Aberdeen DC

  51,077

  63

  —

  —

  9,200

  101,804

  47,672

  546,163

  Angus DC

  218,515

  27,418

  78,523

  —

  —

  181,779

  25,067

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  51,163

  —

  39,543

  —

  —

  27,921

  —

  29,189

  25

  Local Government Act 1988 surpluses/deficits on DLO/DSO activity in 1994–95 in £s

  Local authority

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure management

  Argyll and Bute DC

  42,000

  —

  6,000

  —

  —

  12,000

  23,000

  21,000

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  5,978

  —

  2,689

  —

  —

  19,110

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  9,793

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161,794

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  70,478

  —

  —

  —

  44,299

  14,970

  Berwickshire DC

  52,117

  —

  —

  —

  —

  54,193

  —

  (-5,939)

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  22,092

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,162

  —

  32,201

  Central RC

  —

  5,561

  —

  36,409

  3,420

  —

  21,900

  —

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43,000

  10,000

  —

  Clydebank DC

  26,894

  —

  35,368

  —

  _

  118,449

  —

  34,328

  Clydesdale DC

  1,433

  —

  7,163

  —

  —

  18,497

  —

  56,811

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  9,002

  —

  6,243

  —

  —

  34,246

  14,468

  23,031

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  50,981

  —

  16,912

  —

  —

  21,480

  —

  —

  Cunninghame DC

  30,262

  14,228

  19,465

  —

  —

  22,409

  45,014

  47,627

  Dumbarton DC

  30,452

  (-45,783)

  (-38,216)

  —

  —

  (-217,009)

  —

  139,968

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  (-118,000)

  —

  16,000

  —

  51,000

  69,000

  —

  Dundee DC

  143,080

  25,065

  20,534

  —

  —

  188,363

  —

  133,000

  Dunfermline DC

  147,370

  23,000

  —

  —

  —

  53.437

  13,667

  43,000

  East Kilbride DC

  60,742

  —

  65,347

  —

  —

  37,345

  17,384

  194,370

  East Lothian DC

  —

  30,331

  89,787

  —

  —

  134,777

  —

  70,346

  Eastwood DC

  (-89,870)

  —

  (-11,600)

  —

  —

  19,610

  —

  (-13,385)

  Edinburgh DC

  82,811

  149,342

  59,369

  —

  (-76,040)

  268,433

  77,706

  8,118

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  157,990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  136,758

  —

  60,229

  Falkirk DC

  87,000

  2,000

  183,000

  —

  25,000

  259,000

  14,000

  159,000

  Fife RC

  —

  2,000

  —

  28,000

  (-8,000)

  —

  165,000

  —

  Glasgow DC

  640,061

  196,996

  384,342

  —

  —

  941,187

  102,613

  211,969

  Gordon DC

  14,000

  —

  92,000

  —

  —

  48,000

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  (-351,000)

  —

  9,000

  111,000

  224,000

  532,000

  —

  Hamilton DC

  25,457

  —

  49,668

  —

  —

  133,057

  19,834

  231,746

  Highland RC

  —

  6,816

  —

  M3.229)

  —

  —

  211,976

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  105,355

  —

  112,311

  —

  —

  15,093

  46,073

  127.394

  Inverness DC

  159,911

  —

  118,784

  —

  —

  103,800

  6,214

  53,005

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun DC

  51,000

  3,000

  53,000

  —

  1,000

  32,000

  440,000

  1,000

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  2,943

  —

  45,565

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33,058

  Kirkcaldy DC

  283,805

  2,091

  170,357

  —

  —

  222,118

  152,397

  276,672

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  26,160

  16,187

  —

  —

  —

  17,784

  4,553

  37,028

  Lochaber DC

  13,259

  —

  5,532

  —

  —

  38,150

  —

  10,842

  Lothian RC

  —

  14,985

  —

  38,853

  17,243

  —

  84,989

  (-188,629)

  Midlothian DC

  47,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  143,000

  38,000

  170,000

  Monklands DC

  84,940

  6,017

  71,433

  —

  —

  103,956

  79,667

  68,797

  Moray DC

  50,816

  3,182

  77,562

  —

  —

  61,787

  53,024

  —

  Motherwell DC

  314,421

  8,489

  —

  —

  13,038

  —

  34,496

  71,108

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  23,045

  —

  —

  10,690

  —

  970

  Nithsdale DC

  500

  —

  500

  —

  —

  26.573

  —

  13,159

  North East Fife DC

  83,000

  —

  85,000

  —

  —

  68,000

  —

  8,000

  Orkney IC

  19,000

  15,000

  —

  6,000

  —

  —

  58,000

  —

  Perth and Kinross DC

  52,449

  54,921

  15,051

  —

  —

  —

  22,050

  152,231

  Renfrew DC

  268,000

  17,000

  42,000

  —

  2,228

  314,000

  79,000

  129,000

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  22,296

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  —

  20,214

  Roxburgh DC

  19,954

  —

  27,445

  —

  —

  43,319

  8,798

  25,961

  Shetland IC

  134,000

  7,000

  7,000

  —

  84,000

  79,000

  42,000

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  (-10,025)

  (-109)

  3,080

  —

  —

  (-6,700)

  —

  (-3,767)

  Stewartry DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43,179

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  57,500

  12,200

  48,700

  —

  —

  69,700

  24,300

  32,800

  Strathclyde RC

  —

  691,106

  —

  101,652

  7,008

  27,129

  227,418

  —

  Strathkelvin DC

  237,061

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117,078

  —

  49,622

  Sutherland DC

  10,152

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,078

  —.

  4,344

  Tayside RC

  —

  56,000

  —

  265,000

  —

  —

  101,000

  —

  Western Isles IC

  51,000

  47,000

  51,000

  M2,000)

  9,000

  10,000

  12,000

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  77,830

  —

  —

  292,025

  921

  228,845

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  16,075

  —

  —

  94,887

  —

  34,874

  1 The accounts for refuse collection and other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities. The absence of an entry, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget statement on the projected programme for the construction of the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement. [7832]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on these matters in the near future.

TREASURY

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Bank of England is taking to ensure the millennium compliance of its computer systems and those with which they are connected; what is its budget for this purpose; and if he will make a statement. [6665]
  27
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Bank of England has already begun to prepare its own computer systems for the millennium. It is also liaising with APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—which oversees the payments systems, and with commercial banks. No separate budget has been set for this process, which will be accommodated within departmental software development budgets.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of how much it currently costs to answer(a) an oral and (b) a written parliamentary question. [7642]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A total of £249 and £107 respectively, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 4 December 1996,Official Report, column 656.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast of those registered as unemployed on the claimant count in 1997–98 underlay his assumptions in respect of resources available for out-of-work benefits and related passported entitlements; and if he will list this forecast for changes in levels of claimant count unemployment in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [7477]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The assumptions for unemployment which underlie the public expenditure plans are given in table 5A.5 of the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department plans to spend on celebrating Christmas and the new year. [7587]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Such costs are included in the Department's running cost expenditure, which is published in the annual report.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each source of taxation revenue and for national insurance, (i) the amounts received and what percentage that is of total revenue and (ii) the numbers of people paying in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995. [3044]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the amounts received is in the table. Figures for the numbers of people paying some of these taxes is contained in "Inland Revenue Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the numbers of people paying other taxes is not available.

  Tax and national insurance receipts (on a cash basis) £ billions

  1980–81

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1995–96

  Income tax

  242.99

  353.58

  552.89

  680.72

  Corporation tax

  460.2

  103.80

  210.44

  235.69

  Value added tax

  109.68

  193.29

  309.91

  430.73

  Excise duties1

  889.8

  148.98

  199.36

  283.55

  28

  Tax and national insurance receipts (on a cash basis) £ billions

  1980–81

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1995–96

  Other taxes and royalties2

  225.70

  412.95

  407.02

  442.34

  Social security contributions

  140.57

  244.65

  354.10

  444.79

  Total

  853.94

  1,457.25

  2.033.72

  2,517.82

  1 Fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties and VED.2 Includes local taxes as well as other central government taxes.

  As a percentage of total

  1980–81

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1995–96

  Income tax

  28.5

  24.3

  27.2

  27.0

  Corporation tax

  5.4

  7.1

  10.3

  9.4

  Value added tax

  12.8

  13.3

  15.2

  17.1

  Excise duties1

  10.4

  10.2

  9.8

  11.3

  Other taxes and royalties2

  26.4

  28.3

  20.0

  17.6

  National insurance contributions

  16.5

  16.8

  17.4

  17.7

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties and VED.2 Includes local taxes as well as other central government taxes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those countries in the European Union where a minimum wage has been imposed following a directive from the European Commission. [7012]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no requirement for states in the European Union to introduce minimum wages. Arrangements for determining pay is a matter for individual member states—a fact recognised in the Commission's opinion on an equitable wage.

  Nuclear Materials (Accounting and Control)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what review his Department has conducted of its system of accounting and control of nuclear materials at nuclear plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities. [6992]

  Mr. Nelson
  All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK-International Atomic Energy Authority-Euratom safeguards agreement. My Department liaises with the international inspectorates to ensure that these obligations are met. This includes reviews of the systems of nuclear material accounting and control at facilities. The United Kingdom will also continue to offer its full support to the development of a strengthened international safeguards system.

  Child Labour
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the report, "Helping Business to Help Stop Child Labour", produced by Anti-Slavery International; what action he is
  29
  taking to encourage British businesses abroad to adopt fair employment practices; and if he will make a statement. [7245]

  Mr. Nelson
  It is for British businesses to ensure that they are complying fully with their legal obligations and ethical standards. The Government encourage British businesses operating overseas to respect the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, which cover employment practices, among other things.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to encourage British companies overseas to act as model employers by taking action to avoid exploitative practices, particularly involving children. [7247]

  Mr. Nelson
  It is the responsibility of individual companies to satisfy themselves that they are complying with local law and acting in accordance with ethical standards. The Government encourage British businesses operating overseas to respect the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, which cover employment practices, among other things.

  EU Common External Tariff Level
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade what is the 1996 average level of the common external tariff of the European Union; what was the average level in(a) 1966, (b) 1976 and (c) 1986; and what the common tariff level is planned to be when the Uruguay round is finally implemented. [7461]

  Mr. Nelson
  In 1966, 1976 and 1986, the average levels of the common external tariff of the European Union in the industrial sector were in the order of 12 per cent., 9.5 per cent. and 6.5 per cent. respectively. Precise figures are not available. Moreover, there are no equivalent figures for the agricultural sector in those years because chapters 1 to 24 of the common external tariff then contained many specific rates, for example by weight or by volume. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations was the first such round in which the ad valorem equivalents of specific rates were calculated, thus enabling inclusion of agricultural products in the average tariff level. The average level of the overall common external tariff in 1996 is 4 per cent. When the Uruguay round is fully implemented it will be 3.2 per cent.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 498, on small business statistics, if he will name the two independent sources. [8028]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is in my answer of 2 December 1996,Official Report, column 498.

  Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about exports of armoured vehicles to Indonesia. [8636]

  Mr. Lang
  I have authorised the issue of licences to Alvis for the export of a further 50 armoured vehicles, and their associated equipment, to Indonesia. The decision 30
  has been made following consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the light of the established and internationally agreed criteria for military exports.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the export of armoured vehicles to the Indonesian police force. [8635]

  Mr. Lang
  I have authorised the issue of an export licence to Procurement Services International Ltd. for a variety of police vehicles. The licence includes seven Tactica water cannon and associated equipment. This decision has been made following consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the light of the established and internationally agreed criteria for military exports.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the Energy Council meeting on 3 December. [8632]

  Mr. Page
  The Council considered several issues and received reports from the Commission on matters of interest. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Energy represented the United Kingdom.

  A policy debate was held to discuss the way forward on a proposal to liberalise the gas market. The Council recognised the presidency's compromise proposals as an important step in the right direction and as a good basis for progress in further discussions. There was considerable convergence of views on the four key issues of public service obligations, unbundling and transparency of accounts, access to the system and take or pay contracts. The Council agreed that further work was required in order to ensure a rigid conclusion of this proposal under the Dutch presidency, due to end in June 1997.

  The Council discussed a proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual programme to promote international co-operation in the energy field—SYNERGY—and asked for work on this dossier to continue.

  A debate was also held on renewables following a Commission presentation on an EU strategy. Lord Fraser stressed that renewable forms of energy had to be both economically attractive and environmentally acceptable if they were successfully to penetrate the market.

  Council conclusions were agreed on a Committee report on oil supply, refining and markets in the Community. The conclusions welcomed the report and asked the Commission to undertake studies and continue to monitor and analyse the situation in close co-operation with member states.

  Conclusions were also agreed on the energy dimension of climate change. They recognised the contribution of energy policy to the climate change debate and asked for reports to be made on progress in this area including on the negotiations on a protocol in the framework of the UN convention on climate change.
  31
  On deregulation, the Council endorsed a report from the Commission on the review of Community energy legislation which will enable several legislative acts to be repealed.

  The Council reached a common position on a proposal for a Council and European Parliament decision amending the guidelines on trans-European energy networks, updating the list of projects of common interest.

  The Council agreed the decision on the conclusion of the energy charter treaty.

  The Commission gave a presentation on a proposal for a council decision on the organisation of co-operation around agreed Community energy objectives. The Commission also gave progress reports on the energy dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, the proposed electricity liberalisation directive, the proposed decision on a multi-annual programme for the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community—SAVE II—and the proposed directive on rational planning techniques in the electricity and gas sectors, and gave information on the auto-oil programme.

  Private Utilities (Directors)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the directors of the private utilities regarding their pay and conditions. [6500]
  32
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The remuneration of directors at the privatised utilities is a matter for the companies and their shareholders.

  Electro-magnetic Compatibility Directive
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in securing modifications to the European Union's electro-magnetic compatibility directive to minimise the cost of compliance for British small businesses. [6510]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department continues to seek support from other member states for modifications to the directive, and we have requested the European Commission to review the directive in 1997 as part of the simpler legislation for the internal market—SLIM. The Government have also commissioned a consultant to study compliance problems concentrating on the problems faced by small and medium enterprises. Meanwhile, the Department supplies guidance to business on how to minimise compliance costs.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the Government's manifesto commitments in respect of competition policy. [6511]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government are committed to the reform of competition law. In March of this year, my Department published a consultation document on the approach to reform, and in August we published a draft Competition Bill. We intend to introduce the Bill when parliamentary time allows.

TRANSPORT

  M1
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the capacity of the M1 between each junction from junction 1 to Luton, assuming typical flow composition, traffic speeds and weather; and what the current flows are for the hours of(a) 7 am to 10 am and (b) 4 pm to 7 pm as a percentage of that capacity between each junction; [6802]

  (2) what have been the accident rates in each of the past five years per mile of motorway (a) on the M1 between junction 1 and Luton and (b) on the motorway network as a whole. [6801]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 9 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about traffic flows and accident rates on the M1 between Junction 1 and Luton (Junction 10).
  There is no precise measure of road capacity which can be universally applied, even for motorways. The spacing of junctions and the volumes of traffic leaving and joining can have a significant impact on capacity for a typical motorway. The capacities used in calculating the percentages in the table below have assumed a maximum flow per lane per hour of 2,000 vehicles. At this level, the average speed will be significantly lower than the National speed limit. This is also the point at which stop/start conditions may be expected arising from traffic joining and leaving the motorway, incidents, poor driver behaviour or adverse weather conditions.

  Junction

  Vehicles southbound 7am -10am

  Vehicles northbound 7am -10am

  Vehicles southbound 4pm-7pm

  Vehicles northbound 4pm -7pm

  1–2 (3 lanes dual)

  10,000 (56 per cent.)

  4,500 (25 per cent.)

  5,100 (28 per cent.)

  9,100 (50 per cent.)

  2–4 (3 lanes dual)

  12,200 (68 per cent.)

  5,600 (31 per cent.)

  6.000 (33 per cent.)

  11,200 (62 per cent.)

  4–5 (3 lanes dual)

  13,700

  (76 per cent.)

  7,100 (39 per cent.)

  7,300 (41 per cent.)

  12,800 (71 per cent.)

  5–6 (3 lanes dual)

  11,000 (61 per cent.)

  6.200 (34 per cent.)

  7,200 (45 per cent.)

  11,200 (62 pier cent.)

  6–6a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6a–7 (4 lanes N/B, 3 lanes S/B)

  15,00 (83 per cent.)

  11,5000 (48 per cent)

  12,000 (67 per cent)

  15,000 (63 per cent.)

  7–8 (4 lanes dual)

  17,800 (74 per cent.)

  14,100 (59 per cent.)

  14,600 (61 per cent.)

  18,100 (75 per cent.)

  8–9 (3 lanes dual)

  13,000 (72 per cent.)

  11,200 (62 per cent.)

  12,200 (68 per cent.)

  15,100 (84 per cent.)

  9–10 (4 lanes N/B, 3 lanes S/B)

  11,300 (63 per cent.)

  11,000 (46 per cent.)

  11,500 (64 per cent.)

  15,600 (65 per cent.)

  n/a = not available.

  Figures in percentages are the actual flows as a percentage of the capacity based on 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour.
  Details of the accident rates for the main carriageway of the M1 between Junction 1 and Junction 10, together with the national accident rates are set out in the table below. The rates are provided both in terms of the number of accidents per mile, and in terms of the number of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles travelled, the measure normally used when comparing safety records between different sections of road.
  34

  Year

  National rate (accidents/mile)

  M1(J1-J10) rate (accidents/mile)

  National rate (accidents/100 million vehicle miles)

  M1(J1-J10) rate (accidents/100 million vehicle miles)

  1991

  3.42

  7.48

  16.5

  14.8

  1992

  3.54

  8.21

  17.7

  16.3

  1993

  3.76

  8.85

  17.7

  17.6

  1994

  3.92

  7.69

  17.7

  15.3

  1995

  3.99

  9.57

  17.0

  19.0

  Motorway Cleaning
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) of 18 November,Official Report, column 410, on cleaning motorways, how many people are employed by the Highways Agency to inspect the state of cleanliness of motorways. [7282]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 9 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are employed by the Highways Agency to inspect the state of cleanliness of motorways.
  The Highways Agency does not directly employ any staff to carry out this function. Management of motorway cleaning is delegated to Maintaining Agents, most of whom are local highway authorities. These Maintaining Agents employ sufficient staff to ensure that the Highways Agency's requirements, set out in its Code of Practice for Routine Maintenance, are met.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 266, if he will require Eurotunnel to publish the results of evacuation tests in the channel tunnel. [7647]

  Mr. Watts
  It is for Eurotunnel to decide whether the results of evacuation tests in the channel tunnel are published. My Department has no power to require publication.

  Rail Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many consultants employed by Samuel Montague in relation to rail privatisation were paid over £100 per hour. [7649]

  Mr. Watts
  The rates of pay of employees of consultants are a matter for their employers.

  Rail Service Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the provision of information on rail services by Rail Direct; and if he will make a statement. [8019]

  Mr. Watts
  Since April 1996, my Department has received 14 representations about the provision of
  35
  information on rail services by Rail Direct and other telephone inquiry bureaux.

  Rail Passenger Complaints
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost of dealing with a railway passenger's complaint under the former system in the last year in which it operated; and what procedures are now in place to deal with complaints. [7966]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested on the average cost of dealing with railway passenger complaints is not available.

  All train operators have in place a complaints handling procedure which has been approved by the Rail Regulator and conforms to the guidelines issued by him. The procedures, among other matters, detail time limits for action so that complaints are kept informed of the progress in dealing with their complaint.

  Polystyrene (Fire Risks)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 418, if he will place in the Library copies of the research undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive into the fire and smoke hazards of polystyrene, together with its recommendations. [7775]

  Mr. Watts
  Copies of the reports "Assessment of fire hazard of materials: Report 1/8/88 to 1/11/88", G. Atkinson, HSE report and "The medium scale fire test facility: final report on commissioning trials", R. K. Wharton, HSE report 1985 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Railway Claims
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to persuade private wagon owners to join the claims, handling and allocation arrangements operated by Railway Claims Ltd. [8084]

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail Regulator published a consultation document in August 1996, about insurance against third party liability, a copy of which was placed in the Library. He intends to initiate a group to explore the railway claims handling and third party liability issues raised by the operation of private wagons.

  Drivers (Eye Tests)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many police forces in the United Kingdom have instituted on-the-spot eye tests for drivers; and if he will make a statement. [8094]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no information on the policies of individual police forces in respect of on-the-spot eye tests. In the event of a road traffic incident, the police make a judgment about whether eyesight may have been a factor, and act accordingly—using the number plate test as a quick check if necessary.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce on-the-spot eye tests for drivers; and if he will make a statement. [8095]
  36
  Mr. Bowis
  None. Drivers are reminded of the need to assure themselves regularly that they can still meet the requirements of the number plate test and of their statutory obligation, if they cannot do so, to cease driving and notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of the performance bonds which could be called in by the franchising director in the event of the need to terminate each of the franchises so far awarded. [8079]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is available in respect of franchises which have commenced operation, and is set out in the table:

  Franchise

  Performance bond (£ million)

  Cardiff Railway Company

  0.90

  Chiltern Railway Company

  2.15

  Connex South Central

  14.50

  Connex South Eastern

  19.50

  Gatwick Express

  2.50

  Great North Eastern Railway

  17.75

  Great Western Trains

  16.50

  Island Lines

  0.15

  LTS Rail

  4.00

  Midland Main Line

  6.50

  South Wales and West

  5.00

  South West Trains

  21.00

  Thames Trains

  4.25

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal accidents there were per 1,000 miles of travel on British(a) railways, (b) motorways and (c) non-motorway roads in the last year for which figures are available. [7498]

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

  French Lorry Drivers' Strike
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress has been made in securing compensation from the French authorities for British lorry drivers who were stranded during the French lorry driver dispute; [8114]

  (2) how many compensation claims made by British lorry drivers who were stranded during the French lorry driver dispute have been met (a) in part and (b) in full by the French authorities to date; [8115]

  (3) what has been the average values of compensation paid to British lorry drivers by the French authorities in relation to claims resulting from the French lorry driver dispute; [8116]

  (4) how much has been paid in compensation by the French authorities to British lorry drivers stranded during the French lorry driver dispute; [8117]
  37
  (5) what action he has taken to ensure British lorry drivers' compensation claims resulting from the French lorry driver dispute are met in full by the French authorities. [8118]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend obtained firm assurances from the French Transport Minister that claims for damage to vehicles or loads and for loss of earnings will be considered, and as quickly as possible. We are seeking to clarify this week with the French authorities the procedures and administrative arrangements for submitting claims. Thereafter, we shall press the French for swift settlement.

  Shipping
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government plans to promote the environmental advantages of shipping as a means of transporting freight. [7839]

  Mr. Bowis
  It must be for industry to determine whether water can provide both a practical means to its transport needs and make good commercial sense.

  We encourage industry to consider the benefits of using shipping as an alternative to road transport where this is feasible.

  Freight facilities grants are available for inland waterway capital developments that can demonstrate environmental benefits saving lorry miles.

  Preserved County

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  Clwyd

  1990

  5

  9

  5

  2

  2

  0

  23

  1991

  4

  8

  0

  2

  3

  0

  17

  1992

  18

  10

  9

  1

  1

  0

  39

  1993

  11

  6

  7

  0

  0

  0

  24

  1994

  9

  6

  5

  1

  0

  0

  21

  1995

  10

  10

  1

  1

  0

  0

  22

  1996

  3

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  Dyfed

  1990

  3

  3

  4

  0

  0

  3

  13

  1991

  5

  6

  3

  3

  2

  0

  19

  1992

  6

  2

  3

  0

  5

  0

  16

  1993

  4

  7

  5

  3

  5

  0

  24

  1994

  1

  4

  2

  1

  4

  0

  12

  1995

  6

  8

  4

  8

  3

  3

  32

  1996

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1990

  6

  11

  0

  1

  0

  1

  19

  1991

  6

  13

  0

  0

  6

  0

  25

  1992

  3

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  16

  1993

  4

  5

  4

  1

  0

  0

  14

  1994

  3

  7

  2

  1

  3

  0

  16

  1995

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1996

  1

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  9

  South Glamorgan

  1990

  7

  6

  6

  1

  4

  0

  23

  1991

  7

  2

  3

  2

  3

  0

  17

  1992

  9

  6

  6

  1

  0

  3

  25

  1993

  10

  9

  3

  1

  3

  0

  26

  1994

  6

  8

  2

  0

  5

  0

  21

  1995

  5

  7

  3

  0

  3

  0

  18

  1996

  6

  9

  4

  0

  1

  0

  20

  38
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to support the British-registered merchant navy. [7840]

  Mr. Bowis
  We recognise that shipping makes an important contribution to our nation's well-being. We have put in place a range of targeted measures, including simplified procedures, liberalised officer nationality requirements, substantial and effective financial assistance to seafarer training and tax incentives to replace aging tonnage.

  We have also taken tough action against sub-standard shipping and continue to urge other countries to exercise discipline in the use of market-distorting state aids.

  These measures are making a positive contribution to the industry's competitive position in increasingly competitive international markets, the attractiveness of the red ensign and career opportunities for British seafarers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the perceived political loyalty of magistrates in each area of Wales, appointed in each of the past seven years. [7499]

  Mr. Streeter
  The stated political affiliation of magistrates in each preserved county in Wales appointed in each of the past seven years, is as follows:
  39

  Preserved County

  Year

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal/Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Independent

  Not known

  Total

  West Glamorgan

  1990

  9

  8

  4

  0

  2

  0

  23

  1991

  8

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  15

  1992

  8

  12

  5

  0

  0

  0

  25

  1993

  8

  5

  2

  1

  4

  0

  20

  1994

  1

  13

  7

  1

  1

  0

  23

  1995

  0

  9

  0

  0

  2

  0

  11

  1996

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Gwent

  1990

  6

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  12

  1991

  6

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1992

  2

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1993

  3

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  12

  1994

  3

  12

  1

  0

  2

  0

  18

  1995

  3

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  1996

  2

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  7

  Gwynedd

  1990

  5

  4

  1

  3

  4

  0

  17

  1991

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1992

  3

  2

  6

  3

  0

  0

  14

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1994

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  1995

  2

  3

  1

  3

  0

  0

  9

  1996

  3

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Powys

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1992

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  6

  1993

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  10

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1995

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Reconciliation Services
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what sums will be allocated for reconciliation services as a result of the Family Law Act 1996; and if such funds will be used solely for reconciling the couple to remaining married. [8186]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor announced on 6 November that he was inviting tenders for a programme of pilot projects in order to identify types of service with particular potential for reducing the incidence of marriage breakdown and its consequent cost. Tenders have been invited from marriage support organisations. All valid bids will be evaluated on merit after 17 January 1997. Funding under the programme will be available for a range of marriage support services, including marriage preparation. The sums allocated will depend on the number of bids received which meet the pilot programme objectives.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Emergency Relief
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences of the Chancellor's Budget statement for his Department's expenditure in respect of emergency relief. [6523]
  40
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Chancellor's statement will have no direct or indirect effect on the capacity of the ODA to continue to provide overseas emergency relief.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid to Rwanda. [6525]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Since April 1994, the United Kingdom has committed over £137 million bilaterally and in support of European Union actions to help meet emergency and rehabilitation needs in Rwanda and those of Rwandan refugees.

  Lome Convention
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other EU countries regarding the future of the Lomé convention. [6524]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has discussed this topic in several recent meetings with her counterparts from other EU member states. Most recently, the topic was raised at the EU Development Council on 22 November, where Ministers had the opportunity for an initial exchange of views on the issue.

  Belarus
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current financial
  41
  assistance is being committed for the assistance of the economy in the Republic of Belarus; and if he will make a statement. [6527]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government are not providing financial assistance to Belarus. That country has benefited from a modest level of technical assistance from the know-how fund and from our contributions to the multilateral agencies.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure, in 1996 prices, his Department has incurred on consultants, including management consultants, on the bilateral aid programme in 1995–96. [6976]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Expenditure on consultants, including management consultants, for 1995–96 was £171,770,000. This sum covers contracts with individuals, charitable agencies, universities and commercial companies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Town Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for Government policy on town centres of his Department's decision to contribute towards the research by the Association of Town Centre Management into the feasibility of US-style town and city improvement zones. [7174]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This research is exploring the feasibility of a variety of approaches, based on voluntary participation, and is in line with our response to the Environment Committee to work with ATCM and others. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the research.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what external legal advice he has taken in respect of the Audit Commission's use of the powers set out in sections 28 and 29 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [7644]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is for the Audit Commission to satisfy itself that it is acting fully within its powers under sections 28 and 29 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is to be yielded by national domestic rates in 1996–97; what percentage of that amount is allocated to local government and how much of that amount was held back by the Treasury in 1996–97; and what estimate he has made of the figures in each case for 1997–98. [7476]

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 27 November,Official Report, column 242–44.

  Because of the pooling arrangements, it is not possible to say what percentage of the non-domestic rates yield for any one year is allocated to local government in that year. Under paragraph 8 of schedule 8 to the Local Government
  42
  Finance Act 1998, the Secretary of State for the Environment is required to distribute to local authorities the total amount which he estimates will be paid into the pool, after adjusting for any deficit or surplus brought forward from the previous year.

  By the end of 1996–97, the amount distributed from the pool since 1990–91 to local authorities will total £81.476 billion, while the amounts paid into the pool are estimated to total £80.631 billion over the same period: the deficit on the pool at the end of 1996–97 is, therefore, estimated to be £0.845 billion. Taking account of estimated payments into the pool of £12.873 billion in 1997–98, the amount paid into the pool between 1990–91 and 1997–98 is estimated to total £93.503 billion, and will equal the amount distributed to local authorities over the same period.

  Self-employed (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the rate of(a) death and (b) major injury among the self-employed in each of the last 10 years. [7526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The fatal and major injury incidence rates for self-employed people for all industry, as reported to health and safety enforcing authorities, were as follows:

  Year

  Fatal rate (per 100,000)

  Major injury rate (per 100,000)

  1986–87

  2.0

  26.9

  1987–88

  3.0

  31.0

  1988–89

  2.7

  39.4

  1989–90

  3.3

  41.2

  1990–91

  2.7

  41.2

  1991–92

  2.1

  33.1

  1992–93

  2.0

  35.8

  1993–94

  1.6

  40.6

  1994–95

  2.5

  40.4

  1995–961

  1.5

  35.9

  1 Provisional.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what proportion of England's shellfish waters have been designated as safe under the shellfish waters directive 79/923. [7683]

  Mr. Clappison
  The shellfish waters directive applies to coastal and brackish waters designated by member states and defines quality objectives to protect the development of shellfish populations from the principal sources of pollution. Seventeen such waters have been designated in England, and the Environment Agency monitoring results for 1995 showed that over 80 per cent. complied with the directive's requirements. None of the failures was considered by the competent authority to have harmful consequences for the development of shellfish colonies.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to restore
  43
  for areas of outstanding natural beauty the same primary purpose as that pertaining to national parks. [7758]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the separation of the common primary purpose previously enjoyed by the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty; and if he will make a statement. [7759]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the prosecutions brought for breaching asbestos regulations since 1986 resulted in the imposition of a fine; and what was the average value of the fine imposed. [7903]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is available only for prosecutions brought by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations directorate for breaches of the Asbestos Regulations 1969, the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1985, the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992, from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1996.

  Not all prosecutions brought result in a conviction, and not all convictions result in the imposition of a fine. However, fines were imposed in 354 instances and the average fine imposed was £840.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of delaying the rate of decommissioning of nuclear power stations. [8047]

  Mr. Clappison
  Environmental impact assessment—EIA—of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations will be a new requirement, included in the proposed directive to amend EC directive 85/337/EEC—"the EIA directive". The Government are considering how this and other new requirements should be implemented.

  Animals (Traditional Habitats)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reintroduce fish species into habitats from which they have disappeared because of industrial and farming pollution. [7495]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency identifies deficiencies in fish stocks through routine fishery surveys. Where the cause of such deficiencies is water pollution, the agency considers restocking as one of the options for restoring fisheries once the pollution has been remedied. In many cases, fish will recolonise naturally. More generally, the species recovery programme, which 44
  contributes to the UK biodiversity action plan, is concerned with the reintroduction of species of flora and fauna to traditional habitats.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reintroduce mammal species into traditional habitats in which they no longer occur. [7496]

  Mr. Clappison
  The species recovery programme—SRP—initiated in 1991 is a high priority for countryside agencies and makes an important contribution to the UK biodiversity action plan. The programme seeks to reintroduce species of flora and fauna to traditional habitats in which they no longer occur.

  In addition to established SRPs, work is being advanced for the reintroduction of the dormouse, red squirrel and the otter. These measures accord with objectives outlined in the Government-endorsed UK steering group report on biodiversity, which sets out action plans for mammals and includes objectives and targets for the reintroduction of some mammals to areas where they have been lost.

  Single Regeneration Budget (Bradford, West)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the Bradford, West SRB bid; and if he will make a statement. [8006]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Shortly.

  Departmental Staff (Education)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of his staff at G5 and above were educated at(a) independent schools, (b) the university of Oxford or the university of Cambridge and (c) independent schools and the universities of Oxford or Cambridge. [7981]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No central record is kept of the status or type of school attended by members of the senior civil service in this Department. Thirty five-of-22 per cent. senior civil service officers attended the university of Oxford and 45–28 per cent.—attended the university of Cambridge. Therefore, 80–50 per cent.—attended the universities of Oxford or Cambridge.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in respect of the system of local air pollution control which was established under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [8338]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have today published a progress report on the implementation of the system of local air pollution control which was established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The local air pollution control system specifies processes which are not to be operated without an authorisation from the relevant local authority. One of the main objectives of the system is to reduce industrial emissions and to improve local air quality.
  45
  The report show that, since 1991, business has submitted some 15,000 applications for authorisation. Local authorities have decided 92 per cent. of all applications. This is a considerable achievement, given the task which local authorities faced, not least in familiarising themselves with new legislation, procedure and technical information.

  The report also highlights the important role local air pollution control will play in the successful development of the new system of local air quality management, which was established under the Environment Act 1995.

  Local air pollution control should result in substantial improvements in air quality in locations where industry has been a significant air pollution source, helping us to achieve air quality targets and commitments.

  For example, a large number of industrial emitters of volatile organic compounds fall within local air pollution control. The Government's strategy to secure a 30 per cent. reduction in annual volatile organic compound emissions between 1988 and 1999 places considerable reliance on the reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds which will result from local air pollution control. Present indications are that, by 1999, the reduction may be of the order of 40 per cent., reflecting a significant contribution by local air pollution control.

  One reason for the success of local air pollution control has been the adoption of a partnership approach. Central and local government, business and wider interests have been actively involved in the development of both policies and procedures.

  While local air pollution control now appears to be firmly established and is operating effectively, the next five years will involve new challenges, including a substantial amount of upgrading of existing processes over the next two years. The report, which we have published today, will help to develop a clear view of the issues which face local air pollution control in the next few years and the priorities which should guide its development.

  I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to begin consultations concerning the possibility of British Waterways becoming a statutory consultee within the planning process. [8333]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have today issued a consultation paper seeking views on a proposal that British Waterways should in future be consulted on planning applications that are likely to affect the canals, river navigation and reservoirs it owns or manages, and the associated canal feeders, watercourses and let-offs. Our concern at present is that British Waterways is not always being made aware of proposals that may affect the stability and integrity of the waterways for which it is responsible, with potential cost implications for all concerned. Copies of the paper have been placed in the House Libraries and distributed to local authorities and other interested organisations. We have asked for responses by 17 January 1997.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision other than supplementary credit approvals has been made by central Government for local authorities in respect of their responsibilities in relation to contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in each year since 1993; and what provision he expects to be made in this respect for future years. [7920]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Each year, the Government set a level of revenue spending—total standard spending, or TSS—which they consider appropriate for local authorities, in aggregate, to spend. TSS is made up from seven main service blocks. Provision for local authorities' existing expenditure on contaminated land under the statutory nuisance regime in part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 forms part of the other services block, as will revenue spending under the specific contaminated land regime in part IIA of that Act when those provisions are brought into force.

  In deciding on the appropriate level of TSS each year, the Government take account of all spending pressures faced by local authorities, as well as the scope for efficiency savings and what the country as a whole can afford. TSS, however, is the Government's assessment of the appropriate level of spending in total. It is not possible to identify how much has been included to meet individual burdens or pressures.

  Apart from the contaminated land supplementary credit approval programme, no specific provision is made by central Government for capital expenditure by local authorities in relation to their responsibilities for contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appointments to public bodies have been made on the recommendation of the Irish Government in each of the last 15 months. [6117]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Appointments are not made on the recommendation of the Irish Government. The Irish Government are entitled to propose candidates for consideration, alongside other candidates, for appointment to public bodies in Northern Ireland. The number of appointments made in each of the last 15 months of candidates proposed by the Irish Government is as follows:

  Month

  Number of appointments resulting from Irish Government proposals

  1995

  September

  0

  October

  0

  November

  0

  December

  0

  1996

  January

  2

  February

  1

  47

  Month

  Number of appointments resulting from Irish Government proposals

  March

  2

  April

  1

  May

  1

  June

  2

  July

  1

  August

  1

  September

  0

  October

  1

  November

  10

  Total

  12

  1 Up to 27 November.

  Six of the appointments made in 1996 resulted from proposals made in 1995.

  Inward Investment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will(a) list those overseas companies which have chosen to locate or invest in Northern Ireland and (b) estimate the number of jobs created in Northern Ireland through inward investment in each of the last five years. [6371]

  Mr. Ancram
  A list of overseas companies which have been assisted by the Department of the Economic Development to locate or invest in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years is as follows. The list also includes the names of those overseas owned companies in the retail sector who are known to have announced projects in the period of the question.

  Year

  Company name

  1991–92

  Vision Information Consulting Ltd.

  BWC Textiles Ltd.

  Arntz Belting Co. Ltd.

  Canyon Europe Ltd.

  Circuits and Systems Design Ltd.

  Henry Denny and Sons (NI) Ltd.

  Northern Ireland Spinners Ltd.

  Irlandus Circuits Ltd.

  Sonoco Ltd.

  Lummus Mackie Ltd.

  Spanboard Ltd.

  Richardsons Fertilisers Ltd.

  3M Industrial Tapes Ltd.

  1992–93

  Olmedo Ltd.

  Pan European Textiles Ltd.

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  United Technologies Automotive (UK) Ltd.

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  Unidare Environmental Ltd.

  European Components Corporation

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  Crossbows Optical Ltd.

  NIRAD Ltd.

  Norfil

  1993–94

  CCA Electronic Ltd.

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd.

  Charles Bell (1963) Ltd.

  Valence Technology BV10

  MKF (UK) Ltd.

  Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd.

  CIS Data Ltd.

  Michelin Tyre Plc

  ESS Automotive Ltd.

  Unidare Plastics Ltd.

  Spanboard Products Ltd.

  Schrader Electronics Ltd.

  48

  Year

  Company name

  Lee Apparel (UK) Ltd.

  DDL Incorporated

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  Daewoo Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  1994–95

  Daewoo Electro Components UK Ltd.

  Radix Telecom Ltd.

  Northern Bank Factors Ltd.

  Daehwa Metal (UK) Ltd.

  ABC Labs (Europe) Ltd.

  Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd.

  CV Apparel Ltd.

  Harris Labs Ltd.

  Northern Telecom (NI) Ltd.

  Michelin Tyre Plc

  Rusch Manf (UK) Ltd.

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  Real Software (NI) Ltd.

  Schrader Electronics Ltd.

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  Fujitsu Fulcrum Telecom Ltd.

  Polarcup Ltd.

  Perfecseal Ltd.

  Glen Mouldings Ltd.

  Lurgan Fibre Ltd.

  Nacco Materials Handling Co. (NI) Ltd.

  Polystar (Ireland) Ltd.

  Smurfit Corrugated Cases (Lurgan) Ltd.

  Goldenvale Plc

  Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

  1995–96

  Aldiscon (NI) Ltd.

  Burnside Hydraulic Cylinders Ltd.

  Plastofilm Ltd.

  Duromold Ltd.

  Stream International (NI) Ltd.

  Copeland Ltd.

  Europa Tool Co. Ltd.

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd.

  Montupet (UK) Ltd.

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  Scansoft (NI) Ltd.

  Regal Processors Ltd.

  North of Ireland Tanners Ltd.

  Short Brothers Plc (2 projects)

  Delwyn Enterprises Ltd.

  Baker Hughes Ltd.

  Trouw UK Ltd.

  Fujitsu Telecom Europe Ltd.

  Nacco Materials Handling Ltd.

  Webtech (NI) Ltd.

  Coca Cola Bottlers Ltd.

  Oneida Ltd.

  Jury's Hotel Group

  Carlingnose (NI) Ltd.

  Tinto Engineering (NI) Ltd.

  Seinex

  Vischem

  The Gap

  Musgrave Group

  Disney Store

  These projects hold out the prospect of additional jobs, as follows:

  Year of project

  Jobs promoted

  1991–92

  489

  1992–93

  2,376

  1993–94

  2,475

  1994–95

  2,762

  1995–96

  3,971

  Targeting of Social Need Initiative
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what monitoring of deprivation levels in parliamentary constituencies has been undertaken by Government Departments in each year since the introduction of the targeting of social need initiative; and if he will list the results recorded; [6781]

  (2) what monitoring of deprivation levels in district council areas has been undertaken by Government Departments in each year since the introduction of the targeting of social need initiative; and if he will list the results recorded. [6785]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1994 Robson indicators—Department of Finance and Personnel, policy planning and research unit, occasional paper No. 28, "Relative Deprivation in Northern Ireland"—are used within Government to inform programmes which target social need and are available for local government districts, but not for parliamentary constituencies. This publication was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The dependence of the Robson measures on data from the decennial census of population precludes their use for routine monitoring of deprivation levels. However, some of the indicators making up the deprivation index are measured routinely. Unemployment levels by local government district area and parliamentary constituency, for example, are published monthly by the Department of Economic Development in its unemployment press notice.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time, (b) part-time, (c) male and (d) female jobs there were in Northern Ireland in October 1979 and in October of every succeeding year until the present time. [6391]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 2 December 1996]: The information requested is not available. However, data for September of each year are shown in the table:

  Employers in Employment1 in Northern Ireland

  At September of each year

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  303,380

  230.510

  533,890

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  298,360

  229,870

  528,230

  1981

  403,320

  103,510

  281,930

  224,900

  506,830

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  274,310

  224,690

  499,000

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  270,170

  227,820

  498,000

  1984

  392,930

  107,520

  271,680

  228,770

  500,450

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  272,460

  232,760

  505,230

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  267,700

  234,030

  501,730

  1987

  388,790

  118,520

  268,330

  238,980

  507,310

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  273,230

  247,380

  520,610

  1989

  398,300

  129,930

  275,140

  253,100

  528,240

  1990

  n/a

  n/a

  281,030

  261,960

  542,990

  1991

  402,660

  139,830

  277,750

  264,740

  542,490

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  276,530

  268,530

  545,060

  1993

  395,810

  154,680

  277,920

  272,570

  550,490

  1994

  398,710

  161,670

  281,170

  279,200

  560,370

  1995

  402,690

  169,670

  285,580

  286,780

  572,370

  19962

  396,900

  176,190

  284,930

  288,160

  573,090

  Notes:

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 The most recent figures available for 1996 are at June.

  n/a= Full-time/part-time split not available.

  September estimates will be published on 18 December 1996.

  Source:

  DED Census of Employment and Quarterly Employment Survey.

  Spring and Mineral Water
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the number of contracts between Department of the Environment Services and suppliers of spring or mineral water, (b) the quantities of water involved in the last year for which figures are available and (c) the cost of supplying such water to Department of the Environment offices. [7469]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland currently has 15 contracts with suppliers for the provision of spring and mineral water to its offices and a number of other premises within the Northern Ireland civil service general office estate. In 1995–96, the last full year for which figures are available, 11,715 litres of water were supplied at a cost to the Department of £5,928.97.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7538]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following is the information:

  1991–92: £182,321

  1992–93: £509,013

  1993–94: £650,666

  1994–95: £1,021,292

  1995–96: £1,906,545

  1996–97: £140,000 (estimate)

  1997–98: £Nil (estimate)

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on drug seizures in Northern Ireland in 1996. [7592]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Up to 30 November 1996, the RUC has seized 70,931 ecstasy tablets, 147 kgs of cannabis resin, 5,871 gms of herbal cannabis, 2,116 LSD tablets, 13 kgs of amphetamines, 237 gms of cocaine, 137.5 gms and 1,175 tablets of opiates, including heroin. During the same period, Customs and Excise has seized 4,295 tablets of ecstasy, 10,044 kgs of cannabis resin, 43 gms of herbal cannabis, 120 gms of cannabis resin—space cake—one cannabis joint, 200 tablets of LSD, three amphetamine wraps, 2 gms of heroin and 3 gms of psilocin—magic mushrooms.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department will spend on Christmas trees and decorations this year; how many Christmas trees will be bought for his Department's headquarters; and what are the type and country of origin of the trees. [7560]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments will spend £860 on 28 Christmas trees and various decorations. The trees will be of north American

  51
  large pole pines, Norway spruce, noble fir, silver fern and an artificial nordic spruce, originating from Northern Ireland, Scotland and China.

  Health and Social Services Information
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list current circulars issued by the Department of Health and Social Services Management Executive to health and social services boards and health and social services trusts; and if he will update them in line with the exercise undertaken by the Department of Health in its local authority social services letter issued in Britain in July. [7744]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: A list follows of the circulars issued by the Department of Health and Social Services executive to health and social services boards and health and social services trusts since 1 January 1996. Information about circulars issued prior to this date could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department does not currently have a central list of all extant guidance but as part of the development of is communication strategy consideration will be given to this issue.

  Number

  Date

  Title

  TC7 7/95

  8 January 1996

  PTB staff pay for 1995–96 for MTO's ATOs MLSOs support grades dental auxiliaries and estate officer grades

  TC7 8/95

  8 January 1996

  Part time hospital chaplains revised salaries for 1995–96

  HPSS (PPRD4) 2/96

  10 January 1996

  Performance Tables 1995–96

  TC1 1/96

  10 January 1996

  Nurses and midwives clinical grading Appeals—Revised Stage

  TC7 9/95

  12 January 1996

  Hospital Pharmacies revised salaries for 1995–96

  HSS(F)4/96

  15 January 1996

  External Financial Limited 1995–96 Brokerage

  HSS(F)5/96

  30 January 1996

  Registration and Inspection of Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes—Memorandum Trading Accounts

  HSS(F)8/96

  1 February 1996

  Retrospective Employers Liability Claims

  HSS(F)9/96

  2 February 1996

  Government loans to Health and Social Services (HSS)

  HSS(F)6/96

  7 February 1996

  Statement of accounts (RMPA) 1996

  HSS(F)ll/96

  11 February 1996

  Charges for meals services in the community

  HSS(F) 12/96

  12 February 1996

  Public dividend capital payments

  TC7 10/95

  14 February 1996

  Clinical Scientists and Hospital optometrists revised salaries for 1995–96

  HSS(F) 13/96

  19 February 1996

  Statement of accounts (CSA) for the year ended 31 March 1996

  TC6 2/96

  20 February 1996

  Taxation treatment of motor car allowances

  TC8 15/95

  20 February 1996

  Lodging charges for voluntary resident practitioners

  TC6 1/96

  21 February 1996

  Revised circular on subsistence allowances out of pocket expenses and meal charges for resident staff etc.

  HSS(F)l/96

  28 February 1996

  Statement of accounts (Trusts) for year ended 31 March 1996

  HSS(F)2/96

  28 February 1996

  Statement of accounts (Boards) for year ended 31 March 1996

  Supp 1

  28 February 1996

  HSS(F)3/96

  28 February 1996

  Statement of accounts (GPFHS) for year ended 31 March 1996

  TC7 11/95

  28 February 1996

  Speech and language therapists revised salaries for 1995–96

  TC7 2/96

  29 February 1996

  Clinical psychologists trainee clinical psychologists and assistant psychologists revised salaries for 1995–96

  52

  Number

  Date

  Title

  TC8 4/96

  4 March 1996

  Specialist registrar establishments

  HSS(F)7/96

  12 March 1996

  Statement of accounts for (NIBTS) 1996

  TC6 3/96

  12 March 1996

  Revised motor car allowances

  HSS(FHS)9/96

  19 March 1996

  Dental Charges (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (S.R. 1996 No. 106)

  HSS(F)l4/96

  19 March 1996

  Statement of Accounts (PGMDE) for the year ended 31 March 1996

  TC8 6/96

  22 March 1996

  Implementing the reforms of specialist medical training

  PRSC(PR) 1/96

  25 March 1996

  Implementation of New Complaints Procedure: Final Guidance

  HSS(FHS)IO/96

  27 March 1996

  Health Service Low Income Scheme

  HSS(F) 15/96

  28 March 1996

  Practice on the Audit of Central Government Sector Accounts

  TC5 1/96

  28 March 1996

  Nurses and midwives pay for 1996–97

  HSS(FHS)6/96

  29 March 1996

  GP Fundholding: Management and Computer Allowances

  HSS9(FHS)7/96

  29 March 1996

  Optical Charges and Payments (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (S.R. 1996 No. 124)

  TC7 3/96

  29 March 1996

  Professionals allied to medicine and related grades of staff pay for 1996–97

  HSS(F)14/96

  30 March 1996

  Supplement 1 statement of accounts (PGMDE) for the year end 31 March 1996

  HSS(FHS)ll/96

  2 April 1996

  General Dental Services (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (S.R. 1996 No. 114)

  TC8 2A>6

  4 April 1996

  Revised arrangements for the management of the employment contracts of doctors in training guidelines etc

  HSS(FHS) 13/96

  5 April 1996

  Changes to the GP Terms of Service—Transfer of out of hours responsibility and practice complaints procedures.

  THR 1/96

  5 April 1996

  Supplement for teaching and research STAR 1996–97

  TC3 1/96

  15 April 1996

  Increases in the National Rates of pay for Upholsters from January 1996.

  TC7 3/96

  18 April 1996

  Corrigendum professions allied to medicine and related grades of staff pay for 1996–97

  TC8 1/96

  19 April 1996

  Pay and conditions of service remuneration of hospital medical and dental staff and doctors in public health medicine and the community health service

  HSS(FHS)17/96

  22 April 1996

  GP Fundholding: Identification, Approval and use of savings.

  HSS(F)10/96

  24 April 1996

  Accounting for the cost of early retirement

  PRSC(PR) 2/96

  25 April 1996

  HPSS Complaints Procedure— Training Resource Pack

  TC1 2/96

  25 April 1996

  Offical Vehicle Users reimbursement of petrol costs

  TC8 5/96

  29 April 1996

  Emergency care services

  HSS(FHS) 14/96

  30 April 1996

  The Health and Personal Social Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland Order 1995 (S.I. 1995 No.2704 (NI 14)

  TC8 3/96

  1 May 1996

  Terms and conditions of service for the specialist registrar grade

  THR2/96

  4 May 1996

  Management costs on NHS Trusts

  HSS(F) 16/96

  14 May 1996

  Report by the Comptroller and auditor general: Inquiry Commissioned by the NHS Chief Executive into matters concerning the former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  HSS(FHS)22/96

  15 May 1996

  Health Service Low Income Scheme New Publicity Material

  TC4 1/96

  20 May 1996

  Ancillary staff pay and conditions of service

  TC3 2/96

  21 May 1996

  Pay settlement wef 1 April 1996 common grading structure staff, planner estimators and building trade operatives pay and conditions of service

  53

  Number

  Date

  Title

  TC6 4/96

  21 May 1996

  Revised rates of pay 1996 settlement for assistant directors of social services (protected) and all other social services staff up to principal social worker. Also increase to sleeping in and standby duty allowances.

  HSS(FHS)23/96

  23 May 1996

  The health and Personal Social Services (Fundholding Practices) Amendment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996

  TC7 5/96

  24 May 1996

  Speech and Language therapists and speech and language therapists assistants pay for 1996–97

  TC8 13/95

  28 May 1996

  Hospital Medical and Dental Staff: Category 1 and 2 work, treatment of earnings from work outside the principal contract of employment

  HSS(F)I8/96

  29 May 1996

  Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1996 (National Board)

  HSS(F)l8/96

  29 May 1996

  Supplement 1 changes to format of accounts

  HSS(FHS)25/96

  30 May 1996

  Local Pharmacy Budgets—1996–97

  TC2 1/96

  31 May 1996

  Administrative and Clerical Staff 1996 Pay Settlement

  HSS(F)6/96

  3 June 1996

  Supplement 1 statement of accounts (RMPA) for year ended 31 March 1996

  HSS(F)7/96

  3 June 1996

  Supplement 1 statement of accounts (NIBTS) for year ended 31 March 1996

  HSS(F) 14/96

  3 June 1996

  Supplement 2 statement of accounts (PGMDE) for year ended 31 March 1996

  HSS(F) 10/96

  4 June 1996

  Supplement I accounting for the cost of early retirement

  HSS(F) 10/96

  4 June 1996

  Supplement 2 accounting for the cost of early retirement

  HSS(F) 13/96

  10 June 1996

  Supplement 1 statement of accounts (CSA) for the year ended 31 March 1996

  TC1 3/96

  10 June 1996

  Official Vehicle Users reimbursement of petrol costs

  TC7 4/96

  10 June 1996

  PTB staff pay for 1996–97 for MTOs ATos MLSos support grade dental auxiliaries and estate officer grades

  HSS(FHS)2l/96

  12 June 1996

  GP Deprivation Payments Scheme

  HSS(F) 10/96

  12 June 1996

  Supplement 3 accounting for the cost of early retirement

  TC7 1/96

  12 June 1996

  Speech and language thereapists post qualification training and continuing professional development and the use of grade 3 posts

  HSS(F) 18/96

  13 June 1996

  Supplement 2 statement of accounts for the year ended 31 March

  HSS(FHS)16/96

  14 June 1996

  General Medical Services— Continuity of care for patients and financial arrangements for GPs during periods of suspension by direction of the tribunal

  HSS(F)7/96

  14 June 1996

  Supplement 2 statement of accounts (NIBTS) for year ended 31 March 1996

  TC7 6/96

  14 June 1996

  Clinical psychologists trainee clinical psychologists and assistant psychologists pay 1996–97

  THR3/96

  24 June 1996

  Public announcement

  TC7 7/96

  26 June 1996

  Hospitals Pharmacists Pay for 1996–97

  THR4/96

  27 June 1996

  HPSS (Residual liabilities 1 (NI) Order 1996

  HSS(SC)l/96

  28 June 1996

  The Commissioning and Provision of Maternity Services Policy Guidelines

  TC7 8/96

  1 July 1996

  Clinical Scientists and Hospital Optometrists Pay 1996–97

  TC4 2/96

  10 July 1996

  Pay Settlement 1996–97—Care Assistants. Home helps and Wardens

  54

  Number

  Date

  Title

  HSS(SC)2/96

  24 July 1996

  The developing of multiprofessional funding of audit projects

  TC1 4/96

  26 July 1996

  Official Vehicle Users reimbursement of petrol costs

  PRSC(PR)3/96

  30 July 1996

  Charter for Patients and Clients

  TC6 5/96

  9 August 1996

  Salary increases—directors of social services deputy director of social services (Eastern Board) and assistant directors of social services effective from 1 July 1996

  HSS(F)22/96

  15 August 1996

  Performance Assessment and Monitoring System

  HSS(FHS) 29/96

  16 August 1996

  Pharmacists Remuneration 1996–97

  PRSC1/96

  21 August 1996

  New Arrangements for Extra-Contractual Referrals to Providers in GB

  TC1 7/96

  21 August 1996

  Administrative and Clerical/professional and Technical revised stage III procedures

  TC7 10/96

  21 August 1996

  Part-time Hospital Chaplins

  PRSC2/96

  22 August 1996

  Establishing Area of Residence

  PRSC(PR) 4/96

  16 September 1996

  Charter for Maternity Services

  HSS(F) 19/96

  17 September 1996

  Management letters and internal control reports for Trusts 1994–95

  TC1 8/96

  17 September 1996

  Official vehicles users—reimbursement of petrol costs

  TC7 9/96

  18 September 1996

  National Framework Agreement PAMS Specific Issues

  HSS(F)23/96

  19 September 1996

  Management letters and internal control reports for Boards 1994–95

  METL1/96

  20 September 1996

  1996–97 contracts—service reductions

  TC1 9/96

  24 September 1996

  Official vehicle users— reimbursement of petrol costs

  HSS(F)20/96

  30 September 1996

  Use of management consultants

  HSS(F)24/96

  1 October 1996

  Interindebtcdness arrangements 1996–97

  HSS(FHS) 34/96

  4 October 1996

  Health Service Low Income Scheme

  TC1 10/96

  10 October 1996

  Official Vehicle Users—reimbursement of petrol costs

  THR5/96

  18 October 1996

  STAR/SUMDE 1996–97

  HSS(F)25/96

  23 October 1996

  Accounting cost of early retirement national board for nursing midwifery and health visiting Northern Ireland

  PRSC(PR)5/96

  25 October 1996

  Video on New Complaints Procedure

  HSSE(OCE)l/96

  31 October 1996

  Code of practice on openness in the HPSS

  HSS(SC)3/96

  1 November 1996

  Retention of Persona] Health Records

  THR6/96

  1 November 1996

  Disposal of vehicles withdrawn from service

  TC5 2/96

  12 November 1996

  Senior Nurses and midwives pay for 1995–96

  METL2/96

  26 November 1996

  Flying of flags

  TC1 5/96

  12 August 1997

  Official Vehicles users reimbursement of Petrol costs

  TC1 6/97

  2 September 1997

  Holiday in 1997

  Social Services (Assessment of Need)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by board and trade the number of assessments of need for non-residential social services support undertaken by health and social services trusts and health and social services boards in 1994 and 1995 under (i) section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, (ii) section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, (iii) relevant sections of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and (iv) other relevant enactments governing assessment for non-residential social services support. [7750]
  55
  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Information on assessments is not available in the form requested.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Vicarages and Palaces (Security)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much was spent on security of vicarages and bishops' palaces in each of the past three years in real terms; how many buildings were involved in each year; what were the principal measures involved; and if he will make a statement. [6532]

  Mr. Alison
  The provision of security measures for parsonage houses and suffragan bishops' houses is the responsibility of dioceses, which have done much in recent years to improve matters. The commissioners offer advice and this is currently under review.

  The commissioners are responsible for see houses and have put in hand security measures which are appropriate to the individual properties and the personal circumstances of the bishop, his family and staff. Such measures also meet the stringent requirements of the commissioners' insurers. Measures include the installation of integrated fire and intruder alarm systems. Detailed figures are not available, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this important work is properly funded.

  Property Holdings
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Charity Commission about the reduction in value of the Church Commission's property portfolio, and if he will make a statement. [6534]

  Mr. Alison
  In the three years to 1995, the commissioners' United Kingdom property portfolio achieved a total return of 17.9 per cent. per annum and they were the best performing fund of all those measured by the Investment Property Databank. In the 10 years to 1995, the return averaged 9.1 per cent which was slightly ahead of that recorded by the WM all-funds index.

  The Church Commissioners are not subject to control by the Charity Commission, although meetings are held from time to time on matters of mutual interest.

WALES

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of children educated at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are in grant-maintained schools. [7237]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As at January 1996(a) 0.4 per cent. and (b) 4.9 per cent.

  Hospital and Ward Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital and ward closures there have been in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd between 1979 and 1995. [5557]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table:

  1979

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  In-patient cases

  47,741

  73,906

  Day cases

  7,966

  34,446

  In-patient and day cases

  55,707

  108,352

  New out-patients

  57,182

  83,165

  Hospitals1

  28

  20

  Wards2

  —

  —

  Wales

  In-patient cases

  349,695

  513,417

  Day cases

  31,179

  239,980

  In-patient and day cases

  380,874

  753,397

  New out-patients

  428,739

  638,275

  Hospitals1

  173

  143

  Wards2

  —

  —

  1 Hospitals are not directly comparable. 1994–95 figures include NHS trusts which comprise one or more hospitals that was previously counted separately.

  2 Information on wards is not collected centrally.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children there are currently in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [7239]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As at January 1996, in local education authority maintained and grant maintained schools(a) 292,206 and (b) 198,503.

  Beaches
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Wales if he will list those beaches which(a) passed and (b) failed the UK mandatory coliform standard for bathing waters in 1996. [7449]

  Mr. Hague
  Compliance in 1996 of bathing waters in Wales identified under the EC bathing water directive (76/160/EEC) with the directive's mandatory standards for total coliforms and faecal coliforms was as follows:

  Pass/Fail

  Jacksons Bay, Barry

  Fail

  Whitmore Bay, Barry

  Pass

  Cold Knap, Barry

  Pass

  Southemdown

  Pass

  Trecco Bay, Porthcawl

  Pass

  Sandy Bay, Porthcawl

  Pass

  Rest Bay, Porthcawl

  Pass

  Aberafan

  Pass

  Swansea Bay

  Fail

  Bracelet Bay

  Pass

  Limeslade Bay

  Pass

  Langland Bay

  Pass

  Caswell Bay

  Pass

  Oxwich Bay

  Pass

  Port Eynon Bay

  Pass

  57

  Pass/Fail

  Rhossili

  Pass

  Pembrey

  Pass

  Pendine

  Pass

  Amroth

  Pass

  Saundersfoot

  Pass

  Tenby North

  Pass

  Tenby South

  Pass

  Broadhaven

  Pass

  Newgale

  Pass

  Whitesands

  Pass

  Newport

  Pass

  Poppit Sands

  Pass

  Aberporth

  Pass

  Tresaith

  Pass

  Traeth Gwyn, New Quay

  Pass

  Aberyslwyth South

  Pass

  Aberystwyth North

  Pass

  Borth

  Pass

  Aberdyfi

  Fail

  Tywyn

  Pass

  Fairboume

  Pass

  Barmouth

  Pass

  Tal-y-bont

  Pass

  Dyffryn (Llanendwyn)

  Pass

  Llandanwg

  Pass

  Harlech

  Fail

  Morfa Bychan

  Pass

  Criccieth

  Pass

  Pwllheli

  Pass

  Abersoch

  Pass

  Morfa Dinlle

  Pass

  Rhosneigr

  Pass

  Trearddur Bay

  Pass

  Benllech

  Pass

  Penmaenmawr

  Pass

  Llandudno West Shore

  Pass

  Llandudno North Shore

  Pass

  Colwyn Bay

  Pass

  Kinmel Bay (Sandy Cove)

  Pass

  Rhyl

  Pass

  Prestatyn

  Pass

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those beaches in Wales which have been tested for enterovirus in 1996; and in each case if the beach passed the enterovirus standard in the EU bathing water directive. [7432]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Waters sampled for enterovirus

  Pass/Fail EC Standard (of zero)

  Jacksons Bay, Barry

  Fail

  Swansea Bay

  Pass

  Aberdyfi

  Pass

  Borth

  Pass

  Harlech

  Pass

  Morfa Bychan

  Pass

  Benllech

  Pass

  Rhosneigr

  Pass

  Penmaenmawr

  Pass

  Llandudno West Shore

  Fail

  Colwyn Bay

  Fail

  Kinmel Bay (Sandy Cove)

  Pass

  Rhyl

  Pass

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) currently running and (b) planning to
  58
  run during the next six months; and for each campaign (i) how much it will cost, (1) in total and (2) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [7410]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department is currently running the following promotional and public information campaigns, which include advertising:

  Total cost to my Department £

  Agencies

  Duration

  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme1

  80,000

  COI Capita

  1996–97

  Christmas Drink Drive1

  21,500

  COI

  3–31 December 1996

  1 These campaigns will run concurrently with those promoted in England by the Department for Education and Employment, and the Department of Transport.

  I plan to run the following campaign in the next six months:

  Total cost to my Department £

  Agencies

  Duration

  Child Road Safety1

  19,000

  COI

  Approximately four weeks from 14 January 1997

  1 These campaigns will run concurrently with those promoted in England by the Department for Education and Employment, and the Department of Transport.

  Publicity plans for the 1997–98 financial year have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7537]

  Mr. Hague
  In the current financial year, I estimate my Department will spend £300,000 on promotional and public information campaigns which involve advertising.

  For previous financial years, comparable information is not readily available and can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity plans for the 1997–98 financial year have not yet been finalised, and decisions about future years' activity will be considered thereafter.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) children, (b) adults and (c) people in total were registered with dentists in each health authority in Wales in (i) February 1993, (ii) July 1993, (iii) February 1994, (iv) July 1994, (v) February 1995, (vi) July 1995 and (vii) February 1996; and if he will make a statement. [7485]
  59
  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 April 1996,Official Report, column 634.

  Hospital Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the numbers of admissions into each hospital accident and emergency department in Wales; and what these figures are as a percentage of the busiest in the last year for which figures are available. [8014]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of new attendances at each accident and emergency department or casualty unit in Wales during 1995–96 and the percentage this represented of the attendances at the largest unit is given in the following table:

  Attendances in accident and emergency departments/casualty units, 1995–96

  NHS Trust and Hospital

  New attendances

  As a percentage of the largest unit1

  Bridgend and District

  Maesteg General

  571

  0.7

  Princess of Wales

  48,511

  56.7

  Carmarthen and District

  Llandovery

  1,264

  1.5

  West Wales General

  19,067

  22.3

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  Aberaeron

  396

  0.5

  Bronglais General

  12,929

  15.1

  Cardigan and District

  1,374

  1.6

  Tregaron

  153

  0.2

  Clwydian Community Care

  Colwyn Bay Community

  1,287

  1.5

  Denbigh Community

  2,930

  3.4

  Flint Community

  3,950

  4.6

  Holywell Community

  6,626

  7.7

  Llangollen Community

  1,363

  1.6

  Mold Community

  9,724

  11.4

  Royal Alexandra

  1,287

  1.5

  Ruthin Community

  1,953

  2.3

  Glan Clwyd Hospital

  H M Stanley

  2,966

  3.5

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  40,564

  47.4

  Glan Hafren

  Aberbargoed and District

  1,499

  1.8

  Caerphilly District Miners

  12,504

  14.6

  Chepstow Community

  3,971

  4.6

  County

  5,705

  6.7

  Redwood Memorial

  1,039

  1.2

  Royal Gwent

  66,652

  77.9

  Glan-y-Mor

  Neath General

  26,971

  31.5

  Gwynedd Community

  Bronygarth

  2,885

  3.4

  Bryn Beryl

  2,070

  2.4

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  2,173

  2.5

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  2,017

  2.4

  Penrhos Stanley

  316

  0.4

  Tywyn and District

  2,400

  2.8

  Valley

  4,352

  5.1

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  Llandudno

  12,823

  15.0

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  27,118

  31.7

  60

  Attendances in accident and emergency departments/casualty units, 1995–96

  NHS Trust and Hospital

  New attendances

  As a percentage of the largest unit1

  East Glamorgan

  East Glamorgan General

  29,513

  34.5

  Llandough

  Barry Community

  1,501

  1.8

  The Barry Hospital

  4,157

  4.9

  LJanelli Dinefwr

  Prince Philip

  32,168

  37.6

  Morriston Hospital

  Morriston

  55,727

  65.2

  Nevill Hall and District

  Blaenavon Health Care

  1,696

  2.0

  Blaina and District

  987

  1.2

  Ebbw Vale

  1,891

  2.2

  Monmouth General

  1,389

  1.6

  Nevill Hall

  36,991

  43.3

  Tredegar General

  2,684

  3.1

  North Glamorgan

  Aberdare

  8,432

  9.9

  Mountain Ash

  6,103

  7.1

  Prince Charles

  40,068

  46.9

  Pembrokeshire

  South Pembrokeshire

  6,667

  7.8

  Tenby Cottage

  4,135

  4.8

  Withybush

  20,366

  23.8

  Powys Health Care

  Breconshire War Memorial

  7,965

  9.3

  Broddyfi Community

  2,192

  2.6

  Builth Wells Cottage

  3,260

  3.8

  Llandrindod Wells

  4,735

  5.5

  Llanidloes and District

  1,442

  1.7

  Montgomery County Infirmary

  4.320

  5.1

  Victoria Memorial

  3,968

  4.6

  Ystradgynlais Community

  2,646

  3.1

  Rhondda Health Care

  Llwynpia

  16,778

  19.6

  Swansea

  Singleton

  29,187

  34.1

  UHW Healthcare

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  85,524

  100.0

  University Hospital of Wales

  520

  0.6

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  Wrexham Maelor

  43,976

  51.4

  1 Largest in terms of the number of new attendances (Cardiff Royal Infirmary).

  South East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many single-manned journeys have been made by ambulance in 1996 in the South East Wales ambulance trust region; and if he will make a statement. [7726]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Trust Directors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-executive directors appointed to health service trusts in Wales at the time of their establishment are still in office. [7493]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Central Science Laboratory. [8649]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have decided that, for the present, the Central Science Laboratory should remain as executive agency of MAFF. This will allow the CSL to consolidate its business following relocation to the new laboratory at Sand Hutton and to build on the links already established with the university of York and York bioscience initiative.

  CSL's food science laboratory is to remain at Norwich and will continue to develop its collaboration with other institutes on the Norwich research park and with the university of East Anglia.

  We must ensure that maximum value is obtained from the excellent new facilities at Sand Hutton. We will therefore be appointing specialists from the commercial sector to advise us on how best to achieve a secure future for CSL.

  Beef Imports
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce the same controls in respect of beef imports from non-EC countries as are placed on home produced beef. [6987]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 as amended, prohibit the sale for human consumption of any meat derived from bovine animals aged over 30 months and slaughtered on or after 29 March 1996, whether in the UK or overseas. The only exceptions are for bovine meat from non-EC countries specified in the regulations where the Government are satisfied that we can import beef without risk, and from animals slaughtered for human consumption under the beef assurance scheme.

  Additionally, all consignments of fresh meat imported into the United Kingdom, whether from other member states or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council directive 64/433/EEC, as amended.

  As regards controls on specified bovine materials, the Commission has recently put a proposal for EU-wide controls on such material to the Standing Veterinary Committee. This would also place equivalent controls on imports from third countries. The proposal was only supported only by the UK and France and is now expected to be submitted to the Council of Agriculture Ministers for further consideration.

  Butter
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to protect the interests of consumers of spreadable butter; and what representations he has made to the European Commission on this matter. [7273]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 19 November 1996,Official Report, column 474, and on 4 December 1996 Official Report, column 721.

  BSE
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the data on his Department's Internet site relating to the selective cull of cattle not over 30 months under the BSE eradication scheme. [8183]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department is conscious of the importance of having accurate information across its Internet site which has until recently been available on the CCTA Government Information Service. However, during the past month we have been phasing in a dedicated MAFF service on the Internet (http://www.inaff.gov.uk); this service is now fully available and contains fresh sources of information. We are also reviewing all MAFF's BSE documentation on the Internet with the aim of enhancing its content, currency and structure.

  Genetically Modified Products
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effects of using genetically manipulated (i) soya beans and (ii) other products in food production; and if he will publish his Department's conclusions. [8185]

  Mrs Browning
  No research has been specifically commissioned on soya beans or other genetically manipulated food products although the Department funds generic work worth some £800,000 per year to underpin its safety assessment procedures. In the course of assessing individual foods, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes evaluates extensive safety data. The committee's findings are published in its annual report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Peanut Products
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards Euro-labelling standards for peanut products. [6631]

  Mrs. Browning
  The EC Scientific Committee for Food has reported on the subject of food intolerance. The Standing Committee for Foodstuffs and the Codex Committee on Food Labelling discussed the problem at meetings earlier this year. We expect a Commission working group to consider the outcome and any necessary labelling rules.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if an ovine animal with the attached ear tag F02873, was certified as fit to travel during the 24-hour period preceding the loading on to vehicles for a sailing on 22 November. [7735]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 5 December 1996]: It is not possible to tell. F02873 would be only part of the full identification mark applied to the ovine animal. The mark applied to exported sheep also includes an individual animal identification number.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of live sheep exported between 31 May and 1 November were destined for further fattening. [7737]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 5 December 1996]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) planned expenditure in 1996–97 following the 1995 expenditure settlement, (b) estimated outturn expenditure in 1996–97 and (c) planned expenditure in 1997–98 in respect of each of the environmentally sensitive areas. [7689]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 5 December 1996]: Estimated outturn expenditure for 1996–97 is as follows:

  £ million

  Pennine Dales

  3.166

  South Downs

  1.936

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  2.808

  Broads

  3.110

  West Penwith

  0.526

  Breckland

  0.812

  Suffolk River Valleys

  1.488

  Clun

  0.991

  North Peak

  1.458

  Test Valley

  0.145

  North Kent Marshes

  0.792

  Avon Valley

  0.179

  South Wessex Downs

  0.752

  Exmoor

  1.720

  South West Peak

  1.539

  Lake District

  5.730

  Blackdown Hills

  0.361

  Cotswold Hills

  2.068

  Dartmoor

  0.861

  Essex Coast

  0.350

  Shropshire Hills

  0.509

  Upper Thames Tributaries

  0.502

  Total

  31.803

  The financial provision for environmentally sensitive areas is as follows:

  1996–97(1995 PES provision): £37.02 million

  1997–98(1996 PES provision): £33.69 million

  The financial provision is not allocated between individual ESAs.
  All figures relate to payments to farmers in English ESAs.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department plans to spend on celebrating Christmas and the new year. [7576]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: I estimate that my Department will be spending just under £3,000 on celebrating Christmas and the new year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Impartiality)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with the Cabinet Secretary concerning regulations protecting the political neutrality of the civil service during pre-election periods. [6502]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie).

  Deregulation (Competition)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what countries he has visited for the purpose of studying(a) deregulation and (b) competition policy. [6509]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have sought support for reducing the burden of European legislation from Ministers and business leaders in most EU member states. Working with our European partners for better EC legislation is vital for improving the competitiveness of UK business.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the impact of deregulation upon the competitive position of the British economy. [6516]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's commitment to fewer, better and simpler regulations is making a key contribution to the UK's competitiveness. Deregulation measures are now saving business hundreds of millions of pounds each year and helping to attract increasing investment from overseas.

  Deregulation (Safety Implications)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on safety at work of deregulation. [6512]

  Mr. Freeman
  Changes are being made which will simplify and clarify the law without reducing necessary standards. These stem from the Health and Safety Commission's own review of regulation.

  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what percentage the number of civil servants has changed in the past five years. [6513]

  Mr. Willetts
  On 1 October 1991, there were 567,000 civil servants. There are now 487,000, a fall of 14 per cent.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the principal Government policy with which he was concerned in the week beginning 2 December. [6514]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have continued to work on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.

  Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the mechanisms for the co-ordination of Government (i) European, (ii) economic and (iii) education policy since his appointment. [6515]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Committee structure is regularly reviewed to ensure that it facilitates the successful co-ordination of Government business.

  Deregulation (Fiches d'impact)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations the deregulation unit at his Department has made to the Commission about the content of the fiches d'impact. [6517]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is vital that the European Commission accurately assesses the costs to business of European legislative proposals. On 29 October 1996, I wrote to the Secretary General of the Commission and to Commissioners setting out the improvements the UK wants to see in the fiche d'impact assessment system. A copy of the paper I sent has been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received

  Claim pack alone1

  GP's factual report

  Examination medical officer's report

  Any other evidence

  Total

  1992–932

  Care component

  141,838

  55,107

  47,920

  7,165

  252,030

  Mobility component

  157,381

  64,092

  56,177

  8,932

  286,582

  1993–942

  Care component

  67,671

  48,841

  33,141

  6,323

  155,976

  Mobility component

  72,190

  55,203

  38,664

  6,729

  172,786

  1994–95

  Care component

  67,085

  60,841

  31,522

  9,325

  168,773

  Mobility component

  70,481

  68,919

  35,793

  9,633

  184,826

  1995–96

  Care component

  62,770

  70,083

  41,425

  11,430

  185,708

  Mobility component

  62,176

  78,331

  45,997

  11,075

  197,579

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent.

  Notes:

  1 Claims for disability living allowance, care and/or mobility components are decided in the light of all the evidence. The claim pack also invites a claimant to provide supporting statements from someone who knows how their disability affects their every day life e.g. from a doctor or social worker.

  2 Includes top-up awards.

  66
  extended housing benefit and (b) extended council tax benefit when leaving (i) income support and (ii) jobseeker's allowance; and what is his estimate of the cost in each case. [6729]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information concerning the number of people who have received an extended payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit will be available early next year. Information on the number of recipients who left income support or jobseeker's allowance and the cost in each case is not collected.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) incapacity benefit, (b) disability living allowance and (c) the jobseeker's allowance, the 10 United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies with the highest number of recipients and the 10 with the lowest number, together with the two Northern Ireland constituencies with the highest number and the two with the lowest, stating for each constituency the percentage of the electorate who are recipients. [7204]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For information on Northern Ireland constituencies, I refer the hon. and learned Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Norther Ireland.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many decisions on an initial award of(a) disability living allowance care component and (b) disability living allowance mobility component were made where the adjudication officer (i) required an examining medical officer's report, (ii) required a general practitioner's factual report, (iii) required other evidence and (iv) relied on the claim pack alone, in (1) 1992–93, (2) 1993–94, (3) 1994–95 and (4) 1995–96. [6723]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table:
  67
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people during the past year have claimed the disability living allowance mobility component where the adjudication officer considered a claim for the higher rate; in how many cases claims were decided by(a) a general practitioner's factual report and (b) an examining practitioner's report; and how many claims have been refused. [6724]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Awards of higher rate mobility component

  GP's factual report

  Examining medical practitioner's report

  Any other evidence

  Total

  All refusal

  57,499

  39,746

  51,542

  148,787

  255,281

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent.

  Note:

  Claims for disability living allowance are considered for the whole benefit rather than for a particular component and rate of award, using all of the evidence.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability living allowance were received in(a) 1994–95 and 1995–96. [6736]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  Claims for disability living allowance

  Years

  Number (thousands)

  1994–95

  504

  1995–96

  511

  Source:

  Analytical Service Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of disregarding in full a partner's(a) income and (b) capital, in the calculation of disability working allowance; how many people would benefit; and how many new claimants would be (i) men and (ii) women. [6728]

  Mr. Mitchell
  None. There is insufficient information on which to base a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women receive disability living allowance but have no income maintenance benefit in payment. [6730]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Recipients of disability living allowance

  August 1996

  Number

  All persons

  1,768,000

  Men

  905,000

  Women

  863,000

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Note:

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Committees (Membership)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members he has appointed to serve on(a) the Social Security Advisory Committee, (b) the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee and (c) the Council on Tribunals; and how many are (i) woman, (ii) disabled and (iii) of ethnic minority origin. [6726]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  Social security advisory committee

  Women

  Disabled

  Of ethnic minority origin

  6

  2

  2

  Total members appointed = 22.

  Industrial injuries advisory council

  Women

  Disabled

  Of ethnic minority origin

  8

  Not available

  0

  Total members appointed = 24.

  Council on tribunals1

  Women

  Disabled

  Of ethnic minority origin

  1

  0

  0

  Notes:Total members appointed = 10.

  Figures are from 9 April 1992 to date.

  Source:

  1 Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Benefits Agency (Automatic Payments)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what report he has received from the Benefits Agency on the consequences of the failure of its automatic credit transfer system to maintain payment of benefits. [6628]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Briefing as events occurred was received by Ministers.

  Cold Weather Payments Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the cold weather payments scheme. [7696]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since 4 November, there have been four letters—all from hon. Members.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of the cold weather payments scheme in each year since it was introduced. [7695]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Expenditure1 (£000s)

  1986–87

  10,200

  1987–88

  500

  1988–89

  3

  1989–90

  400

  1990–91

  8,600

  1991–92

  23,000

  1992–93

  15,000

  1993–94

  12,400

  69

  Year

  Expenditure1 (£000s)

  1994–95

  77,000

  1995–96

  62,000

  1996–972

  148,104

  1 Figures rounded to nearest thousand.

  2 From 4 November 1996.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who opted out of(a) the state earnings-related

  Number of people with a minimum contribution in the first year of the APP but none in subsequent years

  United Kingdom

  Thousands

  Start year of APP

  Pension scheme type year before APP start

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  16

  7

  37

  36

  30

  24

  16

  SERPS only

  13

  4

  26

  27

  22

  18

  12

  Occupational pension

  1

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Mixed: SERPS and occupational pension

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Other APP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Other

  2

  2

  5

  5

  4

  2

  2

  Source: I per cent. sample of national insurance records taken at February 1996.

  Notes:

  1. — = Nil or negligible.

  2. APP = Appropriate personal pension.

  3. Minimum contribution—a proportion of national insurance contributions paid into an APP by the DSS.

  4. Qualification for SERPS is defined as having earnings over the lower earnings limit in the year.

  5. "Other" will include those receiving NI credits, paying class 2 contributions, class 3 contributions, new entrants (i.e. at 16 years old), and any combinations of categories.

  6. Because all figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, the sum of the amounts in the individual columns may not agree with the amount shown against the total.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development countries other than the United Kingdom which place geographical limitations on the payment of fully uprated retirement pensions to citizens who have contributed to a state contributory pension scheme. [8187]

  Mr. Heald
  On the basis of the information available to the Department, none.

  However, other forms of restriction on payment outside national territories are practised by some other OECD countries.

  Disability Access Rights Advice Service
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the introduction of the disability access rights advice service; and what is its estimated annual cost.[7757]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 6 November,Official Report, column 547.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 November,Official Report, columns 598–600, on national insurance, what estimate he has made of the administrative costs additional to national insurance benefit expenditure for (a) flat-rate retirement pensions,
  70
  pension scheme and (b) occupational pension schemes in favour of private personal pension schemes and who have made no further contributions to the private schemes since the year in which they opted out. [7494]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table.

  The table indicates the number of people who had an appropriate personal pension scheme at the end of 199495, where the Department has made a minimum contribution payment into the individual's APP in the first year of the scheme, and then made no further payments. The figures are broken down into the previous type of pension scheme.

  (b) additional pensions and (c) other benefits for the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2010–11, (iv) 2020–21 and (v) 2030–31 if the administrative costs incurred in 1995–96 applied proportionately in subsequent years. [7934]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  National insurance fund administration costs

  £ billion in 1994–95 benefit rate terms

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  1.60

  1.46

  1.69

  1.96

  2.28

  Source:

  Government Actuary's report on the third quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC 160).

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, columns 519–21, what was the total contribution income at 1995–96 prices from (a) employees, (b) self-employed and (c) employers; and what were the sums (i) paid by the Treasury, (ii) from the national insurance surcharge and class IA for cars and fuel and (iii) from other sources, in (1) cash and (2) as a percentage of the total, in each year from 1979–80 to 1995–96. [7935]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  71

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  Total income

  44.83

  —

  45.71

  —

  44.31

  —

  45.07

  —

  Class 11: Employees

  11.06

  24.67

  11.45

  25.04

  12.84

  28.97

  15.35

  34.06

  Employers

  17.73

  39.56

  17.92

  39.20

  17.09

  38.57

  17.67

  39.21

  Class 1A

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Class 2/4 (self-employed)

  0.70

  1.55

  0.67

  1.46

  0.74

  1.66

  0.85

  1.89

  NI surcharge2

  7.60

  16.96

  7.61

  16.64

  7.25

  16.37

  4.98

  11.04

  Treasury payment

  6.03

  13.46

  6.32

  13.83

  4.83

  10.90

  4.81

  10.67

  Other sources3

  1.70

  3.80

  1.75

  3.83

  1.57

  3.54

  1.41

  3.13

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  Total income

  44.24

  —

  42.76

  —

  42.48

  —

  43.80

  —

  Class 11: Employees

  16.34

  36.94

  16.68

  39.01

  17.91

  42.15

  17.72

  40.44

  Employers

  18.35

  41.48

  18.65

  43.62

  19.63

  46.21

  20.85

  47.60

  Class 1A

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Class 2/4 (self-employed)

  0.98

  2.21

  1.05

  2.45

  1.05

  2.48

  1.08

  2.47

  NI surcharge2

  3.05

  6.90

  1.50

  3.51

  0.06

  0.15

  0.02

  0.04

  Treasury payment

  4.99

  11.27

  4.39

  10.26

  3.44

  8.11

  3.72

  8.50

  Other sources3

  0.53

  1.20

  0.49

  1.14

  0.38

  0.90

  0.42

  0.95

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  Total income

  45.08

  —

  46.41

  —

  44.77

  —

  44.49

  —

  Class 11: Employees

  18.66

  41.40

  19.49

  42.00

  18.69

  41.75

  16.90

  37.98

  Employers

  22.21

  49.27

  23.75

  51.18

  24.88

  55.57

  24.78

  55.70

  Class 1A

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Class 2/4 (self-employed)

  1.14

  2.54

  1.29

  2.78

  1.36

  3.05

  1.34

  3.01

  NI surcharge2

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Treasury payment

  3.18

  7.05

  2.31

  4.98

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Other sources3

  -0.12

  -0.26

  -0.43

  -0.94

  -0.17

  -0.38

  1.47

  3.30

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  £ billions

  Per cent.

  Total income

  44.16

  —

  44.00

  —

  52.76

  —

  52.34

  —

  Class 11: Employees

  16.88

  38.22

  16.65

  37.85

  16.93

  32.09

  18.63

  35.59

  Employers

  24.63

  55.76

  24.34

  55.32

  24.89

  47.18

  24.52

  46.84

  Class 1A

  0.00

  0.00

  0.48

  1.10

  0.45

  0.86

  0.50

  0.96

  Class 2/4 (self-employed)

  1.32

  3.00

  1.34

  3.04

  1.50

  2.84

  1.50

  2.87

  NI surcharge2

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Treasury payment

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  8.19

  15.52

  6.59

  12.59

  Other sources3

  1.33

  3.02

  1.18

  2.69

  0.80

  1.51

  0.60

  1.14

  1 Gross of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay deductions.

  2 The NI surcharge was part of general taxation and not paid into the national insurance fund.

  3 Figures take into account deductions made by employers in respect of statutory sick pay (SSP) from April 1983 and statutory maternity pay (SMP) from April 1987. The combined SSP and SMP deductions between 1987–88 and 1989–90 exceed other sources of income. From April 1990 figures include amounts paid from the Consolidated Fund as compensation for SSP and SMP deductions.

  1. National Insurance contribution figures include the NHS element.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Figures are in 1995–96 prices.

  Child Support
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inspectors have been appointed by him since 5 April to investigate child support cases involving self-employed absent parents. [8122]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic origin of parents with care against whom reduced benefit directions were issued in 1995–96. [8125]
  72
  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secuirty if he will update his answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, columns 1118–19, giving the number of children in families who are (a) dependent on income support and (b) in receipt of family credit, by region. [8182]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.
  73

  Income support

  May 1995

  November 1995

  February 1996

  Great Britain

  2,958

  2,942

  2,956

  South East (excluding London)

  417

  420

  —

  London (inner and outer)

  519

  515

  —

  North

  184

  183

  —

  Wales

  171

  168

  —

  Scotland

  246

  246

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  270

  265

  —

  East Midlands

  188

  187

  —

  East Anglia

  80

  81

  —

  South West

  179

  180

  —

  West Midlands

  304

  298

  —

  North West

  401

  400

  —

  Family credit

  May 1995

  November 1995

  February 1996

  Great Britain

  1,141

  1,219

  1,248

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and are given in thousands.

  2. The regions shown are the Government Statistical Service standard regions.

  3. A Government Statistical Service regional breakdown is not yet available for family credit or for February 1996 income support.

  4. Children have been defined as being aged 15 or under.

  Sources:

  1. Income support statistics quarterly inquiries.

  2. Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

HEALTH

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) currently running and (b) planning to run during the next six months; and for each campaign

  £ million

  Campaign description

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  AIDS Travel Safe

  —

  —

  0.64

  0.27

  —

  —

  Blood Donor Recruitment

  1.03

  0.98

  1.58

  1.15

  1.33

  1.29

  Children's Act

  0.73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Care

  —

  1.29

  0.54

  —

  —

  —

  Cot Deaths

  1.61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug and Solvent Abuse

  3.92

  4.97

  5.38

  4.44

  —

  —

  Elderly Health

  0.53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Food Hygiene/Safety

  0.34

  0.43

  0.35

  —

  —

  —

  GP Out of Hours

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.86

  —

  Health of the Nation

  1.01

  2.66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HOTN Mental Illness

  —

  —

  —

  0.60

  —

  —

  HOTN Unwanted Pregnancy

  —

  —

  0.41

  —

  0.67

  —

  Health Service Professions

  3.91

  0.96

  0.95

  1.32

  0.98

  1.95

  Immunisation

  —

  —

  0.22

  —

  —

  —

  Maternity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.25

  Organ Donation

  —

  1.99

  1.31

  1.58

  1.68

  —

  Patient's Charter

  3.11

  0.81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Women's Health

  0.51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unification of Prescription Charges

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.30

  —

  Patients not Paper

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.08

  0.08

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  74
  (i) how much it will cost, (1) in total and (2) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [7406]

  Mr. Horam
  Promotional and public information campaigns run by the Department are described as multi-media campaigns containing national and/or regional advertising. The total estimated cost of these campaigns is £3,488,000 in 1996–97, of which £1,335,000 is for advertising. In addition, the Department runs a number of other publicity campaigns, for example health of the nation, overseas travel and help with health costs. These use a wide range of different media, including publications, videos, teleresponse lines and exhibitions. Decisions have not been made on the use of national and/or regional advertising for 1997–98. Other information requested for the current year is in the table.

  Campaign

  Advertising Agency

  Planned duration

  Maternity

  Ogilvy and Mather

  2 weeks

  Health services

  Media System Ltd.

  All year

  Professional recruitment

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  2 weeks

  National Blood publicity

  Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper

  2 × 3 weeks

  Mustoe Merrimann

  2 weeks

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7534]

  Mr. Horam
  Promotional and public information campaigns run by the Department are described as multi-media campaigns containing national and/or regional advertising. In addition, the Department runs a number of other publicity campaigns, for example, keep warm keep well, overseas travel and help with health costs. These use a wide range of different media including publications, videos, teleresponse lines and exhibitions. Decisions have not been made on the 1997–98 publicity programme. Other information for campaigns which include national and/or regional advertising is in the table.

  Polio Vaccinations
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of children presently being vaccinated against polio. [7492]

  Mr. Horam
  Approximately 600,000 children under the age of two in England are immunised against polio each year. Provisional figures for 1995–96 show that 96 per cent. of children in England were immunised against polio by their second birthday. The World Health Organisation has recognised the United Kingdom as one of the countries which have eliminated indigenous polio due to wild virus. The Government are now working to assemble the necessary data to earn a WHO certificate of eradication as part of the programme for the global eradication of polio by 2000.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the amounts (i) in cash term and (ii) in real terms and (b) the percentage changes in the funding for personal social services for each of the last five years and the projected figures for the next three years. [7478]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is set out:

  Cash (£ million)

  Annual percentage change

  Real terms (£ million at 1996–97 prices)

  1992–93

  4,850

  —

  5,320

  1993–94

  5,585

  +15.2

  5,954

  1994–95

  6,403

  +14.6

  6,706

  1995–96

  6,966

  +8.8

  7,123

  1996–97

  7,536

  +8.2

  7,536

  1997–98

  7,846

  +4.1

  7,692

  There are no projected figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  General Medical Services Practice Nurses
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general medical services practice nurses there were in(a) 1990 and (b) 1995 in (i) Sheffield, (ii) Barnsley, (iii) Doncaster and (iv) Rotherham. [8102]

  Mr. Malone
  The answer is shown in the table.

  Number of Whole Time Equivalent (WTE) Practice Nurses at 1 October.

  FHSA1

  1990

  1995

  Barnsley

  26

  40

  Doncaster

  53

  60

  Rotherham

  34

  48

  Sheffield

  107

  117

  Source:

  GMS census.

  Notes:

  1 Practice nurse data are only available on a family health services authority basis.

  Latex Allergy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department is making into the incidence of latex allergy. [6629]
  76
  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Devices Agency—MDA—has a system for investigating adverse incidents associated with all medical devices, including those manufactured from natural rubber latex. In April 1996, the MDA published a device bulletin entitled "Latex Sensitisation in the Health Care Setting (Use of Latex Gloves)", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Peanut Allergy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has prepared for environmental health officers on promoting awareness of the dangers of peanut allergy. [6632]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is currently reconsidering its advice on peanut allergy, particularly in respect of consumption of peanuts or products containing peanuts by young children. To that end, we are commissioning work by an expert group who will convene in January 1997 and should be in a position to report by mid-1997.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to publicise the inquiry into the labelling, prescribing and sale of products containing paracetamol; and if he will make a statement. [7501]

  Mr. Malone
  There has been wide publicity. On 22 November 1996, a press release was issued to announce the commencement of a public consultation exercise, seeking views on label warnings and pack sizes of paracetamol available without prescription. The announcement received prominent media coverage. The consultation letter giving details of proposals has been sent to 245 professional bodies, consumer organisations and marketing authorisation holders. Articles and commentaries have been carried by medical and pharmaceutical journals and the trades press as well as national newspapers.

  Anti-drugs Policies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of anti-drugs policies in reducing the consumption of(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco, (c) medicinal drugs, (d) ecstasy, (e) ketamine, (f) heroin and (g) cannabis. [7502]

  Mr. Malone
  Concerning illegal drug misuse, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on 13 May,Official Report, columns 341–42.

  The Government's policies to prevent the misuse of alcohol and reduce the consumption of tobacco are subject to continuing evaluation.

  The misuse of ketamine, which is not currently a controlled drug, is kept under review.

  Matters relating to the prescription of medicinal drugs are for clinicians, who are expected to follow the general guidance which is available, especially that in the British National Formulary, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority its distance from weighted capitation target for 1997–98. [7936]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply 1 gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 3 December 1996,Official Report, column 638.

  Challenge Fund Bids
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if those bids for centenary care challenge fund approval for 1996–97 will also receive funding in 1997–98. [7938]

  Mr. Burns
  Arrangements for the continuing care challenge fund are set out in EL(96)109, copies of which are available in the Library; £16 million is available to support continuing health care schemes in 1996–97 and £20 million, to be matched by £40 million from health and/or local authorities, will be available for 1997–98. Health authorities have been asked to submit, separately, bids for funds for 1996–97 by 13 December 1996 and by 24 January 1997 for further funds in 1997–98.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority will be given to health authorities over their weighted capitation target for mental health challenge fund money in 1997–98. [7940]

  Mr. Burns
  None. The criteria for assessing bids against the fund are set out in EL(96) 109 issued to chief executives of health authorities and NHS trusts on 29 November 1996.

  NHS Trust Finance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the forecast(a) annual income (b) expenditure and (c) operational surplus or deficit at the end of 1996–97 for each NHS trust based on their 1996–97 second quarter returns to the NHS executive; and what is the forecast retained surplus or deficit for each trust at the end of 1996–97 based on these returns and taking account of (i) profit or loss on fixed assets, (ii) net interest receivable or payable and (iii) public dividend capital payable. [7957]

  Mr. Malone
  The 1996–97 financial information based on forecasts at quarter 2 will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 779, if he will list the name of the trust and value of the deficit of (a) each of the 16 NHS trusts which recorded real retained deficits in 1994–95, (b) each of the 10 of those NHS trusts which remained in real deficit in 1995–96 and (c) each of the five of those NHS trusts which are forecast to show a further deficit in 1996–97. [7959]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Trusts which recorded real deficits in 1994–95

  Trust

  Value of deficit £000

  Humberside Ambulance

  622

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  334

  Louth and District

  25

  78

  (a) Trusts which recorded real deficits in 1994–95

  Lincoln Hospitals

  257

  Sheffield Children's

  245

  East Anglian Ambulance

  68

  Mid Anglia Community

  44

  Royal National Orthopaedic

  3,436

  Royal National Throat Nose and Ear

  826

  Greenwich Healthcare

  2,888

  Crawley Horsham

  1,154

  Swindon and Marlborough

  522

  The Poole Hospital

  226

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  2,545

  Worcester Royal Infirmary

  944

  Wolverly

  155

  (b) Trusts which remained in real deficit in 1995–96

  Trust

  Value of deficit £000

  United Leeds Teaching

  6,988

  Lincoln Hospitals

  896

  East Anglian Ambulance

  998

  Mid Anglia Community

  119

  Royal National Orthopaedic

  907

  Royal National Throat Nose and Ear

  3,586

  Greenwich Healthcare

  4,000

  Crawley Horsham

  987

  Swindon and Marlborough

  1,029

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  586

  c) Trusts which are forecasting a further real deficit in 1996–97

  The information requested will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 779, if he will list (a) the name of each NHS trust which is currently forecast to show a deficit at the end of 1996–97 and (b) the values of the end of year deficit forecast for each of these trusts. [7961]

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

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 779, if he will list (a) the name of each NHS trust which had a real retained deficit at the end of 1995–96 and (b) the value of the deficit recorded by each of these trusts in that year. [7960]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is as follows:

  Trust

  Value of deficit £000

  Crawley and Horsham

  987

  Derby City General Hospital

  2,171

  Dorset Community

  446

  East Anglian Ambulance

  998

  East Somerset Hospital

  291

  Forest Healthcare

  2,361

  Greenwich Healthcare

  4,000

  Harefield Hospital

  593

  Heathlands Mental Health

  788

  Horton General Hospital

  737

  Ipswich Hospital

  158

  Lincoln Hospitals

  896

  Mid Anglia Community Health

  119

  North Kent Healthcare

  730

  Northwick Park Hospital

  629

  79

  Trust

  Value of deficit £000

  Oxfordshire Learning Disabilities

  317

  Pinderfields Hospital

  3,161

  Royal Cornwall Hospital and West Cornwall Hospital

  485

  Royal Hospital of St. Baits, Royal London and London Chest Hospital

  5,938

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  907

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  3,586

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  586

  Scarborough and NE Yorks. Healthcare

  3,184

  South Devon Healthcare

  821

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  5,962

  Southend Community Care

  750

  St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead

  32

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital

  2,789

  St. Mary's Hospital

  1,024

  Swindon and Marlborough

  1,029

  The Royal Surrey County

  334

  The Royal West Sussex

  1,465

  United Leeds Teaching Hospital

  6,988

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  2,964

  Contraception
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available through the common information core element of the "The Health of the Nation" strategy monitoring programme of the NHS executive as to(a) the number of girls aged under 16 years contacting general medical practitioners for contraceptives and (b) the number of girls aged under 16 years contacting family planning clinics in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will give a breakdown of those figures by health authority. [7834]

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

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it remains his policy not to collect information centrally about contraception and teenage women; and what assessment he has made of the consistency of that policy with the terms of the letter from the NHS executive headquarters dated 12 November to Mrs. Victoria Gillick; [7835]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the statement in the letter from the NHS executive dated 12 November to Mrs. Victoria Gillick that common information core data relating to first contacts, including those involving conception rates and contraceptives, is collected as part of the NHS executive's performance management framework. [7836]

  Mr. Horam
  Some information is collected centrally about contraception and teenage women. I will write to my hon. Friend about this and the letter from the national health service executive headquarters dated 12 November to Mrs. Victoria Gillick.

  Bridge Child Care Development Scheme
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to fund the Bridge child care development scheme for the next financial year. [7937]
  80
  Mr. Burns
  The Bridge child care consultancy service is, as its name implies, a consultancy management service which local authorities commission in the normal way. I have no plans to commission the Bridge to undertake any work for the Department of Health at present.

  Intensive and High Dependency Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if those bids for funding of adult intensive and high dependency care approved for 1996–97 will also receive funding in 1997–98. [7939]

  Mr. Horam
  Yes.

  North Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department last met (i) the chairman and (ii) the chief executive of the North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS trust. [7956]

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers have had no recent meetings with the North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS trust, but the national health service executive continues to have regular meetings with the trust.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the forecast annual(a) income and (b) expenditure at the end of the 1996–97 financial year for each health authority based on the 1996–97 second quarter statements of income and expenditure submitted to the NHS executive by these health authorities and trusts. [7958]

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

  Asylum
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to local authorities of changes in the rules governing asylum in the United Kingdom over the last year; and if he will make a statement. [7506]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Spending (North Kirklees)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total expenditure per head of population in the north Kirklees area by Calderdale and Kirklees health authority, with particular reference to hospital community health services and general medical services; [8218]

  (2) What proportion of the £271 million he recently announced as the allocation for Calderdale and Kirklees area health authority will be spent on the population of north Kirklees. [8219]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to Mr. Allan Templeton, chairman of Calderdale and Kirklees health authority.

  Purchasing Authorities
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives to purchasing authorities in England
  81
  on how often they should check variations in their spending patterns so that they reflect variations in assessed need. [8217]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities are expected to develop and review purchasing plans to reflect the needs of their local populations within the national context set out in the NHS priorities and planning guidance. These plans are subject to public consultation before being agreed in corporate contracts with NHS executive regional offices.

  Learning Disabilities
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage of the total budget for each health authority spent on services for people with learning disabilities for the latest available year. [4806]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: The percentage of the total budget spent on services for people with learning disabilities for each health authority in 1995–96 will be placed in the Library.

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

Gulf War Forces: Medical Confidentiality
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances solicitor/client privilege and medical practitioner/patient confidentiality may be broken in the case of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served in Operation Granby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, solicitor/client privilege is recognised in law. A solicitor cannot be compelled to disclose information told to him by his client. A medical practitioner is under a legal and ethical duty to respect the confidence of his patient. This duty can, however, be broken in certain circumstances—for example, by a court order—where the interests of justice require it. I am not aware, however, of any circumstances involving Gulf War veterans where either solicitor/client privilege or medical practitioner/patient confidentiality has been broken.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the organophosphate pesticide investigation team set up by the MoD in October has been calling sick servicemen for interviews at nine o'clock in the morning; that many of those servicemen have to rise at between four o'clock and five o'clock in the morning to get there; that the investigation team has been grilling them for three hours and then telling them that if they do not hand over what they have handed to their solicitors and medical practitioners, they will be investigated for dereliction of duty? If the MoD is serious in its investigation of the OP question, is it satisfied that it will obtain co-operation from servicemen who are treated in that way? It amounts to bullying.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there should be no question of individuals being pressured or coerced into giving information. That is not the way for these important matters to be taken forward. My clear understanding is that all interviews have been voluntary; witnesses have not in any way been compelled to attend; and evidence has not been taken on oath. Those most concerned about their condition have been interviewed in most detail, and therefore at some length. I stress that none of the interviews was adversarial or hostile, according to the information that I have. I understand that almost all witnesses were keen to talk to the team. I am confident
864
that we shall have a sufficient number of ex-servicemen coming forward to enable our research to proceed satisfactorily.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that this confidentiality, as with legal confidentiality, may always be broken at the request of the client—in this case, the patient?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is right. What however should not happen is for the doctor or the lawyer to break that confidentiality without the explicit consent of the patient or the client.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister rebut or confirm the allegations made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar? If they are true, and if members of a team inside the MoD have been compelling people under duress, or summoning people at unsocial hours, to give evidence, will he then say whether it is the Government's policy to do that kind of thing? If not, will he then say that he will look into his own department to ensure that it does not happen again?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already indicated that the noble Countess's allegations run completely contrary to my understanding. They do not represent government policy. What we must do, of course, is encourage those who believe that they are affected by their Gulf War service to come forward. That is the way that I have understood it to proceed, and I believe that that is the way that it is proceeding. Naturally, I take seriously the noble Countess's allegations and I treat them with the seriousness that I always do. I shall look closely into what she has said.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that this is an issue of honour concerning soldiers who have fought, and that it is of the utmost importance that he should be able to assure the House that they have been treated with all fairness? There is an issue here of morale and of a debt of honour.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in all that she says. It would be retrograde were pressure to be brought to bear on ex-servicemen who have served their country well in trying circumstances when the whole object of the exercise is to get to the bottom of the allegations, which have been widespread, and to assist those very servicemen in their suffering.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have had the opportunity to examine the correspondence that is in the possession of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and that in my view it supports the allegations that are contained in her question? Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that her allegations will be examined extremely carefully by those above this particular investigation unit, and that a full report will be made to the House, answering in detail the questions put forward by the noble Baroness?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord those assurances. If the noble Countess will furnish me with the information that she has I shall personally look into the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he also check whether this might be a case of some interviews being more voluntary than others?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Earl may have a point in the context of the noble Countess's allegations, although I do not accept that pressure has necessarily been brought to bear on anyone.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl has assured the House that he and his department will investigate fully the noble Countess's allegations. He has also given an assurance that a report will be made and that this House will be informed of its conclusions. May we expect that report before Christmas?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall look into the matter with all speed, but clearly I cannot give a specific undertaking about timing. I hope that I shall be able to report to the House prior to the Christmas Recess.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I am willing to show him what information I have, as he has suggested. Is he aware that all that these people want is the diagnosis and treatment of their problems? If that had been done earlier there would be no case for litigation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, no writs have yet been served on the Ministry of Defence and no allegations of negligence or even causation have been made. I believe that while we all wish for matters to be processed more speedily, the Ministry has acted with speed and efficiency. I hope that they will be resolved sooner rather than later.

The Water Companies
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce extra powers for the Environment Agency to require the water companies to draw up long-term sustainable water resources plans and drought contingency plans.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are at present considering proposals from the Environment Agency for new powers to require water companies to draw up and submit drought contingency plans and to publish water resource plans. A consultation paper will be published in due course.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that today six environmental organisations have published a booklet entitled High and Dry, dealing with the impact on wildlife of taking
866
too much water from our environment? Has he had an opportunity to look at that booklet and, if so, what is his response?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for asking the penultimate question. I have not had an opportunity to look at the booklet and therefore I am unable to give him a response. I doubt whether, even if I had looked at the booklet, I should have been able to give a considered response at this time. I shall certainly look at the publication.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the publications which the Minister promised in reply to the Question include a planning policy guidance note? If not, would it not be a good idea to have such a document on the subject of water resources?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, after last year's drought my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that an inquiry would be made into water resources. That was done and the findings were published in a booklet called Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action. We stated that the Government would bring forward modifications to the legal framework for water resources and supply if scope for further refinements were to emerge. The Environment Agency has made suggestions and we propose to issue a consultation document on them. As a result of the responses to those suggestions we shall decide what action shall be taken. However, whether that includes guidance or codes of practice remains to be seen.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, if new arrangements are to be put in place—and even if they are not but plans emerge from the water companies and the Environment Agency for the better control of water resources in the environment—will my noble friend ensure that the financial regulator is kept fully involved in the discussions and that the steps and measures taken by the regulator do not result in a conflict which prevents essential environmental action being taken?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the regulator will be involved. I cannot, of course, give him an assurance that there will be no conflict. I hope that if there is conflict it will be resolvable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will Parliament be informed before these powers are put into operation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. The whole purpose is to consult and to see whether people believe that there are reasons for altering the existing framework. We believe that the framework is right but that adjustments may be required. We want to discover what the industry as a whole feels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the regulator have powers to set environmental standards for water companies? If not, why not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter for the Environment Agency.

Single Parent Families
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the plight of single-parent families.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government continue to be concerned about the growth in the number of lone parents and the reasons behind this growth. Many lone parents are less well off because they do not work, and the Government have substantially enhanced in-work benefits to help lone parents take up jobs and improve their standards of living. This, together with ensuring that both parents take responsibility for children and that maintenance is properly paid, is seen as the best approach to helping lone parents.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that the freezing of the benefits and premiums for single parents and the merging of them into child benefits and family premiums will result in a loss of some £270 million for those very vulnerable families? Does he agree that the Government's excuse that they are seeking equal treatment for single and two-parent families is feeble? We cannot have equal treatment when one parent is doing the job of two. Is it not right that the real reason for the manoeuvre is to help with tax-cutting stunts for the general election?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Our strategy is that we should move to an even-handed approach between one and two parent families. The majority of people in this country will think that that is quite right. Research has shown that the only substantial extra expense which lone parents have is the cost of childcare. Of course, that comes into play only when the lone parent goes back into work. That is why we have improved help in relation to childcare in the family credit benefit.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the plight of some single parent families is exacerbated by fines which they receive in court; for example, very often for having no television licence? Some of those people who are fined have to be sent to prison or some other place of correction because they do not or cannot pay those fines. Has my noble friend
868
considered the possibility of D-I-Y punishments in the home for such cases so that people are punished but are not sent to prison?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that those matters are not addressed to the wrong Lord Mackay! However, it is the Government's policy to try to keep mothers out of prison so far as that is humanly possible. In relation to fine default, there is provision to take instalments from weekly benefits in order to pay those fines as a sensible alternative to sending a person to prison, which we all agree is not the best option in those circumstances.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House exactly what assessment was made by the Government of the impact of the Budget measures on the welfare of children being brought up by single parents? He tells us that the Government intend to be even-handed; but is it not correct that the children of single parents run a far greater risk—something like four times the risk—of being brought up in poverty than those being brought up by two parents? In the light of that, how can the Government justify taking away financial support from those children and thus ensuring that they live in even deeper poverty?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the situation is that in certain circumstances the single parent can be receiving more income than a married couple with one child. I do not believe that that is correct. That is sending the wrong signals that somehow or other we are prepared to give more to single parents. An even-handed approach is right and proper. As I mentioned, the real problem for many lone parents in this country, unlike their colleagues in other countries, is that they do not work. Through family credit and the new pilot project, Parent Plus, we have attempted to find ways to increase the number of lone parents in work and provide for their own children.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister name any other country from biblical Israel to the present day which practices the even-handed principle which he is now recommending?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, not being an historian, I really could not tell the noble Earl. He is probably in a better position to know that than I am. But I know that it is a simple fact that compared with most of our colleagues in the European Union, and indeed in the United States, far fewer lone parents in this country seem to think that they ought to work. We believe that by improving family credit and introducing the piloting of Parent Plus, we can encourage lone parents into work which will improve their standard of living.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that 4 per cent. of two parent families live on less than £100 per week, but nearly 50 per cent.—half—of lone parent families live on less than £100 a week? They and their children are

869
desperately poor. As the Minister said—and I am sure he is right about that—only opportunities to work will float them off benefit and out of poverty. In that case, why did the Government propose in the Budget to abolish the one lone parent benefit which, because it is not means-tested, actually encourages lone parents into work? Why do the Government persistently denounce lone parents for living on benefit and then, through the Budget, seek to trap them on benefits?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have not denounced lone parents for living on benefits. I said that it is a fact that one of the reasons that many of them are in the bottom half of income distribution is that they do not work. That is a simple fact. I dispute the noble Baroness's concept that all lone parents live in poverty because her definition of poverty and mine is probably very different. It is quite difficult to define poverty. But if they do live in poverty, would it not be nice to hear from the noble Baroness some kind of figure as a promise from the party opposite as to what they might spend on the problem? We see this as a problem which should be approached with even-handedness. After all, if there are two parents with one child, that is three mouths to feed, whereas one parent with one child is two mouths to feed. Therefore, inevitably, there may be a difference in income.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, why does the Minister not answer the question? The Government profess to say that they are anxious to encourage lone parents into work. In that case, why in the Budget did they propose to abolish the one benefit which lone parents can take with them into work and which is therefore an incentive for them to go into work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness is alluding to; but we are attempting to make sure that anybody with a lone parent premium now who moves into work will not lose the one parent benefit during that move. It will be a very slow transfer, and only those coming into lone parenthood and benefit in the future will not receive the benefits which are available at present, which are greater than the benefits received by two parents. However, it is interesting to note that during the past two or three years we have seen something like 200,000 lone parents going into work thanks to family credit, which is proving extremely successful in that regard.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am surprised that that measure is going through? I thought that the Government were far too busy cutting the pensions of ex-servicemen to find time to cut the income of single parent families.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I expected more of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, although I am not surprised because he probably took the distorted view of his Leader. We have no intention to cut, and we are not cutting a single penny from a single war pensioner. I am happy to have been given the
870
opportunity by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to make that absolutely clear. I hope that he will communicate that to his Leader in the other place, who seems incapable of reading the letters which I send from my department.

The Royal Observatories
2.57 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the future of the Royal Observatories.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government announced that they accepted the recommendations of the prior options review of the Royal Observatories on 25th April 1996. The central recommendation was that the management of the telescopes and the delivery of the instrumentation programme currently provided by the Royal Observatories should be subject to competitive tendering by all competent suppliers.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that on 29th November, in another place, Mr. Ian Taylor gave a reply which virtually said that the attempt to privatise the Royal Observatories has been cancelled? Is the Minister aware also that for this exercise some £0.5 million of the science budget was spent on lawyers and consultants? Will the Minister tell the House whether that expenditure from the science budget has contributed to the advancement of science and will the Royal Observatories be reimbursed?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the Government announced recently that the current tendering exercise has been formally terminated, although they did not announce that privatisation was not on the bill. They said that the current tendering exercise has been formally terminated due to a series of difficult issues with significant financial and legal implications.
The noble Lord also said that nearly £500,000 had been spent from the science budget. Whatever has been spent in order to prepare for privatisation—of course, with such complex issues there must be costs but I believe that the prior options review accepted that there would be those costs—the DTI has made it absolutely clear that that will not be allowed to damage the science programme.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what progress, or otherwise, is being made with the privatisation of other institutes, particularly those on the Norwich Science Park?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord's question certainly goes beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I believe it is right to tell the House that certain other reviews are

871
taking place, some of which have already been announced and some will be announced in the near future.

Succession to the Crown
3 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the removal of any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the removal of any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
3.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Byford, B.

Mayhew, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Methuen, L.

Chapple, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chorley, L.

Milverton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Molloy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Napier of Magdala, L.

Davidson, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Paul, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Essington, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Platt of Writtle. B.

Gainkati, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Haskel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayman. B.

Sainsbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

872

Serota, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Thomson of Monitieth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Swinton, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Knollys, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailsa, M.

Lowry, L.

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

McNally, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Manton, L.

Beloff, L.

Mar, C.

Bruntisfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L. [Teller.]

Nickson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norrie, L.

Coleridge, L.

Northboume, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Exmouth, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rees, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Ilchester, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ironside, L.

Swansea, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Weatherill, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Theft (Amendment) Bill
Report received.

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Civil Procedure Rules]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—

873
("( ) The power to make Civil Procedure Rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that the civil justice system is accessible, fair and efficient.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment derives from the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers that the Bill should contain a purpose clause. It seeks to give a flavour of the aims which will be served by the new rules of court made by the civil procedure rule committee in due course. I think it is quite appropriate that Parliament, when giving these important and wide powers to the rule committee, should be able to enunciate what Parliament's own purpose is in doing so.
Your Lordships will note that the amendment now being tabled differs in certain respects from the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I think that it is quite important that the statement of the aims should not give rise to any unintentional impression that some aims have higher priority than others, or that the stated aims are the only ones which have relevance. The phrase "accessible, fair and efficient" brings together, I believe, the essence of what my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, has been emphasising; namely, accessibility (which covers the objective of keeping costs down, simplicity and clarity of rules and procedure), fairness (a synonym for justice) and efficiency (which covers, for example, speed and proper use of resources).
It is clear from my noble friend's report that he has taken great care to formulate his statement of justice so as to incorporate aspects other than the obvious one of fairness. I would want, subject to consultation on the rules, to be able to preserve the statement of the overriding objective which is contained in the draft rule 1 which my noble and learned friend has proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for including a purpose clause along the lines that I suggested in Committee. Although I say that, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out this was very much the idea of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. I respectfully agree with the Lord Chancellor that the eight principles set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report are admirably encapsulated in this brief statement of purpose. I commend the drafters of this amendment for their skill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. It is as anodyne and therefore as good and effective a general purpose clause as one could imagine.
I support it. However, the devil is in the detail.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this purpose clause has received. I hope that we may be able to keep the devil at bay so far as possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
(".—(1) There shall be established a Civil Justice Council, the members of which shall include members of the judiciary and representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department. the legal professions, court administrators, consumer organisations, advice agencies and other users of the courts.
(2) The functions of the Civil Justice Council shall include—

(a) to keep under review the civil justice system,

(b) to identify changes to the civil justice system directed to enhancing and improving its status and effectiveness,

(c) to commission research into proposed changes to the civil justice system,

(d) to refer proposals for changes to the civil justice system to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Lord Chancellor, and

(e) to assist the Head of Civil Justice in coordinating proposed changes to the civil justice system and in monitoring their impact.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not the amendment that I moved earlier—that is, Amendment No. 2 in Committee—to establish a civil justice council. On reflection, I preferred Amendment No. 3 in Committee in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Thomas of Gresford. As I indicated in Committee, their amendment is a better expression of the general principle of what is required. Therefore, it is that amendment which I have tabled and to which I now speak. It stands also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
In Committee we had full discussion on the need for a civil justice council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in both his interim and final reports advocated the establishment of a continuing body with responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of his proposals. The noble and learned Lord expressed his disappointment in his final report that that important step had not yet been taken. He repeated his concern in our Second Reading debate on 5th November when he said:
"I see the council as a central plank to my recommendations … It is also the necessary companion to a compact small rules committee".—(Official Report, 5/11/96; col. 622.]
The noble and learned Lord has repeated those views with equal strength in his recent Tom Sergant memorial lecture.
As I said in our discussions in Committee, I found the responses of the Lord Chancellor disappointing. In essence, they amounted to the fact that he appreciated the need for some consultative machinery to drive forward the required reforms of the civil justice system but he was not yet satisfied that a civil justice council as proposed was the most effective way forward. He thought there was much to be said for a co-ordinated structure of the existing court user committees, but that we should await the working through in practice of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, before we could see what sort of structure would be most appropriate. He said, in terms, that there is something to be said for trying to see, as we work through the proposals of my noble and learned friend,

875
just what sort of structure would best serve the purpose he has in mind. For me that was a fine application of the law of unripe time. It was a case of "maybe yes, maybe no; what is proposed is not necessarily right, so let us wait and see". I believe the time to be ripe for the establishment of a civil justice council.
The amendment to which I speak appears to me to provide clearly for what is required; to ensure that all interests in the delivery of justice by the civil courts are represented; and to define its functions properly. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has any specific criticisms of the form of the amendment, I welcome hearing those in his response.
In Committee I sought to put the issue in this way.
"The function of the council would he to maintain a continuous overview of the system, to highlight the need for changes, to commission research, to put ideas to the new rule committee and the Lord Chancellor's Department, to assist the head of civil justice"
that is to say, to offer him assistance by way of advice—
"to co-ordinate initiatives, both through practice directions and practice guides, and to monitor the impact of changes on the ground. An important area should he the development of pre-proceeding protocols, designed to help cases to settle before litigation has started, through the development of alternative dispute resolution approaches, in particular mediation, and through practice directions and guides.
"I see the key point of Lord Woolf's proposal as this: in essence, the civil justice council should take up where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. leaves off. The way ahead should be a permanent body specifically charged with monitoring and progressively improving the civil justice system. The council would he a vehicle for contributions from all interest groups. It could work with user groups in local courts, and in Divisions of the High Court, to identify problems and to recommend reforms. It should provide a useful source of advice for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the senior judiciary and the rule committee [and the head of civil justice.] In essence, I suggest, its task would be to ensure that what Lord Woolf has recommended actually happens in practice".—[Official Report, 20/11/96; cols. CWH 9-10-]
I agree with the criticism offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in Committee of the proposition that what is required is no more than a consultative body or machinery. What is necessary is to have a high-powered body representative of all the relevant interests which monitors the effectiveness of the new rules in practice and measures their success against the objectives which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, defined in his two reports and which have commanded general acceptance. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in anticipation that the Master of the Rolls, my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, might not be able to be present because of pressure of work elsewhere I came well briefed with the speech that he made at the memorial lecture. However, I shall not need to refer to any part of that because he is present. If I had known he were there, I should have asked him to speak before me. Perhaps he would like to do so now.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I am grateful for the Civil Procedure Bill. 1 acknowledged at Second Reading the debt that I owe to the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has carried forward the reforms for the civil justice system that I recommended in my report. I believe that they are much needed.
876
However, like other noble Lords I was concerned at the absence of a civil justice council. I recognise the reasons that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to retain flexibility. It seems to me that an amendment on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, would meet the needs of the council, and at the same time accommodate the flexibility which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeks to retain.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner for giving way to me and for suggesting that I should refer to a lecture for which I was responsible. I can assure noble Lords that I have no intention of inflicting that lecture upon them. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, summarised the points that I sought to make in the lecture.
Perhaps I may condescend to one matter of detail. It may be that I am particularly remiss, bearing in mind the office that I hold. However, on re-reading the amendment today, it occurred to me that perhaps subsection (2)(e) could support a modest amendment. It is not only the head of civil justice who could be assisted by the civil justice council. I suggest that other members of the senior judiciary would be assisted. Indeed, I apprehend that all heads of divisions and the head of the Court of Appeal would also be assisted. Perhaps at a later stage consideration might be given to deleting the reference to the "Head of Civil Justice", who has yet to be recognised in any statutory form, inserting in its place "the senior judiciary". I hope that that might meet the purpose.
The ability of a justice system to be resistant to reform in ways that cannot be anticipated is astonishing. A council of the kind proposed would have different roles to perform at different times. However, I believe that it would make a substantial contribution, first, by co-ordinating the efforts of many people to move forward our civil justice system and, secondly, in ensuring that the momentum which has already started continues—I would hope at an increasing pace.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he be so good as to inform your Lordships as to the number of times in any year the council may be expected to sit, and how much this new bureaucracy would cost?
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I anticipate that the cost would be modest indeed. I anticipate that the council would probably not have to sit more than four times a year, and probably fewer times than that. The important point is that the council is a focus that can be used by those who wish from time to time to bring forward matters. It is the head for the various comparable bodies which will exist around the country if the proposals that I have made are implemented. It would be affected by needs at any specific time. In giving a figure of four times, I am choosing the maximum. The staffing would be modest indeed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am anxious to spare the blushes of my noble and learned friend the Master of

877
the Rolls. However, I wish to quote one piece from his speech which I think encapsulates the anxiety one has if this council is not set up. He said this:
"When I set out on the Inquiry which resulted in my Report, I was very conscious that since 1885 there had already been over 60 Reports each urging reform of the civil justice system yet the situation on which I had to report was one which many commentators described as being in crisis. Why should this be so? It is not because of any callous disregard of their responsibilities by those in charge of the system. It is my belief part of the cause is the absence of a broadly based body which has the clear responsibility for monitoring the justice system as a whole and identifying the areas which are in need of reform—.
That emphasises what a vital part of his proposals this council is.
The proposals made by my noble and learned friend for the civil justice amendments and improvements are indeed radical. They move our system from the adversarial towards the inquisitorial, which many people think is a desirable feature. However, we must bear in mind that the inquisitorial system, as we know from seeing its operation throughout Europe, is considerably more expensive than our system: there are more judges, who sit for less time in court, the better to be able to read the case papers, as a result of which their judicial throughput is far less.
One of the anxieties that I have heard constantly articulated in regard to the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf is whether the system would be sufficiently resourced. If it is not sufficiently resourced it will fail. The extra resources required are, I believe, quite considerable. The judges who are presently destined in the majority to undertake the judicial management of cases are the lowest rungs of professional judges. I say that with no disrespect; but the fact of the matter is that the district judge, previously known as the registrar, was not involved in litigation of a very complex kind. It is common ground that he will require extensive training if he is to change his function to that of a case manager. It is bound to be the case that some will be temperamentally not suited to it. In addition, there will be the need for a larger number of such judges. There has already been discussion as to whether there should be a different source from whom the judiciary should be recruited for this job. What is overlooked is that the main thrust of the reform is to make access to justice more popular as a result of its being cheaper and quicker. If it becomes more popular, the caseload will inevitably increase.
I had experience of this some 23 years ago when I was a commercial judge. At that time a commercial judge for the year was not expected to spend more than half his time on commercial work; the rest was spent on ordinary Queen's Bench work. The system was gradually improved, with the result that six full-time commercial judges sit at any one time, with 13 designated in that capacity. The result of improving access to our civil justice procedure, as it should be improved, will inevitably be greater caseloads.
What I anticipate may occur—and this is where I suggest the council is particularly important—is that there will be resistance to providing adequate resources. After all, my noble and learned friend's proposal will
878
involve shifting on to the public purse some of the expense hitherto borne by the litigant himself. If this occurs, it is essential for there to be a powerful statutory body which can state firmly and publicly that the system is falling behind its reasonable expectations because of being starved of the necessary funds.
To those who may say that this is all make believe and imaginative, I ask the Lord Chancellor to go back to the Maximum Number of Judges Order of 1993 which increased the number of High Court judges by 10. Before that order was achieved, strong representations had been made over a period of four years by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Those representations failed. In 1992 at a Lord Mayor's dinner given for the judges, attended by the Lord Chancellor and by myself, the noble Lord, Lord Lane, had reached such a pitch of exasperation that he went public about it at the banquet and explained the crisis situation that had been reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—who I am delighted to see has just resumed his place—caused a Starred Question to be raised on the very subject of the lack of High Court judges and my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver was at pains to point out that there was currently an over use of deputy judges, which was an abuse of power. That got nowhere. Accordingly, the following year, when the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, was appointed, the same complaint was again made at the Lord Mayor's annual dinner, though voiced in stronger terms. That, too, got nowhere.
There followed a wholly unusual event, when the Lord Mayor of London led a delegation to the Lord Chancellor because of the City's anxiety about the state to which the commercial list had fallen, it having been the subject matter of a detailed description of its unfortunate shortcomings by the judge then in charge of the list. A year later the 1993 Order was made. It is therefore not imaginative to think that, when one comes to press for more money to be spent on junior judges, the same resistance may well be encountered. I should therefore have thought that the Lord Chancellor would be delighted to have a body of the stature of the proposed council with the statutory duty to take the necessary action, where required, to complain if the new system falls down because of financial starvation. That would take the heat off himself and his department. It is vital that there should be in place an organisation which is capable of performing that function.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, on Second Reading the Lord Chancellor said:
"Little did I quite realise how effectively [Lord Woolf] would capture the public imagination and the willingness and desire on all sides for reform of our civil justice system-.—[Official Report, 5/11/96; col. 604.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has since, in the Tom Sergant lecture, about which he seems a little reluctant to tell your Lordships, referred to this Bill and to the civil justice council as an instrument for maintaining the momentum of change. This is a moment when we can change a system which has run into the ground.

879
During the Committee stage the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that some consultative machinery would be desirable to drive forward, as he put it, the reforms of the civil justice system. He said:
"I certainly do not wish my comments to he taken as implying that I am against a consultative forum—far from it. I wish to ensure that the most effective body possible be established: one that is not unwieldy or bureaucratic; one that has a well defined purpose and role to play and is of sufficient size to be effective—that is, sufficiently small to be effective". (Official Report. 20/11/96; col. CWH 10.)
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, described his experiences of the Supreme Court Rule Committee. First, it never met. Second, although rules were suggested by individuals, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that in practice they came down from the Lord Chancellor of the day and only if he were prepared to agree would those rules go through. I suggested that that was perhaps a top-down culture that had crept into the making of rules. I repeat today that, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has given the necessary drive and leadership, the success of the proposals in his report derives certainly from him but also from the wide consultation process that in fact took place. Since the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has conceded the principle of some consultative body, we are concerned with two matters: firstly, the model of that body; and, secondly, its form, whether it should be a statutory body or a body that is appointed ad hoc.
First let me talk about the model. The remit of the civil procedure rule committee is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill that is before your Lordships today. It is:
"to make rules which are both simple and simply expressed … land' … signed by at least eight members of the committee".
That is it. There is no express provision that the committee will be a standing committee, although one would assume that it would continue in being. There is no time limit for the appointment of members and no provision for further appointment. There is, therefore, no question of any duplication of function between the rule committee concerned with the formulation of rules and the civil justice council, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred.
The "well defined purpose" of such a council is set out in the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. But the question is who monitors the alterations that are bound to take place during the bedding down process of these reforms and, once they have come into a form with which everyone agrees, who then initiates the reforms to the rules that have been proposed as experience shows them to be necessary? It should not be simply the judiciary. It should not be just the lawyers who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, resist reform by and large. It should not be the civil servants of the Lord Chancellor's Department or of a future Ministry of Justice, should that ever come to pass. All court users should be involved in monitoring the effectiveness of the Woolf reforms and in initiating any changes that may be necessary to them.
It is important that your Lordships should bear in mind that the Woolf reforms go well beyond making a single body of rules for county court and High Court.
880
The council is concerned with pre-litigation protocols, especially for disclosure of documents, in personal injury cases and medical negligence and housing disputes. It is concerned with the development of alternatives to courts for the resolution of disputes. That is way beyond the remit of any rule committee. It could also be concerned with identifying where practice directions are called for and for discussing their form with the judiciary. A very important part of the reforms of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is not simply to set out the framework but to leave it to the judiciary, where it considers it necessary, and to use the procedures already in place to issue practice directions.
It is not an unwieldy and bureaucratic organisation. The model envisaged by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would seem to be of a tightly knit committee, meeting with the head of civil justice a few times a year. The idea of a small consultative committee that is appointed ad hoc no doubt derives from the principle of good committee work that a small group is more effective when it comes to taking decisions. But that is not necessarily the best model for the comprehensive overhaul of the civil justice system.
The proposals that are contained in this amendment, on the other hand, would ensure first of all that the proposed justice council would be representative and appointed not simply by the Lord Chancellor but by the various bodies that are concerned in it, such as the Law Society, the Bar Council, citizens advice bureaux and organisations of that nature. Secondly, the proposal is that it should be of sufficient size to permit the formation of sub-groups, which could deal with particular issues: a sub-group on personal injury litigation; on alternative dispute resolution: on research; on information technology; and the formation of practice directions. In the preparation of his report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was assisted by no fewer than 11 working groups, typically of eight to 12 people, headed sometimes by a High Court judge and on other occasions by a very experienced senior solicitor or barrister. Those working groups would be sub-groups of the council that is now proposed, taking a particular issue and discussing it in depth.
Another important function of the civil justice council would be to promote understanding of the system among the people who use it: to get rid of the mystique; to brush away the cobwebs which surround civil litigation and which make the experience of the civil courts such a nightmare for people who go to court to pursue their rights and remedies. That is the model: a civil justice council that is not simply appointed but is representative of sufficient numbers to encompass the necessary areas of work that I have suggested.
Why is there a reluctance that it should be a statutory body? In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that:
"it would probably work more effectively if it were capable of being changed from time to time in the light of experience".—(Official Report, 20/11/96; col. CWH 11.)
But the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gives a wide remit for the proposed council to set its own agenda and procedures and to vary them in the light of experience. Its functions include various

881
matters; it is not exclusive. Is there a fear that such a statutory body might become too powerful and perhaps these reforms are too much to take in one go? Has the scope of the report that has emerged become far wider, requiring a wider vision than was initially expected? It may be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor's Department to let slip some of its control and trust the head of civil justice and a civil justice council to get on with the job from their own knowledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to cost. The complaint about the present system is that it is extremely costly. When rules which might have seemed on paper to be appropriate when the rule committee set them up do not work, it becomes hugely costly in judges' time and the time of the Court of Appeal. An example which has been referred to is the automatic strike-out rule introduced into the county court rules, which to some degree has clogged up the Court of Appeal because of the number of appeals that take place.
I cannot go along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his comments on district judges, though I make this point. I know many of them and have appeared in front of them. They are people who are certainly well capable of dealing with any of the problems which are likely to arise. My last experience in Southend was that I was sent away without costs, having lost the case, and no quarter for seniority was given on that occasion. They are people well able to deal with these matters.
The proposals for pre-trial protocols and the alternative dispute procedures are outside the remit of the proposed rules committee and so the savings of cost on court time, both in the first instance and on appeal, could be immense and far outweigh the cost of servicing what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to as a costly bureaucracy. Roots and branch reform of the system demand resources, time and money. This is an undertaking which is perhaps far more radical than was originally envisaged. It is more than the relatively mechanical task of producing a common set of rules and procedures and I urge the adoption of the civil justice council on the model proposed and on a statutory basis.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am greatly flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, should have chosen the amendment I tabled in Committee for introducing this debate on the civil justice council this afternoon on Report. It was my intention to move this amendment myself in Committee, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took the precaution of asking me to represent him in the European Parliament on that day and for that reason I was unable to speak to the amendment at that time.
What concerned me when I looked at the other amendment which was then tabled for Committee was that it did not go far enough in defining the intent, as I understood it, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in making this recommendation. After all, at Second Reading he said,
"I see the council as a central plank to my recommendations".— [Official Report. 5/11/96; col. 622.]
882
Therefore, in drafting this amendment—drafted somewhat hastily in the Library late one evening—I was seeking to reflect the main roles that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, saw for the civil justice council. The noble and learned Lord believes that the amendment meets the needs of his proposals but made the point that he would have liked subsection (e) to be expanded further. I believe I am right in saying that I was following his report quite closely when I drafted subsection (e). But if the noble and learned Lord persuades us that it should be on a wider basis, I am happy to go along with that.
It seemed to me—it comes out when your Lordships identify the functions of the civil justice council—that the council had to be a statutory body. That speaks for itself when one looks through the functions and asks whether they can be carried out by an ad hoc body. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, there is a great flexibility in the functions of the justice council as set out in the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Renton has not yet advanced his arguments on bureaucracy and cost. In tabling the amendment I did not intend to create any burden in that direction, nor did the noble and learned Lord in making the recommendation in the first place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as I was referred to by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, perhaps I should rise to my feet. In spite of the phrase that I used when I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, two simple questions, I have not closed my mind on this matter. The noble and learned Lord may think my views are antediluvian because I was called to the Bar before he was born. But I am inclined to think that my views are not without a progressive hint behind them. I speak, as does the noble and learned Lord, from long experience.
Our legal system is already over loaded with supervisory and advisory bodies of various kinds—I have served on some of them. We have the Lord Chancellor and his department. We have the judiciary mentioned in the amendment, which consists of the Master of the Rolls who is responsible for the Court of Appeal, and at the head of each of the divisions is the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. The High Court judges in each of those divisions, for many years, have met together from time to time to give each other and the Lord Chancellor of the day the benefit of their experience. Sometimes that experience is given to Parliament by noble and learned Lords who hold those positions. The former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, was extremely eloquent in giving us the views of the judges of the Queen's Bench Division and of the circuit judges.
We have the four Inns of Court, which have an undoubted responsibility within the Bar. We have the Bar Council and the Law Society. Our system is decentralised and each of the circuits has an elected committee of members whose views are not disregarded by the Lord Chancellor's department or by the members of other circuits. Indeed, now we are to have a statutory civil procedure rules committee.

883
My fear is that if we introduce the civil justice council as proposed it will supersede the opinions and responsibilities of the various eminent, experienced and high-powered bodies that already exist within our profession. I should not like to see that happening. We do not need another august body, another quango. I called it a bureaucracy; it could not escape being a bureaucracy. It would need to be staffed because it is given responsibilities which would require a good deal of administration and overlap with some of the administration which already exists within our system. However, I shall keep an open mind until the end of the debate.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, I shall be brief. If I venture to say a few words in support of the amendment it is because in one of my judicial appointments I had a lot of experience of legal administration.
Judicial expertise and a genius for administration are not always—indeed, not often—found combined in one person. Without indulging in flattery, my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf combines those two talents. What I am going to say next is not an argument based on personality but an introduction to the only point I really want to make. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was asked to make a report on this very important subject when the legal system had got itself into the state with which many of us are familiar. A great deal of work was done over approximately two years, and a very careful report was produced. Part of that report was the recommendation for a council such as we are now discussing. That in itself is something which should make us pause.
I come now to the point I want to make. It is very pragmatic; it is not very intellectual. I had to preside over quite a lot of committees, including the Supreme Court Rules Committee; judges' meetings every week—which would be rather difficult to hold in England; and various informal groups. What I found from my experience was that if there was an idea for change which commanded the support of a sufficient number of sensible people who knew the subject, I began to adopt the attitude: "It is difficult to say, sitting here; but let us try it". I am able to say from my experience that that method worked rather well. There were not too many ideas (perhaps one or two) that went through that net and were tried which we had to abandon.
I sympathise very much with my noble friend Lord Renton in his vision of overloading because that is in itself an evil which we have to fight against and which the report we are considering is fighting against. My only observation on that would be this: here is a new system being proposed and here is a new weapon being proposed by the proposers of that system as being a very important tool to make it work. My advice on this subject, coming back to the old theme, would be: this looks like a good idea to a lot of very sensible people, let us try it.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Before I come to the main issue, I should like to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord
884
Thomas of Gresford, said about the proposals that have emerged from the study of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as being beyond what was originally envisaged. I could say without fear of contradiction that, having studied some of the earlier lectures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, before the Tom Sargant one, some years ago, I was able to form a fairly clear view of the outline of the proposals that would ultimately emerge. They needed a lot of detailed consideration, but the germ of the proposals can be detected in the earlier lectures of my noble and learned friend. Therefore, it was with the greatest of pleasure that I understood that he was willing to undertake this task, and of course it gives me very great pleasure that he has now completed it and obtained for it such a great degree of support.
I have been cautious about the civil justice council as a statutory creation for reasons not dissimilar to those which have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am also conscious that a number of bodies are already in existence that have a part to play in this matter. I certainly want to be careful about sweeping aside established organisations in a sudden rush forward, as it were. Therefore, I have sought to ascertain as fully as I could the attitudes of those concerned with these matters as we have proceeded. As I said, I was cautious about the civil justice council for that reason.
I do not believe that my noble and learned friend has ever actually stipulated that it need be a statutory council. He was of the view that it could be a non-statutory council. There are more rigidities about a statutory council than a non-statutory council. However, in the light of the debate that has gone on so far, and in the light of my continuing consultation with those who will be intimately concerned with trying to put this system efficiently into place, I have reached the conclusion that it is now right for me to accept this amendment in principle. I do that.
As has been pointed out, there are details with regard to the drafting of this amendment which we shall have to consider. I would assume that although the body will be representative in the sense of taking people from a fairly wide raft of different organisations, the appointments are appointments to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and that would need to be actually stated.
In case there is any misunderstanding, I should say that I never thought of the civil justice council as a particularly small body. Any observations I was making in that connection were about the rules committee.
The second point has already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend; namely, that the head of civil justice is an appointment, a task, that my noble and learned friend has proposed but, to those who have not fully grasped all that is in the report, the title might be thought to be the top job in the civil justice department. Of course, that is not so. What my noble and learned friend was proposing was a head of civil justice at first instance, because the need for co-ordination at that level is clear; and it is clear also that the senior judge in our system, in the system for England and Wales, in relation to civil justice is the Master of the Rolls as the President of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it

885
would be right that the person who happened to be the head of civil justice would not be singled out specially to require assistance in this connection, and the assistance should be assistance which is available to the judiciary as a whole who are concerned with civil justice.
There are possibly some other matters that require consideration. I welcome the form of this amendment as an inclusive one. It gives as much flexibility to the civil justice council as is consistent with its being a statutory body, and in view of the arguments that have gone on, I have concluded that it is wise to make it a statutory body but to seek to retain the maximum flexibility in that connection.
The ultimate responsibility of the rules committee for the rules is sufficiently preserved by this amendment. Also, the references to the head of civil justice make it clear that the responsibilities of the judiciary in this matter are not being encroached upon, which is an important aspect, not only in relation to the actual decision of cases, but in relation to the administration which, for example, the presiding judges presently carry out.
I said at Committee, and I repeat, that my understanding is that the Vice-Chancellor, as the head of civil justice, has indicated his intention to make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on developments in civil justice. I am anxious to avoid any unnecessary bureaucracy or any unnecessary cost because I believe that the money that is available is best spent on the actual work on the ground rather than on any bureaucracy. However, I believe that in principle the amendment gives us sufficient flexibility to arrange matters in such a way as to minimise the overall cost and to have in mind that its ultimate objective is to reduce the cost of the system.
I undertake to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to incorporate those aspects. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend would be so good as to confirm that the new body will be only an advisory body and will not supersede the responsibility of any of the other bodies that I mentioned.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my concern in this matter was to ensure that that would be the case, particularly in relation to the judiciary. My understanding of the matter is that the body is essentially advisory in its character. It would promote the interests of civil justice; it would not allow the profile of civil justice—because the inquiry of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf had finished—to fall; and it would try to harness the tremendous amount of enthusiasm in all branches of the profession and keep that momentum going. It is certainly not the intention—in accepting the amendment I would not have any intention—that this body should entrench upon the responsibilities of the bodies to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He has accepted that there should be a civil justice council resting on statute. He has accepted the principle of the amendment and will bring forward his own amendment at Third Reading. I was also heartened that he had no particular criticisms to make of the proposed amendment and that, on the contrary, he welcomed it as containing as much flexibility as could be given to a statutory body. My understanding is that the council would be advisory in nature.
I have no difficulty with the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that the words "the Head of Civil Justice" would be better replaced by the words "the senior judiciary" or "the judiciary" in Clause 2(2)(e). Furthermore, having regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is no part of my intention that the body should either be excessively bureaucratic or excessively costly. On the contrary, I believe that both can be easily avoided.
We now have a very short period of time between Report and Third Reading. It is a fact that the noble and learned Lord is not yet in a position to canvass the terms of the amendment that he will bring forward. I urge him that such an amendment be prepared in draft with the least delay so that it can be made available in good time for consideration in advance of Third Reading by those who have made their useful contributions today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I shall certainly do my best to produce my amendment as rapidly as possible to enable as much time for its consideration as is possible before Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Rule Committee]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 24, leave out ("two') and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, grouped with the other amendments, is to increase by two the number of practitioner members on the rules committee. The function of the committee is to make rules for the day-to-day working of the courts. It is therefore vital that the rules committee has on its membership sufficient numbers of professionals engaged daily in the conduct of litigation who can be expected to have direct and detailed knowledge of the problems.
My proposals would work as follows: the addition of one extra advocate would enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint an advocate with suitable seniority—probably a QC—with experience of Chancery work in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. Chancery work, as your Lordships know, embraces a wide field of activity; trusts, real property, wills, intellectual property, copyright and company law, to quote the main titles. There would be one advocate—no doubt of comparable seniority—with experience of common law work in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. Again, common

887
law now embraces commercial, construction, personal injuries, professional negligence and judicial review. The third practitioner, who need not be of the same seniority as the former two, would have particular experience of county court advocacy. Similarly, the extra appointment to the committee of a litigator would bring in a solicitor of suitable seniority with experience of Chancery work in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, a solicitor of suitable seniority with experience of common law work in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and one solicitor or litigator with particular experience of the county court. The three new members would be expected to have collective experience of most types of cases heard in the Supreme Court and the county courts.
An amendment grouped with my amendment suggests that there should be two extra but the two would be the litigators or the solicitors. I should have thought that that would create an imbalance. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my attitude to the rules committee is that it should be as small as is practicable so that the work is carried on efficiently. It is true that one can think of a variety of different experiences, all of which are relevant to this situation. However, I would hope that those appointed to the rules committee would have a sufficiently general appreciation of the nature of court procedure and the overall thrust of the rules to be able to carry out the function as the rule-making body with appropriate consultation—I accept the amendment in relation to consultation—with all those who have particular skills. I am anxious not to make this rule committee larger than is necessary to achieve the task.
It depends on who else wants to come into this body. It is the overall result that in a way determines the matter. A number of amendments have been grouped with this amendment. I should like to gain some impression of the overall view on this matter before reaching a final decision on the amendments. At the moment I am not convinced that it is wise to proceed on the basis of the different specialties and areas of expertise which have underlain the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. After all, if one takes the expertise down to a sufficiently fine level, there are a very large number of areas of expertise in our system at the present time. So it is a question of where one stops in this matter.
The other amendments which have been grouped with this amendment raise these matters as well as the question of the appointments. We shall come to the method of appointment later.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, perhaps we should make our position plain with regard to Amendments No. 3 to 7, 11 and 13. We support Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I shall not move Amendment No. 6 in my name, which proposes that "two" shall be increased to "four" at page 2, line 1, of the Bill. I am content with Amendment No. 5, which would increase "two" to "three". I remind your Lordships that there is not before
888
us today, as there was at Committee stage, an amendment proposing that the representation from the advice sector and the consumer sector should be increased from two to four. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord's amendments for an increase in size appear to us to be modest, while I am conscious of the force of the argument, which I do not believe that these amendments infringe at all, that the rule committee must not be so large as to be unwieldy. Also in this group of amendments are Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 in my name. I shall not move either of them. I hope that clarifies the position.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that clarification. In the light of those observations I am disposed to accept the amendments which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has proposed to increase the number to three. That relates to the amendment which he is presently moving and, I assume, Amendment No. 5, which would increase the number of litigators as well.
As regards Amendment No. 4, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be prepared to leave that on the basis that we shall seek as broad a level of experience as possible in the rule committee. It is obvious, for example, that we would wish particular experience of the High Court to be available to the committee. So I hope that it is right to leave it to the good sense of the appointing authority to try to achieve a balance between the county court and the High Court and the various types of expertise. So if my noble and learned friend will go that distance with me, I shall be content to accept Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 on the understanding that Amendment No. 6 will not be pressed.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I would like him to ponder once again Amendments Nos. 4 and 7. The county court looms particularly large in litigation nowadays because its jurisdiction has been so substantially extended. The practitioners who cover the High Court are likely to have left their county court days some years behind them. I appreciate that there is to be a wide measure of consultation, but those who consult must be in a position to evaluate the advice that they receive. If they are not adequately experienced they will be unable to do so. That is why the amendment was put forward on the basis that it was balanced; that there would be two advocates and litigators who would cover the field of the High Court and only one advocate and litigator who would cover the field of the county court. If that is not so provided there is a risk that the county court might be overlooked to an extent which is undesirable and the balance that we have rather carefully put forward and which, I believe, is supported by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, would be upset. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would ponder this matter again.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to ponder. I am very willing to undertake that the concerns of the county court will by no means be overlooked. I am very conscious of the need to appoint

889
at least one person with experience of the county court. What I am saying to my noble and learned friend—and I am very willing to consider the matter further—is that I doubt whether it is necessary to do that any more than it is necessary to say, "And some of them will have High Court experience". It is clear that a fairly wide level of experience is required to be mustered among the three that we have now agreed should be in each of the classes. I certainly undertake to consider the matter further, but that is how I see the matter at the moment. In the meantime I am content to agree to Amendment No.3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("at least one of whom has particular experience of practice in the County Court,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on the basis of what my noble and learned friend has said about thinking about the matter again, I shall not move this amendment. I noticed that he said that it was not intended to ignore the county court and that at least one member will be particularly experienced. That sounds as if on occasions there may be two members from the county court. That would immediately create an imbalance with the High Court. That is why we have suggested, by the way in which we have put forward the amendment, that the balance would be adhered to. But, on the basis that further thought might be productive of greater harmony, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, after ("Court,") insert ("at least one of whom has particular experience of practice in the County Court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on the same basis as I dealt with Amendment No. 4, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("Court") to end of line 4 and insert—

("(g) one person with experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs, and

(h) one person with experience in and knowledge of the lay advice sector.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is self-explanatory. I have accepted the amendments proposed in respect of this matter following our Committee stage. My noble friend Lady Wilcox had a particular interest in this matter, as did the
890
noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I believe that we have achieved a reasonable basis for going forward and I am therefore glad to accept the position that was put to me, which is now exemplified in Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. It responds positively to an amendment which I moved in Committee. As I acknowledged then, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may well have intended by the expression in Clause 2(2)(g)—
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts"—
to include persons whose experience derives from the consumer and advice sectors. That is now made express by Amendment No. 8, which the noble and learned Lord has just moved, and I therefore support it. As I said in Committee, I would have been happier if there had been four representatives of those sectors, not merely two. The noble and learned Lord has not agreed with that. Although I retain a concern that the rule committee, as defined by Clause 2(2), is too lawyer-dominated—as I said, however, I appreciate the arguments in favour of not having a committee of excessive size—I welcome the amendment and we support it.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I too support the noble and learned Lord's amendment given that his amendment achieves a key goal which the amendment that I tabled in Committee would have realised; namely, to ensure a designated place for a consumer representative and one for someone from the lay advice sector. This provision is significant in the civil justice world. It is important that users of the courts have a voice in decisions about how the courts are run. It is in everyone's interest that we have a legal system that ordinary people no longer find remote, bewildering, off-putting and incomprehensible. We should have a system in which everyone can participate as fully as possible. We seem to be moving towards achieving that, and I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has said everything that I wanted to say. We support and welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Civil Procedure Rule Committee must, before making or amending Civil Procedure Rules, consult such persons as they consider appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again I have sought to respond to what was said in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I think that that view was generally shared. Indeed, I had rather assumed that that would be the effect of the provisions, but there is no harm in putting them this way and on the face of the statute. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 9, which I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it is important to note the precise language of this amendment. The amendment seeks to insert at the end of page 2, line 12:
"The Civil Procedure Rule Committee must, before making or amending Civil Procedure Rules, consult such persons as they consider appropriate".
Your Lordships will note that we are next to consider Amendment No. 10, which stands in my name, and which would make a different amendment to this effect. It states:
"Before appointing a person under (g) subsection (2)(g) the Lord Chancellor must consult those organisations which are members of the Advice Services Alliance, the National Consumer Council and other appropriate organisations representing the interests of consumers".
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord indicated that, subject to the drafting, he was happy to accept an amendment along the lines of what was Amendment No. 13 in Committee. I understand that Amendment No. 9, which the noble and learned Lord has just moved, is intended to achieve the same effect. In Committee I expressed a preference for what was then my amendment, Amendment No. 18 and which is now Amendment No. 10 standing in my name. That amendment makes specific reference to the interest groups and organisations which ought to be consulted.
I have a preference for the provisions of Amendment No. 10 because they expressly involve consumer groups and advice agencies in consultation, thus recognising on the face of the statute their very important role. If what is intended is that the rule committee should consult those bodies, I really do not see why the statute should not say that clearly and expressly. However, if the noble and learned Lord will confirm that in terms of his Amendment No. 9 he intends that the rule committee should consult the kind of bodies referred to in my Amendment No. 10, on the footing that they are bodies obviously appropriate to be consulted, I would be minded in due course not to move Amendment No. 10 and, on that basis, to support Amendment No. 9.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, Amendment No. 10 relates to consultation before making the appointment whereas Amendment No. 9 relates to consultation in respect of rules once the rule committee is in position. On Amendment No. 10, I am content to undertake in relation to paragraph (g) of Amendment No. 8 to consult bodies which seem appropriate in the consumer area and, in relation to paragraph (h), to consult bodies that are appropriate in the lay advice sector. I undertake that such consultation will be carried out in relation to the appointments.
Amendment No. 9 relates to the making of the rules. The position may depend a great deal on the nature of the rule. If the committee is considering amending a rule in relation to patents, it might be that consultation is required with a different group from that involved in more general amendments on, for example, the question of in which court particular matters should first be heard.
Additionally, bodies such as those specified in Amendment No. 10 are apt to change their names. If a fixed name is part of the statute, the provisions may be
892
deprived of content in due course. That is why I believe that an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 9 is more appropriate—if I may use that word once more, having used it in the amendment—to this situation. With regard to Amendment No. 10, I undertake to ensure that consultation with the appropriate bodies will take place in relation to the making of the appointments of the persons required (under paragraphs (g) and (h)) to serve on the rule committee. I hope that that will meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he can help me on a small matter relating to Amendment No. 9. Is not the test under Amendment No. 9 a subjective test, given that the provisions refer to,
"such persons as they consider appropriate"?
Should not the test be objective and the provisions refer to,
"such persons as are appropriate"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is possible to do that, but one has to have confidence in the rule committee to try to make the best job that it can of the matter. The way to reach that is for it to look at the rule in question and consider it. If it came to a totally unreasonable decision, under the rules of judicial review, as I understand them, there would be a redress. I hope that that would never arise, because I am sure that a rule committee appointed under this authority would have the necessary responsibility to do that appropriately. However, strictly speaking, as framed, the amendment is one which makes the matter subjective, but the overriding duty in performing a public law duty of this kind is to act reasonably.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if that is the case, and we are to have confidence in the committee, do we need the amendment at all?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I started off without it, but in the light of the views expressed, I decided to put it in. Any rule committee operating in the present circumstances would certainly wish to consult. We want a rule committee that will work. It was thought wise to make it clear; and, in the light of the wisdom displayed to me in Committee, I accepted that advice, and here I am. So I am content with the amendment as it is expressed, and I hope that your Lordships will be, too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Before appointing a person under (g) subsection (2)(g) the Lord Chancellor must consult those organisations which are members of the Advice Services Alliance, the National Consumer Council and other appropriate organisations representing the interests of consumers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the undertakings given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in relation to Amendment No. 10 to which I sought your Lordships' leave to speak on Amendment No. 9, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Civil Procedure Rule Committee must, when making civil procedure rules, meet to discuss and agree these rules.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 is in line with Amendment No. 17 to which I spoke in Committee under that number. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will well recollect what is its subject matter. It is designed to oblige the rule committee, when making rules, actually to meet to discuss and agree them. As I observed in Committee, any member of the public who was told that the rule committee was not under any such obligation would be very surprised. In reality, the present Supreme Court Rule Committee does not meet; it conducts its business solely by post, as I understand it. In effect, it is not a committee, but it may well be a group of individuals who are invited to endorse proposed rule changes put forward by others.
It would be neither onerous nor expensive for the proposed rule committee to meet a few times a year to discuss and agree rule changes. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said:
"I have found the method of working on the Supreme Court Rule Committee somewhat unsatisfactory. On the other hand the County Court Rule Committee has worked because it can and because it is reasonably small. That has something to do with the membership and the size of the committee that consists of all the top judges. They have other responsibilities and it is difficult to arrange meetings. This goes back to the point of the size of the committee, which was discussed. I am entirely in favour of a committee that meets to discuss those matters; that is what I am aiming at, and I believe that that is what we shall get".—[Official Report, 20/11/96; col.CWH24.]
In the light of that statement by the noble and learned Lord in which he said he said that he favours a committee which meets to discuss these matters; that is what he is aiming at, and that is what he believes we shall get, I invite him to accept the amendment on the basis that a statutory obligation should be imposed on the new rule committee to meet. I would add that a statutory duty to meet is all the more necessary because of the experience of the present Supreme Court Rule Committee, which we know does not meet. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems that what is proposed is not what happens at the moment, necessarily. It is desirable that it should happen. I believe that it should therefore be clearly stated.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the amendment goes too far. I can see the desirability of the committee
894
meeting to discuss the rules, but that it should only be able to agree them by meeting is surely inconvenient. It often happens at meetings—for example, board meetings—that there has been a discussion and something is not known or is not right. So someone says, "Let us send people away. They can draft the final result, and that can then be circulated". On the basis of this amendment, that could not be done even though everyone was agreed. The redraft would have to come back to a further and subsequent meeting, but could only be agreed at a meeting.
There must often be cases when it is appropriate for things to be done by circulation; for example, someone suddenly realises after the meeting that if one rule is to be amended, another has also to be amended. The date has to be changed in that one as well. To say that can be done only by a further meeting makes the task enormously onerous.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment. It would be easy to slip into the same way as the Supreme Court Rule Committee has slipped—that is to say, never to meet at all. I take the point that the noble Viscount has just made; where eight members of the committee are required to sign their consent to a rule, they should at least meet to discuss it to ensure that they all agree.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there was a dramatic moment in the history of this House when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, recorded to the House the decision that had been made by the rule committee: that no longer should defendants be addressed by Her Majesty on a writ, but that the whole of the writ should be reworded with any reference to Her Majesty being omitted. I took the liberty on that occasion of trying to move an annulment of an order, which, if I may say so, was a brave thing to do. I can remember so well the noble and learned Lord, with his customary elegance and courtesy, telling the House that after great consideration, the rule committee had made that decision, and it was recommended therefore to the House and to the legal profession.
I dared—that was even more courageous, in my view—to ask the noble and learned Lord whether that committee had met frequently to discuss that extreme alteration in our procedure, and the removal (which in my view was a historic one) in this address to a defendant at the commencement of a civil action. There was some hesitation before the noble and learned Lord replied. That is not usual with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. But when he did reply he frankly admitted that there had not been a meeting of the rule committee—if my memory is correct—for some two years; but he undertook that there would then be a meeting to consider the debate which had taken place in your Lordships' House. That was not a very favourable reference to the rule committee, with all the power that it was exercising on that occasion. Therefore, it is a salutary experience to have these words suggested by the amendment in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is little difference in principle between us. I believe that it is

895
right to preserve to the committee the opportunity of agreeing rules by post. However, it is highly desirable that it should meet sufficiently. That can be achieved by the terms on which it is appointed. Perhaps the easiest way of achieving that is if I give an undertaking that the conditions under which people are appointed shall include the requirement to attend a minimum number of meetings. The members could have more meetings if they wished, but the procedure would ensure that this was a meeting committee rather than one operating only by correspondence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed to the existing situation with the Supreme Court Rule Committee. I must point to the existing situation with the County Court Rule Committee. To an extent, the difference is due to the size of the committee. It is very much easier for the members to meet, whereas the Supreme Court Rule Committee comprised such an array of high-powered talent that it was extremely difficult to get their diaries together, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham discovered.
If your Lordships believed that a clause was required, I should not be adverse to including one. However, we must keep open the possibility of agreeing by post amendments in the discretion of the committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned previously, often matters are left to be dealt with in detail. It would be impossible to say that at the moment of the conclusion of the meeting a precise agreement on the rules had been reached but there could be sufficient understanding to make it likely that agreement would be reached and the detailed rule then presented. Subject to that, I am content to accept the provision if it is insisted upon.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, of course I am not opposed to rule changes which have been discussed in meetings but perhaps not finalised being subsequently agreed and resolved by post. That is only sensible. However, the need to recognise that does not lead to the elimination of the need for any meetings at all. The primary means of the committee proceeding, if it is to operate as a meaningful committee, is by actual meeting. I am not satisfied that an obligation on persons to attend a minimum number of meetings as part of their terms of appointment greatly helps if no meetings are being held. I should have thought that the terms of their appointment must yield to the fact that there are no meetings for them to attend. I should prefer the noble and learned Lord to undertake to consider Amendment No. 12, if he can say that he supports it in principle, with a view to seeing whether it can be approved. It could, for example, be drafted to read:
"The Civil Procedure Rule Committee must, when making civil procedure rules, meet to discuss these rules with a view to agreeing them".
That form of language would not run into the problem to which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, drew attention. Before reaching a final view on whether to test the opinion of the House, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to respond.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no difference between us on this issue. Certainly it is not
896
the kind of issue that I should wish to have a great problem about. I anticipate the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the terms of appointment by requiring the chairman to deal with the matter. However, if that is not thought to be satisfactory I am perfectly content to see whether we can produce a workable amendment which carries the sense that the committee will be a meeting committee and not one which discharges its business entirely by post. Perhaps with that undertaking the noble Lord will feel able to proceed.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on the basis that the noble and learned Lord will give thought to the matter between now and Third Reading and will bring forward an amendment which in his judgment meets the sense of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Power to make consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order amend, repeal or revoke any enactment passed or made before the commencement of this section to the extent he considers necessary or desirable in order to facilitate the making of Civil Procedure Rules.
(3) Any power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (I) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) No order may be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. Amendment No. 14 is designed to give effect to what I said in relation to the Government's response to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The amendment addresses the point as follows. If the rule committee is minded to make a rule which would override an enactment, the enactments would have to be identified and the necessary amendments made to those enactments. I would lay a draft order containing those amendments before the rules were made and that order would then be subject to the affirmative procedure. Once the order is approved, the rule committee would make the relevant rules.
The amendment builds on the order-making power already contained in Clause 4(1) which provides for consequential amendments to be made via the negative resolution procedure. The new subsection (2) then makes provision for an affirmative procedure to apply to amendments which are other than consequential. It will have the effect of ensuring, as I have said, that Parliament's approval is obtained before the committee makes the rule which overrides a statutory provision. The matters which would go into an affirmative order would include any rules flowing from paragraphs 2 to 4 of the schedule which overrides an enactment.
The amendment to Clause 4 renders paragraph 8 of the schedule unnecessary as I also agree that paragraph 8 ought not to be interpreted as applying to future enactments. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the amendment have any impact on Amendment No. 33, which is the last amendment on the Marshalled List? That amendment is designed to deal with the allocation of business between the High Court and the county court and seeks to preserve the present position which requires the affirmative resolution before such orders are made. If it does affect it perhaps I ought to deal with the merits of my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that the provisions are quite independent. Amendment No. 14 deals with the activities of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Amendment No. 33 in the name of my noble and learned friend deals with the allocation of jurisdiction as between the county court and the High Court, which is not a matter subject to the civil procedure rules.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 6 [Power of courts to make orders for preserving evidence, etc.]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3. line 18, at end insert ("or
(c) the delivery up of property which is or may be the subject-matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises or may arise in the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee as Amendment No. 21. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and I have been in helpful correspondence between Committee stage and today on the subject of these amendments which I moved in Committee concerning the Anton Piller jurisdiction. I desire to mention now that the noble and learned Lord has taken a favourable view of Amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29 which I moved in Committee and has responded to them with his own amendments.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 which I moved in Committee correspond to today's Amendments Nos. 15 and 19. What I sought to achieve in tabling those two amendments in Committee, and what I seek today, is to address a particular problem which practitioners have drawn to my attention and which, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was able to confirm from his own experience in practice.
Under the existing Anton Piller jurisdiction, any property recovered from a respondent—and I emphasise these words,
"must be held for safekeeping by the applicant's solicitors".
That is what the order says. There are an increasing number of cases where the property recovered is needed immediately by the applicant for the purposes of his business. My concern was that, as the law presently stands, an applicant might find that the Anton Piller jurisdiction operates to interfere and obstruct his recovery of urgently needed property and to that extent would operate to defeat the objective of Parliament in its provision of the right to require an interim delivery up of property.
I emphasise "interim delivery up of property" because it is quite clear that Section 4 of the 1977 Act and the relevant rules of court contemplate that the delivery up of property can and should be as much an interim as a final measure.
In the correspondence to which I have referred, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack assured me that Clause 6 is not intended to limit in any way the existing jurisdiction of the court under Section 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and Order 29, Rule 2A RSC to make interim orders for the delivery up of property as distinct from the mere preservation of property.
I shall press these amendments but if the noble and learned Lord confirms that it is his understanding that a party seeking Anton Piller relief is entitled also at the same time to move the court for other relief such as the interim delivery up of property under Section 4 of the 1977 Act, then I shall beg leave to withdraw them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for engaging in correspondence with me, which I believe was copied to other noble Lords who took part in our discussions about Anton Piller orders on which I have also had the great benefit of the very rapid and thorough advice of the Vice-Chancellor in whose division most of the orders are granted. By that, I do not mean that all applications are granted but that when orders are granted they are often granted in his division.
The situation is that Clause 6 is intended to confer a new jurisdiction on the court in relation to the statutory position in order to confirm what the court has done in exercise of its inherent powers in the past in relation to the entry of property and obtaining possession of the property.
My understanding is clear. The power to make an interim delivery order exists separately under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and is unaffected by this clause. There is no question of the court not being able to make an interim order under that Act as well as under this clause. Of course, the precise terms in which the Section 6 jurisdiction is exercised might well be affected by the application for the other order; for example, if the order were made in the terms indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in respect of the Anton Piller order, that would not fit very well with the sort of situation he mentioned. But I have no doubt that the court has the power to make the appropriate order using, as appropriate, the different jurisdictions which it has. I want to make it clear that

899
my understanding—and I think that I can safely say that it is the understanding also of the Vice-Chancellor—is that those are distinct jurisdictions and that the power to exercise more than one of them at the same time is not in any way affected and it would be a matter for the court to consider.
As the noble Lord said, the ordinary rule is that when property comes forward, or is taken possession of under an Anton Piller order, an independent person is usually authorised to hold it. That is the normal situation that would need to be varied in the particular situation to which the noble Lord referred. I believe that that does happen in practice. Therefore, I hope that I am able to give in clear terms the assurance for which the noble Lord asked; namely, that the Anton Piller jurisdiction conferred by Clause 6 will be in addition to, and exercisable at the same time as, the other jurisdictions which the court presently has; subject, of course, to the court considering the appropriateness of that exercise and the terms in which it should occur.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on the basis of that explanation, which is admirably clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("("the respondent")").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 and 20 to 24 inclusive, since they are all linked.
These amendments relate to a matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in Committee and supported by other noble Lords. I have considered them in some detail, as I mentioned earlier, with my learned friend the Vice-Chancellor and I am grateful to him for his assistance on this point, which was given very clearly and speedily.
The main purpose of Clause 6 is to dispense with the fiction that the entry on the premises is with the consent of the owner/respondent. At present, the standard form of Anton Piller order refers to "the respondent" and others such as "employees" or others,
"appearing to have control of the premises".
However, this clause will have the effect that in future it is more clearly the court order which is the basis of the requirement to permit entry, not the implied consent of the owner. It will no longer be desirable to imply that the execution of the Anton Piller order is dependent upon the consent of the owner or a person whom he might have authorised to give consent on his behalf.
I understand also from the Vice-Chancellor that it is not always the practice that all the persons who are authorised to enter the premises under the order will actually be named in the order. They will be described in some cases by their function—for example, the supervising solicitor—or by reference to the numbers of those who are authorised to enter. The linked amendments make the necessary changes to a terminology and for clarification purposes.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's amendment was well taken and that the changes which are made by these amendments meet the point completely and clearly. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome the amendment which, as the noble and learned Lord has just explained, removes the word "respondent" from Clause 6(2). It makes clear the power to require any person to assist entry, and so on, who might be in a position to do so. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for observing that this amendment is directly responsive to an amendment which I moved in Committee as Amendment No. 24.
The intention of that amendment was to make it clear that the persons obliged to comply with an order were not only the respondent to the application itself but also other persons, such as employees and those in control of premises in the absence of the respondent. I believe that it is wise to leave out the word "respondent" because it implies a specific, named person. I therefore support the amendment, as I do the other amendments in the group which are linked. I should like to record the appreciation of these Benches for the fact that the Vice Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, has so promptly provided his assistance on the points in relation to the Anton Piller jurisdiction raised in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 3, line 22, leave out first ("named") and insert ("described").
Page 3, line 22, leave out from second ("person") to ("is") and insert ("so described").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("respondent") and insert ("person concerned").
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("named") and insert ("described").
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("named in the order") and insert ("so described").
Page 3, line 36, leave out from first ("any") to ("or") and insert ("person described in the order").
Page 3, line 36, leave out from second ("any") to ("is") and insert ("person so described").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 16. With your Lordships' leave, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("( ) An order under this section—

(a) is to have effect subject to such conditions as are specified in the order, and

901

(b) may include, in addition to any relief specified in this section, any other order or direction which the Court has jurisdiction to make relating to the preservation or delivery up of evidence or property or any other subject-matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises or may arise in the proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, such an amendment was moved by me in Committee as Amendment No. 27. I move it again today. I believe the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to be of the view that the amendment is unnecessary because the court will retain its jurisdiction to make any other order which it now has power to make. In reply, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will wish to confirm that that is his understanding.
I would also ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that it is his understanding that the court presently has power—and I believe that he has already in effect said so—in conjunction with, or as an ancillary to, an Anton Piller order to order the interim delivery up of goods to the applicant for immediate use by him. It is a fact that, in practice, an increasing number of cases are coming before the courts where the claimant requires, for the purpose of conducting his own business, documents, disks or dies which have been removed, say, by an employee for use in a rival business.
It would, therefore, be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would confirm, as I believe he has already done in substance, that, in the context of this amendment, the court does have power in an appropriate case to order, at the same time as making an Anton Piller order, the interim delivery of goods to the applicant for immediate use by him. That is to say that the court, subject to an appropriate application, can make an order appropriate to the circumstances of the case where the applicant has invoked a jurisdiction of the court. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I have answered the question in substance, but I am happy to do so again in relation to the amendment now before the House. The purpose of the clause is to confer a jurisdiction on the court. The exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this clause may be combined with the exercise of any other jurisdiction that the court has which it is appropriate to exercise at the same time. I certainly understand that to be the present position; namely, that the court has power. Where it has jurisdiction to make orders under more than one jurisdiction at a time, the terms of the order will need to be consistent with the exercise of those jurisdictions.
Accordingly, in my view the proposed clause is unnecessary; indeed, it might have another effect in that it could suggest that this jurisdiction was somewhat special in that it could be used in association with others. I believe that the general position is that jurisdictions which the courts have can, in suitable circumstances, be the basis of an order, even if more than one jurisdiction is invoked should the court think that suitable in the circumstances of the case.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not affect any right of a person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 27. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and others, raised the question of whether there was any intention through this clause of changing the law on privilege against self-incrimination. I took the view then, as I do now, that there was no such intention; indeed, I certainly never had such an intention. However, it was thought sufficiently important in Committee that that should be made plain. Therefore, Amendment No. 26 addresses that point both plainly and clearly.
Amendment No. 27 deals with a slightly different point, but it is important and convenient to take both amendments together because, again, it is a question of what was intended by the clause. The question was whether the purpose of subsection (7) was to render the primary legislation subject to subordinate legislation. That was certainly not the intention. I would wish it to be plain that the purpose of the rules would simply be to supplement the statutory provision on points of practice and procedure. That being the case, and having reconsidered the matter, I now consider that the clause does not need to make any specific reference to the power to make rules. The amendment would cut out the provision which gave rise to concern in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we strongly support the amendments. They are responsive to the concerns I expressed in Committee, which I believe were supported by others, when moving Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 at that time. The effect of the amendments is to make it absolutely clear that Clause 6 is not to be taken as altering the law on self-incrimination. I desire to put on record again the fact that I entirely accept—as I did in Committee—that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had no intention whatever to alter the law in relation to self-incrimination. I am happy to support the amendments which put the matter beyond any doubt.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 43, after second ("Court") insert—
("inspection" includes the inspection of data stored in computer readable form, and references to permitting inspection include permitting access to any such data,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 29 which is tabled in my name. I moved such amendments in Committee (as Amendments Nos. 30 and 31). I can assure your Lordships that I was well intentioned in moving the amendments at that time. I was proposing a definition of the word "inspection" so as to clarify the position concerning information stored in computer systems or otherwise in computer readable form, in order to ensure that a respondent or other person could be required to give access to any such information.
The second definition—that of the word "record"—was also aimed at clarifying the rights of an applicant. However, I know that case law already exists as regards the meaning of these terms and that the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that it is desirable to leave room for development of the meanings of these expressions by the courts, without fixing any precise definitions, should the development of technology render that desirable. Nor would I have any desire to cast doubt on the use of those terms in other statutes where they are not defined in the manner proposed in these amendments.
Certainly, I would not wish to be the cause of any confusion about the meaning of "inspection" or of "record"; far less would I wish to put a brake on the meaning of these terms as expounded by the courts. However, I invite the noble and learned Lord, in responding to these amendments, to assure me, if he feels able, that Clause 6 in its present form enables a court to order a person to provide another with access to a computer system and to enable that other to make print outs or to copy data on to disks. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained the amendment. I take the view that the meaning of "inspection" and "records" has grown over time to embrace the meaning which those terms have in a computerised context. I would also wish to avoid creating any remote impression that other statutory references to such terms do not extend to computerised data or records, or to data held on information systems called by some name other than "computers". Technology is developing all the time; language has to grow with it and so, too, the meaning which the courts give to such terms. I would consider that it is a necessary implication of the conferral of the powers granted by this clause that it would extend to enabling a court to order a person to provide another with access to a computer system and to enable that other to make print outs or to copy data onto disks. It is a necessary implication because the clause would be rendered ineffectual without it. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment and that he will not wish to move Amendment No. 29, which this explanation is intended to cover.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on that basis I am content to withdraw Amendment No. 28. I shall not move Amendment No. 29. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Civil Procedure Rules]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 37, after ("rules)") insert—
("(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) Rules made under this section may make different provision for different cases or different areas, including different provision—

(a) for a specific court, or

(b) for specific proceedings, or a specific jurisdiction, specified in the rules.",.

and
(b) ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the power to make rules of court in relation to family proceedings in the High Court and county courts is contained in Section 40 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This amendment inserts a new subsection into that section which provides that such rules may make different provision for different areas or for specific proceedings or specific courts. This would allow the rules to provide for future pilot projects and would bring them in line with the civil procedure rules in respect of which a similar power is contained in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. My learned friend the President of the Family Division has indicated his support for such pilots. It is desirable to provide express power for such pilots. I think we probably all agree on the value of pilots in some situations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this, happily, is the last of the amendments. It is concerned with the allocation of business between the High Court and the county courts. The effect of paragraph 4 to Schedule 2—which I seek to excise—which is headed "Minor and consequential amendments" is, as the explanatory memorandum indicates, to provide for the,
"negative resolution procedure to apply to orders made under section 1(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 regarding the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts".
I remind your Lordships of the provisions of Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It provides that the Lord Chancellor,
"may by order make provision:—

(a) conferring jurisdiction on the High Court in relation to proceedings in which county courts have jurisdiction;

(b) conferring jurisdiction on county courts in relation to proceedings in which the High Court has jurisdiction:

905

(c) allocating proceedings to the High Court or to county courts;

(d) specifying proceedings which may be commenced only in the High Court:

(c) specifying proceedings which may be commenced only in a county court;

(f) specifying proceedings which may be taken only in the High Court;

(g) specifying proceedings which may be taken only in a county court".

Section 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provides:
(I) Any power to make orders or regulations conferred by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument …
(4) No instrument shall be made under section 1(1) … unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament".
The affirmative resolution procedure required for orders under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 should—this is the purpose of the amendment—remain and not be removed. There are two main reasons for this. The powers given by Section 1 to which I have referred are far wider than either the existing rule making powers of the Supreme Court Rule Committee or the proposed rule making powers of the proposed unified rule committee. In particular, under Section 1 the Lord Chancellor may make provision conferring jurisdiction on county courts in relation to proceedings in which the High Court has jurisdiction; allocating proceedings to the High Court or to county courts; and specifying proceedings which may be commenced or taken only in a county court.
I have the support of the Bar Council in this measure. It is the belief of the Bar that any litigants and potential litigants would be concerned at any erosion of their right to a High Court trial. It is in the public interest that the affirmative resolution procedure be retained. Further, Section 120(4) providing for the affirmative procedure was enacted in November 1990; that is just over six years ago. We do not consider that there has been any sufficient change of circumstance in the past five or six years to justify an amendment.
I appreciate that it may be claimed by the Government that the minor additions to the jurisdictional arrangements effected by the increase of the small claims limit to £3,000 for all but personal injury cases attracted no parliamentary interest. That was no doubt because they were both minor in nature and not particularly controversial. Anything more significant would be a proper matter for public and parliamentary debate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner indicated earlier, there was a major increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts following the 1990 Act and the use of the power in question. Since then the amendments have been comparatively minor and have attracted little attention. The Hansard report of the debate in this House on 16th December 1994 to the most recent amending order took two minutes of the House's time and provoked no questions. That does not seem a good use of Parliament's time. If people have questions, the negative resolution procedure is available.
906
The power to make such orders is vested in the Lord Chancellor, not the rule committee, and this change is not related to the amendments regarding laws of court overriding enactments which I have tabled.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation supported the justification for the change from affirmative to negative procedure. Its report expressly deals with the matter; and it is familiar with the conditions under which these matters should be either affirmative or negative. It does not foreclose a decision to the other effect by the House. However, in my submission to your Lordships, the fact that the major change has taken place and that if any change in the future were controversial it would certainly attract attention is sufficient safeguard. In the meantime, the sort of orders that we propose are unlikely to require the attention of an affirmative resolution. That being supported by the committee in charge of considering the matter from the point of view of your Lordships' House, I venture to suggest that the amendment should not be given effect.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am somewhat disappointed in my noble and learned friend's reply. However, in the circumstances, I do not propose to press the amendment, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1996
5.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft order contains three amendments to the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order.
The first amendment, Article 2, will give the county courts jurisdiction to determine applications under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This will not confer a new area of jurisdiction on the county courts, but will maintain their current jurisdiction. The amendment is necessary because in January 1997, Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 will replace Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925, under which the county courts currently have a jurisdiction not limited by the value of the property. I wish to retain this unlimited jurisdiction for the county court in these matters.
Section 30 concerns applications to the court in the event of a dispute about the exercise of their powers by trustees for sale. Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 directly replaces Section 30. Section 13 of the 1996 Act enables the court to approve the regulations by trustees of land of the right to occupy any land subject to the trust conferred by Section 12 of the Act. There will frequently be a great deal of overlap between an application under this section

907
and an application under Section 14. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the county court to have the same jurisdiction.
The second amendment, Article 3, will enable a larger proportion of county court creditors to opt for enforcement by sheriffs. At present, only creditors with a county court judgment for more than £2,000 may currently transfer to the High Court for execution against goods to be carried out by the sheriffs, rather than the county court bailiffs. Article 3 reduces the limit for such transfers to £1,000.
The third amendment, Article 4, relates to the county courts' jurisdiction in road traffic debt cases. This involves the registration of parking penalty charges in the county court for enforcement. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provides for the resolution of any disputes about the penalty charges, which require the personal attendance of the vehicle owner, to be dealt with not by the county courts but by a separate adjudication system. This scheme was initially confined to the London boroughs, but has now been extended to areas outside London. The jurisdiction order currently confers jurisdiction only on Cardiff County Court for the registration and recovery of parking penalty charges. Registration is a process facilitated by a computer system which many participating local authorities use. That computer system was located in Cardiff County Court but is now in Northampton County Court which houses the Court Service's other centralised county court computer systems. Article 4 allows this system to issue proceedings in the name of Northampton County Court in order to bring together the judicial and administrative functions.
Article 1 cites the dates when the amendments I have outlined shall come into force. I commend this measure to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
5.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to remind the House that in July 1995 European Union member states signed a draft convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the Establishment of a European Police Office; or familiarly, the "Europol Convention". This convention was published as a Command paper (Cm 3050) and laid before Parliament on 8th December 1995.
Under the convention, Europol staff will have no operational powers, but will focus on the exchange and analysis of intelligence relating to serious international crime. A single national unit in each member state will be responsible for providing Europol with relevant intelligence and for acting as the link to law enforcement agencies in the member state. The National Criminal Intelligence Service will undertake this role in the United Kingdom. Europol staff, assisted by national liaison officers, will be responsible for centralised analysis of information obtained and for disseminating the results of this work. The national units will remain under national control. The Director of Europol will be its legal representative and he will report to a management board comprised of representatives from all member states.
The convention also makes detailed provision for the protection of data held by Europol and will establish an independent joint supervisory body drawn from national data protection supervisory bodies.
These terms are confusing and questions were raised in another place as to their meaning. Therefore, perhaps I may explain. The national unit is the sole contact point in each member state for communicating with Europol. The UK's national unit will be the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) with which this House will be familiar from the Police Bill currently in Committee. Each member state shall also have a national supervisory body. This shall monitor the data exchange between the national unit and Europol. We intend to designate the data protection registrar as the UK's national supervisory body. A nominee from each member state's national supervisory body shall make up the joint supervisory body. This shall have the task of monitoring Europol's compliance with the data protection regime set out in the convention. I hope that that explanation is of some help. I thought it important to tackle it at the outset.
The convention will come into force when ratified by all EU member states. The United Kingdom fully supports the establishment of Europol and is committed to creating an organisation that can work effectively and add real value to existing European police and customers co-operation. To emphasise this support we wish to be among the first member states to ratify the

909
convention and to make an announcement to that effect at the forthcoming European Council in Dublin on 13th-14th December 1996.
To do so, however, we must first make an Order in Council under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable us to give effect in UK law to Article 26 of the convention which provides that Europol shall enjoy legal personality in each member state. We propose to do so my means of the European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996, which is the sole purpose of the draft order before the House today.
I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this draft order, enabling us to achieve earlier ratification of the convention, and thereby underlining our commitment to Europol. I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that introduction and particularly for the way in which she extended the introduction to clear up some of the questions which were raised in another place. As she knows, we fully support the objectives of the order; we support Europol and British participation in it, and we support the intention of the Government to act quickly enough to be able to be the first member state to ratify membership of Europol at the Dublin Summit.
The Minister will also know that we support the proposal that the National Criminal Intelligence Service should be the national unit for this purpose and that the Data Protection Registrar should be the national supervisory body for that purpose. She may also have been instructed that there was debate on this issue when the Police Bill was considered in Committee at the beginning of last week, when an Opposition amendment which I moved sought to clarify the role of the Data Protection Registrar and to clear up what appears to us to be a fault line between the role of the Data Protection Registrar and the criminal records agency which is to be set up under Part V of the Police Bill. It is our view that the role of the Data Protection Registrar, as the national supervisory body, should be brought into line with the role of the criminal records agency. The Police Bill provides that there shall be a criminal conviction certificate—that is the simplest form—which will in certain circumstances make it possible for employers of any kind to require applicants for jobs to produce a certificate setting out their unspent criminal record. The problem with the data protection registry is that what is called enforced subject access applies and allows employers to force employees to use their rights under the Data Protection Act 1984 to gain access to their own criminal records and thereby reveal them to prospective employers. The problem which in turn arises from that is that the records which are available under enforced subject access go wider than the information which is to be provided by a criminal conviction certificate. The difficulty is that we have these two provisions side by
910
side: enforced subject access under the Data Protection Act and the criminal conviction certificate proposed under the Police Bill.
I appreciate that this is not her area, but I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. If the Police Bill were to get rid of enforced subject access—as it is the view of the Data Protection Registrar and indeed the view of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons that it should be got rid of—then the situation would be much clearer. I have taken advantage of this order, perhaps unfairly, which we support, to raise again the issue of potential conflict between the responsibilities of the Data Protection Registrar and those of the Home Office, as the home of the criminal records authority. With that proviso, we support the order.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my party welcomes and supports this order, while making two caveats and notes. This is a further pooling of British sovereignty. I note that various Members of this House, who perhaps ought to be in their place to oppose it, are, oddly, not here on this occasion. There has been very extensive growth of co-operation between police forces, customs services and others over the past 25 years across Europe, largely without any means of accountability or reporting to national parliaments. I welcome this regularisation of what was already taking place.
The problems of accountability and transparency are not entirely resolved in this convention as it stands. As the Minister will know, we were strongly in favour of the European Court of Justice being more closely associated with Europol. What will evolve under the Europol Convention may still leave a very considerable gap between what happens and what may be reported to this House and other national parliaments. With the Government's preference for intergovernmental co-operation, this may fall between national accountability and European accountability.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this order this evening. We should recognise that it is an important step forward for Europol. Criminal activity has never been constrained by national boundaries, and, as time goes by, the techniques utilised become more and more sophisticated. That is why we need effective joint action to deal with these problems. That is the real opportunity which Europol itself provides.
The United Kingdom along with, so far as I know, only one other European country—namely, the Netherlands—and a few others in the rest of the world, has already developed its own advanced criminal intelligence system. Europol was essentially our idea; we wrote the very first draft of the convention. Why? First, because in the fight against international organised crime the key to success lies in targeted action, based on effective intelligence; and, secondly, because it is enormously important to ensure that the experience and expertise we have gained in crime analysis and the

911
benefits to be derived from it are not limited by our national boundaries or, perhaps more to the point, those of any other country, especially when it comes to our near geographical neighbours.
It is equally important to say that I emphatically share the view that the benefits which come from this type of co-operation in tackling serious transnational crime must be balanced by real protection of the rights of the individual and proper democratic accountability.
I understand very well the points that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made. Regarding enforced subject access my noble friend Baroness Blatch has agreed to look at this matter at the Report stage of the Police Bill.
I should add, in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that, throughout the negotiations leading to the signature of the convention and the present negotiations over implementing measures, we have never ceased to emphasise the need for effective avenues of redress through national courts where an innocent individual has suffered injury. That is the very purpose of the order we are debating today. I know that this has been a matter of concern, perhaps to others outside your Lordships' House, but I think it is worth underlining the point in this short debate.
Maintaining the balance of operational effectiveness and protection of the individual is a proud tradition of our British criminal justice system. I can assure your Lordships that we are maintaining and promoting that tradition in the important work that we are undertaking. We are doing so with other member states because we want to promote more effective police co-operation, which will help us to defeat international crime. We shall do so in the subsequent supervision and regulation of the activities and development of Europol. My colleagues and I will be answerable to this House for the activities of Europol as we are for our own National Criminal Intelligence Service and our police services.
This has been a useful short debate. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I hope that I have adequately addressed the points that they made. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Latvia) Order 1996
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft order in Council concerning the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Community on the one hand and Latvia on the other; and thereafter similar orders with Lithuania and Estonia. I shall speak to all three orders together
912
because they cover essentially the same purposes, but of course I shall separate the answers to any questions that the noble Baroness may have on these orders when I come to reply.
These three orders specify the agreements as European treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are mixed competence agreements: that is to say, some of their provisions fall within Community competence and others fall within the competence of member states. They therefore require ratification by each and every European Union member state and the assent of the European Parliament before they may enter into force. In the case of the United Kingdom, the draft orders need to be approved by both Houses so that we may ratify the agreements.
The collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989 led to an historic opportunity to bring together again the whole family of Europe. The European Union has, since then, been pursuing new relationships with the countries which have emerged from the collapse of the monolithic Soviet system as well as with the nations of central Europe. The Baltic states have regained their independence. They have worked hard and fast to establish their position as European nations. The United Kingdom has been one of their strongest supporters, offering through the Know-How Fund a valuable contribution to the transition process. Within the European Union we have worked hard to create the conditions which will lead, through the pre-accession strategy agreed by the European Council at Essen in December 1994 and through the support of the PHARE programme, towards membership for all countries with Europe Agreements.
The agreements before your Lordships today are vital to the process of European Union enlargement. Through these agreements, the European Union and its member states will build a closer relationship with the Baltic states, increasing trade and economic co-operation, engaging in political dialogue and opening up co-operation across the whole range of the European Union's business.
As with the six central European countries whose Europe Agreements are already in force, we look forward to building through the Europe Agreements a path for the Baltic states to full and active membership of the European Union. We shall continue to support and assist Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania along the way.
This is a debate which is good news: good news for us, good news for the European Union and very good news for the three countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The agreements before your Lordships' House, beginning with the agreement for Latvia, are vital to that process. I commend first the order on Latvia to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing the orders.

913
The agreements seem to be broadly similar to those that we discussed earlier this year on a number of other former republics of the Soviet Union, at which time I raised a number of detailed questions about them and was very glad to receive satisfactory answers. So I do not intend to ask any detailed questions on these particular orders.
However, I shall make one comment to the Minister. It is the case, of course, that some Eurosceptics, particularly in her party—there are very many more in the Minister's party than there are on this side of the House—seem to have the view that widening is a way of avoiding deepening. I am sure the Minister would want to resist any such interpretation as the purpose of these agreements. That is not what they are about.
Let me also say that I am extremely glad that the United Kingdom Government have been such a strong supporter of the Baltic states. As the Minister said, they are countries which have recently gained their independence and escaped from the somewhat repressive and monolithic rule to which they were subjected under the former Soviet Union. They are countries which are both geographically and culturally very much part of northern Europe and have close links especially with Sweden and Finland, which are now members of the European Union.
The Minister mentioned the Know-How Fund and the extent to which it had been used to support developments in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Can she perhaps tell the House whether there are any new proposals under the Know-How Fund which will help to take further forward the proposals in these agreements?
On this side of the House we very much look forward to the eventual enlargement of the European Union to include all three Baltic states. We certainly owe it to all three countries to do all that we can to help them develop a market economy and sustain a strong and healthy democracy.
We also welcome the fact that the agreements cover social and cultural co-operation as well as economic and financial co-operation. That means that there ought to be new opportunities for British business. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on whether she is aware of those opportunities now being taken up in any particular sectors, but I hope that they will lead to new joint ventures and more investment by UK companies in the Baltic states as well as an increase in exports.
Membership of the European Union is particularly important to the Baltic states, since any decision to enlarge NATO which may be taken next year or the following year is extremely unlikely to include them. Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm that. As I understand it, that is the position.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can give some indication as to the timing of the ratification of the agreements by both the European Parliament and other member states.
I end by very much welcoming the agreements and the proposals that they contain.
6 p.m
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, on behalf of my party I welcome these agreements. I believe this takes us up to 10—I have not yet checked whether we have to ratify the Slovene agreement. It also takes us along the road towards substantial further enlargement of the European Union. I too underline the strong statement in the Europe Agreements of commitment and conditionality on political and civil rights in those countries which is causing some difficulty for Slovakia as another Europe-associated state.
I underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in regard to the level of confusion over enlargement that we see in many governments, and certainly the considerable confusion over the relationship between enlargement of NATO—now moving ahead rather rapidly—and enlargement of the European Union. Ten days ago in Brussels I heard a senior American diplomat say vigorously that the United States expects the European Union to move ahead rapidly with enlargement to the three Baltic states precisely because they cannot be considered as members of NATO. That is a recipe for a poor approach to enlargement. Perhaps the Minister can assure us that the Government will keep us informed as often as possible of that disjointed approach towards opening up the western European institutions to eastern Europe.
I was disturbed to see the President of the Commission quoted in the Financial Times last week as saying that we may see one or two east European states joining in the year 2003. That is one occasion on which I shall be happy to know that the British Government protested to the Commission about the statement he made, which was not contradicted by members of his Cabinet.
Of the three states, Estonia is the most advanced. It has a good case for being within the first group to join the European Union, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are pressing its case to be alongside Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as those that will be moving towards early membership.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for their remarks. As with previous orders that we have debated in your Lordships' House, we all know that these orders are not only in the interests of the three countries—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—but also very much in the interests of the UK and the European Union as a whole.
A few questions were asked of me during this short debate and perhaps I can seek to explain what is going on and say a little about timing. The interim agreements for the Baltic states are already in force, as your Lordships will know. They give early effect to the trade provisions of the Europe Agreements, and all other provisions of Europe Agreements, falling within sole Community competence, pending the ratification and coming into force of the latter. Those

915
provisions do not require ratification. The associates can benefit quickly from trade liberalisation, and it is clear that they have done so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke about trade. Trade with Estonia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, alluded, is growing rapidly. Our exports to Estonia are up 105 per cent. to £39 million this year so far, and those figures are now three months old. Imports are up 48 per cent. to £113 million. Trade is growing rapidly with Latvia, too: exports are up 170 per cent. to £56 million so far this year and imports up 66 per cent. to £199 million. It is of note that the United Kingdom is the largest foreign investor in Latvia, in the modernisation of the Latvia telecom system which is being carried out by Cable & Wireless with Telecom Finland. In Lithuania, again trade is growing rapidly: exports are up 135 per cent. to £57 million so far this year and imports up rather less-2 per cent.—to £124 million this year. Trade is therefore beginning to roll nicely, which is good both for us and for the three Baltic states individually.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked whether we had new proposals for the Know-How Fund, which has already been doing great work in helping all three Baltic states to prepare for eventual access to the European Union. That is the new priority sector for the Know-How Fund. Some projects, such as the training of lawyers, giving advice and assistance to the judiciary, are already underway. A number of other projects are in the preparation stage. Since none of them have been decided one way or the other, it is perhaps better that I write to the noble Baroness when there is any advance on the current situation. However, I can assure her that they look at different aspects of European Union integration, and the Baltic states are benefiting from specific applications of the Know-How Fund just as other applicant states have already benefited. The priority in the "non sectors", as they are called, are agriculture, financial services, small and medium enterprise development, energy and good government. Those are continuing well. There will be more to say about them eventually.
As to when the three Baltic states may eventually join, I am not in a position to give any undertakings. We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, that Estonia is preparing speedily. Whether or not it will be in the first wave I cannot say at this moment. The fact that it is preparing so thoroughly is good news and should encourage our partners in the European Union to give it as much help as we are seeking to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked about defence matters—security is obviously essential for the Baltic states. It has not yet been decided whether or not the Baltic states will join NATO. There are a number of countries also eager to join NATO. The guiding principle is that the alliance should be strengthened by enlargement. That is the consideration taken in the North Atlantic Council whenever the future is discussed. There will be continual encouragement, but NATO is determined that the admission of new members must not mean less security for those not invited, nor must it mean new
916
dividing lines in Europe—a philosophy with which I know the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, agrees. We are committed to NATO's work to broaden and deepen the military and political dimensions of Partnerships for Peace. That will be an integral part of the European architecture, not a consolation prize for those who do not happen to join NATO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, could not resist a little tease when she rose to her feet. The difference between her party and mine is that when people in this party disagree they speak up all the time; in her party they are hiding it away until sometime next year. If she were as sure as I am of what some of her Back-Benchers were up to she would not look as happy and contented as she does. However, that is a long way from these excellent orders. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Lithuania) Order 1996
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Estonia) Order 1996
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the Statement, laid before the House on 31st October, be disapproved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on examining the changes in Immigration Rules, at first sight they seem reasonably straightforward, but on closer examination the implications are more complex than that. I have to say that it is not always clear in respect of some of the

917
provisions whether we are dealing with an entirely new provision or whether we are dealing with a tidying-up based on many of the discussions we have had in this House and in the other place earlier this year. In one sense, we have already had a good deal of debate about income support and other measures for asylum seekers. Therefore, if by some chance in this debate noble Lords—myself included—make points which are not new I am sure that the Minister will be the first to clarify the matter.
It seems to me that these provisions clearly affect asylum seekers. That is to say, they affect those asylum seekers who would like to claim child benefit and who did not apply for asylum on first entering the country. In other words, they are defined as individuals who entered the country, possibly with a visa as a visitor; possibly they did not require a visa and went to the country and then claimed asylum and, on the arguments of the Government, by implication they came in on the understanding that they would not have recourse to public funds. Therefore, as these rules change the definition of "recourse to public funds", it means that they will in future be denied child benefit.
Similarly—and I know that we had this discussion a few months ago—any individual who claims asylum at the port of entry who, some months or years later, is then refused asylum and wishes to appeal will also be in the position of not being entitled to child benefit as well as other benefits. If that argument is correct it seems to me that because children, by definition, are involved in claims for child benefit there will be a pretty heavy additional burden on local authorities.
The Government have already announced that some additional funds will be made available to local authorities, but it appears that we are in a rather confused situation, given that the Government are appealing against some of these matters in the Court of Appeal. I understand that will be in the middle of January next year.
We are in the position, therefore, where we are asked to approve changes in the Immigration Rules which affect children, but in one sense it is not clear what the effects will be if the Court of Appeal does not uphold the Government's appeal next month. In any case, perhaps the Minister could say a little more about the effects of these rule changes on local authorities; that is, whether this will impose an additional burden on local authorities or whether that has already been taken into account by the extra money that the Government have given, although I know that the extra money is only to meet part of the cost.
We have some other changes in the Immigration Rules, which were laid in August. We are not able to deal with them this evening, although they did affect spouses. The new wording of the rule changes under discussion this evening affects postgraduate doctors and dentists, au pairs, seasonal workers and family members of these individuals. One difficulty, as I see it, is that the Home Office would have no discretion even in the most compassionate cases to enable child benefit to be legally claimed.
Perhaps I may put two hypothetical examples to the Minister. Let us take the case of a man who is a British citizen with a wife and child who are not British citizens. The wife and child enter the country together in order to join the British citizen father and are given 12 months' leave to enter. The father claims child benefit, as he is entitled to do. At the end of 12 months' limited leave the mother and child apply for indefinite leave to remain, as would be normal. A requirement of obtaining such limited leave is that the child can and will be maintained and accommodated adequately without recourse to public funds.
In the case of the spouse's application the wording of the requirement is,
"the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds".
The difficulty here, if I understand the new rule changes, is this: can the requirement be met if the father has already been claiming child benefit, or will child benefit be disallowed from the date that the wife and child apply for indefinite leave to remain?
Perhaps I may give another example. It is a slightly simpler one. Let us take the situation of a married couple, the husband having been given permission to enter the UK temporarily. Let us suppose that, for family reasons, he leaves the UK for a period exceeding eight weeks, leaving his wife, who is not a British citizen, behind, but the wife has not obtained indefinite leave to remain. In that situation, if this provision is enacted could the wife's entitlement to child benefit be challenged? In other words, would she lose the right to child benefit because of the way in which these rules are drafted?
I hope that those examples are not too abstract. I believe that they could apply to real situations and I am concerned as to the effect that the rule changes may have.
My third question is simply this. Can we have an assurance that people who properly claim child benefit at the present time will not have that entitlement altered by the passage of these changes in the Immigration Rules? Is there a straightforward exemption from any of the provisions if people are already getting child benefit and nothing changes except that these rules have been enacted? They have already been enacted because I understand that they came into effect on 1st November.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with another aspect of the changes in the rules relating to the revocation of entry clearance. In the second paragraph of the rule changes an entry clearance may be revoked under certain circumstances by the entry clearance officer. One situation is where the holder's exclusion would be conducive to the public good. I am not concerned with that aspect but with two others. One is where the entry clearance officer is satisfied that false representations were employed or material facts not disclosed for the purpose of obtaining the entry clearance. It is rather difficult to see how an entry clearance officer at the port of entry could possibly discover that false representations had been made at the time that entry clearance was sought. That seems to be a difficult

919
process. If it never happens in practice and it is a theoretical safeguard, well and good, but it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which this could clearly and effectively be applied.
Similarly, I am concerned about the other condition referring to a change of circumstances since entry clearance was issued. Perhaps there is a way in which the entry clearance officer could discover that at the desk at Heathrow or at Dover, but I find it hard to see how. This is important because I understand that if entry clearance is revoked it is as if entry clearance had never been granted. Therefore, there is no right of appeal against such a decision by the person wishing to enter the country. A decision made in these circumstances by an entry clearance officer ought at the very least to be subject to some form of scrutiny rather than an immediate decision, possibly made at the entry desks at Heathrow Airport after an all-night flight. It is pretty onerous to say "You have no recourse at all; you have no safeguards against such a refusal."
I appreciate that there are other issues in these rules and I am concerned that we should scrutinise them adequately. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet some of my anxieties.
Moved, That the Statement, laid before the House on 31st October, be disapproved.—(Lord Dubs.)
6.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for raising these issues today and for the care he has taken to expose some of the problems which arise from the changes in the Immigration Rules, which, as he said, have already come into effect. He covered quite a number of the substantive points which give cause for concern but I have a number of others which I should like to raise with the Minister. Changes have been made and further changes could be made. Therefore, any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny to produce better rules would be to the benefit of this country as well as of people coming to this country.
The basic starting point is that those who have leave to enter this country as visitors or to study and work have to convince the authorities that they will maintain and accommodate themselves and any dependants without recourse to public funds. That has always been interpreted as meaning that they will not have access to housing, income support, family credit, council tax benefit or housing benefit. The changes to the rules mean that two categories of benefit are added to the list of what is called public funds; first, child benefit, to which my noble friend has referred and which I do not need to cover again, and, secondly, disability benefits, including attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance, disability living allowance and the non-means tested benefit and disability working allowance. They have also added the income-based job seeker's allowance.
The argument for increasing the definition of "public funds" is no doubt the cost to the public of claims on public funds, but the existing categories of public funds have all been in effect basic survival benefits—those
920
which apply to everyone and which are supposed to be saved by pledges of self sufficiency when people come to the United Kingdom. On grounds of cost, I should have thought it less reasonable to add to them the categories of disability allowance and child benefit which apply only to severely disabled people or to people with children. In any case, disability attendance allowance and disability living allowance are available by the existing rules only to people who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and have been here for not less than 26 out of the past 52 weeks. That must exclude a very substantial number of those people who would be affected by these changes in the rules.
We are talking here about people who have been admitted to the United Kingdom and whose circumstances change; for example, those who become disabled after entry to the United Kingdom. Surely those people should not be penalised. They have convinced the authorities that they are self-sufficient but for particular reasons—in particular, disability—they are in need of a small amount of extra help. Surely it is wrong to extend the definition of "public funds" in this way. Surely the cost of not doing so would not be excessive.
My noble friend referred to the new power to revoke entry clearance. Presumably, the intention is to revoke entry clearance where false representations were employed, where a change in circumstances has removed the base of the claim or when, to use the words of the Asylum and Immigration Act,
"the holder's exclusion would be conducive to the public good".
These changes can apply only to the period between the grant of entry clearance and the period of travel. The criticisms that we had of these provisions at the time of the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill still apply now. It is unfair that revocation can be made whether or not the holder of the entry clearance was aware that false representations had been made or that there had been material non-disclosure. If it was wrong then, it is wrong to extend it in the way that has been done now.
In any case, even if someone has come in as a result of poor advice or untruths told by his sponsor and the sponsor has made false representations, he ought to have an opportunity to make the position clear at the time of entry. The additional problem with this is that there is no appeal against revocation. We are in the position that we debated at the time of the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill that the lack of an appeal structure is not only unfair in itself but is likely to lead to appeals to the High Court in the form of judicial review which could be avoided if there were an effective appeal structure.
I do not think I have anything much more to add to what my noble friend said about the categories of maintenance and accommodation requirements. As he said, it is extended beyond visitors, students and student nurses to a wide range of other people, including postgraduate dentists and doctors, au pairs, seasonal workers and prospective students. What is happening here is that the process of criminalising these temporary categories which was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is being extended. That is thoroughly undesirable.

921
It is not even necessary, because there is already provision in the existing rules for ensuring that people coming to the United Kingdom will be self-sufficient. In paragraph 35 the rules provide for a sponsor to give a written undertaking to be responsible for the maintenance and accommodation of a person seeking leave to enter, or variation of leave to enter, or remain in the United Kingdom. Entry clearance officers have a discretionary power to refuse entry clearance where there is a refusal to give such an undertaking. Income support which is paid to a person in respect of whom an undertaking was given can be recovered from the sponsor. Why is not that power more widely used? Is it not a better way of safeguarding public funds than penalising the holder using the criminal law?
My final point is concerned with the definition of "minor" for asylum purposes. The definition in the Asylum and Immigration Act is a person who is under 18 or, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age. In other words, the onus is on the applicant to prove that he is under 18. When this matter was debated on 20th June this year at the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she would consult the Department of Health as to whether further guidance concerning the methods of determining a minor's age was needed. Has that happened? Will the Government consult more widely? If not, why has it not happened, and why are we seeing the extension of this unsatisfactory definition to the Immigration Rules?
My noble friend has performed a valuable service. The questions we have raised deserve answers.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it was useful for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to put down the Motion to enable us to consider this statement. As he rightly said, many issues are raised which are not clear at first sight. After several days of careful study, there are matters which are not crystal clear in my mind and on which I should like to put questions to the Minister.
We do not object in principle to the idea that people given limited leave to enter the United Kingdom should not be eligible for social security benefits. However, what the Government are saying, as I understand them, is that no one with limited leave to remain or to enter should ever have recourse to public funds. We do not accept that proposition, as the Minister will recall from the debates we had on the Asylum and Immigration Act earlier this year.
We believe that different considerations apply to persons whose limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom extends over a period of several years than to those who come here as short-term visitors who are normally given leave to enter for a maximum of six months in the first instance, extendable to a year at the most. That is not to say that every person who enters in a capacity other than that of visitor should be entitled to benefit, but that there may be some exceptional circumstances in which it would be right for them to be eligible.
922
Before commenting on the statement itself, I should like to point out that to be certain of knowing what it means, one has to look at no fewer than seven other documents which are referred to in the first paragraph of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules of 23rd May 1994 and the amending statements which are listed there.
Why do not the Government publish consolidated statements each time so that the persons concerned with these matters, and their advisers, as well as the officials, can refer to a current and up to date statement of the rules, as amended, in a single document? Better still (and I gave the noble Baroness notice that I was going to put this question to her) why not publish the consolidated—I notice that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. I telephoned her office to say that I was going to raise this point. I apologise if the message did not get through to her. Why are the consolidated rules not published on the web page which already exists at the address "http://www.open.gov.uk/home_off/ind.htm". I say that so it is on the record, and if anyone wants to look it up they can do so in Hansard.
It is commendable that the Government have started to publish material electronically and to make it available to the public in this form. As the noble Baroness may know, the right honourable Roger Freeman has recently issued a Green Paper asking for comments on the way it has been done so far and the strategy for taking it further. That will be a very good example of the kind of information that ought to be made available electronically on the already existing web page. The amount of work required to do that will be very small.
Under the statement that we are now looking at, together with the changes set out in the earlier statement to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred (HC 3365) any person who requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is effectively prohibited from claiming benefits of all kinds. Under that earlier statement, an immigration officer can impose on such a person a condition requiring him or her to maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants without recourse to public funds. The statement that we are now considering extends the meaning of the term "public funds".
Noble Lords may remember that in the Notes on Clauses for the Asylum and Immigration Bill, exceptions to the restrictions on entitlement to child benefit were to be prescribed for refugees, persons granted exceptional leave to remain and the nationals of states party to certain international agreements. That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in Hansard of 24th June at col. 736. He remarked,
"it seems logical and consistent to have all the conditions for entitlement to child benefit for people from abroad set down in one place in regulations".
What I have to say about child benefit applies to the other benefits which are dealt with in this statement.
It was also stated in the Notes on Clauses (although not by the Minister) that the restrictions would be applied on an individual basis, so that the effect would

923
be that child benefit would only be denied where both parents were subject to restriction. I believe that that takes care of the first of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hope that it does.
I should like confirmation from the Minister concerning the case where one parent was already in the United Kingdom and claiming benefit and the spouse and another child entered. It seems to me that the exceptions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would have covered that; but, unfortunately, this statement we are now looking at does not spell out those exceptions and neither did the previous one of August 1996.
As I understand it, there is yet another document, the Child Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996, made by the Secretary of State for Social Security under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which has to be looked at as well. I attempted to get that other statement from the Library but I was not successful in the time available. So it will be useful if the Minister can tell us where the exceptions are spelt out so that we can refer advisers and those who look at these matters to the whole of the documents in one single reference.
As I understand it, neither does the present statement affect the situation of asylum seekers, whether they apply at the port of entry or at some later date. I believe that this will help the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, if my analysis is correct. If they apply at the port of entry, they are technically given temporary admission rather than leave to enter, so that another set of conditions apply which are not dealt with in this statement. However, if they apply after entry—and I believe that this is the case that the noble Lord had in mind more specifically—having come in, say, as visitors, they will have been subject to a condition already; and since they are seeking variation of their leave to remain, that condition would be renewable by the entry certificate officer who considers the application.
The Government have already made their intentions of refusing benefit to this latter class of persons clear, although what the judge had to say in the case of R. v London Borough of Hammersmith (ex parte M and others) is relevant to the case of others apart from asylum seekers. Noble Lords will remember that the judge made the comment,
"I find it impossible to believe that Parliament intended that an asylum seeker, who was lawfully here and who could not lawfully be removed from the country, should be left destitute, starving and at risk of grave illness and even death".
There are always going to be exceptional cases, and the effect of applying blanket conditions to whole categories of persons, without any discretionary power, as 1 understand it, to vary or revoke the conditions, may be very extreme. It would be useful if the noble Baroness can tell us whether that is in fact the case that whatever the circumstances in which the person finds himself or herself, there is no question of the entry certificate officer having any power whatsoever—or indeed the Secretary of State—to revoke or vary the conditions which were imposed on first entry or renewal of the leave to remain.
924
An indirect effect of this statement is that a person who makes a claim for child benefit would be liable to prosecution—the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord McIntosh, have already referred to it—because they would be in breach of a condition of entry and they would also be liable to deportation under Section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act. Would the Government really prosecute those parents? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the extension of the criminal law into these areas is not wise and should not be pursued.
It was provided in Schedule 1 of the Immigration Act that a person who has obtained leave to enter by deception would be liable to deportation under Section 3(5) of the 1971 Act and would have a restricted right of appeal. This statement goes a lot further in that it enables the officer to revoke an entry clearance if he is satisfied that,
"whether or not to the holder's knowledge, false representations were employed or material facts were not disclosed, either in writing or orally, for the purpose of obtaining the entry clearance; or a change of circumstances since the entry clearance was issued has removed the basis of the holder's claim to be admitted to the United Kingdom".
That was also discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
As I understand it, it has been the case for a long time that failure to disclose material facts by a third party would render a person liable to deportation. I remember back in the 1970s I represented a young man who came from Lome, Togo, to stay with his mother in London. Unknown to him, his mother had applied for him to be enrolled in the Oxford School of English in Panton Street for a course of study there. On that coming to light, the young man was recommended for deportation. I represented him at the hearing when the adjudicator found against us. The case went to judicial review and I am sure that the young man would have had far longer than the six weeks which he originally sought, waiting for the case to come before the court. What the Government are now saying is that in a case of this sort, where material facts were not disclosed by a third party, the entry clearance could be revoked and the person could be removed without the right of appeal. Such a radical downgrading of people's rights ought not to be enacted in such an obscure piece of secondary legislation. To confer the power of revocation on the entry certificate officer, and to put his decision beyond challenge, is not in accordance with British traditions of fair play.
Finally, reference has been made to the entry clearance officer's power to revoke leave to enter where there has been a change of circumstances so that the basis of the holder's claim to be admitted is removed. I hope that the Minister can give a small explanation of how that provision is to be applied. One can imagine that where a person has been given exceptional leave to remain on the basis of the situation in his country of origin, there could be valid grounds for reassessment, but not by the entry clearance officer, an official who has no qualifications to make such a judgment. Suppose that a political movement is in conflict with the government in a certain country, and a member of the movement has

925
been given exceptional leave to remain on that basis; suppose that the internal situation in that country changes, and there is a rapprochement between the government and the group. Should we continue to play host to the members? Such a question ought to be considered at ministerial level, if not by Parliament itself.
6.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, brings a particular expertise to this debate as a former director of the Refugee Council. What the noble Lord has said—along with his colleague the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Aveburydisplays a continuing dislike of the Bill that was passed by this House and another place. Therefore, their comments tonight come as absolutely no surprise. However, some interesting points have been raised and I shall address them in a moment.
First, I should like to explain briefly the function of the Immigration Rules that we are debating tonight. The cornerstone of United Kingdom immigration law is the Immigration Act 1971 and various subsequent amending Acts, most recently the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The 1971 Act empowers my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament rules as to the practice to be followed by those who administer the Act. Those rules have been amended and developed over the years to reflect changes in circumstance and policy.
The current Statement of Changes was laid on 31st October and took effect on 1st November. It makes a small number of miscellaneous changes to the rules, including an amended definition of public funds, provision for the revocation of an entry clearance, and other minor changes.
In turning to some of the specific points raised, perhaps I may say that many of them went wide of the regulations, going right back to the definition of "refugee". If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall try to confine my remarks to the points that apply to the regulations that are before the House. If necessary, I shall write to noble Lords on other matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, gave some specific examples. I first heard of them tonight across the Dispatch Box and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I write to him on the particular detail because he has rightly and understandably set out some particularly complex issues because he wants to test the robustness not only of the regulations but also of the safeguards. Perhaps I may first make an interim response.
The first example was that of a father who was a British citizen and who brought his wife and a child into the country for a period of one year. The question was: at the end of that year, if they applied for further leave to remain, would they be able to claim for the children? I have to make the assumption that they came for one year and applied for temporary leave to remain in the first instance and came in on the basis of "no recourse to public funds". One has to assume that they spent one year with no recourse to public funds, so why
926
their circumstances should change for any extension of that year, I do not know. In addition, it would probably be a matter of how the extension was received by the authorities. Again, I shall need to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Another example related to a married couple, again with temporary permission to stay. I believe that in that case the husband left temporarily, the wife remaining behind. Again, the matter probably depends on the conditions under which they were allowed to enter temporarily—presumably, again with no recourse to public funds. If that was the condition under which they entered the country, presumably that would be the condition under which they would be expected to stay in the country for the prescribed limited time.
The third example raised the question of whether people who properly receive child benefit at present will be affected. My understanding is that someone who was receiving child benefit on 7th October 1996, when the relevant new child benefit regulations came into effect, will continue to receive child benefit until the claim is reviewed.
All three noble Lords mentioned the revocation of entry clearance. The measure has been put in place to close a loophole in the law. We do not want to use the power on a regular basis—that was not the intention—but it is right for entry clearance officers to have the power to revoke an entry clearance where it has clearly been obtained by misrepresentation or where the grounds for issuing it have changed. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who wanted to know who it was intended to hit. Primarily, the power is being introduced to meet those occasions when someone has quite deliberately misled the entry clearance officer and obtained entry clearance in circumstances under which they would not otherwise have gained it. Again, the noble Lord asked how officials in this country would know of that. If they do not know of it, they cannot exercise the power. However, if, subsequent to entry clearance having been secured in another country through the entry clearance officer, they communicate in one way or another to the receiving authorities in this country, that would be grounds for saying that the power could be used.
I was asked what safeguards have been put in place. Entry clearance officers have been given clear guidance that the power is to be used only in the most clear-cut circumstances of misrepresentation. Any decision will need to be seen and approved by a senior officer. The Migration and Visa Division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be informed—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, but the wording does not say that. It does not state "only misrepresentation"; it also deals with the case where material facts are not disclosed. Will the Minister also address that point and say in what circumstances a person who has already been granted leave to enter for a limited period may have entry clearance revoked on it coming to light that a third party has failed to disclose material facts to the entry clearance officer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it covers cases where the entry clearance has been secured either by

927
misrepresentation or by giving false information—that is, where by one means or another entry clearance has been given on the basis that it was bona fide but where it was subsequently discovered that that was not the case. If that is communicated to officials in this country, there is a power for officials to revoke the clearance
Lord Avebury: Without appeal?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords; I shall deal with that immediately. If there is no fresh evidence, that is the end of it. However, if there is fresh evidence relating to an application, that fresh evidence will be included on the ground that an appeal would be granted if fresh evidence came to light. Entry clearance that is revoked is revoked on the basis that it was secured under false pretences.
I was asked what the Government will do to ensure that those who have been innocently affected will have proper recourse to a reconsideration of their case. In all instances where an entry clearance has been revoked the new facts surrounding the case will be considered—that is the point that I have just made—and a fresh decision will be made. While the decision to revoke an entry clearance will not attract a right of appeal, the Government have decided that any fresh decision will attract a right of appeal; in other words, where the initial decision was one which would have attracted a right of appeal, refusal of a fresh application will also do so. However, in all instances, the grounds for turning down the fresh application will be explained in detail to the applicant. It is not, however, an automatic assumption that a fresh entry clearance will not be granted.
The noble Lords, Lord Dubs, and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to local authorities. In effect, these rule changes deal with changes to funds which are supplied largely by central government. Some of them are administered by local authorities. The changes made here are not connected with the matters covered by the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins.
The definition of "public funds" has been revised to include three additional benefits: housing accommodation and assistance, child benefit, and the jobseekers' allowance. As a result of the scrutiny process, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Social Security have recently made provision, as noble Lords know, to prohibit access to those benefits by overseas nationals on limited leave.
A recent rule change to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred added certain other benefits: attendance allowance, disability working allowance, disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance. The purpose of the definition is that most overseas nationals are admitted to the UK on condition that they can support and accommodate themselves, and any dependants, without recourse to public funds. This definition explains precisely what "public funds" means in that context.
Overseas nationals are entitled to some benefits. The examples would be urgent case payments under income support regulations where someone is temporarily
928
without funds; unemployment benefit, where appropriate; and emergency treatment under the NHS. The definition is aimed at those admitted to the UK on limited leave and on condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. So the prohibition on access to benefits would not apply, for example, to those with indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK; those recognised as refugees; those with exceptional leave to remain; and EEA nationals.
Preventing abuse of public funds is a proper concern of the Government. It is a serious matter, and there are substantial savings to be made. A survey of immigration offenders undertaken as part of the scrutiny on enforcement of immigration laws in 1994 indicated that about 25 per cent. of offenders had received income support or other means-tested benefits. The DSS estimates that savings of about £45 million can be made over the next three years by denying overseas nationals access to child benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned about consolidation of the rules, something with which I have enormous sympathy. As he knows, from time to time rule changes are consolidated into a revised set. I understand that it was last done in October 1994. We are, of course, aware that a further consolidation might be convenient, and we undertake to do that. I cannot say exactly when, but the point is taken.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned about the availability of information on the Internet. I have not received prior notice of that point, but a certain amount of information about immigration—I believe that the noble Lord recognised this—is available on the Internet; for example, the new guidance on the prevention of illegal working. We shall, of course, look at what more we can do in that respect. It seems to be an effective way of reaching a wide audience.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked where the exceptions to the prohibition on access to child benefit are set out. They are set out in the child benefit regulations of which the noble Lord was unsuccessful in obtaining a copy. They are people recognised as refugees; people with unlimited leave to enter or remain; people with exceptional leave to remain; EEA nationals; nationals of states covered by EC agreements; and people covered by reciprocal agreements with other countries.
The proposed changes to the immigration rules are sensible. They are practical measures which will contribute to the Government's policy of an immigration control which is firm, fair and effective. I commend them to the House.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their helpful contributions, and I thank the Minister for her clear examination of the rules and her attempt immediately to answer the questions that we put to her.
It is no secret that many of us dislike the original Bill, so the Minister can hardly be surprised that that came out in the debate. I appreciate that I gave her a couple

929
of examples which were complicated. I thank her for having a go at them. I look forward to receiving a more detailed explanation from her in due course.
There were two points in what she said about other matters which were not clear to me. One was that, in talking about the High Court decision and the burden on local authorities, despite her attempt to deal with the issue, what was not clear to me was the consequence of the changes of the rules about which we are talking tonight in terms of the possible extra burden on local authorities, whether the Government accepted there would be such an extra burden, and what they were doing to help local authorities to meet it. That is rather different from the High Court decision, although I agree that I linked the two points.
I am also not clear, when entry clearance has been revoked, in what circumstances there is a right of appeal, and in what circumstances there is not. I assumed that revocation of an entry clearance meant that no right of appeal was possible. I believe that the Minister might have been saying that there could be a new application. That is not quite clear.
Perhaps I may agree with the Minister that of course we all want to prevent abuse of public funds. No one would for a moment accept that there should be an abuse of public funds, but equally it is important that people
930
who hitherto have been entitled to some benefit, and who will be made destitute if that benefit stops, should have at least some safeguards, or there should be some attempt on our part that there should be some safeguards.s
Finally, perhaps I may make another and a different suggestion to the Minister: I appreciate that we have changes in immigration rules quite frequently. That is understandable. Sometimes they are clear and require no further explanation. Given the number of different regulations and Acts of Parliament to which these changes referred, and with which they were linked, in this instance it might have been helpful were the Government to have produced a short explanation of the effect of the changes in such a way that we could more easily make the link between these changes and previous legislation and regulations. It might have saved time this evening. I know that it is done occasionally with proposals that the Government put forward. I just leave with the Minister the thought whether in future, where changes in immigration rules and other delegated powers are complicated, some simple explanation of their impact and effect might not be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Treaty of the European Union
  Treaty of the European Union
  UNIDO
  UNIDO
  EU Council Programme of Business
  EU Council Programme of Business
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Health Authority: Psychotherapy Services
  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark Health Authority: Psychotherapy Services
  Malathion
  Malathion
  Local Air Pollution Control System: Progress Report
  Local Air Pollution Control System: Progress Report
  Illegal Entrants to the UK
  Illegal Entrants to the UK
  Asylum Application Decisions
  Asylum Application Decisions
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities for Men
  Equal Opportunities for Men
  Teachers: Male/Female Ratio
  Teachers: Male/Female Ratio
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections