Sitting of 16 December 1996

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

    St. Bartholomew's Hospital
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with the Department of Health over the future of the buildings of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [7593]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): None, as yet; the St. Bartholomew's hospital site is still operational, and it is not likely to close for at least another five years. Obviously, my Department will be involved at the appropriate time in discussions over the future of that important historic site.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will recognise the grave disquiet that is still felt by many at the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital, after almost nine centuries of distinguished use for medical purposes. Will he assure the House that he will liaise extremely closely with the Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew Charitable Foundation, which is now linked with the special trustees and the Corporation of London, to ensure that there is an appropriate future user of that magnificent site, and that an act of medical vandalism is not followed by an act of architectural vandalism?
    Mr. Sproat: I can tell my hon. Friend that a group has been set up, under Sir Ronald Grierson, to examine suitable possible uses for the site. Sir Ronald has said that, whatever use is made of the site, it will continue to have a medical association and will be used for a purpose that is suitable to its history. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Mackinlay: As a Conservative Minister, does the hon. Gentleman not get sick and tired of his colleagues criticising decisions taken by the likes of himself arid the Secretary of State for National Heritage when those decisions do not suit their colleagues' purposes—as if their colleagues have no responsibility in those matters? Is it not a matter of Conservative policy that Bart's is to close, and is it not true that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) is guilty by association? He is to blame, as are the Minister and the right hon. Lady.
    Mr. Sproat: The medical future of St. Bartholomew's is a matter for the Department of Health. However, the
    598
    importance of that historical site is partially a matter for my Department, and I shall ensure that my Department fulfils entirely its obligations.

    British Film Industry
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on the British film industry [7594]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The national lottery has had a good impact on the British film industry, which is currently enjoying an excellent year. Already, more than £60 million has been awarded to 150 projects, which includes more than £35 million for 96 film productions. That is a tremendous achievement in so short a time, and it has been welcomed by the film industry.
    Mr. Jessel: As Britain has brilliant film producers, actors, actresses and other creative talent, and as the revival of the British film industry was already well under way even before the additional £60 million, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred, from the Arts Council—from lottery funds, so building on our strengths—will she join me in warmly welcoming the film industry's tremendous achievements? It is a terrific national asset.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly congratulate the film industry, which has had a wonderful centenary year. Last week's exhibition by the British Film Institute—"Still Moving After 100 Years"—which was very much co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), set a magnificent example. This year, more than 100 films have gone into production; the ITV network and Channel 4 have each announced more than £100 million for film; cinema admissions have exceeded £100 million; and the film festival exceeded 100,000 admissions. In the past 25 years, more than 100 Oscars have been awarded to British talent. Moreover, of the many major films made in Britain in the past year, one of them was "101 Dalmatians".
    Dr. John Cunningham: Funds provided to the British film industry from the national lottery are of course welcome. However, the right hon. Lady has withdrawn from the Eurimages scheme, and apparently she intends not to join in the European guarantee fund—thereby excluding our film-makers and film industry from access to European funds. In her response to the Middleton committee, she said that she would establish a film finance forum. Will she guarantee the House that that forum will provide the British film industry with greater access to funding, and thereby make up for the shortfall that she has imposed on it by withdrawing from those schemes and by blocking our entry to others? What is her answer?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The difference between the Labour party and us is that we take a strategic view on supporting the projects that will deliver a practical return. This year, we took the view that the right thing to do was to put an extra £250,000 into the National Film and Television School and to put extra money into the British Film Commission and the British Film Institute. We believe

    599
    that that is the way forward. We have been able to accept eight of the 11 recommendations of the Middleton report. On that basis, the British film industry will go from strength to strength.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the impact of the national lottery on (a) the Football Trust and (b) the bingo industry; and if she will make a statement. [7595]
    Mr. Sproat: The Department has received more than 80 letters in respect of Football Trust funding from Members of Parliament and football clubs, in addition to representations from the trust itself. The Department has also received representations about the impact of the national lottery on the bingo industry, which have been passed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for bingo.
    Mr. Wareing: In view of the impact of the national lottery on the Football Trust, will the Government consider allowing the smaller clubs in the Football League to implement the Taylor proposals on an extended timetable—say, to 2002 or 2003? How can the Secretary of State claim to be the champion of the bingo industry when she refuses it a level playing field with the national lottery? A level playing field would at least enable the bingo industry to advertise its own lottery.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the national lottery has had a serious effect on the finances of the Football Trust. However, we think that the trust's estimate of a shortfall of some £33 million is perhaps too high. The Football Licensing Authority has recently considered the figures and agrees that the estimate is perhaps a little too high. I hope that the trust and the FLA can work things out together. At the moment, we are certainly not thinking of increasing the time scale within which the Taylor proposals have to be implemented—we want to stick to August 1999.
    As for bingo, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend will know how important the Football Trust and the bingo industry are for the north-west of Britain, and Lancashire in particular. Will he therefore liaise with the Home Secretary and ensure that, if necessary, rules are introduced to make certain that the bingo industry can, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, compete with the national lottery on a national field? Otherwise, we are likely to see the industry decline considerably in the years ahead—something that none of us wants.
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering, in the context of his review of the entire gambling industry, what further deregulation and liberalisation might help the bingo industry.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that the Football Trust has today written to all clubs in the Football League
    600
    and the Scottish League to say that the national lottery has so reduced its income that it has had to impose, with immediate effect, a moratorium on grants for the implementation of the Taylor report? In view of the dramatic decline in the trust's income, there will be an immediate halt on essential safety work at lower league clubs such as Blackpool, Portsmouth, Brighton, Luton, Exeter, East Fife, Falkirk and many more. In the light of the Secretary of State's helpful comments in the Football Trust's annual report 1995–96, highlighting the important work that lies ahead in helping smaller clubs to improve their spectator facilities by the 1999 season, will the Minister join her in meeting the trust in an attempt to remedy that worrying situation?
    Mr. Sproat: As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), it is certainly true that the national lottery has had a serious impact on the Football Trust. However, as he will know, the Treasury has in effect forgone some 16 per cent. of pools duty—10 per cent. in two tranches of 5 per cent. is to help the pools industry and 6 per cent. is to go direct to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust. In addition, the Premiership has signed a deal for £743 million for television rights for four years from 1997, while the Football League is in the first year of a five-year £125 million television deal. That should all be taken into account, but I should be happy to meet the Football Trust to try to find a better solution.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many individual prizes have been won since the national lottery was established. [7596]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As at 9 December, more than 133 million prizes had been won on the on-line game.
    Mr. Brown: That is an excellent figure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are still concerned that some of the prizes are exceptionally large, particularly in roll-over weeks? Does she agree that there is still a case for Camelot to examine whether the public would prefer 10 people to win £1 million in a weekend rather than £10 million being won by one person, as sometimes happens?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The lottery remains under review, although there is no evidence so far that winning one of the large prizes has any adverse effect. Like others, I have studied Hunter Davies's book, "Living on the Lottery". On the whole, it told a favourable tale of what it is like to win a substantial prize. The allocation of prizes is designed to maximise the return to the good causes. In roll-over weeks, far more people play the national lottery. That means that even more good causes are supported. Seven good causes in my hon. Friend's constituency have already been assisted and I am sure that he will want to know that the national total is 10,394 awards, with £2.78 billion raised for good causes. There has not been a more effective lottery anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that some prizes have been claimed by under-age purchasers? Has she noticed the early-day motion signed by several hon. Members expressing concern about the ease with which

    601
    under-age people can purchase tickets, especially scratchcards? Would it not be better to have further controls under the licensed betting office system with an age threshold of 18? That would obviously curtail many purchases by under-age children.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman in condemning under-age play. I welcome the recent announcements by the Office of the National Lottery and Camelot about the further action that they intend to take. One of the most effective sanctions is the removal of the on-line game. Some 35,000 retail outlets currently benefit from being part of the national lottery, providing them with an average of £8,000 a year. The greatest sanction is the removal of that income. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concerns. We shall continue to be vigilant in ensuring that under-age children do not play.
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many proposals from Kent have received funding in the various categories from the national lottery. [7597]
    Mr. Sproat: A total of 171 lottery awards have been made in Kent, to a total value of more than £15 million. Eleven awards each have been made to the arts and the heritage, 97 to charities and voluntary organisations and 52 to sports projects.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we in Kent are grateful for that, but we are still waiting for a major award. The county town is striving to create a new park along the river Medway, to give the town the ambience that it deserves. Can he give us any encouragement that the project—now being put forward for the second time of asking—has a chance of receiving support?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend may be glad to know that, of the 58 county and unitary authorities, Kent comes 22nd in the list for the total amount received and eighth in the list for the number of projects for which awards have been made. I know from our previous conversations that my hon. Friend is very keen on the Maidstone river park project. It is up to the commission to decide whether to give it money, but it is a splendid project and I am sure that it will get a fair review.

    Sporting Ambassadors Initiative
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the sporting ambassadors initiative. [7598]
    Mr. Sproat: Sir Colin Cowdrey has been appointed to chair a new committee to look at ways of encouraging more sporting ambassadors to visit schools. The committee, which has Roger Black, Steven Redgrave and Jo Durie among its members, met for the first time last week. It is the intention that the scheme will be up and running in schools before the end of the current academic year.
    Mr. Arnold: Is that not wonderful news for sportsmen and sportswomen up and down the country? The scheme
    602
    will enhance Britain's performance in athletics and in sport generally around the world. Will not Britain's performance be further enhanced by the British Academy of Sport, at a cost of £100 million? We in north-west Kent are particularly delighted to see that the bid for the British Academy of Sport, from north-west Kent, Kent Thames-side, has been shortlisted by my hon. Friend. We look forward to it becoming a success because, if it is, the facilities in north-west Kent will very much enhance the prospect of London being the site for the 2004 Olympics.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. The sporting ambassadors scheme will be a tremendous boost for boys and girls at school because their heroines and heroes will come to encourage, enthuse and inspire them in sport. Getting sport back at the heart of school life is part of our overarching strategy for sport, which spreads from schools right up to the eight scholarships for elite athletes and the British Academy of Sport, to which my hon. Friend referred. I know that the Kent application, which I have seen—I met a delegation earlier this year before all the bids came in—is extremely good. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tremendous support that he continues to give to that bid for the British Academy of Sport.
    Mr. Maxton: What is the point of sending ambassadors of sport into schools to encourage sport when there have been cuts in local government expenditure? The city of Glasgow is having to reduce its ability to rent out sporting facilities to clubs and it is reducing the number of sporting facilities in schools in Glasgow. What is the point of encouraging people to take part in sport when sporting facilities are being cut in that way?
    Mr. Sproat: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he should ask the Labour local education authority why facilities in schools in Glasgow are being reduced. Secondly, I have never pretended to the House that I was satisfied with sport in schools at the moment, whether in Scotland or in England. A sporting ambassadors scheme that gets stars of sport into schools must lead to a big increase in activity. It will be up and running this year and I believe that every person who is keen on sport will support the idea.

    Voluntary Sector
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on developments in the voluntary sector since 1979. [7599]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since 1979, the Government have consistently developed policies to encourage a healthy and effective voluntary sector, to encourage volunteering and to promote effective relations between voluntary organisations and Government Departments. The Government are committed to continuing those policies in the future.
    Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast bulk of lottery awards goes to charities and voluntary bodies? Will she join me in congratulating the Ethiniog Cheshire home in Colwyn bay on its successful bid for almost £200,000 to build a hydrotherapy pool, a gymnasium and other facilities for the rehabilitation of

    603
    brain damage victims? It is a much-needed development and I very much hope that the health authority will help to take the scheme forward with further funding for a six-bed unit.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly congratulate the Cheshire home; the award will be an excellent Christmas present. Tomorrow, the caring charities announce their final tranche before Christmas of projects for health disability and care. So far, they have awarded £360 million to 5,400 schemes throughout the country. I am sure that all of them will achieve the amount of good in their local community that the Cheshire home has in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Flynn: The House will congratulate that home on its splendid work, which is carried out by many people who voluntarily sacrifice their time. Is it not true, however, that, despite the growing number of people who need a helping hand or an attentive ear, many of the services that existed in the 1970s have disappeared because funding to public services has shrunk every year? Sadly, many of those services have to be provided by the voluntary sector, which has resulted in an uncertainty of provision by amateurs, who cannot be relied on to maintain a full professional service.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I regret the hon. Gentleman's rather cynical comments. As the Government have created more wealth, we have been able to invest much more in our public services than the Labour party ever did. The successful and flourishing economy enabled us to put an extra £1.6 billion into the national health service this year. In addition, the extra money from the lottery means that even more help can be provided to even more people. In particular, I celebrate the activities of those involved in volunteering, which is part of a civilised and compassionate society. I welcome the recent announcement by the Charity Board endorsing volunteering schemes that encourage the involvement of young people.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the Community Development Foundation, which has the capacity to cover hundreds of thousands of informal volunteers? Will she confirm that it will continue to have high priority in her Department's expenditure plans?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly support my hon. Friend in his work as chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which has made an important impact and has encouraged the establishment of smaller voluntary groups. I am announcing the establishment of the volunteering partnership forum for England—a group of experts who will advise me on volunteering policy and practice. I shall chair the forum jointly with Mr. Nicholas Ward. A particular focus of the "make a difference" initiative was to encourage young people to become involved in their communities in a positive way. The first target of the volunteering partnership forum for England will be to carry forward the pledge that every young person between 15 and 25 who so wishes will have an opportunity to volunteer. Those involved in the Community Development Foundation will be members of the volunteering partnership forum for England.

    Arts Promotion
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent on publicity for arts promotion in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94 [7600]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Art galleries, theatres and other arts bodies are responsible for their own promotional activities. My Department has no specific budget for arts promotion. Much of our work is concerned with developing policies to improve access to the arts for everybody—young and old.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that answer, can the Minister explain why we get at least three publicity publications a week from her Department? Will she tell us how much they cost?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly make available the Department's information budget. However, the number of documents produced by my Department is nothing like as significant as the hon. Gentleman implies. This year, we set out a policy, "Setting the Scene" to encourage the involvement of young people in the arts. We take the view that, although buildings are important, it is even more important to involve the next generation in artistic activities. Similarly, we wish more people to know how to claim lottery awards and we have encouraged the Arts Council to promote widely information about how to access lottery funds to ensure the widest possible spread. I would be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with any further information.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people think that the arts have done rather well as a result of the national lottery, the generosity of her Department and private sponsorship and that most of us share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that enough is enough?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I take my hon. Friend's comments on board. The arts have never had so much opportunity. An extra £695 million has been provided in the past 18 months. In addition, it has been possible to maintain funding for the arts this year and provide more than £3 million more than had been anticipated. I was delighted to see the comments of the distinguished Richard Eyre who said,
    "I am happy to eat humble pie",
    when he realised precisely how much the Government were putting into the arts as well as the substantial contributions from the national lottery.

    Important Heritage Sites
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she proposes to take to improve public access to, the presentation of, and the information provided at, important heritage sites. [7601]
    Mr. Sproat: The main organisations concerned with the presentation of important heritage sites are English Heritage, the Historic Royal Palaces agency, and the

    605
    National Trust. Those bodies have all made great improvements in recent years in the presentation of their properties to the public.
    Mr. Shaw: I assure my hon. Friend that Dover castle is looking in first-class shape these days. It has defended the nation and helped to keep out invaders from Europe for some 900 years. It is a splendid example of the nation's heritage. There have been plans and proposals for converting the officers' mess in Dover castle to improve the presentation and opportunities for visitors. Are those plans progressing?
    Mr. Sproat: I can tell my hon. Friend about the splendid aspect of Dover castle as a whole, which English Heritage has various proposals to enhance even further over the coming years at considerable expense—millions of pounds. My hon. Friend will know that, in 1981, the floors of the old officers' mess in Dover castle were in such rotten condition that the Department of the Environment gutted the building. English Heritage is now investigating whether a viable scheme to use the old officers' mess as a hotel might be forthcoming, and would readily welcome such a scheme.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Many Labour Members would like to see the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) strung up by his fleshy parts in the dungeon of the castle.
    One of the areas in which there is very poor signing of heritage sites is here in the capital city. Has the Minister read the report that came out today from the British Road Federation, on signposting and general information in London? The signposting in London is appalling. It is not surprising that loads of Londoners get lost; God knows how the tourists manage. Can the Minister do something about that? Will he speak to the Department of Transport and get something done for London?
    Mr. Sproat: I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it. I do not accept that the signing is as bad as he says. More than 50 per cent. of all tourists to this country come to London, and they continue to come. Last year, a record number of tourists came here, so matters cannot be as bad as the hon. Gentleman describes. However, everything can be improved. I shall look at the report and see what improvements I can recommend.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: One of the buildings that could be joining the illustrious list is Park Hill flats in Sheffield, which were built in the 1950s. As residents say, how can such a concrete mass—I repeat, concrete mass—ever be included in such a list? I agree with them. It is a monstrosity, and I am surprised that it has been listed or even recommended for listing as a heritage site or site of historic value.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend speaks for many when he expresses surprise that that block was listed. It is true—we may come to this in another question—that listed buildings are listed not just because of their beauty, but because of their alleged architectural innovation. No doubt, that is one of the reasons why it was suggested that that block should be listed.

    National Lottery Awards
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will introduce proposals to ensure a more equitable distribution of lottery awards by the size of population in each geographic area; and if she will make a statement. [7602]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have instructed the lottery distributors to be aware of the need to ensure a fair and even spread of awards throughout the United Kingdom. Although my directions to the distributing bodies prevent them from soliciting particular applications, they may, where necessary, target their publicity efforts towards certain areas to encourage the submission of the right quality and quantity of applications.
    Mr. Barnes: When we speak of lottery awards, we are talking about big spondulicks: £40 for every man, woman and child in the country has been paid out so far in lottery awards, so reasonable distribution of those awards is important. Awards are often more readily accessible under the National Lottery Charities Board provision, yet only one seventh of the money goes to it. Should not money be moved from projects such as the millennium fund to the board, so that local voluntary organisations can get access to it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will find that, as the different series of awards are announced, all communities, and all parts of the country, will benefit. I have been concerned about the lack of applications from his area, and have visited it to try to encourage more applications to be submitted. In the past quarter, the biggest increase in awards has been in the west midlands, so I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's thoughts in mind. I do not believe that it is sensible to tinker with the different lottery award streams, and I hope that those involved in arts and sport will realise that the Labour party is threatening to reduce—for the first time ever—the amount for such causes.
    The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, apart from the large projects, 370 village halls and 250 millennium greens are involved, and many coastal restorations and canal schemes are going ahead. The Millennium Commission announced today another £40 million for canal restoration, regeneration and a temple in the west midlands.
    Mr. Skinner: East midlands, not west.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that distribution of national lottery awards is important because it determines the distribution of the 100,000 jobs that such awards are sustaining around the country? Is she aware that quite a number of jobs are being sustained in my constituency where, for example, the Castle Point volunteer bureau recently received £28,000 from the national lottery, which was very well received?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall the words of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who first described the lottery as a threat to jobs and
    "the unacceptable face of nationalisation."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 731.]

    607
    The Henley Centre predicted that 110,000 new jobs would be created over five years as a result of the national lottery. Investment in Doncaster, Portsmouth harbour, Newcastle and Bristol, and major schemes throughout the country are bringing new opportunities, jobs and prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. John Cunningham: On the equitable distribution of lottery and millennium funds, does the right hon. Lady agree that, although we want a successful exhibition at Greenwich, it should not take place at any price or be allowed to pre-empt more and more Millennium Commission funds, which should legitimately go to other parts of the United Kingdom? If she really wants all-party support for future decisions about that exhibition, will she ensure that deliberations and decision-taking are inclusive rather than exclusive, as they have been until very recently? Will she also finally end the exclusion of Greenwich borough council from the discussions? Is not it absurd to be planning a project in the borough, which will perhaps cost £1 billion, and not include the borough's leadership in consideration of it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The millennium exhibition is an extremely exciting prospect for Britain; it is Britain's shopfront as we go into a new century. It is a complex project, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the detailed figures involved. I hope that it will be possible to make more announcements in the near future. As he knows, the Millennium Commission and, indeed, the Government are quite as concerned as he is not to sign a blank cheque, but to ensure that there is good value for grant. The project provides a real opportunity for Britain to celebrate the new millennium.
    Alongside the project is the festival involving the nation as a whole, £200 million of millennium awards and the great range of projects throughout the country, some of which I have just mentioned, such as those involving village halls, village greens, woodlands and canal restoration. I hope that everyone will be encourage by the canal restoration in Huddersfield, the Ballymena town park, the Yorkshire dales project, the Croydon lighting scheme, the Norfolk broads announcement, and the 205th scout group to receive support—this time in Manningtree, Essex.

    St. Pancras Station
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the future of St. Pancras station and St. Pancras chambers; and if she will make a statement. [7603]
    Mr. Sproat: Discussions on the future of those buildings have taken place between English Heritage, the Department of Transport and London and Continental Railways. Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have kept in close touch with progress, and we have of course been aware of English Heritage's views. We have also received representations from the Victorian Society and from one member of the public.
    Mr. Howarth: Why have the Government abandoned the normal conservation controls on the grade I listed buildings of St. Pancras, which are of prime importance
    608
    aesthetically and historically? Does the Minister accept that the heritage provisions of the rail link legislation amount to little more than vague statements of intent, omit to cover key areas of the work, and remove the Secretary of State's ultimate power to decide on major aspects? What is the point of having a Department of National Heritage if it will not stand up to the Department of Transport and is supine before the bulldozers of private investors?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the heritage deed encompassed in the new Bill will give the right balance between the interests of aesthetics and listed buildings and the need to provide a terminal for the chunnel link. Under the heritage deed provisions, for listed buildings such as St. Pancras chambers, agreement will have to be reached between the railway authorities and the listed building authorities.
    Only when railway technicalities could affect the aesthetics of the station—for instance, in extensions to platforms or roofs over those extensions—will only consultation, and not agreement, be required. Even in cases in which agreement does not have to be reached, there is provision for appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State for the Environment. A proper balance has been struck to deal with the fears that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that, in addition to St. Pancras station, a growing number of important public buildings, including several key Government buildings in Whitehall, are either empty or becoming empty? Do the Government have any policy at all for dealing with those? Will he accept that flogging them off, or trying to get the maximum rent, as the Government tried to do with the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, is simply not the right policy, and that a much more imaginative policy is needed to put those great public buildings into public use?
    Mr. Sproat: Indeed, it is not simply a question of getting the maximum amount of money—as the hon. Gentleman said. He talked about the need for imagination; that need is being met. In every case in which such buildings are offered to bidders, we consider bidders whose purposes are consonant with the traditions of the building and who will maintain its listed standards.

    Listed Buildings
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings in England are listed; and if she will make a statement. [7604]
    Mr. Sproat: We estimate that there are about 500,000 listed buildings in England.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise that various factors are involved in any assessment of which buildings should be listed as being of architectural importance and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) said, because some modern buildings have been included, there must be an element of subjective judgment. I regret that no buildings designed by me have yet been listed. Does my hon. Friend accept that, now that we have half a million listed buildings in England, the

    609
    Government's policy should be centred on conserving those buildings? Does he further agree that spot listing should not be encouraged and that there should be a moratorium before there is any further review of which buildings should be listed?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that many people feel that the number of listed buildings has increased dramatically—perhaps excessively—over the past few years. The Government have encouraged English Heritage to consider certain themes—in addition to the geographical location of the buildings—such as old railways, old shops, schools and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), certain buildings displaying innovative architectural techniques that ought to be considered.
    None the less, I am sure that we have not yet got entirely right the proper considerations for listing buildings. My Department recently published a Green Paper, and there have been consultations on it; we shall take fully into account my hon. Friend's valid points.
    Mr. Corbyn: As the Minister is discussing listed buildings, may I draw his attention to two London buildings, Battersea power station and county hall, which require some urgent action by him? He should act to prevent Battersea power station from falling down and ensure that it is put to appropriate use given the state in which it was left by the last speculators. Will he also save county hall from the ravages of multinational hotel prospectors?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to two extremely important buildings. I share his concern that they should not be allowed to deteriorate, and he will be glad to hear that they are not deteriorating. Representatives of English Heritage visit Battersea power station every few weeks, but I cannot recall exactly the frequency of visits paid to the old Greater London council building. They are making absolutely certain, however, that those buildings are in a decent condition.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Magistrates Courts (Suffolk)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to visit magistrates courts in Suffolk, to discuss possible court closures and amalgamations. [7623]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I am due to visit Haverhill and Mildenhall magistrates courts on Monday 28 January 1997 as part of a programme of visits to help maintain my Department's good working relationship with the individual magistrates courts committees, which are responsible for running those courts.
    Mr. Spring: When my hon. Friend comes to Suffolk, he can be assured of a warm welcome, but when he meets magistrates from the Haverhill and north-west Suffolk benches he will also learn of their considerable concern about the future of those courts and their potential closure. It is my firm belief that local justice should be meted out
    610
    by local magistrates in local courthouses. I must tell my hon. Friend that, should the current proposals be advanced further, I shall fight them every inch of the way both in Suffolk and in the House.
    Mr. Streeter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has spoken out on behalf of his constituents—he is well known in this place for doing so. There is no proposal to close the courthouses that he has mentioned. I look forward greatly to my visit to Suffolk in January. I know that I will receive a warm welcome at the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents, just as he received a warm welcome from me this afternoon.
    Mr. Olner: When the Minister has completed his visit to Somerset—
    Hon. Members: Suffolk.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better get his question in order: the Minister is not going to Somerset. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the substantive question concerns Suffolk alone.
    Mr. Olner: I apologise, Madam Speaker. When the Minister has visited Suffolk, will he also visit Nuneaton magistrates court in Warwickshire because, just like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I take to heart matters of such enormous importance, but the question is about Suffolk. I must be firm about this, and I call Mr. Llwyd.

    Magistrates Courts (Closure)
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for intervention by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the matter of a dispute about closure of a magistrates court; and if he will make a statement. [7624]
    Mr. Streeter: There is no procedure for intervention as magistrates courts are not Crown property. The Lord Chancellor is involved in a dispute over a magistrates court only when an appeal is made by a contributing local authority against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. In the event of a such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor will call for a report from both parties and make a final decision, which is binding. In the absence of such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of my concern about my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which is one of the largest geographically in the United Kingdom. The magistrates clerk has circulated the preposterous idea of closing the last but one court, which would leave the entire constituency to be served by one magistrates court. The Minister is aware that an appeal is pending. Will he please meet a small delegation led by me as soon as possible so that that preposterous and ridiculous notion can be put to rest at last?
    Mr. Streeter: If an appeal in relation to the court that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is pending, it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from his constituency, as I have from other hon. Members in the past few weeks. I look forward to that, and I will listen carefully to the case that he puts for the retention of the courts in his constituency. We recognise that, in rural areas in particular, the distance that people must travel to court and the cost of their journey are significant matters.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the possible closure of magistrates courts, or any other function of any other court, will my hon. Friend consider the recent incident in which a convicted murderer telephoned, or received calls from, a newspaper? That caused enormous distress—
    Madam Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with magistrates courts?
    Mr. Greenway: I am referring to the function of a court in achieving the conviction of an individual, and the subsequent behaviour of that individual.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not describe his question in that way. The main question deals with magistrates courts, and so must the answer.
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend raises an important point concerning the magistrates courts in his constituency and people who have passed through them in relation to offences that they may have committed. He speaks for many people when he describes the offence that has been caused by the incident that he mentioned, and his points are well made.
    Hon. Members: Was that a challenge to you, Madam Speaker?
    Madam Speaker: It certainly was a challenge, and I do not accept that the question put by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was correct in following the substantive question.
    Mr. Boateng: In view of the widespread concern about the erosion of locally administered justice, will the Minister revisit the arrangements for the funding of local magistrates courts committees to see whether we ought to have a better formula than is currently applied? Does not the present formula lead to overfunding in some areas and underfunding in others, and to an end to locally administered justice?
    Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed it by a mile. The Lord Chancellor and I are committed to local justice being dispensed by local people for local people, and the funding is in place. The hon. Gentleman commits the Labour party to yet more spending every time he gets to his feet in the House. Unless he can come to the Dispatch Box and tell us where that extra money would come from, he will have no credibility in this place.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to avoid legal aid being granted for vexatious litigation against schools. [7627]
    Mr. Streeter: It is for the Legal Aid Board to decide whether to grant legal aid. To qualify for legal aid, applicants must satisfy the merits and means test. Because of our concern that too many trivial and undeserving cases are being funded by the taxpayer, the Government have proposed reforms in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", which will target resources on the most deserving cases. In the mean time, my officials are discussing with both branches of the legal profession ways in which decisions under the existing merits test can be further improved.
    Mr. Arnold: Would it not be an absolute scandal if yobbish failures were to use public money to sue their own schools? Would not that scandal be compounded if public money had to be diverted from education to allow those schools to defend themselves? If we are to have such an appalling waste of money, would it not be appropriate for the schools to use that money to sue the very yobs who failed to use that valuable commodity—their education? More than £1 billion of valuable public money is being spent on legal aid. Is that not an appalling waste in far too many cases? Would that not be compounded by the rather extraordinary idea of Lord Irvine of Lairg—the legal godfather of the Leader of the Opposition—who wants to extend the use of legal aid to industrial tribunals? Does not that show that, wherever one looks, the Labour party intends to waste more and more taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Streeter: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for many people in expressing concern about the amount of taxpayers' money spent on wasteful, trivial and undeserving cases. He refers to the case featured recently in the newspapers about people intending to sue their schools in relation to their lack of achievement. I can tell him and the House that no application has been made for legal aid for such a case—nor, I hope, will any be made. He is right to speak out on this case. If the Labour party ever formed a Government, it would be a disgrace if it spent yet more money not just on a law centre in every town, but on tribunals. Labour would rapidly become not just the prisoner's friend, but the barrister's meal ticket.

    Magistrates Committees and Courts (Midlands)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the proposed merger of Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull magistrates committees and courts. [7628]
    Mr. Streeter: I have so far received 216 letters in response to the consultation document proposing an amalgamation of the Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull magistrates courts committees.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the concern expressed by magistrates, members of the public and organisations, will

    613
    the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Coventry to discuss the issue? Does he accept that we are not talking about more money for magistrates courts, but that he is proposing cuts in the services for magistrates courts?
    Mr. Streeter: We are certainly not proposing any cuts in the services for magistrates courts, but I recognise the strength of feeling in the midlands about the proposed amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees in the hon. Gentleman's area. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from hon. Members in respect of that proposed amalgamation—I have already received several letters of representation on the subject from hon. Members.

    European Court of Human Rights
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals for reform of procedures were made by the Lord Chancellor during his recent visit to the European Court of Human Rights. [7630]
    Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor had a wide-ranging and fruitful discussion with members of the court and the Commission, and advocated, once again, British proposals to improve the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights; to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court; and to ensure that proper weight is given to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that that court, which is nothing to do with the European Union, has a pretty dismal record on pronouncements on subjects that affect this country, which it does not really understand? Will the better quality of judges, which must be welcomed, ensure that we do not have a repetition of the deplorable judgment in the so-called death on the rock case? Is not the recent blasphemy case, in which the court used the doctrine of marginal appreciation, a sign that common sense is, at last, breaking through?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes some important points about the European Court of Human Rights. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union, a point that is not widely understood in the country. In fact, the court flows from a convention on human rights that was largely drafted by British people after the second world war. It is increasingly important as more and more countries sign up to the Council of Europe—for example, Russia and Croatia are signing up to the convention.
    My hon. Friend makes the important point that, in the past, decisions have been made that caused grave offence in this country. It is to be hoped that our proposals in respect of the improvement of the quality of judges, and other procedural improvements—especially taking into account the national culture of each of the signatory countries—will significantly improve the court's performance.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that it is not right to pick and choose decisions made by a court? I invite the Minister to look at history: it was that court,
    614
    with the connivance of the Tory party, that effectively destroyed the pre-entry and post-entry closed shop in this country.
    Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to hear that. The court has obviously performed a much more valuable function that I had ever dared to imagine. Of course it is wrong to pick and choose which decisions to adopt in this country. What I have said is that, because of proposals that we have made, the performance of the European Court of Human Rights in future is likely to be better and more acceptable to the British people than it has been in the past.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's legal system and the way in which we protect people who are discriminated against in various ways are emulated by other countries throughout the world and that we need no court in Europe telling us how to legislate?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes the important point that British justice is well known and our standards on human rights are much admired throughout the world, but it is important that we remain involved in the convention, so as to enable other countries that are developing the sort of society that we enjoy to establish high standards of human rights within their borders, hopefully with British help.

    Judges and Magistrates (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to increase the number of judges, masters and registrars of the High Court and magistrates from ethnic minorities. [7631]
    Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor has taken active steps to encourage people of ethnic minority origin to put themselves forward for consideration both for the professional judiciary and for the lay magistracy. He appoints and recommends for the professional judiciary the candidates who are best qualified, regardless of ethnic origin. With regard to the lay magistracy, he attaches great importance to the requirement that, subject to suitability for appointment on merit, lay benches reflect the community that they serve.
    Mr. Cohen: Did the Parliamentary Secretary see the recent "Newsnight" programme that showed that black and Asian Britons are emerging from our academic institutions with qualifications in droves, but not finding their proper place in the British establishment? What are the Government doing to ensure that more black and Asian Britons become judges and magistrates?
    Mr. Streeter: I know that the concept is alien to new Labour, but judges are appointed on merit, and at any moment the bench will reflect the legal profession from which its members are drawn. Things are moving in the right direction, but the most important thing is that we have judges of the right intellectual capacity, wisdom and common sense. We are moving in the right direction—an increasing number of people from all backgrounds are becoming judges—but we shall continue to appoint judges on merit and on nothing else.

European Council (Dublin)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library of the House.
The main issues on the agenda were the intergovernmental conference and economic and monetary union.
The Council had a lengthy discussion on the prospects for the intergovernmental conference. Shortly beforehand, the Irish presidency had tabled a general outline for a draft revision of the treaty. That has been deposited in the House. It summarises fairly the position reached in the negotiations and the views of different member states. The views of the United Kingdom are fully reflected in it.
The Council conclusions reaffirm the target of completing the intergovernmental conference at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 and welcome the presidency document as a good basis for the work that lies ahead. That work was in no way prejudiced by the Council's conclusions in Dublin. We shall continue to advocate our own proposals and press our own concerns.
In discussion, I welcomed the progress made in a number of areas: subsidiarity, a greater role for national Parliaments, making the common foreign and security policy more effective, improving the quality of European legislation and introducing greater openness into the workings of the European Union.
I also spelled out the United Kingdom position on a number of key points. I see no purpose in a new employment chapter in the treaty. It will not create a single job. I do not accept that an enlarged European Union needs more qualified majority voting. On defence, we welcome co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union, but not merger or subordination of decision making. I will not agree to justice and home affairs issues falling under Community competence. It is unthinkable that the United Kingdom would relinquish its frontier controls. I also emphasised our requirement for progress on quota hopping in the common fisheries policy and on the working time directive.
The outcome of the intergovernmental conference will do much to determine the future direction of the European Union. Some advocate a more integrated, centralised Europe. I respect that view, but I do not share it. It would not be right for Britain. I believe that the European Union must be a partnership of nation states, with Community competence where it is needed, but only where it is needed. This is more than a free trade area, but very much less than an embryo European state.
There is only one way in which those competing visions can be reconciled, and that is through the development of a more flexible Europe. That is one of the most important issues before the conference. Those who wish to integrate further in particular areas should not be frustrated unreasonably although, if they wish to use
616
European Union institutions, they can proceed only through unanimity. Those who do not must not be forced into unwished-for obligations, which build up resentment.
I first set out the need for flexibility at Leiden some years ago, and it is now widely accepted. But we need to ensure that it is developed in a way that protects the vital interests of those who do not wish to integrate further in particular areas. There is much more work to be done here, and very little time in which to do it if the Amsterdam deadline is to be met.
Economic and monetary union was the subject of much interest, although the European Council did not itself discuss the issues at any great length. The Council agreed a report by Economic and Finance Ministers covering three issues on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has reported to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks: the stability pact, the legal status of the euro and the new—voluntary—exchange rate mechanism. The conclusions, to which the Economic and Finance Council report is annexed, make it clear that those issues remain subject to our parliamentary reserve.
If the single currency goes ahead, it is a vital British interest—whether or not Britain is a member—that it succeeds; so I welcome the progress on the stability pact. The agreement reached strikes the right balance between the necessary discipline and the need for the Council of Ministers to retain control of the disciplinary process if individual countries get into difficulty.
The House will welcome the clear statements in the ECOFIN report that the arrangements for economic surveillance to be agreed for countries not in the single currency cannot lead to sanctions of any kind. I have made no secret of my doubts about whether enough countries will be sufficiently convergent to allow a single currency to go ahead on the present timetable. I repeated those doubts in Dublin. It is important that the figures themselves are not fudged, but whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day is less important than the extent of genuine economic readiness for such a far-reaching step. I am therefore pleased that the ECOFIN report makes clear the importance of not only achieving economic convergence on a particular day, but being able to sustain it over the long term.
I should also report that the president of the European Monetary Institute presented to the Council, and subsequently publicly, designs for the proposed single currency's banknotes. Those designs are the responsibility of the central banks—as, indeed, such designs are the responsibility of the Bank of England in this country now. Everyone will have their own views on those.
The decision on whether to go ahead with a single currency will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. Although we expect to meet the required economic conditions, we have the right to decide whether or not we wish to join, if it goes ahead. We will make our decision when we are clear about all the necessary issues, including, crucially, our assessment of the prospect for real and sustained economic convergence.
The Council also discussed employment. Unemployment in this country is lower than in the other major European Union economies, and is falling faster. I circulated at the Council a paper on United Kingdom policies and their results, and commended it to our partners.

617
The Council adopted a declaration on unemployment. My agreement to it was subject to three conditions: that it confirmed that primary responsibility for employment policy rested with member states; that the European Union's approach remained based on the supply-side policies agreed at Essen in 1994; and that the declaration in no way prejudiced the question of an employment chapter in the treaty. Those conditions were agreed.
The European Council also discussed justice and home affairs, in which we welcome greater European co-operation, as long as it remains firmly on an intergovernmental basis. The Council confirmed the priority of the fight against drugs, and endorsed an Anglo-French initiative to combat transit and production of drugs in the central Asian republics. It called for ratification of the Europol convention by the end of 1997—achieved only by the United Kingdom so far—and agreed that Europol, the European Police Office, should work in conjunction with national agencies to support the fight against international crime. The Council also created a high-level group to draw up an action plan against organised crime, welcomed joint actions against sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings, and confirmed the need for intensified co-operation against terrorism.
I briefed my colleagues on the steps that we have taken to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy, notably progress under the 30-month slaughter scheme. I sought and received confirmation that future decisions on lifting the ban would be taken on the basis of science, as agreed at Florence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement a little later on the next steps.
On foreign policy, the Council endorsed the London conference document on Bosnia as an excellent basis for work next year. On the middle east, the declaration that was issued reflected our concern about the current state of the peace process. The Council also expressed its strong interest in a smooth transition to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year and its support for the existing representative democratic institutions of Hong Kong. That was a welcome endorsement of our approach.
The European Union is approaching some historic decisions over the next 18 months, both on a single currency and on its future direction. The result of the intergovernmental conference may well mark a crucial turning point in Europe's development. The President of the European Commission said last week that the moment of truth lies ahead. There is one sense at least in which he is right. The choices that are made will determine not only the success and stability of Europe as a whole, but Britain's relationship with it.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, I should like to state our unequivocal support for the measures that were agreed on co-operation to fight terrorism, organised crime, drugs and crimes against children. I also place on record our continuing support for the process of enlargement. On the IGC, we restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence, as in other essential areas such as taxation and defence. I agree with the Prime Minister on the issues of subsidiarity and the common foreign and security policy.
On the issue of flexibility—certain states moving ahead without others—does the Prime Minister agree that if that meant some states forming an inner core in the European
618
Union and moving ahead in certain areas without the consent of others, that would be potentially dangerous to Britain's interests?
I shall come straight to the two principal issues that arise—BSE and the single currency. We were told prior to Dublin that the Government were about to pull off a deal lifting the beef ban. Where is that deal?
Sir Jim Spicer: That is unreasonable.
Mr. Blair: That is supposed to be unreasonable, is it? Is it not now six months since the Florence summit, when we were told that a deal had been reached and that, as I recall, the ban would be lifted by November? After six months, is it not a fact that not a single piece of progress on lifting the ban has been made? Six months on, we are apparently back to the Florence agreement. Meanwhile, our farmers are suffering and it seems that the cost to the Exchequer is likely to rise to more than £3 billion.
Has not this whole affair been handled with serial incompetence? It is not unreasonable to ask: what is the timetable now? November has passed—what is the new date? In his statement, the Prime Minister said that decisions are now to be taken on the cull and elsewhere on scientific evidence. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said at lunchtime, "If one was to try to justify the cull in terms of the science, one would be in some difficulty." If Ministers of the same Government cannot get the same line right on the same day, is it any wonder that we are in the mess that we are on this issue?
On a single currency, the Prime Minister made much of the parliamentary reserve. Can he confirm, as the communiqué makes plain, that the vital decisions—some of them the most important that Europe has faced, as he rightly says—have been made? Will he confirm in terms of the stability pact that he and the Chancellor have agreed not only the deficit limits, but a system of penalties, rules for exceptional circumstances and a means of enforcement? Have they not also agreed that convergence programmes for those out of the single currency will be made obligatory? Plans will have to be submitted every year, with provisions for default. On exchange rate co-operation, have they not also agreed a system of assessment and monitoring, even for those outside any new exchange rate mechanism arrangement?
Therefore, on the parliamentary reserve, which is the Prime Minister's fallback position, may I put this to him? When will those issues be voted on in the House? When will we get the chance to explore those matters? Will he at least give us an undertaking that we shall have that vote before the general election? I think from that smile that the answer is no. I think that it is fair enough to say, however, that the only reason why we are not getting the chance is that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid to face the House of Commons' verdict on those issues. The whole point about the parliamentary reserve is that, if we were to change the position in any way, he could go back to our European partners and renegotiate. Is he seriously saying that, as a result of the reserve, he could credibly renegotiate decisions that had been taken?
How does the Prime Minister's position of keeping open the options on a single currency square with the extraordinary unilateral declaration of independence in today's The Daily Telegraph, from 147 Conservative

619
candidates, who said, effectively, that they would now stand on a different manifesto from the Government's at the next election? After all, it was the Prime Minister who said that it was self-evident that Tory divisions on Europe were damaging Britain's interests. I simply ask him, and again I think that this is not unreasonable: what could be more damaging than almost 150 candidates openly disagreeing with the Government's position and over half of them saying that they would never, ever join a single currency—and some of them want to come out of the European Union altogether? How does that make for credibility in negotiation? It is only fair to ask the Prime Minister to deal precisely with those 150 candidates, with their different manifesto.
Is not the real test in Europe success or failure, strength or weakness, and "Can we get a good deal for Britain?", and, as a result of those divisions, exemplified by 150 candidates effectively forming a party within a party, are we not in a weaker position than Britain has been in for 25 years?
The Prime Minister: Let me first welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about his support for the terrorism measures, for enlargement and for subsidiarity. I also welcome the other points of agreement at the outset of his remarks.
On flexibility, I have made the point on a number of occasions that, if some of our colleagues moot the prospect of flexibility, which means an inner core going ahead on its own, that would be utterly unacceptable, unless there were areas in which they went ahead by unanimity, so that every other member of the European Union agreed. However, in relation to any form of flexibility, if people propose to use the institutions of the European Union, those institutions belong to all EU members, not just some of them, and I have made the point to our partners that there can no prospect of an inner core going ahead on its own, other than by unanimity. The prospect of their going ahead on a wide front would fundamentally change the whole nature of the EU and is not the sort of flexibility that would be in the interests either of this country or of the EU as a whole.
On the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about BSE, the point that he frequently overlooks whenever he raises that matter in the House is the changed scientific evidence, which appeared after the Florence agreement was reached, about maternal transmission and other matters. That is what has changed the timetable for us. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a detailed statement about the way forward in a few moments.
On a single currency, the parliamentary reserve applies to all the matters in the stability pact, not of course to the matters agreed in the Maastricht criteria some time ago, some of which the right hon. Gentleman listed as if they had most recently appeared in the stability pact and had never been seen on a previous occasion. On the exchange rate mechanism, that remains entirely voluntary, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear on a number of occasions.
On convergence for countries outside the new euro zone, if it is created, the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—I assume that he is referring to the
620
routine surveillance reports that have been made by the House for some time—have no binding obligations at all and the circumstance does not change in any way.
On the manifestos of some of my colleagues, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we did not discuss those at all at the summit, but, of all hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman is on rather thin ice in raising the question of manifestos, because I recall what his 1983 manifesto said. He said that he would like to come out of Europe. He wanted to scrap Trident. He also wanted to end nuclear weapons. It is self-evident that, sometimes, what is put in a manifesto is not necessarily maintained by individual Members thereafter. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make the points that he made.
On the question of a good deal for the United Kingdom, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he were to negotiate while still following the policies that he has advocated so far, the Amsterdam summit would be a Dutch auction of British sovereignty. He told his party conference that he would never allow himself to be isolated. He cannot negotiate if he is not isolated. He would surrender the veto in social policy, surrender the veto in industrial policy—
Mr. Donald Dewar: Ridiculous.
The Prime Minister: I tell the Opposition Chief Whip that it is ridiculous to surrender it, but that is the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is pressing upon his party. He would also surrender the veto on regional policy and on environmental policy. He would sign up to the social chapter and to the working time directive. He would back a new treaty on employment. Were he to go to Amsterdam, by the time he came back, there would be a great dent in British sovereignty.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the major contribution made by the United Kingdom to the successful Dublin summit. Is not it a statement of fact that our strong opt-out on joining a single currency and our policy of wait and see, which are strongly supported in this country as the only rational stance, do not in any way gainsay the need for further discussion on the merits of a single currency?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Maintaining our position is the right and sensible way to proceed, so that we can not only retain the flexibility for Britain to make a decision in Britain's interests, but have the maximum opportunity to influence others in decisions that will affect this country.
Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of the problems that we face in the European Union today—notably with the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—were caused by our opting out of the original negotiations that framed the rules? If so, does he accept that the British national interest is again being damaged, because he is seen by other European Governments and by the British public as being held hostage by a Conservative party whose policy is increasingly not to be at the heart of Europe, but to be out of Europe?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that we are not opting out

621
of the negotiations in the matters that lie immediately ahead of us. We propose to play a full part in the intergovernmental conference and in the decision-making process leading up to a determination of whether a single currency proceeds.
There are two elements in the determination about a single currency—first, whether the circumstances are right for anyone to proceed; and secondly, whether the circumstances are right for any individual country, including the United Kingdom, to proceed. The determination of whether every country proceeds is actually made by a qualified majority vote in due course. If we think that other countries are not economically ready to enter a single currency—because their entry into a single currency and their weakening of a single currency, if it proceeded, would damage this country, whether in or not—we retain the option to vote against their entry. I certainly intend to play a full part in the negotiations.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend said that he was opposed to any country entering a single currency if it could not sustain its position economically, or if it somehow fudged its entry economically. Therefore, during the conference, did my right hon. Friend say anything about the countries that are clearly fudging their entry criteria—such as France, which has abused the process by stealing money from its telecoms fund? Did he warn France that if it continued to do that, Britain would raise it as a major issue again and again and again and declare itself against the process?
The Prime Minister: I made it clear that we would look carefully at the economic conditions to ensure that they were right, genuine and had not been fudged. I did not raise the specific matter of the French telecoms fund. When the time comes to make a judgment, we shall certainly take into account any actions that appear to us to be short-term fudges rather than a long-term improvement in the economic condition of countries going into a single currency. It was precisely to make it clear that that would be our position that I emphasised—not only today, but in the discussions over the weekend—that we would examine not only whether people met the criteria on the specific day that the initial decision was taken, but whether it was likely than they could maintain compliance with the criteria over the long term.
Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the question of a single currency—which is a political, not an economic question—goes far beyond the interests of this or cif any other country? Ministers have agreed in principle to transfer major political powers from Governments, whom the peoples of the European Union elect, to bankers, whom they do not. Given the situation in France, Germany, Italy and Spain—where, for many years, their peoples were denied, by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar, the right to use the ballot box to attempt to remedy their grievances—is it really sensible, in principle, to be in favour of giving up those powers? Is not one reminded of the words of Sir Edward Grey, in 1914:
"The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"?
The Prime Minister: It seems to me that there may be some interesting manifestos from the Opposition, as well
622
as from some of my hon. Friends. The only sensible conclusion that one can draw from the right hon. Gentleman's comments—I appreciate the sincerity with which he advances his view, as he has done consistently for many years—is that we should remain in the negotiations to point out the dangers that we may see. I think that he would be forced to agree that that is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what he has said.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, were the Leader of the Opposition to allow a free vote on this issue, more than three quarters of the House would support my right hon. Friend's policy on Europe? That question comes from a sceptic on a single currency, who is not even angling for a job.
The Prime Minister: The accuracy of my hon. Friend's prediction marks him out as a future Chief Whip, if that is a job that interests him.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: My congratulations. The Prime Minister made it clear that the current state of the peace process in the middle east was discussed. Was the issue raised that that American Zionist, Netanyahu, is endangering the extremely fragile peace in that part of the world, and that something must be done internationally to restrain that gentleman in consistently breaking the Oslo accords, to which the Israeli Government are committed?
The Prime Minister: There was certainly a collective view that the agreements reached previously had to be met and kept, and that there was some need for urgent progress. No one pointed to the specific cause of the current disagreements; I think that there was a general feeling that there may be faults in many directions. However, the unanimous view was that there was a need for early progress.
Mr. Norman Lamont: What example in history is there of a single paper currency that is not tied to a single Government?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend points to the fact that we are entering uncharted waters, and I agree with him. That fact is precisely why I am so cautious. It is why my right hon. Friend and I negotiated the option for us to decide at a later date, and it is why he and I set out the convergence criteria. The fact that we are entering waters where no one has been before is precisely why it is right for us to be cautious and right for us to examine the economic circumstances. My right hon. Friend is right.
Mr. Terry Davis: Given that we can all see the detailed arrangements for a single currency, what is the Prime Minister waiting for? Is it not time for him to make up his mind one way or the other, instead of sitting on the fence?
The Prime Minister: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman knows all the circumstances. Does he know what the legal conditions are yet? The Governments do not. Does he know who will enter yet? The Governments do not. Does he know who will meet the

623
economic criteria? The Governments do not. I can extend that list. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has knowledge that the rest of us have not yet had.
Mr. David Howell: In seeking to protect our vital national interests in Dublin and to promote a non-federalist vision of Europe, can my right hon. Friend say what problems are being caused for him and our interests by the belief in some European quarters that after the general election there will be in London a more subservient, compliant, inexperienced and subordinate Government?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that there is a wish among some of our partners with socialist Governments to have a similar Government in the United Kingdom, who would be prepared to surrender the elements of British sovereignty that I set out earlier. I understand that wish, but they also understand the timetable; on that basis, I think that they are beginning to understand the need to negotiate with us now and, I believe, in Amsterdam.
Mr. Peter Shore: If the Prime Minister had any remaining, lingering doubts about the folly of joining a single currency, surely he had them resolved at Dublin. Of course, we already knew that, if we were to join a single currency, the stability pact would impose vast fines on us—fines amounting to more than 11 billion if it had been in effect for only the past four years. However, we did not know what was the crucial, as it were, exception—the temporary and exceptional circumstances in which there would be exemption from the penalties of the treaty. Now we know that it is the massively deflationary fall of 2 per cent. in gross domestic product, an experience that this country has not suffered in the post-war period. That wholly deflationary policy would be permitted under such a guideline. Does not the Prime Minister recognise that that is unacceptable and that it would be masochism and madness for us to join?
The Prime Minister: But of course, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he has to say about the vast fines that would have been inflicted on us in the past, as he will see if he reads more carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor discussed with his ECOFIN colleagues.
As for the general point, the policy relies not only on the 2 per cent. criterion, but on an overall case-by-case assessment. The only circumstances in which a fine would be levied—of course, it would be levied only on a country that was in the new euro zone—would be if the country was not only defaulting but making no effort whatever to correct the default. That is why it has been left to a decision of Ministers.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I greatly welcome the determination shown by the Prime Minister at Dublin and, in particular, by the final sentence of today's statement, but will he outline the importance that he places on the elimination of quota hopping? Is it
624
something that the Government are merely hoping to achieve or something that they will demand be achieved if we are to have a new treaty?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the weekend, we think that it is essential to achieve the necessary change.
Mr. Giles Radice: The Prime Minister talked about vetoes, but is it not the case that the only veto that really counts with this Government is that exercised by the Europhobic malcontents on the Government Back Benches and their fellow travellers in the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should ask more sensible questions than that with his knowledge. If he had chosen to look around him, he might have directed his remarks about Europhobism in quite a different direction.
Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents to whom I spoke this weekend were delighted that he was negotiating hard in Dublin and that they are more worried than they have been for 25 years about our future relationship with Europe, but that the cruellest delusion would be to suppose that we could terminate our membership of the European Union at a stroke and that everything would then be all right?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is a delusion, and the people who peddle that delusion are certainly not considering what the British national interest would be or what the implications of leaving the European Union would be. Our position must surely be the one that I sought to set out a few moments ago: we are not prepared to move towards what I called an embryonic super-state across Europe, but we agree that our relationship with the European Union is more than a simple trading relationship, as indeed it has been since the day we signed the treaty of Rome.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did I hear the Prime Minister aright in his opening statement, saying that, in his opinion, it was a vital British interest, whether we were in or out, that the single currency should succeed? If he believes that, is there not a strong case for getting in and influencing it as soon as possible? Are we correct in believing that Michael Patijn, on behalf of the Dutch Government, has made various statements about what the 14 nations would do if, as they saw it, there was a lack of co-operation from a British Government? What would we do then?
The Prime Minister: The treaty cannot be agreed without 15. I have not heard the threats to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I have no idea whether they were made. They have been made by people in the past, and I regard them as dismissible.
If a single currency goes ahead and fails, the impact across the European Union will be dramatic, not just for those who are in the currency. That is the point that I was seeking to emphasise to the House. If it looks as if it will not succeed—because the convergence criteria will not be

625
met, or for some other reason—we shall urge everyone not to go ahead. If it went ahead and failed, I believe that the implications for this country would be profound—less profound, perhaps, than if we were in it, but certainly profound.
Mr. John Redwood: Given our worries about the attitude of some of our partners and the deal that they have offered us, what benefits did the Government secure for waiving our vetoes over the stability pact and the legalisation of the euro? Is the Prime Minister worried about Franco-German domination of the agenda, and does he not think that we need to offer an alternative?
The Prime Minister: On the stability pact, as I have just said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we think that if the euro zone goes ahead, it is essential that it succeeds. One of the mechanisms for making sure that sensible policies are carried out is the discipline of the stability pact, so we favour the stability pact. On that basis, it was unlikely that I would exercise a veto over it.
The veto is a necessary weapon that we have to use in areas of great national interest to the United Kingdom. When necessary, I will use the veto. I do not intend to abuse it and I do not intend to use the veto every time I have a disagreement with my European partners, but on matters of significant national interest, it must be clear to them that we will use it, because that would be the wish of the House and in the interests of this country.
Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister welcomed what he described as progress on subsidiarity. Will he explain to the House why, in his view, the principle of subsidiarity must be applied within the European Union, but must not be applied within the Union that is the United Kingdom? Surely it is wholly inconsistent to raise the banner of subsidiarity in one multinational union while simultaneously lowering it in another multinational union. Why cannot the Scots have their own elected parliament? Why cannot the Welsh have their own elected assembly? Why must subsidiarity always stop short in this unreformed place?
The Prime Minister: A great deal of responsibility and devolution has gone to Scotland, to Wales and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between 15 historic and sovereign nations and one United Kingdom, where a voluntary association has been entered into for so long, he should look more carefully.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that probably the most important thing that he said in his statement was that he intends to be obdurate about the so-called flexibility pact from France and Germany? He is right to cling to the safety catch of unanimity. Will he guarantee that he will continue that approach in Amsterdam and beyond?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. A flexible approach set out solely to provide a mechanism for a small core of countries to go ahead on their own,
626
perhaps against the interests of the rest of the European Union, would not be acceptable. Any flexibility of that sort would need to be agreed by unanimity.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that Scotland is a historic and sovereign nation. Did the Prime Minister see the remarks attributed to a member of the Irish presidential delegation that, given that the Prime Minister has kept the rest of us waiting for six months before honouring the commitments on the Florence agreement, it is difficult to take seriously any sense of urgency that he now expresses on BSE? How can the right hon. Gentleman cite maternal transmission as evidence for the delay, when the selective cull to be announced today does not include those animals? Who is responsible for the botch-up and the delay, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept any responsibility for the lost livelihoods throughout rural communities?
The Prime Minister: We have provided about £2.5 billion precisely to protect the beef industry across the United Kingdom after the health scares that arose following the scientific evidence about BSE. [HON. MEMBERS: "The cull?"] I shall come to that.
What no one anticipated at Florence or afterwards were two factors. First, there was the changed scientific evidence to which I referred a moment ago. Secondly, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else realised the sheer weight of animals that would need to come forward under the over-30-month scheme. More than 1 million animals have now been slaughtered—a figure that no one anticipated at the time. The fact that it has been possible to achieve that is the result of a remarkable feat of organisation by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What we have done throughout the exercise is to put first and foremost the long-term interests of the beef industry. That we continue to do.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Prime Minister has told the country that he is in Europe to get a good deal for the people of this country, does he not recognise that the lobbying by his Minister recently in Brussels for the destruction of Sunday as a special day and his success in getting written into the health directive that Sunday would no longer be a special day outrage many working-class people who have always observed Sunday as at least a family day? What does the Prime Minister think about the overwhelming vote in the Strasbourg Parliament, which said this week that Sunday should be returned to being a special day? What has he to say about that?
The Prime Minister: Many people believe that Sunday should be a special day. That is an article of faith for them and I do not wish to destroy that article of faith. It is a choice made by literally millions of people, as the hon. Gentleman said. I assume that his earlier remarks related to the concerns about the 48-hour working week. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to attribute to that the statement that the Government have not had the same respect for Sunday as he has.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I press the right hon. Gentleman about the rights

627
of this House? As he has agreed both the principles and the outline of a stability pact, when will he seek approval for his agreement in the House?
The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), we place a parliamentary reserve on the matter and the decision will be brought before the House in the usual way, following discussions between the usual channels.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend assure the country that no concession by our European partners on the working time directive, on beef exports, on quota hopping or on anything else will cause us to agree to surrender to European Union competence third-pillar matters of home affairs, justice and, in particular, border controls?
The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend a categorical assurance on that point.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If it is true that more than 140 Conservative candidates at the next general election will stand on a platform of no single currency at any price, does that mean that if there is a referendum, they will totally ignore the result, even if it says that the judgment of the British people is that we should enter the single currency?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is basing his remarks on the proposition that what has been reported is accurate. I do not know whether it is accurate and I have no idea how many of those 147 will be in the House. What I can say is that I will take responsibility for our manifesto commitment; I will set it out and keep it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who strongly supports my right hon. Friend's line on the single currency and believes that it is a wise one that merits united support on the Conservative Benches, may I ask him why he has not pressed on his European colleagues the great merits of the hard ecu—the common parallel currency—which he championed so sensibly some years ago?
The Prime Minister: I continue to believe that that would have been a sensible, market-driven way in which people could have decided whether they wished to move to a common currency. It had the additional advantage that a common currency could have circulated alongside domestic currencies, so that we could have had parallel currencies. Undoubtedly, that was a sensible way forward which, from time to time, I have pressed on my colleagues. I am afraid that they will not anticipate doing it unless or until they discover that a single currency either cannot proceed, or proceeds but does not work.
Mr. John Wilkinson: For the sake of eliminating any residual doubt and ambiguity, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at the Amsterdam summit, the next Conservative Government
628
will veto the revised treaty if our concerns about quota hopping and the effect of the working time directive on employment are not met by treaty changes?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we expect to achieve those changes. We do not expect to agree a treaty unless we obtain the changes that we seek.
Mr. Tony Banks: We all know that the Prime Minister has double standards and that his whole attitude towards the European Union is predicated not on the national interest, but on the interests of the Conservative party, and is a way of protecting himself from the Euro-loonies behind him. We have become the laughing stock of Europe. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that he wanted to put the United Kingdom at the heart and the centre of Europe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, of course, is a new federalist, although that is not his old position. He has clearly changed his previous electoral convictions. My conviction that what we must put forward is in the national interest has been my position from the outset. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not so, I am bound to tell him that my life would have been much easier had I not taken that position.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Prime Minister tell his colleagues in Dublin, on the question of surrendering large dollops of sovereignty, that a Tory Government took Britain into the Common Market in the first place, another Tory Government, whom he supported, voted for the Single European Act on a guillotine in the House and another Tory Government, led by him, signed the Maastricht treaty? Is not the truth of the matter that, in the run-up to the general election, the Prime Minister has sought to pacify some of his Back Benchers by waving the Union Jack in the hope of getting a few votes, when in reality he is no different from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits beside him?
The Prime Minister: There was an intriguing endorsement in the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. No one would suggest that there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman admits it. That is excellent. It will be another manifesto that we shall read with interest in our examination of manifestos.
Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.
The Prime Minister: I am about to, but the hon. Gentleman will not like the answer. As he is so concerned about dollops of sovereignty, perhaps he should state in the parliamentary Labour party his views on the dollops of sovereignty that the Labour party is committed to surrendering. They relate to social policy, industrial policy and regional policy. Would the hon. Gentleman surrender sovereignty on those issues? He would not and neither would his hon. Friends. Perhaps we should have a show of hands. [Interruption.] Every time one of 50 Labour

629
Members stands up, the bogus view of Labour Front-Bench Members that there is unity in the Labour party is blown to pieces.
Mr. Ray Whitney: An article in The Daily Telegraph today—the most sensible item in that newspaper for several years—points out that between what are described as the extremes of visionary Euro-idealism and chauvinistic Euro-scepticism lies the path of realistic British Europeanism. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he and his Ministers continue to follow that path in their dealings with our European partners?
The Prime Minister: I do and I will.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister referred to the ratification of the Europol treaty under article K.3 of the Maastricht treaty. Will he confirm that that was done entirely by the royal prerogative, with no examination by the House? On 3 December, in relation to a statutory instrument, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said that Europol would have no operational powers in the field and would have no operational arm. Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning's communiqué on the topic says that Europol should have operational powers, which will be discussed in conjunction with the national authorities? Does he agree that that illustrates that the great danger is not from a federal state, where there is no separation of powers, but from the development of a unitary state, which will effectively eliminate the powers of this House and of the national Government?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the last point. The conclusions make it clear that Europol is to work in conjunction with national authorities. Its role is to assist national law enforcement agencies, not to replace them. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.
Mr. Tim Renton: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the stance that he took in the difficult circumstances at the summit? Following Dublin, does he agree that, whatever the contents of a stability pact, without general and well-informed consent to joining economic and monetary union, a single currency may well prove fragile? On that basis, would he consider asking the Bank of England, which last week issued a booklet to businesses, to write an independent plain man's guide to the single currency and economic and monetary union, setting out the advantages and disadvantages for the ordinary family, and to send a copy to every household in the land?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend's analysis. In the wrong circumstances, a single currency would be fragile. I understand that the Bank of England is shortly to produce another guide. Whether it will be a plain man's guide, I cannot tell my right hon. Friend, as I have not yet seen it, but I shall bear in mind his wider point.
Mr. David Winnick: Was anything said at the Dublin summit about the mass demonstrations
630
in several member states in protest at the convergence criteria, which in many cases involve, as the Prime Minister knows, substantial cuts in public expenditure? Bearing in mind the implications for economic and political sovereignty that would arise from joining EMU on the basis of a single currency, is it not unthinkable that any such decision could be taken in the next Parliament without a referendum on the issue?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the last point. If a Conservative Government were to decide to go into a single European currency, there would have to be a referendum on that for all electors in the country. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. He is also right to point to the concerns that exist in some member states, but I must tell him that the matter was not specifically raised in our discussions.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I warmly commend my right hon. Friend's espousal of a market-driven common currency, rather than a politically driven single currency? Can he confirm that our partners will be demanding a decision from us on a single currency by the end of the coming year? Was there any discussion, informally or formally, about Italy and Belgium's debt being 120 per cent. of GDP? In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider in the early summer ruling out the prospect of our joining a single currency, on the basis that the economic convergence criteria are not so much being fiddled or fudged, but trampled on in the Gadarene rush towards a disastrous single currency that Europe cannot sustain?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about what would happen if the criteria are wrong, whether it happens to be the debt criteria or any of the other convergence criteria, for that matter. I do not foresee any real likelihood that most member states will not reach the inflation criteria—I think it overwhelmingly likely that they will—but whether they will meet the 3 per cent. deficit criteria or the debt criteria is a different matter. I think that over the next few months we shall see a number of projections from individual member states about the likely deficits that they foresee for next year, which will add to our knowledge. There should also be some international examinations of international currencies, which will add a great deal to the assessment of whether the criteria will be met. I expect that, in some cases, the position will become clearer in the months ahead.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the greatest danger to the sustainability of the 3 per cent. borrowing requirement for the single currency is the 18 million people who are unemployed in Europe—2 million of whom are in this country, which is in fact more than when the Prime Minister took office—is it not ludicrous to oppose the idea of co-ordinating employment policies in Europe by adhering to an employment chapter in the Maastricht treaty, which would enable this country to work with our partners at the heart of Europe?
The Prime Minister: The EU agreed in 1994 at Essen a way in which it was felt at the time we could all best tackle unemployment. That was largely by supply-side measures, of the sort with which the House has become

631
familiar over recent years, which are generally putting people back to work. Those decisions are taken in nation states and self-evidently could not be taken at the centre. We find ourselves opposed to the prospect of Community communal decisions—almost certainly expenditure decisions—leading to larger contributions from each nation state, with the intention of creating short-term jobs. That is not the way in which to create jobs and remain competitive for the future. Although we are perfectly happy to co-ordinate, we are not prepared to have decisions taken in Brussels which will impact on the domestic decisions that we are taking to bring down unemployment.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on opinion in my constituency? I judge that there is a majority who want to stay in a Common Market and a majority who are against a single currency. I sense that every step taken closer to a single currency enlarges the minority of my constituents who want to pull out altogether, which I believe would be a disaster. Does he therefore accept that the best way in which to ensure that we stay in a Common Market is to review our policy on a single currency now?
The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's feeling and entirely agree with him that a very large majority of people in this country believe that we should stay in the EU, but share some of the unease that I, he and others have expressed about the direction and drift of some elements of European policy. I do not, however, believe that the right thing to do would be to determine that we should effectively disengage from the most important decision that Europe will take. Our input into that decision may have a material impact on whether the whole prospect goes ahead or does not if the criteria are wrong. If it went ahead in the wrong circumstances, the damage to our membership of the EU and to the EU itself might well be fatal. I share my hon. Friend's view; we are best in the EU, but not in what I called an embryo super-state. I believe that we should keep open that middle road in the interests of the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now move to the second statement.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
4.27 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on our follow-up to the Florence agreement on BSE and the additional steps that the Government intend to take towards the eventual lifting of the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom.
The agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated at Florence defined five general preconditions for the lifting of the ban. Since that agreement was made, we have succeeded in fulfilling four of them, which are as follows.
The first precondition was an improved system of animal identification and movement recording. Cattle passports are now issued to all cattle born since 1 July, recording details of each animal's identity and movement. We have so far issued 751,000 such passports. As I announced on 10 December, we are also pressing ahead with proposals for a computerised cattle-tracing system in Great Britain. The second was the removal of meat and bonemeal from farms and feed mills. Action was taken during the summer to retrieve the last remaining stocks of meat and bonemeal from the animal feed chain. A total ban on possessing MBM where animal feed is handled came into force on 1 August.
The third general precondition was the removal of specified bovine material in slaughterhouses. The rules on removal of those parts of the carcase that can harbour the infective agent are being enforced with great rigour. More than 450 additional inspectors have been taken on. Statistics show that the rules are now being fully complied with. The fourth was the slaughter and destruction of cattle aged over 30 months. Since 1 May, more than 1 million cattle aged over 30 months have been killed and removed from the human food chain.
As the House will know, the last precondition, as yet not implemented, is the selective cull of animals judged to be most at risk of BSE. On 19 September, the Government postponed the cull while we considered the implications of the latest scientific evidence not known at the time of the Florence agreement and the range of cull options put to us. We also wanted further to explore the possibility of securing a lifting of the export ban in respect of meat from animals from certified herds and we judged it necessary to clear the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme before proceeding to any selective cull.
I am glad to say that we have now cleared the backlog in Great Britain and will very shortly do so in Northern Ireland. That has been a considerable achievement. Slaughtering and disposing of well over 1 million animals in seven months has been an enormous logistical exercise, and I pay tribute to the crucial role played by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, by all my noble and hon. Friends in the Agriculture Departments and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The over-30-months scheme backlog is no longer an impediment to the selective cull.
We have concluded that the scientific evidence is unlikely to change decisively the basis of the selective cull as agreed in Florence. Moreover, opinion within the industry has changed: for example, the National Farmers

633
Union, formerly hostile to the selective cull, is now, together with the other farming unions, strongly in favour of carrying out the cull agreed at Florence. Against that background, we have decided that now is the time to bring forward our proposals for a selective cull in accordance with the terms of the Florence agreement, and I shall be so informing the Agriculture Council tomorrow.
Furthermore, we are now ready with proposals for a United Kingdom certified herd scheme, which we will table as a basis for negotiating the first step in relaxing the ban. We have issued our proposals today for consultation and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I shall submit the paper formally to the Commission early in the new year and press for discussions in the Standing Veterinary Committee to begin as soon as possible. Again, I shall inform the Agriculture Council tomorrow.
We cannot be certain how many animals will be affected by the cull, not least because many beasts from the cohorts in question will have gone out already under the over-30-months scheme. However, it is certain that implementing the cull will be a complex business. We need to act expeditiously. My intention is that the necessary orders should be signed before the recess, together with the appropriate statutory rules for Northern Ireland. Should the House so desire—that is to say, should the relevant order be prayed against—there will be a debate before any compulsory slaughter of exposed animals is carried out in Great Britain.
The Exchequer cost of the programme will self-evidently depend on the number of animals to be slaughtered. Our original estimate of 128,000 is clearly out of date. Many of those animals will already have been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme, although we cannot at the moment be certain of the exact number. If, for example, we were required to deal with about 100,000 animals, the gross cost would be about £150 million and the net cost about £90 million. The difference is accounted for by contributions from European Union funds and by corresponding savings under the over-30-months scheme.
The House will know that we have been researching whether there is any maternal transmission of BSE. As yet, we have not received conclusive advice on the point. I hope that by March next year I shall be in a better position to advise the House. In the mean time, the Government have concluded that uncertainty on that point is not a reason for delaying the start of the cull, but we are ready to modify the cull if the advice that we receive provides a proper justification for so doing.
Our aim is to complete the cull within about six months of when we start, although the tracing of animals that have moved out of affected cohorts might take a little longer. The Agriculture Departments will send to all cattle farmers a document setting out how we intend to proceed. On compensation, the arrangements will be as I set out to the House on 24 July. For male animals, that means market value; for female animals, either 90 per cent. of replacement value or the animal's market value, whichever is the higher. There will be a top-up for those who lose more than 10 per cent. of their herds and an enhancement for closed herds.
Inevitably, some parts of the United Kingdom will make more rapid progress than others, but I wish to stress that both the cull and our proposals for lifting the ban in
634
respect of certified herds will be UK-wide in their application. We regard this as but the first step towards the complete lifting of the ban on the export of cattle, beef and beef products from the United Kingdom.
Finally, the House should not be under any illusion as to how quickly a selective cull will lead to a resumption of exports of British beef. We will now pursue discussions in Brussels as rapidly as possible. That process may take longer than we would wish. Member states will insist on a thorough examination of the proposals. Indeed, the Florence agreement itself provided that the ban is likely to be lifted on a step-by-step basis over a period of time.
However, of one thing I am absolutely certain. Unless we commit ourselves to the selective cull, the entire ban will remain in place for the foreseeable future. A selective cull is an indispensable precondition to obtaining any lifting of the ban. Implementing it will enable us to press vigorously for a lifting of the ban, starting with certified herds. For that policy we have the support of the farming unions and I hope that I will also have the support of the House.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Well, well, Madam Speaker. May I remind the Minister and the House that after the Florence summit the Prime Minister presented the agreement as a great triumph and told us that by November we would have met all the conditions to enable beef and beef products that can be sold in this country to be sold throughout Europe and the world? He told us that the ban would be lifted completely. May I also remind the Minister that he described the Florence agreement as a great success, which provided a solid way forward? Does the Minister accept that the fact that, one month after the Prime Minister's deadline, the beef ban is 100 per cent. still in place is a terrible indictment of the Government's record?
What damage does the Minister think the episode has inflicted on our standing in the European Union? What assessment has he made of the damage it has done to our industry, including the thousands of jobs lost and the damage to farmers' livelihoods? Does the Minister accept that all those matters have been aggravated by six months of vacillation? May I also remind the Minister that throughout those months the Labour party urged him to meet the conditions of the Florence agreement in full as it was the only current mechanism on the table to enable the ban on the export of British beef and beef products to be lifted?
Does the Minister realise that he has completely failed to justify why the Government have taken six months to reach this point and that his excuses are extremely unconvincing? May I remind him that the work of Professor Roy Anderson and his colleagues, and the evidence on maternal transmission, mean that, if anything, we could have a more targeted selective slaughter programme, which would enable us to concentrate more effectively on the cows more likely to go down with BSE? That evidence certainly did not justify the Government's decision to shelve the Florence agreement.
May I remind the Minister of the recommendations made in 1989 by the Tyrrell committee for random testing of the brains of cattle that go through our slaughterhouses? That scientific recommendation was never implemented by the Government. Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for examining the brains

635
of cattle slaughtered under the selective programme to see if we can judge what proportion of animals has been infected by the BSE agent at detectable levels?
The Minister has used as one of his excuses the fact that we did not have the slaughterhouse capacity to implement the selective slaughter programme, and other hon. Members may have observations on that. Has he used these six months to identify the animals that are to be slaughtered under the programme? Is it correct to conclude from the Minister's statement—certainly it was the impression given—that the Government have not identified the cattle targeted under the slaughter programme? Does that not mean an unnecessary and additional delay in implementation?
Does the Minister recall that his other reason for the delay was that the EU would not lift the ban, even if we met our side of the Florence agreement? Apparently, the best that the Prime Minister could get at Dublin when he raised this matter was that decisions would be taken on the basis of science. Hon. Members who heard the Minister say at lunchtime that he would be hard put to make a scientific case for the selective slaughter programme may not regard that as a convincing statement. Surely the Minister can tell us that if we implement our side of the Florence agreement, we can look forward to a rapid lifting of the ban of exports of British beef and beef products. When will he give us a timetable? We are entitled to that this afternoon. Does the Minister appreciate that, yet again, his total mishandling of the BSE crisis has meant that enormous, additional and unnecessary damage has been inflicted on our economy? As far as the farmers, the beef industry and the consumers are concerned, enough is enough.
Mr. Hogg: I think that it is the sense of the House that it would have been more gracious if the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the statement. I am bound to say that his criticisms would have been more plausible had he not in the early stage of the crisis justified the imposition of the ban by the European member states.
On the substantive points of the hon. Gentleman's question—rather than the bluster—I agree that the imposition of the ban has caused considerable damage to British agriculture, beef producers and related industries, and it is in recognition of that fact that the Government have committed more than £3 billion in assistance. I do not for one moment suppose that the Labour party would have done that.
As regards the publication of Professor Anderson's report in Nature, it was right that we should pause on the range of options there described to see, for example, if member states could be persuaded that one of the other options described was more appropriate, cost-effective and efficient than that described in the Florence agreement. We have been unable to persuade them of that.
On the question of the relationship between the selective cull and the over-30-months scheme, we have always made it plain that it would be highly desirable to complete, or substantially complete, the over-30-months scheme before we move on to the accelerated cull. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain, we have now slaughtered more than 1 million beasts under the over-30-months scheme, a logistical exercise of enormous complexity.
636
On the question whether we have started to trace cattle on farms, the answer is that we have not—for this good reason. Had we identified the animals in question, those animals would have been treated as having no economic value. Clearly, it would have been wrong to do that until such time as we had decided to embark upon the selective cull, as I have described to the House. On the question of justification, the truth is that BSE will die out in the national herd in 2001. The cull itself will reinforce neither public nor animal safety, and its real justification is that, unless we do it, we will not get progress on lifting the ban. That is a political fact, not a scientific one.
As to the timetable, I will say what I have said on many occasions in the past. We will not secure a timetable, and I never pretended that we would. The Florence agreement provides a framework for a step-by-step process that will incrementally lead to a lifting of the ban.
Sir Hector Monro: The large sum of compensation—more than £3 billion to the farming and meat processing industries—has been warmly received and has gone a long way towards helping those who have been hurt financially. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me on one particular point in relation to the Florence agreement, which was a United Kingdom agreement? Will any move towards the certified herd scheme—which I hope will be implemented as quickly as possible—be on a United Kingdom basis, and not country by country?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and very few people know more about this subject than him. The application and criteria for certified herds will be expressed in United Kingdom-wide terms.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister now prepared to state unequivocally that he can reiterate the Prime Minister's promise—that control over the timetable is now in the hands of the Government? In the light of what he has said this afternoon, is he prepared to look again at the time scale for the completion of the accelerated cull? He tells us that it will take six months. As 1 million cattle have been destroyed in a six-month period, surely the basic arithmetic suggests that the process could be completed more speedily. Finally, paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender.
Mr. Hogg: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman either has not read or has misunderstood the Florence agreement, which never provided for a timetable. It provided for a process—[interruption.] I am referring the hon. Member for North Cornwall—who is fluffing about—to the Florence agreement, which I suggest he reads. What he will see if he reads it, and is capable of understanding it, is a process whereby the British Government will put documents to the Commission, who will then place those documents before the Standing Veterinary Committee and other expert committees where

637
the issue will be discussed. The response that we receive is in the hands of the European Commission and the member states.
We will negotiate vigorously along the lines that I have set out—namely, that the application in respect of certified herds is but a first step and will be expressed in UK-wide terms. The scheme will take some time in parts of Great Britain, simply because the numbers are substantial and the tracing process complicated. It is different in Northern Ireland—where tracing can be done rapidly—and, for that matter, in Scotland. In England, it will be a lengthy process and six months is not an unrealistic assessment.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the process of negotiations—as he describes it—is, in effect, no better than a process of appeasement? In fact, the events of the past six months have played further into the hands of those member states who have said that they will not lift the ban. What indication does he have that the ban will be lifted? Does he regard these talks as negotiations?
Mr. Hogg: What we are doing is proceeding with a process that was agreed in Florence. I do not want the House to be under any misunderstanding. I certainly accept that it will be difficult and slow to achieve a complete lifting of the ban, but I think that we have a reasonable chance of securing a partial lifting of the ban, for example, in respect of the certified herds. We shall then press on, for example, in respect of cattle born after a certain date. However, unless we commit ourselves to implementing the selective cull, we can be certain that there will be no progress of any kind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: At the bottom of page 2 of his opening statement, the Minister referred to the latest scientific evidence not known at the time of the Florence agreement. What part of the scientific evidence was so crucial as to have altered policy?
Mr. Hogg: The most interesting, but by no means the only, piece of scientific evidence that came to the fore after the Florence agreement was the possibility of maternal transmission.
Mr. James Couchman: The House will be glad to have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend that we are now to go ahead with the selective cull, which should enable us to meet the Florence conditions. Can he be more specific about the timetable? He has said that the process will be difficult and slow, but what does that mean? How difficult and how slow? During his discussions in Dublin, was he given any indication by his fellow Agriculture Ministers that some other scientific reasons may be dreamed up in order to frustrate our return to exporting beef?
Mr. Hogg: I shall be talking to Agriculture Ministers tomorrow and after that I may be in a slightly better position to respond to my hon. Friend's questions than I am now.
It is important that we do not set out a false prospectus. What we have achieved at Florence is a process that is capable, given good will, of leading step by step to a lifting of the ban. It will take time, however, and there are
638
a variety of reasons why member states will be reluctant to agree—most notably the internal pressure that they face from their farmers, consumers and those who are involved in the collapse in their markets for beef consumption. It is therefore unwise to talk in terms of timetables, but I can say that we will put our formal proposals—the working document—on the certified herds to the Commission at about the end of January next year. The Commission will then—I hope shortly thereafter—put the proposals to the Standing Veterinary Committee and the other veterinary committees. We need some delay before going to the Commission because there is a consultation process in respect of the certified herds which concludes on 17 January. It is desirable that we should complete that process before putting our firm proposals to the Commission.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge the very real difficulties of beef farmers in north-east Wales? Can he guarantee my constituents easy access to abattoirs as they try to cope with the problem? Finally, will he consider an invitation from me to visit Pwll farm in Treuddyn, where Mr. Idris Roberts, who is the leader of Flintshire National Farmers Union, could give him a reasonable and helpful tutorial on these matters?
Mr. Hogg: That is a kind offer—the only problem is that I have no departmental responsibility for agriculture in Wales and, therefore, I might trespass on the ground of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
There are two different points relating to abattoirs and the availability of spaces within them. In respect of slaughtering under the accelerated cull, I do not anticipate any difficulty with finding ready slots for slaughtering cattle under that scheme. In respect of the over-30-months scheme, there were delays and I shall not try to pretend otherwise. I am glad to say that the backlog has now been cleared and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents should be having any current difficulty with finding slots for the slaughter of their beasts. If I am wrong on that point, the hon. Gentleman should talk to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and we shall see what we can do to help.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of the farming community, both in my constituency and in the west country as a whole, for the way in which the herculean task of dealing with more than 1 million cattle so far has been tackled and especially for achieving a figure of more than 60,000 in the past few weeks? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) does not understand the position that we were in a few months ago? If he had been a west country farmer, facing the prospect of 102 cattle still caught in the backlog of the 30-months cull, the last thing he would have wanted would have been a Minister coming forward with a scheme like this. We had to get the backlog cleared before moving on.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) misses the point when he asks why we cannot act quickly? All my constituents want some flexibility, because they are

639
coming up to the end of the quota year. In the interests of the farming community, we must have flexibility in the way in which we deal with this problem.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind observations. I am well aware, from a spirited meeting that I attended in the west country, of the concern felt by farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere about the backlog. I am glad that we have been able to clear the backlog. My hon. Friend is right to say that by clearing the backlog we have brought about a change in sentiment within the farming industry. Previously, it was hostile to the cull. I believe that farmers, generally speaking, now want us to carry out the cull.
On the question of flexibility, my hon. Friend is again right to say that that is important. In those cases where we are contemplating culling a substantial number of cattle from a single herd, we shall try to do it in at least two tranches.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye, so briefer questions and brief answers would be welcome and helpful.
Mr. William Ross: Is the computerised tracing scheme that the Minister is setting up in Great Britain comparable with the one that already exists in Northern Ireland? Will he explain how his statement today will impact on the beef industry in Northern Ireland where, I believe, most herds will qualify almost immediately for the certified herd scheme? Will he also explain the implications for the flagged holdings in Northern Ireland, specifically suckler herds? Will he give an undertaking that arrangements for the cull will be better than those for the 30-months scheme?
Mr. Hogg: I imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will want me to concentrate on what I judge to be the core of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is the significance of the statement to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity very soon to study the discussion document or consultation paper on certified herds and he will see two matters of particular relevance to Northern Ireland. First, the criteria to determine which animals are capable of being classified as certified herds will be met by many herds and cattle in Northern Ireland. Secondly, when it comes to proving eligibility—that will be an absolutely essential part of the scheme—Northern Ireland is extremely well placed, by reason of its computer-based system, to achieve that. I cannot think of any part of the United Kingdom that is better placed to meet the criteria than is Northern Ireland and I can think of no part of the United Kingdom that is likely to make more rapid progress in satisfying the criteria than is Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has just been talking about Northern Ireland. I understand that the selective cull there could go through very quickly. If so, we would then
640
discover our European partners' bona fides in respect of lifting the ban. Is it not a question of hastening the process in Northern Ireland and then thinking again about whether we should pursue the cull more widely?
Mr. Hogg: I would not commend that course of action to my hon. Friend, for the following reason. He will remember that, at the end of my statement, I said that, in my view, a commitment to the selective cull is an essential, indispensable precondition to making any progress. I do not think that we would secure any progress if the cull to which we committed ourselves was partial or regional. Consequently, the cull that we are proposing is UK-wide and will be carried out UK-wide. The application regarding certified herds is couched in UK-wide terms, but the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend will have heard what I just said about Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not it clear that such a scheme, especially for England, would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to impose? There is no base line, and there are certainly no existing arrangements that would meet the conditions that are found specifically in Northern Ireland, and also in Scotland, at present.
Does the Minister accept that he has demonstrated this afternoon that European countries with large agricultural industries have no intention of helping us while they are supplying our markets and have no intention of listening to anything from the scatter-gun approach that he suggests today?
Mr. Hogg: What the hon. Lady is saying is something like this: that the certified herd scheme will not be applicable to very many herds in England, and she has a point. There are at least three areas, however, on which she may not have fully focused. The first is the beef assurance scheme. Cattle which fall within the beef assurance scheme will, by definition, qualify under the certified herd scheme, provided that at the material date they are not more than 30 months of age. Secondly, we have had cattle passports as from 1 July—about 713,000 have been issued thus far—and that is a good basis for matching cattle with our confirmed case computer base. Moreover, in respect of some herds in which cattle have never moved from the natal herd, we shall be able to satisfy the eligibility criteria, but it will be easier in Northern Ireland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be considerable disappointment that we are going ahead with the selective cull without obtaining firm and copper-bottomed guarantees as to when the export ban will be lifted? Many of us do not trust our European friends and we believe that they will keep the ban going for year after year. What happens if we complete the cull and they still refuse to lift the ban? May I suggest that the only way in which we shall get any success is to tell them that, if they do not lift our ban after we have spent £3.2 billion, we shall ban their beef from being imported into this country?
Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's position, but it has always been so. The Florence agreement did not

641
provide for a timetable. Perhaps I may put the argument the other way round: if we do not commit ourselves to a selective cull, there will certainly be no progress.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister talked about the cattle passport scheme, and I believe he mentioned the figure of 713,000 passports. Does that scheme meet in every respect the provisions in the Florence arrangement, which talks about an animal identification scheme? Does it meet the provisions throughout the United Kingdom or is it more likely to meet them in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct one error that I made. I said 713,000; I should have said 751,000, and I apologise.
The cattle passport scheme does meet the requirements of Florence. We shall improve it. As the hon. Gentleman may know, on 10 December I published a consultation document on a computer-based traceability system, which will be an enhancement on the paper-based system and will be run in a way that is compatible with proposals made by the European Commission. On the narrow question that the hon. Gentleman asked, namely, is our identification now up to scratch, the answer is yes, and it is better than is to be found in most European states.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Am I right in thinking that, in last month's Opposition day debate on BSE, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave a strong commitment to supporting the cull? Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a renewal of that commitment?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, which is one of the reasons why I said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was less than gracious in his response to my statement. The hon. Gentleman will remember the intervention that I made in his winding-up speech, when he gave a categorical commitment to support the selective cull.
Dr. Strang indicated assent.
Mr. Hogg: I see he is nodding. That is good of him, but I am bound to say that we have got it down and will keep it in evidence against him.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister has made it clear that he does not have European agreement to the further slaughter. How confident is he that his fellow Ministers in the European Community will agree with the methodology involved in targeting those specific animals? Are not we now in the worst of all worlds—where we have no European agreement and the Minister does not truly believe in the programme? When the Minister is reduced to doing something that he does not believe in, is not it time that he went and made way for someone who knows what he is doing?
Mr. Hogg: We do have agreement as to the concept that underpinned the figure of 128,000. Those concepts, which were set out in the eradication programme that we submitted, were approved at the time of the Florence agreement. So we have agreement on the point of the three cohorts plus the voluntary cohort. We shall have to form a view on whether there will be an attempt to add
642
to those numbers on account of "maternal transmission" when we have better evidence from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in spring 1997.
The hon. Gentleman says that I do not agree with the programme. That is not true. I well understand why several hon. Members wish that we could have a timetable. I accept that it is difficult to justify a cull in scientific terms—it will not improve public health—but one must stand back and ask oneself a different question: whether, if we do not have a cull, we shall make progress. In the absence of a selective cull, we shall make no progress, and on that basis I defend it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister made it clear that at first there was opposition to the Florence cull. Can he confirm that no opposition came from the Ulster Farmers Union, which backed an immediate culling? He also told the House that Northern Ireland would be in a very favourable position. If that is so, is he prepared immediately to propose to Agriculture Ministers that Northern Ireland should be made a special case? Will he take from the Prime Minister a letter delivered to him by myself and the leader of the SDLP, which made it clear that the German Minister of Agriculture was now of a mind to change his view and support Northern Ireland as a special case?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the farmers of Ulster have always supported a cull, for reasons such as those that underpinned the question asked by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We shall, as expeditiously as we can, go to the European Commission and, through it, the Standing Veterinary Committee and the other experts, with our full working document, which will set out our concept of a certified herd scheme, which will be UK-wide in its application. I do believe, however, for the reasons that I mentioned to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, that Northern Ireland is very well placed to satisfy the eligibility criteria and—even more to the point—to have that satisfaction of the criteria established positively, so that the European Union can be satisfied that it is valid.
Mr. Tony Banks: First, if we can have a cattle passport scheme, when can we have a passport scheme for pets? Secondly, what is the total cost of the BSE eradication scheme to date, including compensation, transport, slaughter, rendering and incineration?
Mr. Hogg: On the first question, the hon. Gentleman must wait on events. On the second question, the overall cost committed—not money spent, but committed over the relevant periods set out in the documents—is slightly more than £3 billion.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), and the broad thrust of his question? What my farmers require is a greater degree of certainty. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me when the selective cull will come into effect? I do not want to know the end date; I want to know when it will begin. Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell me the operative date for deciding the market value of any particular beast?
Mr. Hogg: We intend valuation to be taken as at the day of valuation, which will give a degree of certainty.

643
As my hon. and learned Friend will see in the consultation document, however, we have contemplated the possibility of some other date, and if people want to argue in favour of some other date we shall manifestly take their representations into account.
When the culling will start rather depends on whether the House wants to debate the compensation order. I anticipate that it may want to do so, but I do not suppose that that will happen until the latter part of January. We cannot slaughter until we have debated the order, if that is the will of the House, and get approval if we do so; but we might be in a position to start the slaughter in February or early March.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcomed the rather belated statement about the selective cull, but has the Minister learnt any lessons from the over-30-months scheme, which involved huge backlogs in parts of north Wales? The Minister might have to look again at the overall structure of the scheme that he is introducing. I was very disturbed by his earlier comment that some parts of the United Kingdom would make more rapid progress than others: that does not sound to me like uniformity.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points. The reference to rapid progress was actually a reference to the fact that Northern Ireland is particularly well placed to satisfy the criteria, and also to prove that the criteria have been satisfied. As for the accelerated cull programme, I do not anticipate any difficulty in ensuring rapid slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we raised the slaughter capacity in regard to the over-30-months scheme to 60,000 a week. It has now plummeted, and there is now a good deal of capacity to enable us to carry out that slaughter.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend has been candid enough to say on a number of occasions that there is no scientific justification for the extended cull, but that it is necessary to get the ban lifted. Will he elaborate for a moment or two on the logic of saying that it is better to carry out the cull and then hope that our so-called partners will take mercy on us than simply to say, "If we do this, will you lift your ban?"? Would our partners not be more likely to take notice of our position if we said, "We will co-operate in this way if you give us an assurance that you will lift the ban; alternatively, we will consider measures of our own, such as insisting that imports of foreign beef are subjected to the same stringent health conditions as our own beef"? Would not a package of that sort be more likely to achieve the result towards which my right hon. and learned Friend has been working for so long?
Mr. Hogg: I recognise that my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of negotiation. I have been engaged in this particular business for six or seven months, and I owe it to the House to give the best opinion that I can give on how we are likely to make progress most effectively.
I have taken into account, and explored, possibilities such as those outlined by my hon. Friend, and have finally reached the clear conclusion that, unless we give this commitment to the selective cull, we shall not make any
644
progress of any kind. That is the advice that I give the House, but it is, of course, for the House to make its own judgment.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Minister already knows that we have a certified 97 per cent. herd traceability in Northern Ireland. He also knows that the over-30-months cull was completed this week, and that the accelerated cull could be completed in a matter of weeks. That means that Northern Ireland has fulfilled all the Florence requirements, or will certainly have done so by the middle of January.
May I ask the Minister to clarify his earlier answers? Does that mean that, because it has qualified under all those headings, the ban will be lifted from Northern Irish beef? If not, why not? Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Fischler and the chairman of the Committee of Agriculture Ministers are simply waiting for the British Government to make that request to them, and will he make that request?
Mr. Hogg: I should be a little cautious about interpreting exactly what the position is, but let me make the situation plain once more. The application in respect of certified herds will be UK-wide, and I hope that we shall be in a position to put the relevant papers to the Commission at the end of January or the beginning of February. The hon. Gentleman will recall that he himself said that the position in Ulster would not have met all the criteria until the middle of January. We will then engage in discussions with the European Commission and within the Standing Veterinary Committee, but I believe that Northern Ireland will find it relatively easy to meet the criteria, and that it is uniquely well placed to prove that they have been met.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that his announcement will be greeted warmly by farmers in Northumberland, who will see it as the start of a long process rather than an end in itself. Today is not the occasion on which to threaten our European partners with what might happen in the future.
May I ask a technical question? If there is a disagreement about value, will an appeal mechanism be available to farmers?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of these matters.
There are three possible valuation methods. First, the farmer agrees to the appointment of a valuer by the Ministry, and he will fix the valuation. Secondly, a valuer will be appointed by the farmer and the Ministry, allowing the possibility of an agreed valuation. Failing that, the chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors can appoint a valuer, and that valuation is agreed to be final. To that extent there is an appeal mechanism, but it is by way of reference to an independent valuer appointed by the chairman of the RICS.
Mr. Clive Soley: We still need a clear answer from the Minister about the British Government's position in relation to Northern Ireland. He will know that about 1,700 cattle must be slaughtered there to meet the Florence criteria. If, after that has been achieved, the European Commission acknowledges—whether to the

645
Select Committee, which is now taking an interest in the matter, or to any other reputable organisation, which I hope includes the British Government—that Northern Ireland has met the criteria, will the British Government then ask for the ban on Northern Ireland's beef to be lifted? That is what we need to know.
Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the process. Let me begin by establishing a small point of fact. The number of cattle to be slaughtered under the accelerated cull scheme in Northern Ireland is now substantially less than 1,700; a good many have gone under the over-30-months scheme.
We will come forward with an application to the Commission, and through the Commission to the Standing Veterinary Committee, and thereafter to other expert committees. It is possible that the application will go back to the Council, but I hope that it will not. That will be in respect of certified herds UK-wide. We must then see what the response is. I hope that we shall be able to secure a lifting of the ban that is not confined to Northern Ireland—that we shall be able to satisfy the Commission that there are herds in Scotland, for example, that may meet the criteria as the Commission would want, and also, perhaps, in England and Wales. It will be a hard negotiation, but I will not stand artificially in the way of progress. I want to see progress.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that some of the farmers who have been especially hard hit by the cull will receive extra-generous compensation for the disruption that they will obviously suffer?
Mr. Hogg: We have already made available to producers a narrow line of aid of the order of £263 million or £264 million. Some £50 million from the October Council is still undetermined and I anticipate a high degree of national discretion about how that money is spent, albeit it is EU money.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Minister told the House that both the slaughter and disposal of the 1 million cattle were complete. How many cattle have been disposed of by incineration and how many have been disposed of by landfill and where are they? Is it right that several thousand tonnes of cattle are still in storage throughout the country awaiting disposal?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right. We have slaughtered about 1,080,000 under the over-30-months
646
scheme and have not yet been able to dispose of all the carcases. The only way in which we could increase the throughput to 60,000 a week was to substantially increase the cold storage capacity. We have been taking out the specified bovine material and disposing of it immediately and putting the rest of the carcases into cold storage to await the opportunity to render and dispose of them in the appropriate way.
Mr. Michael Clapham: If the Minister chooses any additional abattoirs to deal with the selective cull will he ensure that a transparent procedure is implemented for choosing them? There is a great deal of grievance in the industry because abattoir owners believe that those which were selected for the 30-months-scheme were chosen under a system of secrecy.
Mr. Hogg: It is indeed desirable to have greater transparency and we shall therefore proceed to an open tender system in the new year.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it important for the House to know that the animal traceability system and the animal identification scheme which exist in Northern Ireland and which will facilitate an early raising of the ban there are precisely those that the Government rejected in 1990 when they were recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture? Such a scheme was also rejected when it was proposed in amendments to the Bill that led to the Agriculture Act 1993 and in a recommendation in 1995 by the Select Committee on Agriculture. If the Northern Ireland scheme had been implemented throughout the kingdom over the six years that the Opposition have been demanding it, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.
Mr. Hogg: One must always take into account proportionality and the scientific opinion of the time. In the computer-based system that we are discussing we envisage about 40 million movements being recorded. That is hugely in excess of what is recorded on the Northern Ireland computer base and it would require positive justification. With the advantage of hindsight, one can construct a case, but taking account of the scientific judgment at the time the decisions that were taken were correct.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Jeffrey Ennis Esq., for Barnsley, East.

Point of Order
5.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw to your attention pages 121, 122 and 129 of "Erskine May", which advise on what constitutes contempt of the House in respect of remarks made or printed outside the House? My complaint relates to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whom I have advised of the point of order. On Saturday 14 December—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's message. Such matters must be raised privately with Madam Speaker.

Fisheries
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9999/96 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, 11016/96 on monitoring Community conservation and management measures applicable to third country fishing vessels, 11164/94 relating to guide prices for fishery products in 1997, 11171/96 relating to third country fisheries agreements, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9 December 1996 relating to Community catch possibilities in NAFO waters for 1997, and on 9 December 1996 relating to reciprocal access and 1997 quotas with Norway.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
5.25 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document COM(96)641 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
Technically, this is a scrutiny debate on proposals to be discussed and decided at the Fisheries Council of Ministers on Thursday and Friday where, among other things, the total allowable catches of the main stocks of fish will be agreed for the forthcoming year.
I shall refer, first, to the practical difficulties we all have in preparing for this debate. As hon. Members know, the availability of papers for the debate is always difficult. It reflects the pressure of events and the need for the latest scientific advice to be available before the Commission makes its proposals and starts negotiations, not just with the European Union, but with third countries such as Norway. I have taken the matter up with the Fisheries Commissioner and I assure the House that I have done everything humanly possible to ensure that papers are available in as much time as possible. I wrote on 13 December to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation to provide the very latest information on the outcome of the negotiations with Norway, and copies of the letter were made available in the Vote Office.
By custom, this debate has become an annual opportunity more generally to review the state and prospects of the United Kingdom's fishing industry. It is always right to recall what a hazardous activity fishing can be. In spite of all the technological advances, many fishermen lose their lives at sea as they seek to make their living. In this, the centenary year of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, we must not forget the realities of the industry.
Undoubtedly, the UK fishing industry faces many challenges. It is a diverse industry, ranging from large refrigerated trawlers fishing in distant waters and spending months at sea, to small coastal trawlers that spend no more than a day away from port. Often it seems that we are beset only by bad news about fishing, but it

649
would be a mistake to underestimate the achievements of UK fishermen and the UK fishing industry or the investment that the industry is making in its own future.
When I visited Peterhead recently, fishermen there made it clear to me that licences—simply the opportunity to catch fish—were being sold for up to £1 million. Recent press reports have commented that the Shetland island of Whalsay alone has at least 20 millionaire fishermen who own the lion's share of the island's £16 million fishing fleet. Just about a week ago, the newest trawler from Whalsay, the 211 ft Zephyr, which is capable of carrying 16,000 tonnes of fish, set out on her maiden voyage. That new boat is estimated to have cost £9 million and it is the latest of seven ships being built for Shetland fishermen. That has been made possible by increased incomes from fishing. Indeed, the value of fish landed in the UK in the first nine months of this year has increased by some 6 per cent. on last year and that increase in value is reflected in improved turnovers at our main fish markets.
I have recently visited fish markets such as Peterhead, Plymouth and Billingsgate, all of which have reported to me substantially increased turnover and increased profits. At Plymouth, for example, sales through the market are expected to have increased from just under £1.5 million in 1994 to nearly £5 million in 1996. In part, that improvement reflects the investment that is being made, often with the help of Government marketing grants. In total, about £63 million has been paid to the industry from public and Community funds in the past three years, with a further £68 million under other EU structural grant measures. Those improvements also reflect, however, increasing consumption and improved value of catches. According to the national food survey published just a few days ago, fish consumption in the UK in the past three years is as high as it has been for more than 20 years. It is important, therefore, to put the UK fishing industry's prospects into proper context.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sure that the Minister would concede that fishermen at Peterhead and elsewhere are concerned about the flags of convenience issue. The President of the Board of Trade said that, at the intergovernmental conference, the 48-hour directive was
"the issue that matters to the Government and we intend to insist upon it."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 163.]
If the Government were to secure agreement on quota hopping—treaty changes to resolve the flags of convenience issue—would they not then agree to the changes, unless and until the 48-hour directive was also agreed? Is it more important to save the fishing industry or to stop working people taking holidays?
Mr. Baldry: One of the reasons I am glad I went to Peterhead is that it reminded me just how much I dislike the Scottish National party. It is so disingenuous; it proclaims that the only future for an independent Scotland is in the European Union, within which it would sign up lock, stock and barrel to the common fisheries policy. I will talk about quota hoppers in some detail, and make clear yesterday's comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that it is important that we resolve at the intergovernmental conference the issue both of the 48-hour week and of quota hoppers. If the hon. Gentleman bides his time, he will hear me deal with those issues in terms.
650
Not all parts or sectors of the UK fishing industry are doing so well. Some ports are under pressure and the industry overall faces substantial challenges, not least the availability of fish to catch.
I know that Fleetwood has experienced a considerable reduction in its fleet, so it is important for it to be able to attract additional throughput of fish. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will have shared my pleasure at the grants that I was able to announce recently to aid facilities for packing and processing there, which will, I hope, help sustain activity at Fleetwood.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is here for the moment, but following the announcement of that grant, morale in Fleetwood has improved.
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation of that and that Fleetwood is beginning to see that, with our help, there is a clear future for the port.
Equally, there have been massive changes in the port of Grimsby as access to fish stocks has fallen, but there are some positive signs. During the past year, I have been pleased to participate in the opening of the new Grimsby harbour facilities, in the opening of a new fish processing factory and in the launch of a vessel. Those are just some of the signs of investment there and I understand that throughput is rising.
In addition, I have been able to announce a significant number of grants for investment in fish processing and linked facilities in Grimsby, all of which, I hope the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will in due course acknowledge, is reason for optimism for the fisheries infrastructure in Grimsby. It is now, I think, the leading fish processing centre in the Europe, and it would be justified in taking pride in that.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend has said that he will refer in detail to quota hopping and, subject to early evening constituency engagements, I look forward to hearing those details in some length, which will, I am sure, assist the House, but will he explain the balance of Government policy on these matters? He referred to investment in modern fishing vessels and the high cost of the technology and equipment. Bearing it in mind that British investors buy other non-British boats, that Spanish investors buy British boats, that Dutch investors buy British, that British buy Dutch, that Dutch buy German, that German buy French, and that investors in Scotland buy English boats in accordance with their rights under the treaty of Rome and the developing single market, is it not wrong for the Government to highlight quota hopping at the expense of other parameters and to give the impression that they want to restrict the market and, indeed, the free enterprise notion of the single market?
Mr. Baldry: I will deal with quota hoppers, but let me deal with my hon. Friend's point. May I say that I will try to deal with every issue. If I have not, I ask hon. Members to intervene. In all fairness, my hon. Friend is mistaken to this extent. He and I and, I think, every hon.

651
Member strongly support the notion of a single market. The UK has done more to promote the single market than any other member state in Europe because we want the EU to be a trading entity. Fishing is the only area of Community activity where there are national quotas, and it makes a lot of sense to ensure that UK fishing quotas can benefit UK fishermen.
Fishing is a hunting activity. Fishing boats are designed to track down and catch as many fish as possible. To ensure sustainable levels of fish for fishermen for years to come, there is always a difficult balance to be struck between enabling the industry to maximise today's catch and ensuring that there are sufficient fish in the sea for years to come. On that issue, Ministers with responsibility for fisheries are inevitably prone to be criticised, both by fishermen for not allowing them to catch as many fish as they should like, and by conservationists for allowing fishermen to catch more fish than they consider to be wise.
In coming to conclusions, we have to have regard to the advice of fisheries scientists, but we also have to give careful attention and consideration to the advice of fishermen themselves as to the strength and sustainability of stocks. After all, it is they who are fishing the waters day by day. They know what they are catching. They know the strength of the stocks and it is their future that is at stake.
In the negotiations at the Fisheries Council this coming Thursday and Friday, my negotiating objectives closely reflect the UK fishing industry's concerns. The House will not be surprised that I have had close and detailed discussions with the UK fishing industry as a whole, stock by stock, on what we shall be seeking to achieve at the forthcoming Council of Ministers meeting. For some key fish stocks, it is proposed that the total allowable catch be increased; for others, the proposal is to maintain the status quo, but there are inevitably some where, on the basis of scientific advice and evidence, it is suggested that, to conserve stocks, catches must be reduced. Where that is so, there is a balance to be struck, taking account of the short-term costs to the industry of quota cuts, and the medium-term benefits that should flow from recovery of stocks.
I pay close attention to the advice of the fishing industry. After all, it is fishermen who gain or lose if the management decisions are wrong. At this week's Council meeting, I shall seek to ensure that the eventual quota for UK fishermen is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to all the facts.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister of State has described his visits to various ports in England and to Peterhead. I do not know whether he has been to west Scotland recently but, if he has, or if he talks to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he will know the concern about the west Scotland haddock quota. Will the Minister of State press for a substantial increase in that quota? Fishermen should have told him that their view is that the reduction would be detrimental to fishing in west Scotland.
Mr. Baldry: I have not been to west Scotland. I have been to Macduff, whence many fishermen fish off the
652
west of Scotland. They have brought me up to date with the concerns. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that west Scotland haddock is high on our list of priorities for improvement at the forthcoming Council meeting. I am aware, as is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, of the importance of input on those issues.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Bearing it in mind that there is no longer any swap between the Dutch allowances and those of the south-west and the North sea, will my hon. Friend say something about area VIIe and Dover sole, and whether there could be increases for west country fishermen in VIIe and no decline for fishermen in VIIf or VIIg?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when I met representatives of the UK fishing industry to discuss the issue, those from the south-west expressed concern about that particular stock. I made it clear that it is one of our negotiating objectives to improve the situation. We are the main beneficiaries of that stock. We believe that there should be some reasonable improvement on what the Commission has proposed, and I will be trying to achieve that. It is a very valuable stock for the industry in the south-west.
I have no doubt that there will be some tough negotiations in Brussels this coming Thursday and Friday, but my colleagues who have responsibility for fisheries matters in the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office and I are agreed and well focused on the stocks of importance to the United Kingdom in respect of which we want improvement. I am determined that we will achieve substantial improvements on the Commission's proposals.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: I will deal with Northern Ireland in a moment. I promise that I will not miss out anybody. Hon. Members can rest assured that there is not a Member or a port with a fishing interest that will be left out of the debate tonight. I promise hon. Members that it will be like a gazetteer of the United Kingdom.
At this point, perhaps I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that I have listened carefully to the views of fishermen from Lowestoft and elsewhere along the east coast and that I appreciate their concern about the level of the plaice quota in the North sea. With the prospect of a quota little different from this year, I can say now that I do not envisage carrying out a North sea plaice swap at the Council. That meets the concerns of those who depend on the North sea plaice and ensures an approach consistent with last year. That was fairly acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Of course, what I will do for the south-west—as I did last year—is seek further international swaps during the year which will be of benefit to it.
One issue that is always difficult—and this may relate to what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) wants to say—and causes concern at the Council is whether to invoke the Hague preference. When the system of national quotas was established, that convention was introduced, to give the UK and Ireland a prior claim

653
to certain stocks. Until recently, we have been overall beneficiaries of that convention, especially in Scotland. We are now no longer beneficiaries overall.
The immediate difficulty arises when the Republic of Ireland invokes its Hague preference in the Irish sea, largely at the expense of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. In response to that, I shall want co use international quota swaps to increase our quotas in the Irish sea for the direct benefit of the Northern Irish fishing industry. I shall want, so far as is possible, to mitigate the immediate disadvantages to the Northern Irish industry which result from the Hague preference.
Beyond that, we need to consider whether having the Hague preference is still of benefit to the UK. I have agreed with the UK fishing industry as a whole that the Hague preference is an issue which it would be sensible for us to revisit calmly and in some detail in the new year, involving the whole of the industry. That has been agreed as a sensible way forward by everyone concerned, including the industries in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with what the Minister said about getting rid of the Hague preference. However, it does not extend to Grimsby. For some reason, the definition of north Britain ends at Flamborough head.
If the Minister is to provide compensation to Northern Ireland for the absence of the Hague preference for its ports and fishermen, the same should apply to the west-coast fisheries that do not benefit from the Hague preference either.
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the approach I am taking. However, there is a slight misunderstanding. It is not simply a question of the absence of the Hague preference—Northern Ireland loses fish because the Republic invokes the Hague preference. The areas in the North sea where the hon. Gentleman's fleets fish do not lose fish through the invocation of Hague preference. That is the difference.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister is aware that Northern Irish fishermen are angry because, under the Hague preference, they are not permitted to take fish out of the water, yet part of their quota can be taken out of the water by the Irish Republic. That is unacceptable to them. They feel that the Hague preference must be renegotiated.
Is the Minister aware that there is an abundance of haddock in the Irish sea? In fact, the scientists in Europe told us at a meeting in Brussels that they did not understand why there was so much haddock. They thought it was so scarce that it should not be fished. The same is true of herring and nephrops. Why cannot the quota for Northern Ireland fishermen be left the same when there is such an abundance of fish in the Irish sea?
Mr. Baldry: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that I was in Northern Ireland the other day talking to the industry. I fully appreciate its concerns about the invocation of the Hague preference. Of course, it is the Republic of Ireland that invokes it. The representatives of the UK and I have agreed that it is now
654
time to reconsider. Overall, the UK no longer benefits from the Hague preference. Therefore, it must be time to revisit it.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I do not intend to do so again. I can anticipate his intervention. The representatives of the Scottish industry who were present at the meeting this morning agreed with our approach. They thought it sensible to revisit the issue of the Hague preference calmly and coolly in the new year.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be misleading the House for a Minister to suggest that he has the agreement of an industry, when in fact all he did was tell its representatives what he was going to do?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not something for the Chair to judge.
Mr. Baldry: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I had a meeting with representatives of the industry, at which they had every opportunity to express concerns about the approach that I intend to take. They made it clear to me that they saw that approach as sensible. They agreed that we should revisit the issue of the Hague preference calmly and sensibly in the new year.
I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim—the question of haddock. As we all know, the Republic of Ireland tends, for a number of reasons, to talk down stocks in the Irish sea. My approach will be based on best science, having regard to what is sensible for and in the best interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. We need to ensure that the quotas available for the Northern Irish industry are based on best science and what is in the industry's interests, not on the interests of any other member of the Community. That will be my approach, and I hope that hon. Members agree that it is a sensible way forward.
I make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is mischief making, that I want to take the matter forward, calmly and collectively, as a UK industry issue, because different parts of the UK have different approaches to the issue, but it is important that they are all involved and that the matter is discussed calmly and coolly.
During the debate last year, there was much comment on the subject of quota hoppers. I think that, by now, everyone is aware of the nature of quota hoppers. The national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are intended to provide for the fishermen and fishing communities of member states. Quota hoppers use UK national quotas, yet they are essentially foreign owned, foreign skippered, foreign crewed vessels that never land their catch in the UK and bring no economic benefit to the UK—but in the eyes of the law they are UK fishing boats. It is clearly a crazy situation. Thanks to the persistence of my hon. Friends from the south-west, especially my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks), for South Hams and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), we have all focused on

655
the need to ensure that it cannot be permitted to continue. That is why the Government have tabled treaty changes at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
We are seeking enabling powers that would allow us to insist on there being real economic links between vessels that fish our quotas and the coastal communities that depend on them. We want to be able to introduce, as necessary, requirements on national ownership, residency, crewing, port of operation and landings without the risk of successful challenge before the European Court.
I want to ensure that the UK fish quota is available for the benefit of UK fishermen. Everyone now realises that the issue of quota hoppers will not go away, that it has to be resolved, and that we must ensure that the fish that go with the UK's fish quotas are available for UK fishermen. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at Dublin, the resolution of that issue is a key priority.
Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated:
"For example, we believe the social chapter should not be introduced by the back door—that is something on which the Prime Minister has made our position very clear; we have to look out for the interests of our fishing communities who have been gravely damaged by the way in which the quota-hopping phenomena have been distorted very much to our disadvantage. These are two clear examples which are fundamental to our objectives in the negotiation … We have made it very, very clear. At the end of the day, the intergovernmental conference reaches a successful conclusion when all the member states are content with the outcome. We have indicated we will not be satisfied with an outcome that does not address for example the two points that I have just raised."
I know that the fishing industry knows that we are determined to take effective action on quota hoppers. That is what we intend to do.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because his comments are most reassuring. They are particularly reassuring after the Prime Minister's clear statement, today, that, in June, in Amsterdam, he would—in the hopeful event of another Conservative Government—veto a revised treaty if a quota-hopping amendment were not incorporated into it.
Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? The Government's proposed draft protocol to deal with the quota hopping problem was not included in the draft produced by the Irish at Dublin. That proposal, with other proposals from other nations, slipped into the appendix. Is he hopeful that, between now and Amsterdam, that proposal will be incorporated into a revised treaty, as the Government hope and expect?
Mr. Baldry: Absolutely; and I think that no one can be in any doubt that everyone in Europe realises that quota hopping is a problem that must be resolved. When the Spanish Prime Minister recently visited Britain to meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it could not have been lost on anyone—least of all on anyone in Spain—that much of the questioning by journalists was not on long-standing bilateral issues between the United Kingdom and Spain, such as Gibraltar, but on the issue of quota hopping. It is not an issue that will go away, and our colleagues in Europe understand that.
The Prime Minister made it very clear at Dublin that the problem of quota hopping will not disappear and that it must be resolved. Furthermore, my right hon. and

656
learned Friend the Foreign Secretary could not have made any clearer our commitment to resolving the issue than he did yesterday, when he said that we will not be satisfied with an outcome of the intergovernmental conference that does not address that issue. It is quite clear that the fishing industry understands our commitment to resolving the issue.
In the mean time, I am determined to ensure that all fishing vessels in the UK abide by the rules, irrespective of ownership or of place of landing. Earlier today, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I provided a list of all the prosecutions taken by the Ministry this year that resulted in fines of £5,000 or more. Many of those prosecutions concerned foreign vessels. Of those concerning UK vessels, more than half involved quota hoppers. That fact concerns me, and I am sure that it concerns the House. I shall be investigating what can be done to strengthen compliance with the law.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: Have I given way already to the hon. Gentleman? Yes, I have.
Quota hoppers currently comprise about 20 per cent. of our offshore fleet. I made it clear that we do not intend to contemplate any further compulsory decommissioning or reduction in the UK fishing effort until the entire matter of quota hoppers is satisfactorily resolved.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend should know that the stand he has taken over the past year—specifically on quota hopping, but also on many other fishing issues—has been greatly appreciated in the south-west. Does he agree that that issue—as valuable as his comments on quota hopping are—is merely an aspect of a far wider problem: the common fisheries policy? In turn, that policy throws into question the entire basis on which we participate in Europe. Does he look forward to a time when the basis on which we conduct our fishing policy is much more in tune with a sensible way in which to do things than with operating a policy that requires him to apply a type of aggressive sticking plaster to deal with problems in a very narrow manner? That action is very worth while, but it is based on a policy that does not work.
Mr. Baldry: I shall deal at some length with the type of reforms that I should like to be made to the fisheries policy, but I should tell my hon. Friend and the House that we would be misleading ourselves if we believed that simply exiting the common fisheries policy would resolve all our problems, because we would still have to negotiate bilateral arrangements with our fellow member states. In recent weeks, for example, many of us have been preoccupied by the dispute between Guernsey and France. Guernsey is not a member of the European Union or of the common fisheries policy, but that does not stop it disputing with France access to waters. That dispute must be resolved bilaterally.
Much of my time is spent attempting to resolve disputes within the UK fishing fleet, which may be between conflicting interests. I shall say more in a moment about the conflict—which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge will know only too well—in south Devon

657
between trawlermen and crabbers. As he also knows, in the south-west there are occasionally quite serious disputes between the English fleet and the Scottish fleet.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Baldry: No; I should like to deal with one or two questions at a time.
The idea that simply exiting the common fisheries policy would resolve all our problems is mistaken. However, of course we require substantial reform of the common fisheries policy, and I shall deal with that issue in some detail.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that bilateral negotiations do not all always work to our advantage, as we saw in the dispute with Iceland? Many years ago, the Iceland Government offered us 64,000 pounds of cod, which was turned down by the then Labour Government, who wanted twice that amount. Ultimately, however, we received nothing at all. That was one of the reasons why the fishing fleet at Fleetwood declined so severely.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. It would be fair to say that part of the challenge and part of the difficulties currently faced by the UK fishing industry are a consequence of the long-term loss of our distant waters. Negotiations on those distant waters were bilateral.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. James Wallace rose—
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a fatuous point at the start of this debate.
Mr. Wallace indicated dissent.
Mr. Baldry: I shall deal in a moment with the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) about coastal waters.
Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No, I will not.
Mr. Wallace: The Minister is frit.
Mr. Baldry: No, I am not. The hon. Gentleman's jumping up and down like a schoolboy will not cause me to give way to him. He made a fatuous point at the beginning of this debate. If he wishes to, he can make his own points in his own manner in his own time.
The UK industry has other concerns. Many of my hon. Friends have understandable concerns that the six and 12-mile fishery limits, which restrict access by foreign vessels to waters around the British coast, will form part of the review in 2002. That matter has been a concern particularly for my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—who has visited many ports this year—and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). We have made it
658
clear that, for us, the six and 12-mile limits are, and will remain, non-negotiable, and that any interference with those limits is unacceptable.
The restrictions on access by foreign fishing vessels within our six and 12-mile limits are an essential derogation from the equal access provisions under the common fisheries policy. We insisted on them when we joined the Community; they were extended unanimously in 1983 and 1992; and we intend to get a definitive establishment of these restrictions as a part of the CFP at the earliest possible opportunity.
I intend that, as soon as possible, we shall seek to secure the agreement of all member states that there will be no relaxation of, and no change to, the six and 12-mile fishery limits in 2002 and that the six and 12-mile limits should be considered permanent features of the CFP.
Going around the fishing ports of the UK, I have detected a considerable sense of alienation among members of the fishing industry at the way in which fishing policy generally emerges. I am convinced that fishermen must have more say in fishing policy. It is for that reason that I have not only sought to have as many meetings as possible with representatives of the fishing industry, but I have ensured that they have much greater contact with fisheries scientists.
Much more needs to be done, however. That is why I have suggested to European colleagues that there needs to be a pattern of regional committees to take forward good fisheries management. That would mean that member states which have fishing quota in particular waters should come together on a regular basis, whether at ministerial or official level. Most important, they must involve their respective fishing industries and fishermen to discuss how those waters can best be managed in the short and long-term interests of fishermen.
I want fishermen to be fully involved with the development and management of the common fisheries policy. We are making our contribution, which is why much closer contacts have been developed over the past year, including ministerial contacts with fishermen. I and the other UK fisheries Ministers have had numerous meetings with fishermen around the coast in order to hear their views first hand and to explain Government policy.
In addition, there have been numerous meetings between the industry and the Government's fisheries scientists to improve fishermen's understanding of the science underlying fisheries management and to give them the opportunity to make their own contribution. We need to do more, and it should be done by creating regional committees of fishermen and officials from different member states to study developments and to feed in advice before decisions are taken. I am glad to say that, at our request, the European Commission has agreed that such a pilot committee should be established. That is good news.
For the longer term, I should want to see what powers could be devolved to such committees based on the perfectly commonsense principles of subsidiarity and decisions being best taken where they are most relevant. I believe that by involving the fishing industry much more in its own future, fisheries management overall will improve considerably.
Our fishing industry has been at the forefront of making suggestions for technical conservation measures to conserve fish stocks and to make fishing more selective

659
and reduce discards. We also have to tackle industrial fishing which is why, at the forthcoming Fisheries Council, we are arguing for a limit be to placed on the number of sand-eels that can be caught.
The UK took the initiative on conservation measures in setting up a fisheries conservation group, bringing together fishermen, fisheries scientists and administrators. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to make my speech for me, he is very welcome to do so. In the spirit of Christmas, and to put the hon. Gentleman out of his pain, I happily give way to him.
Mr. Wallace: The tactic worked. The Minister said earlier that there was some link between the Government's policy on quota hopping and resistance to any compulsory further reduction in the UK fleet. Will he clarify precisely what the policy is? In June this year he was talking about trying to assemble a minority block to stop the proposals for multi-annual guidance programme—MAGP—IV but, in October, the Prime Minister talked about not implementing further compulsory cuts. Clearly, a measure could be agreed with Britain opting out, but what is the Minister's position—not to implement or to try to assemble a blocking minority?
Mr. Baldry: We made it clear that we do not intend to contemplate any further reductions in either the UK fishing capacity or effort control until the issue of quota hoppers is resolved.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Answer the question.
Mr. Baldry: I am going to answer the question. We have to bear it in mind that the Council of Ministers has made little, if any, progress with MAGP IV. The Commission's proposals were roundly condemned by all members of the Council of Ministers. Working hard, the presidency proposed a compromise that commanded the support only of Ireland—that is not surprising as Ireland had the presidency—and Luxembourg. No progress was made at the last Council of Ministers meeting. It was agreed to adjourn the matter with a view to further discussions by officials. I understand that there have been two meetings at official level, but they sought merely to restate some basic principles on which many of them were not even agreed. The latest meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or COREPER, discussed what would happen if there was no decision on MAGP IV before the end of this year.
As I told representatives of the UK fishing industry, the possibilities are almost endless, and a number of hypothetical situations could arise. The industry and the House may rest assured that, whatever situation arises, we shall fulfil the commitment I made that we shall not be implementing any further reduction in capacity or effort control until the issue of quota hoppers is resolved. However, it is impossible to say exactly what shape that will take as no one can tell when, if or how the Community will come to a decision on MAGP IV.
The United Kingdom took the initiative on conservation measures by setting up a fisheries conservation group. The results of the group's work provided a strong starting
660
point for the UK's contribution to Community discussions on technical conservation. We are now pressing the Community to ensure that fishing gear and practices are managed according to rules that are fair to all, which reduce the catch of unwanted small fish and so help reduce discards and enable stocks to recover.
Disappointingly, the Commission has not taken on board as many of our and the UK industry's suggestions as I should have hoped. In large part, that is because it clearly feels the need to find technical conservation measures which can apply to all Community waters. Of course, these are extremely difficult to find, and again demonstrate the need for sensible regional management. Different waters doubtless require different conservation measures. For conservation measures to be successful, they need to command the support of the industry; and to command its support, we need the involvement of the fishing industry. The UK fishing industry and the Government are very largely at one in our concerns about the Commission proposals on technical conservation, and I shall continue to argue those concerns in detail whenever the need arises.
There is also understandable concern in the fishing industry, particularly among owners of smaller vessels, about the amount of regulation with which they have to cope. I feel strongly that the position of smaller vessels needs to be protected in the interests of deregulation. Vessels under 10 m in length already have a much lighter administrative regime and do not have to complete logbooks. Data on the catches of these vessels are collected in a non-bureaucratic way. Vessels under 18 m in length are exempt from the reporting provisions for western waters, and I shall want smaller vessels to be exempt from the requirements of any satellite monitoring.
More generally, I shall try to ensure that we keep to the absolute minimum the regulatory burden on fishermen. That is something for which we must continue to press. I am grateful to my hon Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point for bringing home to Commissioner Bonino during their recent visit to Brussels the special needs of inshore fishermen.
In recent months, many hon. Members have spoken to me about their concerns for the long-term future of the industry. The very practical problems faced by some fishermen are well illustrated by those in Start bay. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams approached me about the problems of conflicting interests there. If there are conflicts locally, I hope that they can be resolved locally. If the Devon sea fisheries committee proposes a byelaw, I shall want to be satisfied that it is proportionate and does not simply seek to advance the interests of any one group.
My hon. Friend has also rightly drawn my attention to the concerns about membership of sea fisheries committees. These have an important role in the local management of inshore fisheries, a role which has expanded with their limits being extended from 3 to 6 miles, and with increasing environmental interest. I assure the House that, when new appointments are made to these committees next year, I shall be careful to take account of this changed situation.
With one of the largest fishing fleets in his constituency for a decade or more, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, like other hon. Members from the south-west, has impressed on the Government the

661
problems facing the industry and suggested how they might best be tackled. Not surprisingly, his help has paid dividends, with the Brixham trawlermen landing a larger and more valuable catch in the past couple of years and the shell fishermen on the coastline also benefiting. All the hon. Members with whom I have had meetings on the subject are tireless workers for the industry and for individual fishermen.
Mr. Steen: In return, may I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the help and support that he has given to my local industry? The fishermen in Brixham and the shell fishermen have been immensely supported and rewarded by his constant attention to their problems. I pay a personal tribute to his support for the industry.
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. All hon. Members, across parties, are concerned to secure the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry—in Newlyn, in Brixham, in the Thames estuary, in Skegness, in Northern Ireland or in Scotland.
Another example of local concerns was provided this summer by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and for Wyre, who went to considerable lengths to explain the problems facing Fleetwood and the efforts that all those involved were making to restore the fortunes of that key port. I have been greatly impressed by how the industry throughout the United Kingdom is looking ahead and planning for the future. I wish that it were within my gift to convert two fish to 5,000. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am prepared to listen to the industry and to consider how the management of our quotas might be improved. We are now considering proposals from the industry for long-term changes to the quota management system. Of course all fishermen want to catch more.
I know that fishermen in the south-east have experienced major problems as quotas have diminished and have come under pressure from quota hoppers. Many colleagues have pressed for action to assist the non-sector. Concern comes from many parts of the coast and has been voiced by my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), among others. We have taken account, and will continue to take account, of the needs of the non-sector. We have introduced underpinning for the quota allocations made to the under-10 m fleet and to the non-sector. Next year, that is to be extended to the non-sector allocations for North sea plaice, whiting, channel cod and sole. Despite all the difficulties facing us, we have managed to keep open our main inshore fisheries to the under-10 m fleet to the end of this year.
Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job on behalf of our fishermen. The under-10 m fleet brings in less than 2 per cent. of this country's white fish take, but it accounts for the majority of boats on the sea. Will my hon. Friend consider removing those boats entirely from regulation? That seems the right way to manage sea fish conservation and the fishing industry. Commissioner Bonino has undertaken to consider the legislative and financial implications. Will my hon. Friend bring the suggestion forward on every possible occasion?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend knows from my visits to Leigh-on-Sea—I have also visited other ports in the
662
Thames estuary and Rye—that I have taken on board the concerns of the non-sector. We have to consider how the non-sector can avoid being squeezed out. Many people earn their living from the non-sector, often in small boats and in difficult circumstances, subjected to the vagaries of the weather. I hope that I have made it clear to those in the non-sector that I fully appreciate their concerns.
I think that there is no disagreement in the House on the fact that the common fisheries policy is not working as it was intended and needs to be reformed. It is over-bureaucratic, it has failed to protect fish stocks sustainably, it is open to abuse and, above all, it is not fair to British fishermen. We are determined to change all that. We have made it clear to the industry how we intend to do that and are taking the issue forward to ensure that the common fisheries policy is, as far as possible, of real benefit to United Kingdom fishermen. We shall shortly issue a response to the report of the CFP review group. We are signalling the key elements that we are aiming for now and in preparation for the 2002 review.
We have made it clear that we totally reject any idea of a single European fishing fleet, managed and policed from Brussels. There are regular suggestions in the media that plans exist to create such a fleet. The present rules of the common fisheries policy place responsibility for managing quotas and vessels on member states. It is also a national responsibility to enforce fisheries regulations in national waters out to 200 miles. We shall reject any proposals that those national responsibilities should be taken away and that there should in any way be a single community fleet, managed and policed from Brussels.
I believe that the fishing industry recognises that much has been achieved this year. The industry and the Government agree on what remains to be done. I recognise that the practical politics of life are such that opposition parties feel it necessary to try to create divisions on the issue. That is a pity, because it would be in the best interests of the fishing industry throughout the UK if the House were, for once, able to send out a united and unanimous endorsement to Europe and elsewhere of what we are seeking to achieve for our fishing industry.
I am determined that the UK fishing industry should have a clear future and a strong future as we go into the 21st century. The fishermen of Britain can be confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my fellow fisheries Ministers and I—indeed, the whole Government—are determined to do all that is necessary to secure the industry's future.
6.15 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"believes that the failure of this Government in its seventeen years of office to tackle the problems facing the fishing industry is an unacceptable threat to the future of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; regrets the failure of the United Kingdom Government to implement a decommissioning policy until 1993; recognises that fishing by non-UK vessels against UK quotas is unacceptable to our fishing industry and calls for effective action to tackle quota-hopping; regrets the Government's failure to prevent increased Spanish access to the Irish Box and Western Waters from I January 1996; concludes that the United Kingdom Government has not represented effectively in Europe the interests of this country's fishing industry; further recognises that the overriding priority for the Common Fisheries Policy must be the conservation of fish stocks, without which the fishing industry

663
cannot survive; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to work in Europe to achieve reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy that ensure the conservation and fair allocation of fish stocks with effective enforcement by all European States".
As the Minister said, this is the major annual fisheries debate. It is an opportunity for the House to pass judgment on the Government's handling of fisheries policy and their treatment of our fishing communities during the year. As usual, it is taking place before the main Fisheries Council meeting at Christmas, rightly giving hon. Members a chance to express their views on the proposals—not least those on total allowable catches and quotas—that will come up before the Council later this week.
I should like to raise several points about the Fisheries Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will deal with more issues when he winds up. There are important questions on quotas to be dealt with and it is understandable that hon. Members on both sides should raise detailed points when local fishermen are worried about the effects on them of the proposals.
There is also concern about the effect on Northern Ireland of the Hague preference. We must address that. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who said that he had received a letter from the Government about that. It is right to mention that.
There is no question but that the Northern Ireland fishing communities have had a raw deal compared with those in the Irish Republic under the common fisheries policy. That is indisputable, considering how the amount of fish landed in the different fishing ports has changed from the traditional patterns since implementation of the CFP. However, any alterations made to the arrangements in an attempt to protect and help the fishermen of Northern Ireland—clearly, we strongly support that aim—must not damage other fishing communities in the United Kingdom. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland agree.
When the Minister states, as he has to, that the issue will be resolved through international quota swapping, we must ask questions. Presumably, the Republic of Ireland will not give up quota without something in return from the United Kingdom, although the swap may be more complicated than that. We simply put down a marker that any quota swap must be handled with caution because if a quota swap was to the disadvantage of fishing communities in, for example, the south-west of England, that would be a matter of legitimate concern for both sides of the House.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the Opposition spokesman's recognition that the Hague preference is a major problem for the County Down fishing industry. This year alone, the current proposals for the United Kingdom—and that is mainly Northern Ireland in this context—under the Hague preference will mean a loss of 800 tonnes of cod, 1,000 tonnes of whiting and 300 tonnes of plaice. We in Northern Ireland want to hear not only what the Government intend to do about this, but what the Opposition would do to tackle the problem.
Dr. Strang: I will certainly come to that point. I am very conscious of some of the other concerns that Northern Ireland fishermen, along with other UK fishermen, have in relation to Government policy.
664
I accept what the right hon. Member for Strangford says and we are grateful for the information he has given the House. There is no question but that the invocation of the Hague preference by the Republic of Ireland is unacceptable in terms of its impact on the fishing communities in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Republic, although it claims its preference, does not always fish it? We then lose out completely. Northern Ireland is not losing out because of arrangements with other fishing fleets round the United Kingdom coast. The argument is with Dublin and with the Hague preference, and it must be faced. The fishermen of Northern Ireland do not want a revision of the preference. They want that part of the Hague preference to be taken away completely so that no Government can say, "We are taking your fish and even though we do not fish them all, you are getting none of them."
Dr. Strang: Again, the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As he says, the Republic of Ireland seems to have got such a generous quota that its fishermen have not, on many occasions, been able to fish up to the quota. That is what I meant when I said that Northern Ireland fishermen had got a raw deal from the implementation of the policy compared with fishermen in the Republic. I point out to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe has visited the issue before; this is not a matter in which we have suddenly taken an interest. We recognise that the problem must be addressed.
I come now to a matter which concerns fishermen throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The debate is not just about total allowable catches, quotas and the Hague preference, which are important, but about multi-annual guidance programme IV. It is also about the cuts that will be imposed on our fishing fleet. The reality is that there are many communities—I include the fishing communities of Northern Ireland—where decommissioning is not a panacea and is not acceptable because it means selling jobs and the livelihood of future generations of fishermen.
The Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was inadequate because he raised an important point. The Government have said that they will not implement multi-annual guidance programme IV, whatever is agreed, until the issue of quota hopping is sorted out. We support that point. That should mean that the Government will continue to block any agreement on the multi-annual guidance programme along the lines being advocated by the Commission or the presidency. That is an extremely important point.
Surely to goodness even this Government, whose record on the matter has been disastrous as I shall explain later, will manage to sustain a blocking minority to prevent any agreement on cuts in our fleet, not just at the next Fisheries Council meeting, but at subsequent meetings until we have got past the intergovernmental conference and until we have resolved the problem of quota hopping.
Mr. Baldry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said in my very full answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I did not use the word "implement". I said that we were not

665
prepared to contemplate any further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until matters were resolved in the IGC.
The hon. Gentleman asked about frustrating the Commission and the presidency and about preventing them from bringing forward proposals. We are, of course, making it clear to our colleagues where we find that the proposals have major shortcomings. No decision has yet been taken and it is unlikely that any decision will be taken this coming week. It is very unlikely that any decision will be taken in the foreseeable future.
All sorts of things may arise because many member states are concerned about the structural funds that go with multi-annual guidance programmes III and IV. They are concerned about whether it may be in the interests of everyone to have a roll-over of MAGP III for a further year. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that whatever may arise, I will protect the UK fishing industry and ensure that we continue with our basic premise—that there will be no further reduction in UK fishing capacity or fishing effort until the whole issue of quota hoppers is resolved. I hope that that is perfectly clear.
Dr. Strang: We have heard the word "contemplate" too often over the years. If the Minister is saying that the Government will block the cuts in our fleet—which will mean cuts in the fleets of other member states—that is fine. However, my simple point is this. Blocking agreement will be a success, but coming back here in January—I gather from what the Minister has said that there is no danger of this—and saying that other Governments have agreed to multi-annual guidance programme IV, but that the British Government are not contemplating it will be a very different state of affairs. From what the Minister has said, I trust that we need not worry about that possibility.
Mr. Steen: Nobody doubts the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. I listened, however, to the Minister's speech which was a tour de force. Does the hon. Gentleman really disagree with specific points or are the Opposition just shadow boxing around various issues? I do not understand so far whether the Opposition really disagree with the Government's policy. If they do not disagree and think that the Government are doing a jolly good job, why are they opposing the Government tonight?
Dr. Strang: This is all very fine, but we cannot just ignore the Government's record. Conservative Members staged a most impressive love-in during the debate; we shall see whether that is sustained during the vote. As I said at the beginning, this is not just a debate about what will be discussed in the Fisheries Council; this is the major annual fisheries debate of the year. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) can rest assured that I will come to some of our differences.
There is a serious point which all hon. Members know in their heart of hearts is an extremely important one. The truth is that the decisions in which the Minister will be participating this week will be taken against the background of, I hope, a recognition that we need more effective conservation measures for the stocks that are at risk. There is a legitimate and real concern about what is likely to happen to the fish stocks on which, among others, our fishermen are dependent if effective conservation is not implemented.
666
I had the pleasure of attending an interesting meeting at the House of Commons organised by the parliamentary and scientific committee; one or two other hon. Members were also there. I heard Professor John Beddington of Imperial college and Mr. Barry Deas, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, give a splendid presentation on the issue. The professor was able to be a bit more detached, but his speech was powerful. Mr. Barry Deas was in some ways more impressive because his first requirement is to meet the daily concerns and needs of fishermen who have to earn a living. Anyone who attended the meeting and anyone who follows these issues knows perfectly well that there is a real issue here which the House of Commons will surely not pretend does not exist.
Mr. Mans: In the light of what he has said, will the hon. Gentleman state how his party will preserve jobs in the fishing industry in the short term while providing stocks of fish in the long term? Bearing that in mind, he did not answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in respect of the Hague preference and the Irish Republic. Will he address that point and say what his party would do about it?
Dr. Strang: I am sorry, but that will not wash. I answered both hon. Gentlemen on the issue of Northern Ireland. However, I shall return to the important point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
To illustrate that there is some common ground, we should recall that in the summer the Minister of State advised the House that nearly 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters that we fish are at risk of biological collapse. Last month, the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas warned that many EU fish stocks are outside safe biological spawning levels while fishing mortality rates are at historically high levels.
As the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded in its excellent report, if action is not taken to conserve fish stocks, it will be too late to prevent total collapses in stocks, as has occurred in the American Georges bank, the Black sea and off the Canadian Grand Banks.
Let me turn to another point that must concern Members on both sides of the House. There is a worrying and growing discrepancy between the total allowable catches that are agreed every year—no doubt they will be agreed again this week in Brussels—and what is actually landed by our fishermen. As hon. Members have acknowledged—I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) who represents an important fishing community—throughout the European Union substantial volumes of fish are being landed outwith the quotas. That is a measure of the failure of both Government policy and the common fisheries policy.

One reason for black fish landings is that fishermen sense that the total allowable catches—and the data on which the TACs are based—takes far too little account of either the fishermen's own experience of current stock levels or the socio-economic effects of wild quota fluctuations. That results in the vicious circle whereby under-reporting by fishermen further jeopardises the accuracy of the catch predictions on which the TAC should be based. Once again this year the ACFM has

667
stated that misreporting had severely hampered its efforts to assess roundfish stocks in the west of Scotland. Conservative Members need to understand a simple point: if stocks are under pressure, there can be no justification for allowing the additional access of vessels from other member states to exploit those stocks. That is precisely what happened at the beginning of the year in the Irish box and the western waters.
Two Christmases ago, all the Government had to do to construct a blocking minority was to achieve the support of one large country and one small country. Yet even on an issue as clear cut as the over-exploitation of fish stocks in the waters off the south-west of England, they were unable to achieve that blocking minority. If I have pressed the Minister hard on the threatened cuts to our fleet under the multi-annual guidance programme IV, it is because of our experience on that occasion.
Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr. Strang: No, I cannot give way all the time. It is important not only that we use our veto when we have to, but that we construct and maintain a blocking minority and even sometimes achieve a qualified majority. That is how we have to engage in the European Union. There is no easy solution.
The common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. There is a conflict between the implementation of the principle of equal access of member states to the different fisheries within the jurisdiction of the EU and the conservation of fish stocks. Equal access to fish in all the waters of all member states is a concept that stems from the treaty principles of non-discrimination among member states.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have concluded that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the CFP are entitled to that view, but it is not the position of the Labour party. We believe that it is in the interests of the fishing industry that we stay at the European Union negotiating table.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place this afternoon. He opened last year's debate and no one could have described the position better. I remind the House of his words:
"Renegotiating the treaty to exclude fisheries from the scope of Community competence would be a monumental and probably impossible task. It would require unanimity and ratification by all member states and that could be bought only at a huge price."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1353–54.]
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He criticised the principle of equal access to the common resource; however he seemed to imply that nothing would persuade him and his party to leave the common fisheries policy. Does he not realise that the principle of equal access to the common resource is the fundamental policy of the common fisheries policy and he cannot have it both ways?
Dr. Strang: I am not attempting to have it both ways any more than the Secretary of State for Scotland did when he spoke in last year's debate. There is common ground between the Government and the official
668
Opposition and indeed the other parties in the House of Commons that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not a practical option. I respect the opinion of some Conservative Members who want Britain to withdraw from the European Union. That is a perfectly respectable and arguable position, but the Labour party has no sympathy with that view.
The Labour party believes that the common fisheries policy is in need of radical reform. That is why we set out our commitment to CFP reform in "New Labour, New Life for Britain"—a document that has been endorsed at every level of the Labour party and that will be the basis for the manifesto that we will put to the people of Britain.
A Labour Government will attach a high priority to fisheries policy and to securing a reformed CFP. [Interruption.] The Minister would do well to read some of the debates on the CFP that took place before he took over the job. He should read our recommendations. We welcome his proposal for more regional control and more localised fisheries management. It is clear from the expression on his face that the hon. Member for St. Ives remembers that. I recall advocating that. I also remember the then Agriculture Minister, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, attempting to rubbish that position. He did not succeed in that and I was pleased when that and some of our more important ideas were put forward in the report of the Common Fisheries Policy Review Group—the Goodlad report—which is an excellent document.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no quarrel with us over the fundamentals of the CFP. If he agrees with us on regional management and the other ideas that I put forward, why on earth is he voting against us tonight? That will only send a confused signal to others in Europe. He should join us in the Division Lobby tonight.
Dr. Strang: I can assure the Minister that we consider that the Government's record on fisheries has been a disaster and that they have been utterly ineffective in their ability to represent the fishing industry in the European Union.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party would push for the reform of the current common fisheries policy. Can we return to the original question of the Hague preference? The hon. Gentleman agreed with me that it was damaging to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and, contrary to what may have been implied earlier in the debate, it has been damaging to the United Kingdom fishing industry not just recently, but for the past five years. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman consider it not on a regional basis, but on a United Kingdom basis and let us know what the Labour party would do? Would they work to abolish the Hague preference?
Dr. Strang: With regard to the Hague preference, the Minister of State said today that he had all the fishermen's organisations—[Interruption.] I will answer the right hon. Member for Strangford in the way that hon. Members would expect of me.
Yes, we recognise the problem. Yes, we want action to be taken. When the Minister says that that will be achieved by international quota swapping—that is the

669
phrase, I believe, but he will correct me if I am wrong—that is fine. But I must say honestly and fairly to the right hon. Member for Strangford—who, I am sure, would not expect anything else—that we cannot give the Government a blank cheque to wreak whatever damage they want on the fishermen on the south-west of England by taking away their quotas; obviously not. [Interruption.] The Minister of State understands the point, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) may not.
As hon. Members who follow such matters know, it is naive to think that there is a load of fish that we can be given for nothing by other member states of the European Union to solve the problem. We hope that the Minister of State will solve it, and that he will do so in a way that will not lead to his hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-west of England to denounce him in January or February. The problem can be solved, but it must be done sensibly.
We should recognise that this is an extremely important fisheries debate. It is not just about the minor points raised by Conservative Members. Of course, I do not refer to the Northern Ireland issue as a minor issue, nor is the multi-annual guidance programme IV a minor issue. The Government Front Bench should take the matter more seriously, or they may come to regret it.
I referred to the Goodlad report, which is an excellent document. I thought that the Minister of State might have dwelt more on it, but perhaps the Minister who winds up will develop it further. The report contains many excellent proposals for the short and medium term, and important proposals for the longer term. If a Labour Government were elected to office, they would want to take up many of the recommendations in the report.
The Government cannot escape their record on fisheries policy: 17 years of failure. Part of the problem is that when a difficulty arises, the Government play it down or ignore it entirely. I was a little disappointed in the Minister's reference to the Guernsey fishermen's problem, which he portrayed as a problem between Guernsey and France. I trust that he is not suggesting that the United Kingdom will wash its hands of an issue that is taking place in British waters.
The Government's policy should be a source of embarrassment to Ministers. It is a pattern of foolish and unfair decisions, often reversed in the face of protest by the fishing industry, the Opposition and Conservative Back-Bench Members, who argue the case for their fishing communities. Right hon. and hon. Members will remember the unfair and unworkable compulsory tie-up regime, which led to the demeaning spectacle of our National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations having to take the British Government to the European Court.
The hon. Member for St. Ives agreed at the time that the Government had deprived the industry of a decommissioning scheme for many years. Decommissioning is not a panacea, and it is unacceptable that our vessels should be decommissioned in order to give greater opportunities to vessels from other member states of the EU to fish in UK waters or waters within the jurisdiction of the EU.
I reminded the House of the Government's disastrous failure to keep the additional Spanish vessels out of the Irish box and the western waters two years ago. That came into force this year. [Interruption.] The Government could not even muster a blocking minority on that issue.
670
I am pleased that the Government are now addressing the issue of quota hopping. In the case of some high-value species, such as sole, hake and plaice, 40 per cent. of our national quota is affected. Across the national quota as a whole, the figure is about 20 per cent. That is huge—it is disastrous. The problem has not suddenly arisen in the past few months. The Government were in office when the common fisheries policy had its 10-year review and when the new CFP regulation was negotiated. Indeed, the Government held the presidency of the Council of Ministers at the end of 1992, when the new regulation was agreed.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Dr. Strang: No, I will not give way. The Government knew full well that quota hopping was an issue then—the Factortame judgment was in 1991—but they made no serious attempt to resolve the problem. Statements made by Government and fisheries Departments on their negotiating list show no trace of any move to solve the problem. In the statement made by the then Minister—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)— on the conclusion of the negotiations, there is no mention of any moves to resolve the problem of quota hopping.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: The Government are now talking tough on quota hopping. We welcome that. When the matter was raised at Agriculture Question Time, the Minister indicated that he was on the verge of resolving the matter.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: I repeat: I am not giving way.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Dr. Strang: Again, I am not giving way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says that he is not giving way, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) should listen and resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need a comment.
Dr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether that was a promotion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am not sure which hon. Members were in the House for the most recent Agriculture Question Time, but those who were present will recall the assertive way in which the Minister said that the Government were on the verge of resolving quota hopping. Those of us who follow such matters closely saw the great build-up to his visit to Plymouth, where he was to announce his plan to tackle quota hopping. Many of us wondered what the Government's secret weapon was.

671
Hon. Members now know what the secret weapon was: English lessons for Spanish fishermen. That is what the Minister said. We would tackle the problem of quota hopping not just by the Spanish, but presumably also by the Dutch, by requiring those fishermen to speak English before they were given a licence to fish against our national quota. I give way to the Minister if he wants to add to that.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how we are going to resolve the issue of quota hoppers. We have made clear to the House the change in the protocols, and I made that clear in my speech. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood some tongue-in-cheek comments by me. On the day the Spanish Prime Minister visited the UK, he was subjected to far more questions on quota hopping than on any other issue. He went away in no doubt that that the matter had to be resolved. That is what those comments in Plymouth achieved: we have ensured that everyone in Europe realises that the problem will not go away and must be solved.
Dr. Strang: It is certainly a problem that must be solved. That is the second time the Minister has referred to all the questions put by journalists to the Spanish Minister of Agriculture. I very much doubt whether all the questions from all the journalists, whether in Plymouth, London or anywhere else, have the Spanish Government shaking in their shoes and saying, "We are certainly going to agree to change that in the IGC."
The Labour party is determined to address the issue of quota hopping.
Mr. Mans: How?
Dr. Strang: I have explained that we could have tackled the issue during the 1992 review. That was not done. If the Labour party comes to power, it will be before the completion of the intergovernmental conference, and Ministers know that. Clearly, an incoming Labour Government could—I put it no stronger than that—pick up the hand. I was simply saying to the House and the country that we shall attach a high priority to the quota hopping issue. As the Foreign Secretary stated yesterday and the Prime Minister mentioned again today, there is no question that we can go on with quota hopping on such a scale.
Conservative Members have made great play of the fact that the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. They must be living in some dream world. The Minister knows perfectly well from the reception that he and his predecessors have received when they have visited fishing ports that no amount of media management will alter the fact that the Government's record on fisheries policy is one of failure. Seventeen years of successive Conservative Governments have meant 17 years of failure in fisheries policy. The Opposition amendment is designed to advance the case of the fishing industry and fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to support it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell the House that 13 hon. Members wish to speak in the remaining two and a half hours or so. May we have modest-length speeches?
6.50 pm
Mr. David Harris: As always, I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I must confess that I was a little baffled at the beginning of his speech but even more so by the end. I cannot understand why, since they agree precisely with what the Government are doing—at the moment at any rate—the Opposition are forcing a Division. I know that doing so is politics, to which I shall return. Not once during his speech did the hon. Gentleman give a reason for dividing the House on the motion before it. Trying to defeat the Government in such a way is purely opportunistic politics, and I hope that any Conservative Member—or, indeed, any Member on any other Bench—who is thinking of voting with the Opposition will bear that in mind.
Much mention was made in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East of the Hague preference. Its origins of course lie in a previous Labour Government, which most people may have forgotten because it was a rather long time ago. A former Labour Minister—now Lord Owen—who then represented the west country constituency of Plymouth, Devonport, signed the Hague preference and made the arrangements. It was a political deal. That is the answer to the complaint by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the rather mysterious cut-off point at Flamborough head. Northern Britain basically meant Scotland, and Northern Ireland and the south-west were excluded.
Even the part of the world represented by the then Member for Devonport was excluded from the Hague preference because, had it been included, there would have been awful problems with France over Brittany. The Hague preference was a political stitch-up and we are still bearing its consequences, just as the fishing industry, especially in the south-west, has had to bear the consequences of so many other political stitch-ups over the years. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on that subject. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland—perhaps this is more pertinent—will also very much welcome what was said.
The House will be relieved to know that this is almost certainly my last speech on fisheries matters. I have not missed a fisheries debate in the 13 years that I have had the honour to represent St. Ives. For reasons that are known to most hon. Members, I will not be standing at the next election. I shall miss these debates, which have altered considerably over the years. The times when a small group of us used to debate the issues and actually discuss which matters concerned our fishermen, rather than getting involved, as I am afraid that, inevitably, we have in this debate, in wider political considerations, seem like halcyon days. Before we lose sight of what is before the House, I hope that I may be permitted to comment briefly on some of the proposals that could affect fishermen in my constituency and the south-west constituencies of those represented ably by colleagues on both sides of the House. The fishing industry is very dear to hon. Members who represent the south-west. I am often accused by some of my hon. Friends of banging on about fishing, but the issue runs deep for anyone who has the great honour of representing a fisheries constituency.
Three areas of the Commission proposals that will be considered later this week give concern to the south-west. It must be said that the proposals before us tonight—

673
certainly those concerning the south-west, but generally, too—about which we have not heard much detail so far, are not quite as draconian as others have been over the years.
A number of issues naturally cause concern, the first of which relates to megrim. Western megrim stocks are basically a by-catch, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind. There is also the question of monkfish. Although, as I said, this year's proposals do not appear to be draconian, it must be remembered that they are on the back of massive cuts in the monkfish quota four years ago. I hope that my hon. Friend will heed the representations that I know have already been made to him on that point.
The third area of concern relates to a species which is often mentioned—certainly by south-west Members—in the House: channel cod. The complaint is that area VII b-k is huge. Yet the matter really concerns two distinct fish stocks. To lump them together in such a way distorts the fact that, in my part of the world—if I may call it that—there is often what appears to be an abundance of cod. Cod stocks should therefore be separated into more meaningful areas.
I return to what is undoubtedly the background to the debate: the common fisheries policy and the vexed question of quota hoppers. What I believe is common ground between every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency, wherever they sit in the House, is the view that the CFP is a disaster. It must be torn up and rewritten; we must start again.
I have no doubt that there must be some form of common policy. That is perhaps not a popular thing to say, but it is a fact of life, and I would be deluding people if I said that there was some magic way in which we could just withdraw from the CFP without consequence. Yes, we could withdraw, but there would be consequences. I do not believe that we can withdraw unilaterally from the CFP if we are to stay in the European Union. People would be more honest if they put that clearly, especially to fishermen. It would be more honest to say, "All right, let us come out of the EU, if that is what you want."
As I said earlier, the trouble with the CFP, which was put in place before we entered it, has so often been that it has been built on trade-offs; its consequences so often involve trade-offs. So often, fishing has been at the worse end of a greater trade-off. I hope that for once fishing will benefit, and I believe the Government when they say that they are absolutely determined to tackle the problem of quota hopping.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his solid and sensible work over many years for the fishing industry and for the south-west. If I should be fortunate enough to return here, I shall greatly miss his contributions. He and I have stood side by side on the issue of quota hopping. Does he agree that the original relative stability agreement in 1983 could not stand beside quota hopping and that the two cannot be reconciled? Was it not therefore inevitable that the Single European Act would reduce that original agreement to nonsense?
Is not it also true that the economic implications of what the hon. Gentleman and I seek to do suggest that the only way to get round the problem is either to tear up the single market legislation or to draw down funds—some
674
of which come from our taxpayers' contributions—from Europe for our fishermen, so that they can buy quota from Brussels in the way that the Spanish have over many years?
Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about me personally. I am not sure that what he said subsequently was entirely correct. I do not think that quota hopping can be regarded as part of the single market, because there is a great difference between a quota, which applies to a scarce resource, and some manufactured product, which should be the subject of the single market. I have never therefore regarded the problem as arising from the single market.
The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Factortame case, which has caused the real trouble in recent times, was perverse beyond belief. We cannot have a common fisheries policy that is based on national quota and yet allow companies and individuals from other member states to buy over boats and licences and get access to that national quota. That is happening to an alarming extent, as has been said, and more than 20 per cent. of our quota is now foreign owned. That is an intolerable position.
I gave the Government full marks when they introduced section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but I wish that they had done it earlier, before Spain came in. Frankly, I wish that they had listened to me and to others who were fighting the scourge of quota hopping—in the old days, the problem was with flag of convenience vessels—as long as 16 years ago. That was the time to take action. Unfortunately, the action that they subsequently took was struck down by the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am an ingenue in this debate, because I do not represent a fishing constituency, but I have always worried about this quota hopping business, because is it not the case that individual fishermen are entitled to sell their quota on the open market? Would not preventing them from doing that be an interference in one form of freedom in order to achieve another?
Mr. Harris: That could be said, but one must consider the national interest. Many fishermen who are accused of selling their licence to a foreign interest do not know that that is what they are doing, as quite often the licence is sold through a middleman—an agent, for example—who may suggest that it is being sold to another fisherman from this country, whereas in fact it ends up in Spain. I know specific examples of that.
Let me tell my hon. Friends who are considering not supporting the Government tonight that on new year's day this year I was so worried about the plight of the fishing industry that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, spelling out the difficulties that the industry faced, not least in the south-west. I rehearsed the problems that all hon. Members who represent fishing communities know only too well. I was especially worried about the entry of Spanish vessels into Irish waters on 1 January; that is why I wrote on that date. In fact, they have not materialised in any great numbers, but the threat is still there.
I said to the Prime Minister—my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my saying this—that he was the only person who could sort out the problems. I had a

675
meeting with him in February, as a result of which—I believe—he asked his policy unit at Downing street to consider fishing. That inquiry ran in parallel with the Ministry's investigation into the common fisheries policy.
Those who lead the industry—a great industry—were extremely pleased that, within days of that policy review in Downing street beginning, they were invited there, as were I and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) came with me to the meeting, and other hon. Members no doubt had some input. Partly as a result, we have witnessed the emergence of a fishing policy that, although not perfect—frankly, we can never have a perfect policy on fishing—goes a long way towards meeting the well-founded concerns of the fishing industry. In particular, it represents a genuine attempt to deal with quota hopping.
I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister's reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and the replies given over the past fortnight in the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on European Legislation by the Foreign Secretary, by Sir Stephen Wall—the United Kingdom representative to the European Community—and by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).
All those replies confirmed that dealing with quota hopping would be a condition of our enabling progress to be made at the intergovernmental conference. In other words, we have a veto and we intend to use it. That is the assurance that the Government have given the fishing industry. For that reason alone, I have no hesitation in voting with the Government tonight. I urge my hon. Friends, who care about fishing even though some of them do not represent fishing communities, to vote with the Government tonight. As the House knows, I have never hesitated to vote against the Government on fishing matters—I have done it many times—when I thought that that was in the best interests of the fishing industry. This is not a night to vote against the Government.
I am reinforced in my opinion by what has been said by some of the leaders of the fishing industry over the weekend. I hope that they will forgive me for quoting them. They include my constituent, Mr. Michael Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. He is of course also chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. He was reported in today's edition of the Western Morning News as saying:
"Fishing has always been cross-party. It's been a non-party issue and we want to keep it like that."
Mr. Jim Portus, the chief executive of the South-West Fish Producers Organisation, urged all Members of Parliament to support the Government.
Mr. Elliot Morley: He is a Tory.
Mr. Harris: Yes, there is nothing to be ashamed of—I am a Tory, too. The hon. Member knows me well and is aware that I have never hesitated to vote against my Government when I thought that that was in the best interests of the fishing industry.
676
Today's editorial in the Western Morning News, a paper which no one can accuse of being partisan or Tory, stated:
"Don't sabotage the fishing industry.
The Government faces a knife-edge vote tonight when the EU Fisheries Policy is debated in the Commons. It is its first major test since losing its majority … The Opposition may see it as an opportunity to hijack the vote to bring about a crushing defeat for the Government.
But we would urge them not to do so, for the sake of the fishing industry."
For the sake of the fishing industry and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Minister, I do not intend to vote against the Government tonight. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East could not find fault with the Government's policy—never mind the record, with which we all find fault—so he cannot urge his hon. Friends to vote against the Government.
I urge everyone on the Conservative Benches and perhaps even members of some of the minority opposition parties to back the Government so that at least my hon. Friend the Minister can attend the forthcoming meeting having won a majority vote and not, as last year, having suffered a defeat. A defeat would damage the fishing industry.
7.11 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: First, I should like to echo the Minister's congratulations and tributes to the Royal National Mission for Deep Sea Fishermen. It has done a splendid job in the past century, and continues to do so, although it does not operate on the same scale as it did a decade ago.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I share a number of common features. It happens that neither of us will be here after the next general election. I do not want to turn the debate into a mutual admiration society, but more often than not, he and I have shared common ground on fishery matters, and we have frequently been in the same Lobby. I intend to part company with him tonight. Later in my speech, when I outline why we should or should not vote against the Government, we shall part company again. However, we have been adversaries and sometimes allies on the fishing industry, as on one or two other matters.
There is no doubt that losing the majority does wonders for the Government's approach to, for example, a fisheries debate, when they are in danger of being defeated. As I listened to the Minister, I began to wonder whether Christmas had come early. It was as if he had gone through a checklist of all the things about which the fishing industry is unhappy. For example, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has expressed concern about the Norway agreement on North sea haddock; problems connected with achieving participation in the enhanced north Norway cod agreement; and the Commission's proposals for west of Scotland haddock.
The Minister responded favourably to all those concerns, so much so that I was surprised by some of the reactions to the speech of our spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The Minister said that everything was either high priority, or near the top of the list for the negotiations. The truth is, however, that he did not say what was his bottom line. To continue in the Christmas vein, the Minister reminded me a bit of the fairy on the top of a Christmas tree. I am sorry

677
that he is not present, and I hope that he will not take my remarks amiss, but, like that fairy, he is very pretty and glittering, but has delivered nothing.
I do not see why the Opposition should take any lessons from the Conservatives about delivering policy, because the Conservatives are the Government. They have been the Government for so long that they have forgotten that they are the Government, so they do not seek to justify their policy. They seem to spend all their time attacking the Opposition. That is fair game and I do not object to that, except that when we attack them, the Government say that we are indulging in party politics. When they do it, however, they say that they are demonstrating sound common sense.
The House and the fishing industry must understand that there is a contradiction between deregulation and control of the fishing effort and control of the total allowable catch. One cannot opt for deregulation and at the same time expect control, nor can one expect such control to be exercised only on fishermen from other member states. Sometimes one almost thinks that that is what the industry is asking for. The industry understands that, and so must the Government.
That contradiction is at the heart of the common fisheries policy, which is regarded as part of the single market. It is impossible to argue that by analogy, so it is not possible to rebut the strong views of the Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, who says that it is a Common Market and that everyone can go into it. If that logic is followed, there is no common fisheries policy, except one which says that there is no control on effort or on who can catch the fish; instead, we simply have a total free-for-all. That means that everyone would keep on fishing until there were no fish left. If the North sea was regarded as simply part of the single market, that would be the inevitable conclusion, according to Mrs. Bonino. She cannot have it both ways.
We must opt for quotas and total allowable catches. I know of no one in the House or within the industry who disagrees with the proposition that there must be such controls. No one believes that, not even those who think that we should withdraw from the common fisheries policy, tear it up and start again. They argue for that not because they are in favour of a free-for-all, but because they believe that they can introduce stronger controls based on national interest.
The Fisheries Commissioner must cast aside the idea that the common fisheries policy is part of the single market. Those in the fishing industry must accept that if we are to have controls and regulations, and although the price may be great in some instances, we cannot afford to reject out of hand the possibility of satellite surveillance. If that proves to be the best way to check the direction of vessels and which waters they are or are not supposed to be in, I do not think that we can reject such a proposal. The industry must accept that it may have to swallow some unpalatable pills, whose consequences are necessary in the long run. I therefore do not reject satellite surveillance proposals.
I am glad that we have a full day for the debate. Our common objective in the past 17 years and beyond has been stability for the present and the future—without that, there can be no future planning. We want to know what is happening and we do not want quotas and TACs to change year on year, up and down like a yo-yo. We want certainty.
678
As the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Front-Bench spokesmen have said, the key issue is quota hopping. I was shadow transport spokesman when the first attempt was made to put the matter right. On behalf of the Opposition, I said that we would give the Government fair wind and would not frustrate the legislation. That action might be used against me tonight—it always is. In Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that he did not believe that the Government were going the right way about it. We did not, however, try to stop the legislation. I do not blame the Government for getting it wrong, because they were attempting to get it right. That example shows that there has often been a bipartisan approach to the issue.
The Government's position is that the issue will be resolved at the intergovernmental conference. I would feel slightly happier if fishing was the only matter at issue at the ICC, but there are other matters to be discussed. We know of at least one other matter, and I suspect that the Prime Minister has a list as long as one's arm of the things that he wants changed. The trouble is that we have heard all this before. The Government talk tough, but they usually fail to deliver.
I do not want to extend the debate—clearly, it would be out of order if I did—but the Government have not delivered on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Prime Minister came back from Florence and said that, as a result of the Florence agreement, the ban on beef exports would be lifted by the end of November or the beginning of December. This afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food changed his mind and said that he would do things that he had ruled out a couple of months before, but there is still no end to the beef ban. Nobody knows when the ban will be lifted.
We remember also the Madrid conference where, again, there was a dispute during attempts to reach agreement among the Heads of State. At Madrid, the Spanish Prime Minister said to our Prime Minister, "I will not sign up unless Spanish vessels are given early access to British waters." Our Prime Minister said, "Okay. Fine. We agree." He gave way, and that, unfortunately, has been the history—fishing has always been a bargaining counter in almost every conference or agreement. Fishing always loses out. The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to the Hague preference as a stitch-up, but what is a prudent agreement and what is a stitch-up probably depends on the side of the House on which one sits. One thing about which I am certain is that fishing has always lost out, and neither main party has been able to ensure that that is not the case when in power.
One of the reasons why we cannot trust the Government is that they always have to say how well they have done. For example, on the working time directive, Ministers said that we had a great opt-out and were making changes. They were satisfied that the working time directive did not apply to us—they had won the battle. But what happened? They lost the battle, and they are now bleating about it.
One of our problems is that the political arguments do not help. I saw on the BBC teletext service today—a slightly different story was told in the House, I admit—that the Prime Minister had come to a cosy deal with

679
the Ulster Unionists about the Northern Ireland fishing industry. As a concession to the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament—
Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: Just hear me out. The Prime Minister came to a deal, because he needed the votes of Ulster Unionist Members to avoid defeat. I do not know whether there is a shred of truth in that story, and if there is, I do not blame the Ulster Unionist Members, who are using their position to get the best they can for their industry. But that is not the right way to run fishing policy. Bargaining with a little bit here and a little bit there is not the answer. The Government might see a Conservative Member who may vote against them tonight and offer to take care of the problem in his constituency. Sadly, that is not the way to go about it.
The trouble is that all this talk about the intergovernmental conference is simply hot air, because the Prime Minister knows only too well that he will not be at the next IGC. After the election, the right hon. Gentleman might not even be the Leader of the Opposition. He might well be sitting where the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) currently sits, and the hon. Gentleman might well be the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Nicholls: This is a serious debate.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, it is a serious debate. The Prime Minister cares about only one thing—survival. He is treating the House of Commons as if it were a hospice for the terminally ill—he is trying to dull the pain and alleviate distress until the inevitable end comes.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman suggested some time ago that he believed the fairy tales put about by the media. He should understand by now that as every other Opposition Member is known always to vote against the Government almost regardless of the issue, the Ulster Unionists are the only Members about whom the media can speculate. Therefore, speculation is rife, and very often wrong. I can tell him that, on this occasion, the view expressed by the media about a cosy deal is totally without foundation.
Mr. Hughes: I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to put that on the record. I said that I was not concerned one way or the other whether there was a shred of truth in the story. We are all honourable Members in this place, and I take his word that no cosy deal has been done. It may be that a cosy deal was offered, but we shall leave that aside.
The one fortunate thing is that the end of this Government is not far away—it is four to five months away. It will then be for my right hon. and hon. Friends to take up the cudgels to obtain changes to the CFP, to give it stability and justice. I hope that whoever follows the hon. Member for St. Ives and me into this House will be as strong in their defence of the fishing industry as he has been. For that reason, I shall be voting against the Government. I want to bring them down as soon as possible, and I hope that we can do so.
7.25 pm
Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) berated the Government in somewhat quieter tones than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I have great respect for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, especially for his views on agricultural policy, which we seem almost to share. I take it that he was as responsible as anyone for drafting the Labour amendment. I can think of only one word to describe the amendment, and I fear that it may be out of order. I can think of no more elegant phraseology than that word, which is "humbug".
The hon Member for Edinburgh, East berated with fury what has gone on for the past 17 years, but has he forgotten what he was doing in 1976? In that year, Community law was laid down in a regulation governing the future direction of the CFP. At the heart of that policy was the principle of equal access, so that we in this country and our fishermen had no more right to the waters that had previously been ours than any of the other member states. From that has stemmed all the troubles that we have with the CFP.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will know that in 1976 the then Labour Government had a veto, which they did not exercise. If only they had exercised that veto and prevented the 1976 regulation from coming about, we would not have had any of the consequences for the past 17 years, about which he has complained. But that is not what he did, nor what that Government did. I think that I am right in saying that he was in an office that had some influence over those matters.
I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has a miserable job—it is an impossible job. He knows, as do all of us with an interest in any part of the fishing industry, that we could once again have a fishing industry as large and as prosperous as it was many years ago. But we cannot have that prosperity again—it is not possible—as long as we do not have the same rights to waters as those enjoyed by any self-governing nation state of the world. That is the truth of the matter.
As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said many times before, we have lost that right of control and until we regain it, we shall never have an effective conservation policy and we shall never restore our fishing stocks. Furthermore, we shall never be able to deal with industrial fishing, which has now become an evil because it sweeps up millions of undersized fish which, in times past, would have been left in the sea to mature so as to be caught at a later stage when they were worth eating.
In the North sea, the numbers of five important species are now so dangerously low that they are nearing the point of irreversible decline. Those are herring, mackerel, cod, plaice and sole—five species that have been on the plates of all hon. Members many times. They are popular species and we should sustain those resources permanently, in large quantities, as they were sustained in the past. In the North sea, stocks have now fallen so low that we might soon reach an irreversible position. I hope that the Minister is aware of that problem and knows that it is deeply serious.
All of us who have any part of the fishing industry in our constituencies know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has travelled up and down the country explaining the Government's difficulties and their policies. He has

681
been listening and learning and many fishermen appreciate what he has been trying to do. However, I wish that he would not use the term "non-negotiable" in respect of our six to 12-mile limit. That term is causing some anger among many fishermen because, if one says that those fishing rights are non-negotiable, it suggests that their ownership is ours, that we have a right to them and that we will not concede that right. The fact is that we conceded those rights long ago, when we entered the European Community. Those waters are as much Community waters as those beyond the 12-mile limit.
Let me underline that point. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is a lawyer, were my landlord who had given me a 10-year lease, and I were to go round telling my neighbours that I would continue to have possession and that my rights were non-negotiable, as a lawyer and a landlord, my hon. Friend would tell me that I was deceiving myself and my neighbours. I therefore urge him to abandon the term "non-negotiable". I know what he means, but his use of a phrase that fishermen resent is not doing him any good.
Fishermen feel that over the years they have been deceived, I regret to say, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Liberal Democrats have probably been the worst offenders and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists have been no better. I have to admit that the Ulster Unionists on both sides of the House have probably behaved in the most frank and honest manner in respect of the fishing industry.
The time has now come for us to be frank with the fishing industry and to say that our hands are tied and that there is a limit to what we can do. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has said about the common fisheries policy. He has denounced it with great charm and great firmness, but the only real answer is to reassert ourselves. To concede that we should have a common fisheries policy of any kind is unwise and unnecessary. If we are to have a successful Community that is to enlarge to include 25, 30 or more countries, we have to forget about having a common fisheries policy. It would be impossible and absurd to allow countries such as Estonia and Latvia, which have their own fishing fleets, to have equal access with ours.
As part of any enlargement, we have to say that every member state should have its own fishing policy. Let us act as if we were a self-governing nation state, with control of our own waters, so that we can have a prosperous fishing industry in future.
7.34 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). He attacked my party and other Opposition parties, but it is fair to say that, after fisheries debates in recent years, we have found ourselves in the Lobby in support of the fishing industry more often than have Conservative Members. When he raises the red herring of access to waters, he must know that the derogation has been challenged in the courts by the Spaniards and that that case failed.
New members of the Community are generally excluded from waters that they have not traditionally fished and there is no reason to suspect that Estonia will be treated any more favourably, unless it gives us a major concession that blinds the Minister of the day. That is
682
unlikely. To put up such Aunt Sallies does not help, because it increases uncertainty within the industry. Mrs. Bonino has indicated that there is no likelihood of the derogation on the six to 12-mile limit being challenged in the 2002 review.
I welcome the widespread attention being given to our annual fisheries debate and I am grateful to the Government's business managers for allowing it additional time. The Minister of State's tour of fishing ports around the country, trying to woo hon. Members, was interesting. My hon. Friends and I were speculating about how he would try to woo the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but he was not prepared to compromise on a unilateral renunciation of the common fisheries policy. We look forward with interest to seeing whether enough has been said this evening to persuade the hon. Member for Ludlow.
Despite all the political attention focused on the vote at the end of the debate, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are considering the details of a regulation that will have a considerable impact in the forthcoming year on the lives and the livelihoods of fishermen and on the communities to which they belong, from Shetland to Cornwall. Against that background, I hope that the Minister will respond to several pertinent questions, many of which have already been raised and to some of which the Minister has already referred. When he winds up, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will be able to take them on.
Traditionally, much of the December debate focuses on the total allowable catches—or TACs—for the next year. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I have taken part in many of these debates over the years. We both first spoke in December 1983 and at that time, as in subsequent years, the Minister's remit at the Fisheries Council was that he should unequivocally negotiate the best deal for our fishermen. Of course, when TACs were negotiated at Fisheries Councils in the past, most of them were taken up by British fishermen. The position is different in respect of the TACs to be negotiated at this week's Fisheries Council: 44 per cent. of the plaice quota, 46 per cent. of the hake quota, 20 per cent. of the sole quota, and 29 per cent. of the anglers quota—all high-value species—will be fished by non-British fishermen. That is a result of the quota hopping that has been the subject of much of the discussion so far and to which I shall return.
Representations from fishing organisations have highlighted many of their concerns and, although I would agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives that the list is not quite as long as in some years, the points they raise are important. It is generally felt that the pelagic settlement is reasonably satisfactory, but disappointment is expressed at the fact that, despite the industry having taken a 50 per cent. cut in the TAC for herring earlier this year, the cut in sprats is only half that amount. Given that sprat fishing takes up a number of juvenile herring, that issue should be re-examined.
The Minister may wish to say something about the deal that was struck at the weekend on Atlanto-Scandian herring, which is welcomed by the industry. The EU amount is less in the forthcoming year, but it is thought that, given that fishermen will be allowed to fish some of it in Norwegian and Faroese waters and land in Norway, it has considerable value. It would be helpful if the Minister

683
would say that there will be no impediment to British vessels starting fishing that on 1 January 1997, so that they can start establishing a track record for what may be a very important fishery for the future.
From a Scots perspective, with regard to the white fish species, there is major concern about the significant cut in the TAC for west of Scotland haddock, as the Minister of State acknowledged in response to a question by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is believed that the scientific evidence might justify a status quo for haddock; I hope, especially as it is a precautionary TAC, that Ministers will focus their minds on that in the forthcoming Council meeting.
Similar consideration applies to North sea haddock, where the TAC cut comes in the wake of a significant cut in the cod quota. Many people accept the need for tougher measures with regard to cod, to conserve a seriously depleted stock, but it does not follow that there should be the same cut for haddock, especially as it is possible to fish haddock clean of cod. I hope that North sea haddock will be given special attention.
There is scepticism about the precautionary TAC for west of Scotland saithe, a problem which might be better resolved by uplifting the TAC than by invoking the Hague preference, which has been a subject of some discussion.
On the subject of cod, there are obvious difficulties in fishing in the North sea and west of Scotland. The Minister will confirm that there is an increase in the cod available in north Norway for Community vessels. I shall not go into individual constituency cases now, but I hope that the Minister will accept that there is an opportunity for vessels from the Scottish fleet to go to north Norway, and that any representations that he receives on that will receive sympathetic consideration.
From the perspective south of the border, I know that the Minister is aware that on North Sea plaice, it is feared that the European Union agreement with Norway produced a situation where a swift recovery of stocks might lead to a dislocation in the industry, whereas a slower recovery, by retaining the status quo at 81,000 tonnes, would be helpful in maintaining the well-being of those who have been fishing plaice in the North sea.
A similar view is taken on the disproportionate cut in North Sea sole quota. I understand that, at last year's Council, there was direct negotiation with Norway on plaice. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, if it comes to it, he will be prepared to do that again.
The industry believes that, unlike other areas, the Irish sea boasts stable stocks of cod, and that a higher TAC there, thus avoiding Hague preference, would be better for English and Ulster fishermen.
We were told by the Minister of State that the industry had generally signed up to a review of the Hague preference. I understand that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was told about the proposal at a meeting that the Minister of State came into today and that some things were said about it, but it certainly could not be thought that the federation had signed up to it.
I say as constructively as I can that, obviously, the issue is sensitive. In fisheries debates we have often appealed to Ministers to invoke the Hague preference, which has brought benefits over the years. It does not help if people
684
feel that they have been bounced into a position that they have not. I hope that a greater sensitivity on that issue will be shown, perhaps even by the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office when he replies to the debate.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State is especially concerned about salmon farming, which is a matter for the Council. He knows, as we all do, that the Government eventually agreed to apply to the Commission for a minimum import price. That has not been forthcoming. Apparently, Mrs. Bonino gave the Minister short shrift when he went on a special errand to try to get it. Is it possible for the Council to take the matter into its hands? It is intolerable that some of the most efficient salmon farmers in Scotland—in Shetland, my constituency—are obliged to sell their product at below production cost. As the Minister knows, that is unsustainable. An emergency response is needed, and we very much hope that he can make progress on that.
I said that in the past, and in relation to the current round, fishermen have expressed scepticism about some of the TACs that have been set. People might argue that the fishermen would say that because they want to fish more, but self-evidently it is not in the interests of the fishing industry to kill off the stocks on which it and future generations will depend. We should not dismiss the experience and expertise that skippers can contribute to the inexact science of stock assessments.
Mr. Salmond: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had left the subject of salmon farming. Is he aware that, at the weekend, a former Commissioner, a Mr. Bruce Milian, attributed the failure of the Scottish junior Minister to achieve satisfactory results to ministerial inexperience? Regardless of whether it was inexperience, it was certainly a very belated effort.
Mr. Wallace: The House well knows that we argued for some time before the Cabinet would accept the position. I am not sure that it helps the Minister in his attempt to win something for us at the weekend if we all denounce him as being inexperienced. I know that the Minister and the Scottish Office have taken a very positive approach to that. Our complaint lay with other Departments. Now that, at long last, the Government have got a line on that, we wish the Minister well and hope that he can negotiate something positive for the salmon farming industry at the end of the week.
I was saying that, in proposing radical reform of the common fisheries policy, Liberal Democrats recommend the decentralisation of management, with the involvement of skippers and fisheries scientists. That would lead to better informed decision making, and decisions to which people have contributed are more likely to command their confidence and active co-operation.
What the Minister of State said today, repeating almost verbatim one of the points that he made in the 10-point plan that he unveiled in Plymouth, gives us cause for hope that that approach—a much more regional dimension, local management of fisheries—will gain momentum. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said, Liberal Democrats have called for that in many debates. Sometimes Ministers have tried to rubbish us, but we will always welcome the sinner that repents. We only regret the fact that it has taken 17 years and a minority Government to bring about their repentance, but we encourage them in developing that line of thinking.

685
That was one of the recommendations of the common fisheries policy review group, in which my constituent, Mr. John Goodlad, played a constructive and distinguished part. When do the Government intend to respond formally to the 40 or more recommendations of the review group? The Minister said that that would happen in the near future, but following such a high-quality, constructive report, we want a better idea of the timetable for a response and implementation.
I agreed with many of the report's conclusions, including the non-viability of renouncing the common fisheries policy unilaterally and the need to boost decommissioning, to consider a scrap and build policy and to consider other institutional arrangements, including regionalism.
There are immediate issues to be dealt with, including the position on multi-annual guidance programme IV and flags of convenience. As we have heard time and again tonight, the two are linked, not solely because of the linkage that the Government have stated, but because it is unreasonable to set a further MAGP requirement for Britain when we are purporting to negotiate the removal from the fisheries register of 20 per cent. of the fleet flying the Union flag as a matter of convenience.
Do the Government intend to make any negotiations on quota hopping retrospective? The Government have said that they have taken the initiative by seeking a solution to the problem in the IGC, but what do they mean by a solution? Will it apply to future transfers of licences or will there be a retrospective element?
What is being done to pursue the initiative? The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), in an intervention, suggested that the reference to that important aspect of our negotiations on the IGC had been dropped from the Irish proposals and relegated to an appendix. I understand that there was a four-line reference to it on page 134 under the heading, "Part B—Other Issues". I am not sure that that is the type of profile that has been presented to us in the House. What profile are Ministers seeking for that? How often have member state capitals been visited by Ministers or by departmental senior officials to promote the ideas? I do not expect the Minister to show us his full negotiating hand, but we would like to be reassured that there is some tangible evidence of progress. His winding-up speech will give the Minister an opportunity to transmit such a message, not just to the House but to the fishing industry.
Related to that is a point that I raised in an intervention. What precisely is the Government's attitude to MAGP IV? Last June, the Minister was talking about assembling a blocking minority. In October, in a letter to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Prime Minister said:
"we have made it clear that we will not implement further compulsory cuts in the UK fleet while the quota hopping issue remains unresolved".
The Minister of State gave a complex reply to that question, replying further to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that the Government were not contemplating such action. We want to know whether this is a question of trying to block the provision, or whether it is a question of allowing an agreement to be reached by the other member states which we will not implement. It is important for that to be clarified. Those issues—quota-hopping and capacity reduction—have crept up on the Government because of their neglect in the past.
686
The hon. Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris) said that his reason for voting for the Government tonight was the response that he had received from the Prime Minister to a letter that he had sent him on 1 January earlier this year. The response that I have had is my reason for voting against the Government. Where were they for 17 years, if it is only now that they have woken up and have what the hon. Gentleman described as a fisheries policy?
It is not as if the Government were not warned. At the time when pressure stock licences were introduced, some of us argued that, rather than being sold on, they should revert to a pool and perhaps be reallocated, thus ensuring that the remoter fishing communities of our country would not lose out through the licences' being drawn away to—as many of us thought—other parts of the United Kingdom, or, as has in fact happened, to other countries. The monetary ethic of Thatcherism prevailed, however. In time, many skippers found that the best offers came from foreign vessel owners. Nothing was done about the problem during our presidency in 1992, and it remains today.
Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, many Opposition Members and some exceptional Conservative Members—the hon. Member for St Ives was one, and we heard especially distinguished contributions from the late Alick Buchanan-Smith—argued for a well-funded decommissioning scheme, but too little was done too late. As a result, as other European Union countries, notably Spain, now receive grants to modernise their fleet, our fleet, unaided, grows older. That is due either to wilful neglect or to a cavalier disregard for the industry on which so many livelihoods depend, both at sea and on shore, in communities where alternative employment can be scarce.
We have heard much rhetoric, but the details of implementation have been scanty. The amendment that has been selected—like the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me—calls the Government to account for their stewardship of fisheries policies over the past 17 years. Regrettably, it has been a record of neglect and failure, and we will vote against the Government tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that nine hon. Members wish to speak in the 97 minutes that are available before the winding-up speeches. I hope that, with a bit of co-operation, they will all be able to do so.
7.52 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The fishing industry in Northern Ireland continues to suffer one blow after another as a result of policies dictated by the common fisheries policy in Brussels.
Let me remind the House of the vital importance of the fishing industry to Northern Ireland's economy. More than 2,000 people are employed in the industry, with another 1,200 actively engaged on fishing trawlers. The entire industry is worth more than £20 million per year to the Northern Ireland economy. In recent years, however, the industry has suffered one major crisis after another. Each year, fishermen's livelihoods are put in jeopardy as a result of annual cuts in the fishing quotas in the Irish sea, and this year is no exception.

687
Once again, we face the prospect of Irish sea fishing quotas' being reduced from a level that is already intolerable. Since 1990, the total allowable catch in the Irish sea has been reduced by 40 per cent. We are saying that we cannot take any more reductions: if the TAC is reduced any further, there will be no fleet left. Those are the stern, hard facts that the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces. This year, it is proposed that the cod quota should remain at 6,200 tonnes, and the sole quota at 1,000 tonnes. Whiting, however, is down 30 per cent. from 9,000 to 6,400 tonnes, and plaice from 2,450 to 1,800. The herring catch has been restricted to 7,000 tonnes.
Along with the leader of the SDLP—who, like me, happens to be a Member of the European Parliament—and accompanied by the chairmen of Mourne, Newtownards and Down councils and their staff and councillors and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I was part of a delegation that met the top brass of the fishing commission. We were amazed at its ignorance of what was happening in the Irish sea. Its members told us that fish were scarce, saying, "We are only doing this to give you some industry." They said that conservation must take place.
Before we went there, the commission told the fishermen that they could not have any more haddock out of the sea—that they were very scarce. Well, there are more haddock in the Irish sea tonight than there have been since Noah's Ark floated on the waters. The commission's leading expert admitted something to is: he said, "When I was told that there were haddock in the Irish sea and that they were spawning, I did not believe it, but I went on my own and discovered that the fishermen were right." Why cannot those fishermen take the haddock out of the sea? That expert also confirmed something about herring. It is more than ever possible to fish for herring in the Irish sea—and not red herring.
We were told that nephrops—or prawns, as they are commonly called—were ample and abundant; yet the proposal is to keep the fishermen from fishing for them. What sort of scheme is this so-called common fisheries policy? That is what the fishermen who are sitting in the Strangers Gallery are asking, and rightly so. Why can they not fish for the fish that are plentiful? We look to the Government to do something.
There has been talk of the Hague preference. In 1992, a Minister promised in the House of Lords that the Government were determined to do something about the Hague preference in regard to the Irish sea. What did they do? They did nothing. Meanwhile, our fishermen must watch the spectacle of fishermen from the Republic—when the Republic takes up its option—coming into their fishing grounds, and fishing freely where our men are not allowed to fish for their own fish. That must cease.
I understand the worry about the Hague preference expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In certain cases, it gave precedence to extra fish for British fishermen, but in the Irish sea we have a problem different from problems anywhere else. The Government must face up to that problem, and a satisfactory result must be found.
The Irish Republic has a very liberal quota and from its point of view it is right to say that there are not many fish in the Irish sea. The fewer fish that it says there are
688
the better a quota it will have and the more it can ask for the Hague preference to be brought into play. I can understand Irish Ministers saying, "We have to be careful about the Irish sea or we shall take everything out of it." It suits their policy to say that.
Where there are fish in abundance people should be allowed to catch them. Northern Ireland fishermen are told, "Your catch has been reduced by 40 per cent. Now cut it again by 30 per cent. to give a total cut of 70 per cent." Next year, they will suggest that we cut it by another 10 per cent. Day after day our fishing industry is being decimated. I pity Northern Ireland Members who have fishing interests in their constituencies. We come here and speak about the industry and travel to Brussels but evidently there are to be no changes.
The Government should look at the Lassen report although, of course, it has been overtaken by other matters. It suggested reducing our fleet by another 40 per cent. It might as well state that we should give up the industry altogether. Now it has come up with another view of segmentation of the fleet, and that would be disastrous. Fishermen tell me that, because of its capacity, it would be impossible to do that with the Northern Ireland fleet.
Our prawn fisheries have also been attacked because it is said that prawns are scarce. But even the scientists say that there are plenty of prawns and Lassen is one of Europe's top officials. There is grave concern about the technical conservation measures that are being proposed by the Commission. They include measures about the size of the nets, the size of fish that can be landed and the areas in which fish can be caught.
In the Irish sea the proposals take no account of the regional diversities of home waters. For example, prawns are one of the most important stocks for Ulster fishermen, but the Commission proposes to increase the minimum landing size from 70 mm to 105 mm overnight. There is no justification for that and scientists are arguing about it. Even the Department's scientists advise us that if this measure is introduced in the Irish sea we would have to forget about 60 per cent. of all the prawns that are currently fished: 60 per cent. would be lost. What is left to fishermen who are faced with such percentages?The Government must go to Europe and save us from the discrimination that seems to be applied to Northern Ireland's fishermen. There is a vendetta to destroy the Province's entire fishing fleet. It is a matter of life and death.
We hear much about decommissioning, but what do Northern Ireland fishermen do when their vessels have been decommissioned? They have nowhere to go. Are we to say to those people, "Although there are plenty of fish you must decommission your boat"? A fishermen told me, "I thought that it was best for me to decommission, and I did. I did my best to start a company with the money but I had many problems and I was unable to run a viable company. I had to buy another vessel to eke out some sort of living in what I was brought up to do."
The Government must adopt a vigorous stance in Europe. This is a fight for the existence of our fleet. It is a scandal that other member states, notably the Spanish, are effectively exporting their overcapacity problem to the United Kingdom by being allowed to operate vessels under the British flag and fish against our quotas. Government commitments on that issue must be

689
honoured. No longer should our fishing industry have to work under the regime of a European fishing policy that is crushing to death the industry in Northern Ireland.
In 1992 the European Commission report entitled "Regional, Socio-economic Studies in the Fisheries Sectors" stated that Northern Ireland was the one area where fishing should be maintained as a priority because of unemployment. But what has happened? Many people in Northern Ireland wonder why the European Union strives to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in Northern Ireland—and of course that money is welcome—while adopting measures under the common fisheries policy which have the inevitable effect of making redundant people who are active in one of Ulster's most important industries.
The Government must recognise the tragic situation of fishing in Northern Ireland. They must not give us words: they must return from Europe having taken action that we can see.
8.6 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister started by painting a rather glowing picture of the industry. He said that it was prosperous, well-invested and coming along well under his ministrations. But the reality is rather different. The industry is in severe financial difficulties. It is not making enough to invest and finds it difficult even to keep going. Many people have to continue to fish to maintain a return on the borrowing with which they are lumbered. That is the real state of the industry and it is why British licences have been sold to quota hoppers.
I want to smash the television screen every time I see a European Commission official saying that British fishermen have sold licences to Spanish fishermen. They did that because they were in debt and were not making enough money. The Spanish were able to buy those licences because they had reached their multi-annual guidance targets by reflagging many of their vessels as British and therefore got access to European funds. That brought them within the target and opened the route to European money, but by the same token our fishermen were above their target and did not have access to European money and were forced to sell their vessels. It is a vicious circle.
The industry is not as prosperous as the Minister says. It faces threats and uncertainties and a reluctance by financial institutions to lend it money. That is one of the real problems. There is no confidence in the future because of constant threats of massive shutdowns and cuts in the British fleet, which has not had adequate backing from the Government, and because the common fisheries policy is not only wrong, as several Ministers have said, but is a conservation disaster.
The CAP is so disastrous that I am surprised that it has not been endorsed by the Spice Girls because it is on the same level as the disaster that the Government are achieving. The Commissioner is disastrous. Commissioner Bonino changes her mind so often that it seems from reading the press releases that there is a different Commissioner every month. She goes in for frequent changes of policy. She said at the beginning that she did not want the portfolio and did not understand it. She has demonstrated that at some length over the years.
The policy puts fishermen in competition with each other so that the natural character of fishermen to be hunters is not alleviated by any tendency to make them
690
harvesters and get them to work together. They are compelled to compete, largely through the quota system and although quotas are an acceptable way to divide catches, they are disastrous when they are used for management purposes. They lead inevitably to discards. Fish caught over quota or fish that are outside quota are just dumped back in the sea—dead. As the quotas come down, the discards go up. The system forces fishermen into either discarding fish on an increasing scale or into illegalities.
The system is still not adequately policed because the control at ports of landing in Europe is totally inadequate. They do not care about British quotas. Why should they bother to enforce them? Vessels, particularly the quota hoppers, land not here, but in Europe, where they are not adequately policed.
Some quota hoppers of course come here to collect benefit, not to land fish. We cannot have a proper policy unless we have effective European policing. The policy goes for broad, lowest common denominator measures that will not work, such as the proposed increase in the mesh size to 110 mm. That is too big to provide an economic future for fishing.
I find it appalling that the industry's proposals for conservation—I refer in particular to those from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in 1993—have never yet had a considered reply. They are the path of the future. They include technical and national measures and greater control for the coastal state. The NFFO put them to the Government, but there was no answer. Without consulting the industry, the Government made their own proposals to the European Commission, which came back with appalling conservation programmes that would never have worked.
The Commission insisted, for instance, on dealing with the Spanish catching and landing of small fish by reducing minimum landing sizes. It tried to deal with the discards problem by providing that discards did not have to be dumped overboard immediately, but could be carried until the end of the voyage, which we know means outside British waters, where the fish would almost certainly be landed before they were required to be dumped.
The only sensible proposals on conservation have come from the NFFO. It has proposed square mesh panels. The Commission has made that messy by insisting that such panels should be the same size as diamond mesh panels, which is impracticable. The NFFO has proposed a ban on industrial fishing, which we need immediately, and a system of sustainable fishing, which is to be achieved partly by more selective fishing, which is right in itself, but partly by technical conservation measures under the management of the coastal state.
That is the future. We need to devolve power down, under what might be called subsidiarity in other mouths, from Brussels and from the Commission to management by the coastal state and, within that, to regional management systems that involve people fishing in the region. In other words, we need systems that empower, involve and bring fishermen into consultation with scientists because there is far too little of that. The fishermen feel that they are being totally ignored and that their practical knowledge has been rejected. The systems should empower them to manage the system.
The Minister has moved a little way by talking of regional measures, but those are consultative proposals. We need regional management structures that involve

691
fishermen in their own fate to make them stakeholders in their industry and to give them responsibility for feeling that it is their fish, so ensuring that they work together for the common purpose.
All that has been proposed by the NFFO and by North East Lincolnshire council. We shall put those proposals to the Minister. That is the way that the industry needs to go for power to be handed down from Brussels and for the producer organisations not only to manage their quotas, but to stop the transfer of licences outside their region. We have had a steady drain of Grimsby quotas to Scotland.
Under pressure from the House, the Minister has moved some way in our direction. I approve of his proposals on quota hoppers. I ask him not to agree to multi-annual guidance programme IV until quota hoppers are taken out of the equation. If he does agree to cuts in effort, they must be made after quota hoppers have been taken out of the equation because 20 per cent. of our fleet is made up of quota hoppers. The reduction in effort that will be demanded of us under MAGP IV is about 20 per cent. Take out the quota hoppers and we are bang on target and we have access to European funding. That is the way to go. The Minister must therefore resist MAGP IV until quota hoppers are taken out of the equation.
I hope that the Minister will resist too the barmy proposals—I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who spoke earlier—on satellite monitoring because they will be divisive in the fleet in relation to vessels over 24 m. The proposals will be expensive and who pays? As usual in Britain, the fishermen will be asked to pay. The proposals will provide no guide to what fishermen are doing. If a boat is sat there with either its satellite transmitter or engine broken, it is committing an illegality under the system. It reduces other methods of control in favour of this broad brush approach that will not work.
I am not as critical of the Minister this year as I have been in previous years. He has helped and moved a considerable way in the direction of sense, particularly on quota hoppers, but also in considering regional structures and in giving a greater role to the coastal state. Having pushed him this far, we should vote against him to push him further because, obviously, nothing works on the Government as effectively as a lost vote, which produces the sort of help and support that they have denied to the industry.
The basic problem in the Government's approach has been that fishing has been hit by a double whammy. It has had a battering from Europe by a common fisheries policy that is unworkable, unsuitable and damaging to our industry. That has been compounded by the withholding of Government help, which has been provided to every other competing industry in Europe, but not to ours. That is the double whammy. The industry has been hit both ways.
At last the Minister has begun to do something about Europe. We shall encourage him to do something about the financing of the industry so that we can have a genuine scrap-and-build programme, and a genuine plan for fishing to restore confidence, for modernisation of our fishing boats and for giving confidence to institutions putting money into the industry so that financial
692
institutions respond. We will be able to get something done about the fishing industry's needs by voting against the Government tonight.
8.16 pm
Mr. John Townend: As someone who has represented a fishing port for 17 years, I have seen the industry progressively damaged by the common fisheries policy. In retrospect, we must be honest: it is clear that the industry was betrayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who signed up to a treaty that forced the United Kingdom to surrender British fishing grounds to Europe. The industry was equally betrayed by the late Lord Wilson, who, at the time of the renegotiation, did not put the treaty right.
Fish inside our waters have ceased to be a national resource and today are a Community resource. It has always seemed strange to me that we pump up oil from the North sea and that oil is British oil, but the fish swimming around the oil rigs are European fish.
Leaving aside those objections, one must be fair. The CFP's aims were sensible. They were to improve conservation so that fish stocks would increase year on year and we would have a growing and prosperous fishing industry. No one, however, could believe that the CFP has achieved any of its aims. The British industry is in a parlous state. We have an aging fleet. There is a lack of investment and we are under continual pressure from the Community to reduce the size of our fleet and our quotas.
What are the specific failures? Far from stocks increasing every year because of the CFP so that we can increase quotas progressively every year, the stocks of many species are going down. Once more, there are proposals to reduce our quotas. The Community has failed to put into operation effective technical conservation measures. How can the policy be said to conserve when thousands upon thousands of tonnes of fish—the discards—are put back into the sea dead to pollute the oceans?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, there has been a complete failure to ban industrial fishing. There has been no attempt to deal with the growing problems of seals. The population is increasing dramatically in the North sea, with damage to salmon and to other fish stocks.
Above all, however, the policy discriminates against the UK. We provide much the largest portion of the waters of the northern seas of the European Union, yet we receive only about a quarter of the quota. May I give an example of how the restrictions affect Bridlington boats? Is it not nonsense that, in the British section of the North sea, we have virtually no quota for coley?
Coley is a large fish. Inevitably, when our fleet fishes from Bridlington for North sea cod and haddock, coley is also caught—but it has to be thrown back into the sea. For some reason, the French have a large coley quota in the North sea, in our waters, which they do not take up most years. Since I have been making this point, however, they decided to take up their quota last year. I do not know whether they are fiddling the figures.
European Union funds are given disproportionately to other European countries. I asked a parliamentary question on 21 November about how much of the fishing budget each country had received. Britain, with the largest

693
waters, received 25 million ecu, whereas Spain received 174 million ecu and Germany—which has far smaller waters than Britain—received virtually the same. France received 37 million ecu.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Townend: If I give way, I will not be able to keep to the requested 10 minutes.
Mr. Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he is saying. However, is he unaware that the figures that he has just given are the result of the Government's policy of not enabling the fishing industry to have access to the very funds that he mentioned?
Mr. Townend: That does not get away from the fact that the Spaniards have been subsidised by the European Union to build boats and they have also been given the finances to buy our licences and become quota hoppers. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
I support the Government's efforts to end quota hopping, but I only wish that the Opposition today had come out in full support of that policy and said that if they were elected at the next general election they would veto the intergovernmental conference if ii did not deal with the problem of quota hopping. However, they did not say that. They never make a commitment, they just imply that they will do something. I challenge the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to give a commitment to the industry that if the Labour party is elected it will veto the IGC unless it deals with the matter.
If we are opening up the whole issue, the Government should take the opportunity at the IGC to transfer British waters back to British control under the doctrine of subsidiarity. Once the fish in our waters are British again, we can have a sensible administration for the benefit of conservation and the British fishing industry, under a coastal management scheme.
We can but compare our situation with that of Norway, which is outside the common fisheries policy. My fishermen tell me that in the Norwegian section of the North sea the cod are much bigger and there are not the same problems with discards. The Norwegian industry is prosperous; there is no shortage of money for investment.
Despite all the commitments, if we do not take the opportunity now open to us my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston will be proved to be right. In the early years of the next century—2002, I believe—foreign boats will be fishing right up to our waters and there will be equal access for everyone. That will be disastrous.
I want to raise a few points that my fishermen feel are important and which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with when he replies to the debate. The fishermen believe it absolutely vital to maintain the fisheries industry safety group. They believe that there should be minimum landing sizes. They want an improvement in the stock assessment that forms the basis of quotas. For years, they have been based on the recommendations of scientists. If they had been right, we should have been able to look forward each year to
694
increasing stocks. The scientists have not been right and the fishermen's perspective of stock should not be ignored, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said.
The fishermen want us to do everything possible to ensure that there is no cut this year in the North sea cod quota. Some 80 to 90 per cent. of my fishermen depend on cod, so a cut would be devastating for the Bridlington industry. There is also no justification for keeping down the quota for North sea haddock, which is not under the same pressure as cod, merely because it is caught in the same fisheries.
Finally, we must deal with the problem of seals—despite the view of environmentalists. The seals are reproducing at an enormous rate and it is wrong to say that they do not affect the fishing industry. I have seen salmon, caught by my fishermen, with big bites taken out of them. Seals are like foxes—they do not eat salmon, they just take big bites out of them and ruin them for the fisherman.
Having dealt with the problems of Bridlington, I want to say a word on behalf of those British fishermen who are not represented in the House. I speak, of course, of the fishermen of Guernsey, whose waters are now being pillaged by the French. The French have been breaking agreements and have had their naval fishery protection vessels supporting their fishermen in the waters off Guernsey.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Our Navy has been present.
Mr. Townend: I am pleased to hear that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, as it is not the information that I have been given? If the Navy is there, I hope that it will take a higher profile. We should let the fishermen of Guernsey know that we are prepared to fight for their rights, just as we were prepared to fight for the rights of the Falkland islanders.
8.25 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I want to place on record my appreciation to the Minister and to Baroness Denton, the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for fisheries, who visited my constituency a couple of weeks ago and discussed many problems with fishing organisations and fishermen.
I want at the outset to quote from a 1992 European Commission report, "Regional Socio-Economic Studies in the Fisheries sector". It said that in Northern Ireland
"there are currently very few alternate employment opportunities. Perhaps this is the one area where the maintenance of fish and related industry employment should be a priority."
In other words, the Commission said that the Northern Ireland fishing industry is special and worthy of being given priority in its dealings under the general guidance and rules.
I raise that matter because we are talking about conservation matters. I must embellish what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said by citing three statistics relevant to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. First, to date there has been a reduction of about 35 per cent. in our fishing fleet. Secondly, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in our catches or landings. Thirdly, 200 to 300 jobs have been lost from a work force of about 2,500.

695
I can conclude only that Northern Ireland has made a substantial, more proportional, contribution to fishing conservation in the Irish sea than anyone else. That was confirmed when, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said, we visited Brussels in the past couple of weeks, but we could still be penalised because Brussels alleges—I want the Minister to comment on this—that the United Kingdom as a whole has not fulfilled its obligations on conservation. Because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it will be further penalised in the forthcoming multi-annual guidance programme IV. We will suffer disproportionately yet again, despite the fact that we have fulfilled our conservation commitment. That point needs to be made very clearly.
We were also alarmed by the proposals under Lassen for a further 40 per cent. reduction in fishing effort—a 40 per cent. reduction of a 70 per cent. remnant of the fleet of Northern Ireland. That would be devastating. There comes a point when fishing effort at sea—which, of course, supports the onshore process involving factories and jobs—simply collapses. If there are not sufficient catches coming ashore, the whole industry, both at sea and ashore, will collapse like a pack of cards.
The Lassen report has been scorned and opposed by all participating Governments, but it is the only report on the table. There is no other proposal. All the others are in the air, and we must be very careful, because Commissioner Bonino is very enamoured of it.
The quota restrictions that we think will be imposed are frightening for the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Whiting, plaice, herring and haddock have been placed in the same category. I shall deal with one of the species to illustrate our problem with all the quotas. In 1997, the Irish sea whiting total allowable catch will suffer its greatest reduction, from 9,000 tonnes in 1996. The scientific community recommended a TAC of 7,500 tonnes, but the Commission has now proposed one of 6,400—a cut of 29 per cent. We simply cannot withstand such a cut. We also do not understand it. All the signs indicate that, in 1997, the potential is good for whiting fishing.
On Irish sea whiting, the ICES scientists report stated:
"Whiting is taken mainly as a by-catch in mixed species otter trawl fisheries … The stock is considered to be within safe biological limits."
An interesting comparison can be made on the basis of two quotations in the same report, one on whiting in the Irish sea, the other on whiting off the west of Scotland. On the latter area, the report states:
"Whiting is mainly taken as a mixed fishery"
and
"ICES considers the stock to be within safe biological limits."
There is not a great deal of difference between the quotations about fish stocks in the different areas, yet a reduction of 2,600 tonnes has been recommended for Irish sea whiting, whereas an increase of 2,000 tonnes has been recommended for the west of Scotland.
Can someone explain that paradox? I hope that the Minister will take the point on board. I can run down the list—on whiting, haddock and herring, for example—and find similar contradictions. The cod regime will not be
696
greatly diminished, yet we know from larval surveys that there are now three times as many cod in the Irish sea as there have been in recent years.
I was interested that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) dealt with the unique problems faced by the Northern Ireland fishing industry. We should remember that it is a fishing industry with three ports that are very close together. It uses a common fishing ground—which is at the confluence of the two tides, north and south—that comprises a specific ecological, fishing and breeding ground. It has a speciality of its own, which, as late as 1992, was mentioned in a paper issued by the Commission.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned the Hague preference. They drew certain conclusions, but they did not go far enough or draw the conclusion that I thought they could have drawn: Northern Ireland should be a top priority fishing region. There is nothing new about that conclusion. In all structural and social funds, the Northern Ireland region has a special connotation—category I. Why cannot that connotation be applied to the fishing industry? If we extrapolate the comments of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in today's statement on BSE, he was saying—or at least he was hinting at it; perhaps, once we examine the small print, it was only vote-catching for tonight's Division and not a reality—or insinuating that Northern Ireland will be a special region in relation to BSE and to lifting the ban, because it has fulfilled the Florence conditions.
Northern Ireland has a specific, coastal-fishing fishing industry. It forms a specific sector, and it has specific fishing grounds. In his speech today, the Minister said that different waters require different conservation measures. I shall take him at his word and ask him to apply other considerations to conservation measures in the Northern Irish fishing industry.
If I am still within my time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to deal with the issue of the Hague preference vis-à-vis the Republic of Ireland. Hon. Members' comments on that matter in today's debate have been correct. There is a surplus in the Republic of Ireland's quota for some species under the Hague preference, whereas there is a shortfall in the UK's allocation in Northern Ireland waters. Over the years, there has been a unilateral arrangement by which the adverse effects of the Hague preference have been diminished and alleviated by the Republic of Ireland swapping its surplus to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
I think that that arrangement should operate on a more regulated basis, rather than using the ad hoc-ery of past years. I ask the Minister to raise that issue with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, and to conduct a small re-arrangement of the Hague preference to alleviate its adverse effects on Northern Ireland.
Despite the assurances given to us today that the Minister is going hell for leather against the Hague preference, he told me recently—in a letter of 12 December 1996—that it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry to deal with the Hague preference now. That is a very different message from that which he gave the House today.
8.36 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister said that I had expressed my concerns about the six and 12-mile limits. Although that is true, I should tell the House that those concerns pale into insignificance compared with my concern about the regime that we are now debating. There is no doubt that the common fisheries regime is both evil and corrupting. It is evil because of its devastating effect on the marine environment; it is corrupting because, among other things, it obliges otherwise honest men to become criminals.
That fact is well demonstrated by the words spoken in court by a Shetland fisherman, as reported in the Fishing News of 13 December 1996. He said:
"We can't help what we catch … I had dumped 400 boxes of saithe … Who has committed the biggest crime—me, who landed 25 boxes, or a system which made me dump 400 boxes?"
That is why I say that the regime is totally unacceptable.
The problem of discards and quotas is well known; perhaps less well known is the amount of fish that is destroyed onshore. In Peterhead harbour in June, and in Scalloway harbour in the Shetlands in August, colleagues and I saw prime fresh fish covered with red paint which was to be destroyed because it did not fetch the minimum landing price decreed by the European Community. How can we possibly claim that such policies—all of which were introduced in the name of conservation—are having their intended effect when thousands upon thousands of tonnes of fish are dumped at sea and when prime fresh fish is being destroyed ashore?
The common fisheries policy is not a practical policy. On the contrary, it is a political policy in which a vital British national interest is subjugated in the quest for European hegemony. It offends against common sense; it lacks credibility and any notion of morality; and its only principle—that of European integration—is one that I and thousands of fishermen cannot possibly support.
The principle that I do support is that of defending a vital national interest. I respectfully suggest that, the Government should not talk about national interests unless they are prepared to defend them, which they are at present failing to do in British waters around Guernsey where the perception is that the United Kingdom has not deployed the Royal Navy for fear of upsetting the French.
I met Guernsey fishermen in the Palace of Westminster last Thursday. They complained of harassment, intimidation, blackmail and of being set up for prosecution, all of which the Government have apparently not seen fit to counter. My hon. Friend the Minister has repeatedly stated that the six and 12-mile limits are not negotiable. Will he therefore tell the House why armed French naval vessels of the Affaires Maritimes have sailed into the six to 12-mile limits off Guernsey in support of French fishing vessels?
I deal now with some other aspects of the common fisheries policy. The House must not portray Jacques Santer, Emma Bonino and the other Commissioners as bogeymen and women; we should see them for what they are—Commissioners of the European Union, spelling out, often with disarming honesty and clarity, what we in the United Kingdom have already signed up to in three solemn and binding treaties leading inexorably to European integration.
698
I should like to say a word or two about fishing permits. In answer to a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
"Council regulations 3760/92 and 1627/94 provide the framework for the Community's licensing and permit systems to enable member states to regulate fishing activities … They do not entail a European fleet run from Brussels."—[Official Report, 11 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 73.]
I have just two points to make about that. First, the permits represent days at sea by another name. Secondly, they are aspects of European policy, and while member states may administer them, they will do so only as the designated agent of the central authority in Brussels. As I shall show in a moment, neither the UK nor any other member state of the European Community has competence in these matters.
I do not argue with the basic premise of permits. If one accepts the principle of a common fisheries policy, a permit system is entirely logical, but neither I nor a substantial—and growing—number of people in the fishing industry any longer want a common fisheries policy. I support the aims and objectives of the Save Britain's Fish campaign. I support the repatriation of powers and the establishment of a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone for this country.
The common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed and quite incapable of sensible reform. On that point, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the words of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In a press release dated February 1995, he said:
"There is no prospect of a unanimous agreement among the 15 Member States to amend the Treaties which provide the legal basis of the CFP … The fact is that the UK has accepted, by Treaty, that Fisheries lie within the competence of the European Community".
The principle of equal access and the prospect of the permit system is wholly unacceptable both to this nation, which recognises it as a loss of sovereignty, and to the fishing industry, which sees it as a sell-out of British waters and as a giving away of the substantial fish stocks in them, not to mention the livelihood of British fishermen.
As for the immediate import of this debate, we shall soon vote on these important issues. I repeat now what I have said on previous occasions: this vote, whether the Government win or lose, will not change one jot or tittle of the common fisheries policy. It is quite bogus and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), it is humbug for the Opposition parties to pretend that they have grounds for opposing the Government tonight.
When I intervened on him, the Opposition spokesman confirmed what we have long known—that the Labour party is committed to the common fisheries policy. It is committed to the principle of equal access to the common resource. Unless it changes its mind on that question, it has no locus to criticise or vote against what the Government are trying to do. The reality is that even if Labour were to form the Government tomorrow, it would still be bound by the common fisheries policy.
To conclude, I remind hon. Members of the extent of the House's power over fisheries policy. In a letter dated 19 June 1996, J. Almeida Serra of the Fisheries Directorate General XIV, said:
"Member States have transferred exclusive competence to the community with regard to the conservation and management of living marine resources. This competence applies in regard to waters under national fisheries jurisdiction and to the high seas."

699
I say again that it is bogus for the Opposition parties to pretend that they could have any policy other than the common fisheries policy unless and until that policy is scrapped.
8.46 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: If the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will forgive me, I have to say that it is his argument that is bogus and humbug. He made a case for not supporting the Labour party's amendment; he most certainly does not have an argument for supporting the Government, which is what he said he was going to do.
People in the fishing industry will hear that the Eurosceptics, who say that they support the industry, are now going to support the Government. Those people will cast their minds back to the voting behaviour of some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues during the days-at-sea controversy, for example, where again those hon. Members' support for the fishing industry and opposition to the Government were found wanting. The hon. Member for Ludlow may quarrel with the Labour party, with me and with the Liberal party, but according to the argument that he has advanced he does not have a shred of credibility if he is not prepared to oppose the Government.
The Minister said that he disliked the Scottish National party. I am afraid that that does not cause me any anxiety whatsoever. I have to tell him that the fishing industry dislikes the Government. It dislikes the Government not because of the 10-point plan that the Minister has introduced, but because of the past 10 years of inaction and failure to defend the industry's interests. The broken water of the do-nothing years, as one of the fishing industry's leaders so memorably put it only a while ago, is the reason why the fishing industry does not trust the Government.
There is no doubt that the Labour party's amendment is flawed, but it has the virtue of going over the record of the past 17 years and detailing some of the failures, the betrayals and the sell-outs in which the Government have engaged vis-à-vis the fishing industry. It would be enormously helpful if the Labour party would discuss its amendment with the other six Opposition parties, all of which have an interest in the fishing industry. It would not only be useful for the Labour party to show some humility in recognising that every Opposition party vote is necessary to defeat the Government, but the combined wisdom of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Unionist parties, the Liberals and the Scottish National party might improve Labour's amendment. Judging from its document charting the road to the manifesto, which does not mention the subject, the Labour party's commitment to the fishing industry is minimal. Nevertheless, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will support the Labour amendment and, if it comes to a vote, will oppose the Government motion as an indictment of the Government's track record on the industry.
I want to raise three specific fishing issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland before turning to some more general points. First, I reinforce the point made about sprat by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). There is a difficulty with the by-catch in the pelagic sector. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when he sums up.
700
Secondly, on the haddock quota on the west coast and in the North sea, it is vital to contest the argument that because the area is a mixed fishery, if there is a decline in the cod quota, the haddock quota must also decline. We can still have a clean fishery for haddock in a mixed fishery. On the west coast, cod fishing takes place in February, March and April and not in the rest of the year. It does not follow that haddock and cod quotas should go down in sequence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will devote the same amount of energy to the haddock quota in the North sea as was devoted to the plaice quota last year and that the decline of the haddock quota on the west coast will be visited before the final decisions are made.
Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the Hague preference. I want at least one voice this evening to speak in support of the Hague preference, which is important for the Scottish industry. I hope that that will be acknowledged by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he sums up. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who introduced the debate, told us that all the fishing representatives had agreed that the Hague preference should be reconsidered. I consulted the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and found that it had not agreed; it had just been told that the issue would be reconsidered. The Minister then told us that the representatives had not agreed, but they had not objected when he had told them. He then told us—the record will confirm this—that there were differing views across the United Kingdom.
As a Member of Parliament representing Scottish fishermen, I shall obviously defend the Hague preference because it has played an important role in defending the Scottish fishing industry, particularly the haddock quota. However, one point about the Hague preference should not go unsaid. Negotiated in the mid-1970s by Garret Fitzgerald, then Irish Foreign Minister, it is the one part of the common fisheries policy that relates to fishing dependency. It may do that imperfectly, but that is a valuable principle to defend. Apart from the point that Ireland's great success in formulating and defending the Hague preference shows how a small nation in Europe can gain results by making one issue a priority, the Hague preference is worth defending in principle. I have a little advice for Labour Front Benchers. Perhaps they should address the concerns of hon. Members from Northern Ireland by saying that their interests will be defended in the swaps arrangements and that, unlike last year, the commitments will be delivered this year, whatever party is in power.
I come now to the issues at the heart of the problems with the common fisheries policy. I remind the fisheries Minister who opened the debate that I have been criticising the common fisheries policy since long before he became the Minister responsible for fisheries. Having seen fisheries Ministers come and go with depressing regularity, I fully expect to be criticising it long after he has stopped being the Minister.
The Government wonder why I doubt their commitment on flags of convenience. It is partly because of their record. Back in 1988, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I argued in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill that the Government's measures were likely to fail in the European Court and we put forward an alternative proposal for residential requirements for the crews of such vessels.

701
The Government told us that such a measure was silly and unnecessary. It was clearly not unnecessary and a residential requirement on the crew would have been more logical than imposing a language requirement, which seems to be the Minister's latest idea.
My real concern about flags of convenience vessels relates to the Government's recent record. I refer to the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to the President of the Board of Trade on 12 November, when he made a statement on the Government's objections to the 48-hour directive. My hon. Friend said:
"Despite its flexibility, the time scale for implementation and the existing derogations, will that issue now take priority over discussions about matters such as the common fisheries policy …?"
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
"There are other important issues to be addressed at the intergovernmental conference, but it is this issue"—
the 48-hour directive—
"that matters to the Government and we intend to insist upon it."— [Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 163.]
I do not think that it is unfair for me to ask the Government what would happen if agreement were reached on flags of convenience vessels but not on the 48-hour directive. Would the Government block their own achievement on fishing in pursuit of their opposition to the 48-hour directive? As the Amsterdam summit comes conveniently after the general election, the question can also be addressed to those on the Labour Front Bench. Presumably they can apply their minds directly to flags of convenience vessels because they do not oppose the 48-hour directive. After so many years of betrayal, we are entitled to ask about the priority being given to this long-running sore for the fishing industry.
My second issue is relative stability. That is the rock on which the common fisheries policy becomes tolerable or intolerable. Many of us had our confidence in the future of the policy severely damaged when the Government—together with other Governments—conceded early access to western waters for the Spanish. That was a staggering achievement by the Spanish. They had to revisit and reinterpret their treaty of accession, achieve unanimity across all member states and win legal opinion. Having started with indefensible arguments, the Spanish managed to achieve early access against all the odds because they had it as a top priority.
The European Parliament fisheries committee elected as its rapporteur Ms Carmen Fraga Estevez—a Spanish Member of the European Parliament who is known to be a hard-line supporter of free access to all fisheries. That is depressing for the future of the policy. The House may be interested to learn that the British Conservatives in the European Parliament were among her sponsors for that post: they put forward a hard-line Spanish federalist as rapporteur for that crucial fisheries committee. It is little wonder the fishing industry has scant confidence in many of the Conservative party's statements.
My last general point is on low quotas. More than any other issue, the idiocy of having to throw back dead into the sea perfectly good fish has undermined confidence on the quayside in the common fisheries policy. At a certain point, the low quota policy starts to work in a perverse direction.
702
The ideas that have come from the industry of a tax on industrial fishing and technical measures to defend the industry have not been pursued with the urgency that is required. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may frown—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): What tripe!
Mr. Salmond: Tripe, is it? I saw more action after the Government's defeat last year in the fisheries debate than I had seen in my previous eight years in the House. Nothing has concentrated the Government's mind more wonderfully than being defeated in the House last year. We have had 30 points from the fisheries review group and a 10-point plan from the Minister. Why? Fishing has at last become a key political issue because the Government know that they face defeat in the Chamber. It is the prospect of defeat that has concentrated the Government's mind. It is the prospect of defeat that has stopped fishing being traded off, as it has so often been before, in pursuit of other objectives.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will pardon us if, as Members who represent fishing constituencies, we look for a time when it will not require the imminence of political defeat in the House of Commons to concentrate the Government's mind on the fishing industry. We want a Government who concentrate on fishing full time, all the time. In my opinion, that means a Scottish Government.
8.59 pm
Mr. David Porter: Every year, we have this pre-quota debate on fisheries, and every year we face huge cuts in the quota, the fleet or both. Every year the Minister, like his predecessors, goes off to Europe and returns waving a piece of paper and saying, "The cuts are less than first thought: that must be a triumph." Every year, in spite of and because of this ritual, the fleet gets smaller and the job gets harder.
Visitors to Lowestoft fish market are often shocked at the low level of activity when they have heard from people who recall walking from deck to deck across the harbour not so many years ago. The fishing boats were wedged in because there were so many of them. Anyone who looks at what is happening is shocked. Even those of us who have watched it happening are shocked at what has been done. The industry has not been calling wolf all these years. The warnings have been sounded and now we really are at the point of no return in so many aspects of fishing.
It is bad enough that coastal communities are being devastated, but the biggest tragedy of all is that fishing, managed properly, is a renewable resource. If gas, oil or coal is harvested to extinction, that is it and everybody understands that, but if fishing is wiped out, it is a failure of the regime that regulates it. The CFP and all that is done in its name is that regime. It is a monument to the nightmare world of bureaucracy where, in pursuit of a misguided ideal of a common European policy for something as diverse and varied as the whole European fishery, a British industry is in danger of being sacrificed. Everything comes back to that policy.
If cuts and restrictions to save the industry were being presented now as a make-or-break deal, the industry would accept them. It might have accepted this year's

703
proposed cuts—for example, 48 per cent. in North sea sole against the background of the best sole fishery in living memory. However, cuts happen every year; there are more cuts every year because the previous year's cuts have failed.
I am encouraged—vindicated even—to find that no one now defends the CFP, although not enough people are yet arguing for our removal from it. As has been said, and as needs to be said again and again, the CFP is flawed from top to bottom. There is no incentive in it to conserve and manage the renewable resource because any savings in catch effort go back into the pool for the greedy Mediterranean fishermen to grab. There is the added problem in terms of conservation, which was mentioned earlier, of discarding dead fish over and above quota. Can there be a more bizarre, crazy and ludicrous political idea than the CFP, which does the precise opposite of what is intended?
Every year, more and more people are waking up to this madness. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has said, fishing has risen up the political agenda. This year, the Government have given almost a full day to the debate, which is very welcome. Every year, the media get into a frenzy about the chances of the Government being defeated. Last year, the Government were defeated; I abstained on that occasion, although I had voted against the Government previously.
The point is that defeat made no difference. The Minister still went off to Europe, still spent a weekend arguing with our alleged partners and still came back with permission to catch fewer British fish than before. If the Government are defeated tonight, it will again make no difference at all. The Minister will still go off and the 1997 quotas will still be set. Tonight I shall vote with the Government: the time to vote against is afterwards, when the Minister comes back with a deal that is too poor to accept.
Furthermore—[Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members laugh. Furthermore, to vote against the Government means voting with the Opposition, and their views on fisheries policy are muddled at best, as we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I cannot stomach voting tonight with a party that has said that it will never be isolated in Europe and whose leader has ruled out leaving the CFP.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has made a lot of the right noises. He has visited and made himself available to the industry around the country. He has understood the essential problems of trying to run an industry by agreement with other countries whose market tastes, cultural attitudes to rules and political agendas are all totally alien to ours.
The Minister has talked about and promised action on quota hoppers and he is looking at the regional management of separate waters. A dose of benefit of the doubt is due in the Division Lobby tonight. However, the Minister knows, as we all know, that talk of the reform of the CFP and of there being no IGC agreement until details such as quota hoppers and flagship piracy are sorted may be a further part of the con.
The future after the year 2002 is surely already settled. The treaties and regulations now in place and those that will be enforced if no new deals are stitched up in or
704
before 2002 can be amended only by unanimous agreement. Only a fool would pretend that some European Union member states will vote away their only justification for access to our waters. Even under qualified majority voting, they can hold us to a policy which, increasingly, is in their interests.
If and when more countries enter the bizarre lunacy of the European Union for no other reason than that they will get something out of it at our expense, our position will become worse. We shall have little or no fishing grounds as large fleets are allowed access in return for a slice of equal access to the common resource, which appears to be open to every Tom, Dick and Harry except, of course, the British.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to the European Union special fishing permit. It is based on the 1976 article setting out the CFP, which introduced the repulsive Soviet-style principle of equal access to a common resource. It gives Brussels ultimate power to control numbers of vessels, fishing times, catches and mesh and gear sizes and types. It also sets out fines, including seizure and withdrawal of permits.
The Commission tried to introduce the permit system during the negotiations on Spanish accession to the EU, but it was opposed. When Finland and Sweden joined, they were obliged to sign a treaty to the effect that access arrangements would apply for a transitional period ending by the date of implementation of the Community fishing permit system—not later than 31 December 2002. Treaties must be agreed unanimously, so all Governments of member states knew about the permit system and agreed to it. That leads me to ask whether talk of reform is a cover and whether a single Brussels-controlled fleet has not already been agreed for 2002 or 2003.
I wish my hon. Friend the Minister luck at the Council of Ministers meeting. Let him go to Europe and argue for the British fishing industry, which he knows is in a bad way. Let him go, knowing that that industry could have a bright future with good, lasting jobs and a steady supply of wholesome food. However, if he cuts the quotas or reduces the fleet at Lowestoft any further through the ludicrous decommissioning scheme, which compensates boat owners but not those who are put on the dole when the boats are scrapped, or if the cuts are greater than those of previous years, there will be no fishing left. At Lowestoft, a 40 per cent. cut could mean a 100 per cent. cut because the remaining 60 per cent. would not be viable.
If my hon. Friend has to come back with a deal that includes cuts, he should not come back. If he has to sell us out to get a deal, he should not come back. Our European partners need us more than we need them. We are answerable to the people of the United Kingdom and not the European Union.
9.6 pm
Mr. William Ross: When I first saw today's Order Paper, I was greatly cheered. We all thought that we would have a full day's debate, but when we arrived here, we realised that there were two long statements. No less than one hour and 55 minutes disappeared, so we have ended up with little more than the half day that we had last year for one of the most important debates of the year on a topic that is vital to the welfare of fishing communities throughout the

705
United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. We really need a full day's debate, so that those of us who speak at the tail end of the debate can expand on the issues before us. We all have problems to relate, and if the debate were longer, no doubt other hon. Members would contribute to it.
Reference has been made to quota hopping. When we first entered the quota system, I wonder why nobody had the wit to ring-fence fish quotas in the same way as we ring-fence milk quotas and sheep quotas—which are distributed among the four countries of the United Kingdom and, for sheep, between lowland and upland flocks. If that had been done, we would not be facing the current problems with quota hopping. We are in our current predicament simply because there was not enough forethought when we put our name to the policy in the past.
When I examine the position in Northern Ireland, I am absolutely astonished to find that the Northern Ireland quota has reduced while that of the Irish Republic has increased. In last year's debate, the Minister said:
"I assure hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that I shall be pressing the Fisheries Council for increases in the quotas proposed for the Irish sea. We fully appreciate the concerns of the Northern Irish industry about the Hague preference and of course we shall continue to seek to reduce the disadvantage to Northern Ireland resulting from the Hague preference"—
which, of course, has the opposite effect on Scotland—
"by carrying out international quota swaps."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1398–99.]
However, that never materialised.
I was told by the Minister in a letter on 12 December:
"These frustrations arise not because of the action by the UK in applying Hague Preference, but because of the approach taken by the Republic and I will be taking this up again with the Irish Minister at the December Fisheries Council."
I hope that he will take it up with a great deal more success this year than was the case last year, when we got nowt, which was not much help to the fishermen in Northern Ireland.
We are all disappointed that the swaps that the Minister promised last year did not materialise. Towards the end of the fishing season, we pretty well ran out of whiting. Some were eventually procured from elsewhere, but that had more to do with good fortune than with Government action.
Although I welcome the Minister's remarks today about the Hague preference and revisiting, more needs to be done than that. Inequities must be resolved, but not at the expense of Scottish fishermen. Many communities in Scotland depend on fishing and would disappear if it is not kept up to scratch. Similarly, there are communities in Northern Ireland that are entirely dependent on fishing. We must realise that there is no alternative for those folk.
It would be a great blessing and enlightenment to us all if the Hague preference was published, as well as the appendices to it which, I believe, were never signed. We should all like to read them and see what we signed up to, or put our hand to.
The fish stocks of cod, herring, whiting and haddock in the Irish sea are in good shape or better. In the case of cod, there has been a reduction in fishing effort, which might account for the decrease in landings. Herring and whiting stocks seem to fishermen to be adequate;
706
fishermen and scientists are often at variance. Whiting stocks, like those in the west of Scotland, are combined with other fish. Many of us cannot understand why that should be so. They should be treated as a distinct fishery, which they are.
At one time, haddock were scarce in the Irish sea. There is now a haddock stock off the coast of Down, and there is evidence that they are spawning there. I hope that that reflects the attitude of the Northern Ireland fishermen towards conservation, and the gear that they use. Those fish, however, are not being caught; we are not allowed to catch them, because area VIIa of the Irish sea is part of the larger area VII, which extends far beyond the confines of the Irish sea. Although haddock are scarce in the overall area, they are locally abundant. Surely it is time that we considered carefully a more localised fishing policy to deal with the changes over the years in the abundance or scarcity of particular species of fish.
Scientists often seem to get matters wrong. Would it not be a good idea for them to go out on the fishing boats, so that they could see what the fishermen are catching, and whether fish are abundant or scarce, rather than the scientists being taken round once or twice a year to take quick samples here and there? In theory, that could be accurate, but to be sure of accuracy, scientists should make many more stops than they can under the present system. If they were out on the boats, as they used to be, we would have a more accurate idea of stocks.
There is one topic concerning fishermen that has not been mentioned: the way in which the jobseeker's allowance impacts on fishermen. I hope that the Minister will take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Social Security. The JSA is not designed for the fishermen's life style. The scheme is for people who are out of work, but fishermen are not out of work. Their work is simply intermittent, and their working days are not foreseeable. When they go into the local office to make a claim, they are told that they can have an appointment in a couple of weeks' time. In two weeks' time, they might be fishing and they cannot go. It is an important matter, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to do something about it.
We have heard much about the Government's demerits. We have heard remarkably little about the Opposition's policy, and rather more about their hopes. As the real debate will take place in a month or six weeks, it might be as well to see the outcome of that before we make up our mind on our attitude to the Government.
9.14 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In view of the shortness of time, I thought that I would have to resort to the formula of saying that I would not be able to follow what the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said and the way in which he said it, but he touched on the Opposition's policy, and, as they were unable to say anything about it, it seemed only fair, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to comment on it, and perhaps help out the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have either sparingly deposited or positively heaped praised on my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for the way in which he has performed over the past year, which is entirely right. What he has achieved has been quite remarkable. I have certainly noticed a difference in the perception and understanding of fishermen who have spoken to me of what the Government are trying to do for them.

707
The unhappiness that always underpins fisheries debates underpins the debate again today. The problem is that the Minister can swim only in the water in which he finds himself. The water in which he is swimming at the moment is that of the common fisheries policy. At first sight, it is easy to say that the CFP is dreadful, we should get out of it and some other policy out there would be so much better. I do not think that that is easy to say. The CFP is only a symptom of something that is very bad indeed; it is telling us something about the European Community's very nature.
It is all too easy to deride people with views such as mine and say, "Hang on a second. What you are really talking about is withdrawing from the European Community." I am proposing no such thing. There is no question of our being able to withdraw from Europe—a million war dead from two world wars testify to the fact that the fate of the Government and the country is inextricably tied up with Europe. The argument is about not whether we pull out of Europe, but the terms on which we participate in Europe.
Among other things, the debate illustrates that, after 25 years in Europe on the terms that we have had—and have—in Europe, we must ask ourselves whether they are the right terms for our continuing participation in Europe. It seems to me that they are not. One has only to look at the CFP and the circumstances in which the Minister must try to defend British interests to know that this business of the European Union as it is now constructed simply cannot go on. I hope that one day—not tonight, but perhaps some time in the not too distant future—the British Government will say to the EU, "You have aspirations about your destiny and a desire for political union and federation that make perfect and honourable sense, given your history, but they are not for us."
We have to find a relationship with Europe that makes us good Europeans—I perhaps speak just for myself—instead of bad Europeans. We cannot for ever keep on asking our so-called partners in Europe to do things our way when, universally, they want to do things their way. There will come a point when we shall have to ask our European partners, "What can we honestly and genuinely agree and co-operate on?" In my judgment, we shall agree on a trading arrangement, which will carry with it a number of features. Those features will include taking back our own destiny, making our own decisions, taking back our territorial waters and rejecting for ever the concept that, in some way, our resources are a common EU resource.
Although I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their excellent attitude over the past year and although I have been heartened by what they have said about quota hopping, to which I shall return, I have to strike a sombre note. There is a limit to what they can do in Europe with a common fisheries policy while we are hobbled to the EU in such a way.
If time allowed, I would go through all the aspects that have been raised by my local fishing people throughout the year and set out what they would ideally like. In order that my hon. Friend the Minister takes note, I should simply mention that the total allowable catch of monkfish is of particular concern in the west country.
708
On quota hopping, one has only to look at the figures supplied by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to realise what an outrage is being perpetrated on fishing people at the moment. The Dutch hold 44 per cent. of the UK's plaice quota and 20 per cent. of the UK's sole quota. The Spanish—for crying out loud—hold 46 per cent. of the UK's hake quota, 35 per cent. of our megrim quota and 29 per cent. of our monkfish quota. Those figures, and the situations that they represent, must stop.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend, who is my neighbour in Devon, agree that quota hopping is precisely the issue at the heart of all the complaints that we receive from fishermen in the south-west? Does he also agree that that has been recognised by the Government in their refusal to sign any further Maastricht treaty without having reached an accommodation on that crucial issue?
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. He is saying on the Floor of the House precisely what he and I have said to each other and on delegations to Ministers over many years. Quota hopping is the key point in the unsatisfactory nature of the current situation. Because we are locked into the European Union, to get some reform, we shall have to threaten to shake down the temple. That is essentially what Ministers are saying that they intend to do.
Inevitably, some people outside will say that politics is a matter of choice. Many people think that politics is a choice between the bad and the frightful; obviously I do not accept that. There must be people who are concerned about the fishing industry and have been watching this debate who have said, "What's on offer? There's going to be an election soon. Perhaps we should have a look at the other parties' policies."
It is completely in a spirit of friendship that I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that his speech was truly frightful. I am glad that he has come back so as not to miss the words of praise that I am about to heap on him.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was frightful, not because he lacks forensic debating skills—I know from our past exchanges that he is endowed with those—but because he is too honest. It was impossible for him, with the brief that he had, to make a fist of supporting the proposition that the Labour party had anything constructive to say about its policy. Over and over again, he failed to talk about policy. Perfectly correctly, he refused to give way to me when I wanted to chide him about some of what he had said about Labour party policy in the past. He did not want to know, and he was perfectly right.
At one point, a look of horror spread over the hon. Gentleman's face and he asked what the Government were doing in 1991 and 1992. In 1992, the hon. Gentleman was fighting on a Labour manifesto that contained not a single word about the fishing industry. Not long afterwards, the European elections were fought. What did the Labour party say about fishing then? Absolutely nothing.
To be fair, even the Labour party can learn. It has now published a document called, "New Labour, New Life for Britain", which contains a statement about fish: it is one word shorter than the title of the document. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman did not want to give way

709
on his policy, because he does not have one that he can honestly state and, being the decent chap that he is, he was not prepared to pretend that he had.
The reality is that the hon. Gentleman is wedded hook, line and sinker to the common fisheries policy because he is a federalist. I do not know whether he genuinely believes in that and feels more comfortable as an arch-federalist in an arch-federalist party than he did in all the previous general elections that he fought as someone who wanted to come out of the Community, but the fact is that he is hooked, because Labour is in favour of a federal Europe, and policies such as the common fisheries policy are the inevitable consequence of that.
To try to attract people to the prospect of voting Labour because it might have a good fisheries policy, all that the hon. Gentleman can say is that he will put up with the status quo, that he will never be isolated in Europe and that he will abandon the veto. That is the sum total of the Labour party's policy on fishing. To put it as kindly as one can, that is not an attractive prospect.
The Liberal party will have a policy for every season. I tried to find out what the Liberal policy on fishing was. I was none the wiser for listening to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr, Wallace).
Mr. Wallace: It is in our document.
Mr. Nicholls: It is impressive to learn that the hon. Gentleman went away to find out for himself what Liberal policy was. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats believe in establishing a European fishing fleet managed by EU regional executives. That will terrify our partners in Europe about the desire and intent of the Liberal party to—
Mr. Wallace: Rubbish.
Mr. Nicholls: It is rubbish, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being prepared to admit that fact. What could one expect? The Liberal party does not have many principles that have not changed over the years, but the one principle of which it has always been in favour is a united states of Europe. After all, every Liberal parliamentary candidate will stick a commitment in his manifesto to the effect that, in any circumstances, the Liberals will opt for a European currency. What else on earth could one expect from a party that says that it has only one principle that matters to it—a united states of Europe? When a party has such a federalist agenda, it cannot possibly stand up for British fishermen.
What is the significance of tonight's vote? When our Ministers go to Europe to argue in the thoroughly unsatisfactory climate created by the common fisheries policy, it would be nice if they could argue with their opposite numbers and say, "Whatever else disunites us in the House of Commons, everyone is with us on this. We have certain irreducible demands." If the vote goes the wrong way, or, frankly, even if we win it narrowly, Ministers will be unable to say that. Out there, when my hon. Friends are negotiating with their opposite numbers in Europe, those European Ministers will have a sneaking suspicion that the Labour party does not have the resolve to stand up to them. They will say to themselves, "There is a general election coming along soon. Perhaps the Labour party will win. Well, we can see what the Labour
710
party is like. It did not back the Government even on something such as this. We know that it will be a pushover." That is the problem we face.
It was put better than I can certainly put it by the Western Morning News, not a newspaper from which I am usually able to quote with approbation in the House. It is a stern critic, at times perhaps fairly so. It issued an editorial today under the heading, "Don't Sabotage Fishing Industry". It called for the industry to remain non-political and asked for unity in British interests. It said:
"Defeat would send the wrong signals to European leaders on this crucial issue—and weaken John Major's hand in fighting for a better deal for our fishermen."
Ministers have said that they will stand up for the key issue that matters more than anything else to our fishing communities. They have said that they simply will not tolerate the continuance of the present practice of quota hopping. If we presented a united voice tonight, and if the Opposition said, "Whatever else disunites us, we will back the Government on this," what a marvellous bargaining position that would be for my hon. Friends. Instead, when my hon. Friends go to Europe next, they will be looking at their opposite numbers, who believe that a Labour victory is possible. They know that if that happens, they will have to do business with people who will ultimately sell this country's rights down the river. That is a pretty sombre prospect. That is why we should win the vote, and win the general election in six months' time.
9.26 Pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: It is time to get back to reality after the fantasy world presented by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
It is true that this annual debate has had a higher profile in recent years than it had in the past. Of course that is not all to do with the fishing industry, but the narrow votes on the issue in the past couple of years have been far from damaging for the fishing industry. They have benefited it in all sorts of ways. The Minister offered us a grand tour of the fishing constituencies and uttered warm words about the Members who represent them. In fact, he uttered such words about Members who were not even here for the debate, including the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).
In the past we have witnessed increases in decommissioning grants; the reinstatement of port improvement grants; and tonight we have been offered more promises of fish for the Ulster fishing fleets. It is not clear from the Minister's contribution, however, from where exactly the fish will come. Of course we are all delighted about an extra allocation for the Ulster fleets, or any other fleet, but we would appreciate some details about where those fish will come from and how the transfers will be made. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will deal with that when he replies to the debate, because I am sure that I am not the only person who is curious about it.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends about the Hague preference. Let me be absolutely straight and honest about

711
it—it is important to start how we intend to go on in our future relationship. Of course, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, it was introduced by a Labour Minister. At the time it was welcomed by the industry because it gave the United Kingdom fishing industry an extra allocation of fish as a fallback when quotas were being pressed. In that respect it provided the industry with a safety net.
I have consistently argued that the Hague preference has its disadvantages, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may remember challenging me in Committee on this matter. At that time, I expressed concerns about the fact that the Hague preference operates against the interests of the Ulster fleet and some of the fleets from the east coast of England. As an hon. Member who represents a Humberside constituency, I understand the concerns of the Humber ports and the east coast fleet. But while recognising the disadvantages, the Labour party has always conceded that the Hague preference provides a safety net and we must look at the interests of the whole country. Having said that, we recognise that the calculations for the Hague preference are not working in the best interests of our country overall, and the Minister alluded to that. That is something that needs to be considered.
We have always argued in the past that, in terms of the quota round and TACs, the Minister should wherever possible argue for quotas that do not trigger the Hague preference because it can work against the Irish fleet. It can be a two-edged sword. In the longer term, we welcome the report from the working group on CFP reform, which has put forward some interesting arguments about more autonomy in coastal state management and regional management. That is very much in line with the approach that Labour has taken. We recognise the interests of the regions, and we aim to represent the interests of all the fleets and their own particular regional issues. We can look at that, but it must be debated in the context of the reform of the CFP.
The Government motion tonight is significant not for what it says, but for what it does not say. First, I wish to refer to the TAC details, some of which have been touched on in the debate. We have heard concerns about the details, and I know that the Minister is aware of the views of the industry on the matter. There is concern about the way in which the west coast cod and haddock quotas have been linked together to protect cod, as it is felt that the science—particularly on the west coast—is not as sound as it could be. I very much hope that the Minister will press the Commission on this point.
There has been a large cut in the whiting TAC in the Irish sea of 29 per cent. It seems difficult to justify a cut of that size, and I hope that the Minister will press that matter. There is a strong argument in favour of maintaining the North sea plaice TAC at the same level, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. There also has been a large cut in the sole quota, which will have severe effects on the fleet. We recognise that difficult decisions have to be made on the basis of good science, but I hope that that large cut can be justified.
Mr. Salmond: I do not wish to refer to the Hague preference, as the hon. Gentleman knows my views on it. Does he take on board the view of a number of Members
712
of other parties that it would have been useful and constructive if the other six Opposition parties had seen the Labour amendment and had had an opportunity to contribute some ideas to it?
Mr. Morley: As a general principle, I believe in that, but the hon. Gentleman may not know that the Government did not table their motion until last Friday. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) only had last Friday to formulate an amendment, which had to be tabled then for today's debate. It was not possible in that time to contact other parties, but it is something to bear in mind for the future.
I very much welcome the fact that the industry has questioned why there should not be a cut in the TAC for sprats. If there has been a cut in the TAC for herring, it follows that there is some logic in reducing the sprat quota. That is also linked with the argument about industrial fishing in the North sea—the one issue on which there has been almost unanimous agreement tonight. Along with Members from all parties, I attended the launch of a report supported by Unilever which identified the problems of the impact of industrial fishing on the biomass in the North sea, and on the relationship between sand-eels as a prey item for commercial fish and marine mammals and marine birds.
The Minister mentioned the possibility of TACs on sand-eels and that is welcome, but the provisional figures that I have seen suggest that those TACs would be very high indeed and I am not sure that they would significantly reduce the impact of industrial fishery. It would be more logical to follow the report's recommendation, which is closing certain areas to industrial fishing on a precautionary principle. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic thought to that proposal.
Other quotas need careful examination and, in addition, there is the issue of so-called banking and borrowing, with which the Minister will be familiar. The United Kingdom and its fishing industry have a good record on quota utilisation and the provisions on banking and borrowing should be kept to a minimum.
Apart from the TAC-related concerns, the Council of Ministers still has unfinished business in respect of multi-annual guidance programme IV, which has been mentioned tonight. We have yet to hear the Government's response to the report of the common fisheries policy review group and it would be useful if the Minister were to indicate when the Government intend to reply to that report. I congratulate those involved in the group, because their report was useful and took forward the debate on fisheries management. The Minister touched on the issue of technical conservation and the Commission's proposals and I share some of the concerns that he expressed. Finally, one of the most divisive issues is that of flagships, and a constant theme in tonight's debate has been how that problem can be dealt with. We believe that we can approach many of those difficulties within the context of a European fisheries management framework.
I agree with the Minister's comments in respect of the Guernsey dispute—a dispute relating to a country that is not within the common fisheries policy, which needs to be resolved through bilateral negotiations and agreements. With my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) I met the Guernsey fishermen to discuss the

713
problem. The United Kingdom clearly has an interest and, although the Home Office is the lead Department in this matter, I hope that the Minister will look at the way in which the rules covering French territorial waters up to the 12-mile limit apply to the sort of trawlers that are banned from operating with the French 12-mile limit, but that are operating within the Guernsey island 12-mile limit. It does not seem unreasonable that the rules applicable in French waters should also apply within Guernsey waters.
Tonight's vote is not only about what is on the Order Paper, but about the fact that, for all the Government's fine words, nothing has been achieved on the flagship issue in the past 15 years. One attempt was made in 1988, but little has been done since. In terms of the motion, nothing has changed since last year—the Government have won no concessions on the flagship issue. I know that some hon. Members voted against last year's motion on a point of principle and I respect that, but there is no reason why they should turn around this year and embrace the motion tonight. Nothing has been gained for the industry and the same problems persist.
The Government have talked tough, but they talked tough about Spanish accession and that was conceded in the end. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) called on the Labour party to use the veto in the intergovernmental conference, but there are legitimate questions to be asked, such as whether protocol changes in the intergovernmental conference are the best or most appropriate way of dealing with the flagship issue. If it is possible to deal with the issue of flagships in the IGC, will the Minister tell us whether that will apply only to ships that come on to the register in future, or whether it can be made to apply retrospectively to those ships that are currently on the register? That is the pressing issue. Other member states may legitimately ask why, if the issue is so crucial to the UK, the Government did not make more of it when the common fisheries policy went through its mid-term review.
I give the hon. Member for Bridlington an undertaking. A future Labour Government will explore all appropriate ways—not only the IGC—to resolve the flagship issue and issues such as the six and 12-mile limits, which to us are non-negotiable, and more autonomy for coastal state nations within the CFP.
The hon. Member for Bridlington should not have had to ask, because no issue that we discussed tonight will be resolved until after the next general election. In that respect, all those problems are being left for a Labour Government to resolve. That is why, after 17 years, the Government are talking tough. It is easy to make all sorts of claims and promises before an election, knowing that those issues will not be dealt with. I know the underlying agenda.
A year from now, there will be a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box and Conservative Members will be asking about those issues and drawing them to the Minister's attention. A year from now, I will remind them of that.
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Tonight's debate was sometimes lively, sometimes thoughtful and sometimes very unthoughtful. It was made notable by the
714
contributions and valedictory speeches on fisheries matters by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). They both said that, next year, when the fisheries debate takes place, for the first time for many years neither of them will be here. I say on behalf of the House that the annual debate will be the poorer, because no one doubts their commitment to fighting their constituents' corner. I will be here next year, however, replying to the debate.
Regrettably, for the second year in succession, no member of the shadow Scottish Office team bothered to take part in the debate. This year, no member of the shadow Scottish Office team even signed the motion standing in the name of the official Opposition. We may draw two possible conclusions: either that the members of the team could not be bothered or that they do not agree with the motion tabled in the name of the Opposition and might join the Government in the Lobby tonight. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the shadow Scottish Secretary, did not even bother to attend the debate.
I hope to allay some of the fears that were expressed. We are all aware of the uncertainty of many fishermen about the future of their industry. Many of them feel threatened, for example by the growing interest of environmental bodies, by regulation from Brussels and by unfair competition. In the past year I have been at particular pains, therefore, to travel round Scotland to hear the industry's concerns at first hand. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), have done likewise.
I hope that I have been able to act as an honest and accurate observer. I say that because, not only do I have the privilege of representing the considerable Scottish interest in the UK industry, but I have a personal interest because of the key role that fishing plays in my constituency.
When we focus on the problems of the sea fishing industry, we tend to forget that the industry remains viable and profitable. It continues to provide opportunities and rewards. The income of the whole fleet is up by 7 per cent. at a time when the Government have achieved historically low inflation, and that income has been shared among fewer boats.
If we are to safeguard that viability, we must acknowledge that the sea's natural resources are finite. The industry has changed significantly in recent years. The greater capacity of vessels to fish for longer periods, during the worst weather, over a greater sea area, using new electronic aids, means that we run the constant risk of taking too many fish out of the sea. If we put at risk the ability of some species to reproduce, we shall all be poorer.
In the debate, the Hague preference was mentioned by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and—repeatedly—by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The EU has consistently recognised the need to sustain communities that depend heavily on fishing. That is why the system of Hague preferences allows the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to secure a higher share of certain fish stocks when the total allowable

715
catches fall below a certain threshold. By invoking the Hague preference, the UK can increase its share of selected quotas. For others, the UK needs to invoke the Hague preference to offset in part the impact of the Irish Republic's use of the Hague preference.
We recognise that it is unfortunate that the Hague preference mechanisms can work to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland fishermen as a result of the Irish Republic's use of them to gain extra quotas. That is why we have always made clear our readiness to engage in international swaps in order to help fishermen in the Province, recognising that they too are in an area of particular dependence.
We shall continue to invoke the Hague preference when it is in the United Kingdom's interest to do so, but we shall also seek to mitigate any disadvantage that Northern Ireland fishermen might suffer as a result of Irish invocation. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he opened the debate, it is surely right, now that the United Kingdom is no longer a net beneficiary of the Hague preference, for us to review the whole system—away from this debate and away from the Council—early in the new year. At this morning's meeting, the industry accepted that.
Mr. Salmond: Given the new policy on the Hague preference that the Minister has enunciated this evening, can he give a guarantee that, as a result of any review, Scottish fishermen's entitlement will not be disadvantaged by the Government's new approach?
Mr. Robertson: Throughout the debate, the hon. Gentleman has displayed a singular lack of knowledge—indeed, complete ignorance—of what the Hague preference means. Throughout the debate, for his own party-political reasons, he has tried to put Scottish fishermen at the throats of Northern Ireland fishermen. When we invoke the Hague preference to the benefit of Scottish fishermen, in no way does it affect the Northern Ireland catch; only when the Republic invokes it is Northern Ireland affected.
The hon. Gentleman is making speeches all over Scotland comparing Scotland to the Republic, and saying that he would like Scotland to be another Republic of Ireland. We wondered what he meant by that, but now we know what he means: he wants to put Scottish fishermen at the throats of their Northern Ireland counterparts. That is not what the Hague preference is all about, and the hon. Gentleman should wake up to the reality.
The questions of the multi-annual guidance programme and quota-hopping have featured throughout the debate, and rightly so. Earlier this year, the Commission presented its proposals for a new set of medium-term targets to reduce fishing effort—the so-called MAGP. We expect to have a further discussion about those proposals in the Council later this week. While there should be no doubt that some further cut in fishing effort is necessary, the Commission's proposed cuts in fleet capacity go far beyond what member states consider reasonable or practical. Along with other member states, we have therefore been instrumental in pushing for the development of alternative approaches.
Let me repeat the assurances given earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What we are not prepared to do is run down the genuine United Kingdom
716
fleet so that foreign interlopers can snap up UK quotas that are there for the benefit of our coastal communities. It cannot be right that vessels fishing against UK quotas, flying the Union flag, hardly ever land at UK ports.
Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that, unless a satisfactory agreement is reached on quota-hopping, Her Majesty's Government will veto the proposed treaty at the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. Robertson: I think that I can best answer my hon. Friend by quoting from the interview given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the BBC's "On the Record" yesterday. My right hon. and learned Friend was asked:
"It is not a case of speculating, is it? We know that there are some things that you will insist on getting out of that."
He answered:
"That we have made absolutely clear. For example, we believe the social chapter should not be introduced by the back door—that is something on which the Prime Minister has made our position very clear; we have to look out for the interests of our fishing communities who have been gravely damaged by the way in which the quota-hopping phenomena have been distorted very much to our disadvantage. These are two clear examples which are fundamental to our objectives in the negotiation."
My right hon. and learned Friend was further asked:
"And there will be no deal unless they go along with us on those issues? That is absolutely clear, is it?"
He replied:
"Yes. We have made it very clear. At the end of the day, the intergovernmental conference reaches a successful conclusion when all the member states are content with the outcome. We have indicated we will not be satisfied with an outcome that does not address … the two points I have just raised."
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) the categorical assurance that he seeks. We have told our European partners that this is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs.
We shall resolve the problem of quota hoppers and we proposed a solution at the intergovernmental conference. As I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear over the weekend that the Government attach a high priority to that in the IGC. There can be no question of an agreement at Amsterdam without the issue of quota hoppers being addressed. In the mean time, we have made it crystal clear that we cannot contemplate imposing further compulsory fleet cuts on genuine UK fishermen. I give the House the absolute assurance that we remain firm in our resolve to tackle that problem.
My hon. Friends the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I noted carefully their comments about our rights to inshore waters. I remind them that when my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate he said that we had made it clear that for us the six and 12-mile limits are and will remain non-negotiable and that any interference with those limits was unacceptable. He described them as an essential derogation from the equal access provisions of the common fisheries policy. That derogation was conceded in 1972 and it is our firm intention to establish those restrictions definitively. In that sense we would not be prepared to accept any move to end them.

717
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) inquired about the safety group. The Government attach great importance to safety, which is a matter for the Department of Transport's Marine Safety Agency. I understand that discussions about the future organisation of the group are still taking place and I hope that they will soon reach a satisfactory conclusion. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall make sure that his concerns are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and for Ludlow asked what was happening off Guernsey. It has been suggested that in some way the Government have abandoned Guernsey and its fishermen to pursue wider interests with France. That is untrue and in some ways misrepresents the efforts that are being made by Guernsey, the Government and France to reach a long-term solution. Both Guernsey and France are committed to act in moderation and have stressed the importance of reducing tension in the area. I understand that that constructive approach prevails and I welcome that development. The Royal Navy has been close to the area in dispute during the past week, and I assure the House that Royal Navy protection vessels will continue on standby should circumstances require it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington raised the issue of discards. I think we all agree that discarding fish is a terrible waste. We are concerned about how to tackle the problem, and that is one of the main reasons for the Government's decision to set up the fisheries conservation group. We shall pursue the conclusions of the group in respect of a range of conservation measures.
The issue of total allowable catches and quotas rightly featured prominently in the debate. The setting of TACs and quotas is always contentious and fishermen rightly see them as among the main constraints on the freedom to fish. Some regard them as a necessary evil while others think that they are completely unnecessary. However, they are happy to see increases from one year to the next and understandably dismayed when scientists recommend prudent reductions.
I do not adhere to the rather gloomy view that a reduction in one or other TAC necessarily renders fishing uneconomic. In practice, when fish are in short supply price increases can compensate for a reduction in volume, although the position varies from fishery to fishery. For example, following cuts in their TACs, this year's prices for mackerel and herring increased sharply from about £200 to more than £600 a tonne for good quality mackerel. Later this week the Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels to set a TAC for next year for stocks that we share with other member states. I do not expect that to be straightforward.
There have been representations about particular TACs and I shall seek to adjust the Commissioner's proposals where that is justified. We have already signalled to our European partners the importance that we attach to securing a range of increases on the Commissioner's proposals for white fish TACs around our coastline as well as for Irish sea herring. I am keen to maintain pressure to reduce by-catches of juvenile herring in the North sea, not least by setting a responsible TAC for North sea sprat. We shall be doing our utmost to secure an outcome that is in the UK fishing industry's best
718
interests. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had a useful meeting with the UK industry and it was noticeable and heartening that its priorities and our priorities coincided almost identically. My hon. Friend and I have taken careful note of the views expressed by hon. Members today and, obviously, we will keep in close touch with fishermen's representatives before and during the Council on Thursday.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of farm salmon. He knows that the Government are committed to the Scottish salmon farming industry, which makes an important contribution to the economy of the highlands and island of Scotland and to his constituency in particular. In view of the difficulties that have beset that sector in the past, I have been working with the Scottish industry to try to avoid further market disruption.
That has had one important positive result. Earlier this year, the Norwegian Government were persuaded to introduce feed quotas, which have reduced substantially salmon production in Norway, but, despite those measures, the salmon market has been depressed for more than a year, with the average market price for quality salmon having fallen by some 15 per cent. since last December.
Our industry's concern over competition in the European Union market has been such that the Government encouraged the Scottish Salmon Growers Association to submit an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy complaint to the EU. If convincing evidence comes to light from the Commission's investigation of those complaints, I have assured the industry of the Government's wholehearted backing.
I had hoped that the Norwegian Government's feed restrictions would lead to a recovery in the latter part of this year, but that failed to materialise, so the Government formally requested that minimum import prices for a limited period were reintroduced. Despite efforts to persuade Commissioner Bonino of the case for such temporary action, that request has been rejected.
I am appalled by such insensitive treatment of the industry and of the entire highlands and islands of Scotland, which the Commission recognises as an area of particular need. Mrs. Bonino told me that the European market for salmon had been stable in recent months, if prices were monitored in ecu, but she fails to realise that our salmon farmers are paid not in ecu, but in sterling.
Over the weekend at the Dublin summit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to President Santer the Government's dissatisfaction about the handling of the UK request. He has asked President Santer to take a personal interest in the matter, which we expected would have been considered by the College of Commissioners as a whole. At the Fisheries Council this week, I shall repeat that concern and I look to the Commission to recognise that Scottish producers are entitled to some safeguards while their complaints about dumping and subsidies are investigated.
We have had a useful debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have listened to various concerns—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I can barely hear the Minister.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend and I have listened to the various concerns that have been expressed and we will consider those further before Thursday's Council. Our basic aim for the Council on Thursday and Friday, and Saturday if necessary, is simple enough. It is to achieve the best deal possible for our fishermen, having regard both to their immediate and to their longer-term needs. Our primary concern in the debate has been to focus on the practical problems facing our fishermen, to show what action we have taken and what further actions we have in hand to protect the long-term interests of this great industry.
There are no simple quick solutions, no panaceas to these problems. I say to some of my hon. Friends who campaign for leaving the CFP that such an approach will be of no practical help to the fishermen whom we all seek to help. It will not solve any of the problems simply to draw new lines on the maps of our seas. Our fishermen are looking for their interests to be strongly and effectively represented at the Fisheries Council in Brussels. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I intend to do.
We recognise that our fishermen are looking for a fair deal on TACs and that Northern Ireland's fishermen are looking to be protected from the full impact of the Hague preference system. We know that our fishermen are not happy with the Commission's proposals for reducing fishing fleets—and certainly not with the erosion of UK quotas at the hands of quota hoppers.
Conservative Members are facing up to those problems. Not for us the playing of politics, using the livelihoods of Britain's fishermen in some tawdry little game that has nothing to do with fishing and everything to do with trying to embarrass the Government. We will have none of that. We will leave that to Opposition Members, but to treat one of our country's oldest and finest industries with such contempt is to the eternal shame of Opposition Members. We can represent the interests of fishermen more effectively if we go to Brussels with the wholehearted support of the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 316.

Division No. 30]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Benton, Joe

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bermingham, Gerald

Ainger, Nick

Berry, Roger

Allen, Graham

Betts, Clive

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Blair, Tony

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Blunkett, David

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Boateng, Paul

Ashton, Joseph

Boyes, Roland

Austin-Walker, John

Bradley, Keith

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Barron, Kevin

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Battle, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Bayley, Hugh

Burden, Richard

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Byers, Stephen

Beith, A J

Caborn, Richard

Bell, Stuart

Callaghan, Jim

Benn, Tony

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

720

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hall, Mike

Canavan, Dennis

Hanson, David

Cann, Jamie

Hardy, Peter

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Chidgey, David

Harvey, Nick

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hattersley, Roy

Church, Ms Judith

Henderson, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Hendron, Dr Joe

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoey, Kate

Cohen, Harry

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Connarty, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hood, Jimmy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Howells, Dr Kim

Cousins, Jim

Hoyle, Doug

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hume, John

Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

Hutton, John

Dafis, Cynog

Illsley, Eric

Dalyell, Tam

Ingram, Adam

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Jamieson, David

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Denham, John

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dobson, Frank

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Donohoe, Brian H

Kaufman, Gerald

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Eastham, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Ennis, Jeffrey

Kilfoyle, Peter

Etherington, Bill

Kirkwood, Archy

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Lewis, Terry

Fatchett, Derek

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Faulds, Andrew

Litherland, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Livingstone, Ken

Fisher, Mark

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Flynn, Paul

Llwyd, Elfyn

Foster, Derek

Loyden, Eddie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Foulkes, George

McAllion, John

Fraser, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

Galbraith, Sam

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Galloway, George

McCrea, Rev William

Gapes, Mike

Macdonald, Calum

Garrett, John

McFall, John

George, Bruce

McGrady, Eddie

Gerrard, Neil

McKelvey, William

Gilbert, Dr John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

McLeish, Henry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Maclennan, Robert

Gordon, Ms Mildred

McMaster, Gordon

Graham, Thomas

McNamara, Kevin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWilliam, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Madden, Max

Grocott, Bruce

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Gunnell, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

721

Mallon, Seamus

Rooney, Terry

Mandelson, Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Marek, Dr John

Rowlands, Ted

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Salmond, Alex

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Sedgemore, Brian

Martlew, Eric

Sheerman, Barry

Maxton, John

Sheldon, Robert

Meacher, Michael

Shore, Peter

Meale, Alan

Short, Clare

Michael, Alun

Simpson, Alan

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Milburn, Alan

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Snape, Peter

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Rhodri

Spearing, Nigel

Morley, Elliot

Spellar, John

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Steel, Sir David

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Steinberg, Gerry

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Stevenson, George

Mudie, George

Stott, Roger

Mullin, Chris

Strang, Dr Gavin

Murphy, Paul

Straw, Jack

Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Oakes, Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

O'Hara, Edward

Thumham, Peter

Olner, Bill

Timms, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Orme, Stanley

Touhig, Don

Paisley, Rev Ian

Trickett, Jon

Parry, Robert

Turner, Dennis

Pearson, Ian

Tyler, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Vaz, Keith

Pickthall, Colin

Walker, Sir Harold

Pike, Peter L

Wallace, James

Pope, Greg

Walley, Ms Joan

Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

Wareing, Robert N

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Watson, Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Welsh, Andrew

Prescott, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Wigley, Dafydd

Purchase, Ken

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Brian

Randall, Stuart

Winnick, David

Raynsford, Nick

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Reid, Dr John

Worthington, Tony

Rendel, David

Wray, Jimmy

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wright, Dr Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr. David Clelland and

Rooker, Jeff

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

Aitken, Jonathan

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Alexander, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Amess, David

Bates, Michael

Ancram, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Arbuthnot, James

Bellingham, Henry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bendall, Vivian

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ashby, David

Biffen, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Body, Sir Richard

Atkins, Robert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Booth, Hartley

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Boswell, Tim

722

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fry, Sir Peter

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gallie, Phil

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

Gardiner, Sir George

Brandreth, Gyles

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Bright, Sir Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brooke, Peter

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Goodlad, Alastair

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Budgen, Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butler, Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Butterfill, John

Gummer, John

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hague, William

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Paul

Hannam, Sir John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hargreaves, Andrew

Churchill, Mr

Harris, David

Clappison, James

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hawksley, Warren

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hayes, Jerry

Coe, Sebastian

Heald, Oliver

Colvin, Michael

Heath, Sir Edward

Congdon, David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Hendry, Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Heseltine, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Sir Robert

Cope, Sir John

Higgins, Sir Terence

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Couchman, James

Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

Cran, James

Horam, John

Critchley, Sir Julian

Hordern, Sir Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howard, Michael

Curry, David

Howell, David (Guildf'd)

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Devlin, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Hurd, Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jack, Michael

Dover, Den

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Duncan, Alan

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Jessel, Toby

Dunn, Bob

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Eggar, Tim

Jopling, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Emery, Sir Peter

Key, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

King, Tom

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evennett, David

Knight Greg (Derby N)

Faber, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fabricant, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Kynoch, George

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fishburn, Dudley

Lamont, Norman

Forman, Nigel

Lang, Ian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Forth, Eric

Legg, Barry

Fowler, Sir Norman

Leigh, Edward

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Freeman, Roger

Lidington, David

723

Lilley, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lord, Michael

Shephard, Mrs Gillian

Luff, Peter

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Shersby, Sir Michael

MacGregor, John

Sims, Sir Roger

MacKay, Andrew

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maclean, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Madel, Sir David

Soames, Nicholas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spencer, Sir Derek

Major, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Malone, Gerald

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Mans, Keith

Spink, Dr Robert

Marland, Paul

Spring, Richard

Marlow, Tony

Sproat, Iain

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Steen, Anthony

Mates, Michael

Stephen, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Mellor, David

Streeter, Gary

Merchant, Piers

Sumberg, David

Mills, Iain

Sykes, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Thomason, Roy

Needham, Richard

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Newton, Tony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholls, Patrick

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tracey, Richard

Norris, Steve

Tredinnick, David

Onslow, Sir Cranley

Trend, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Trotter, Neville

Ottaway, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paice, James

Viggers, Peter

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Waldegrave, William

Patten, John

Walden, George

Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pawsey, James

Waller, Gary

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Ward, John

Pickles, Eric

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Porter, David

Waterson, Nigel

Portillo, Michael

Watts, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wells, Bowen

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, Sir John

Redwood, John

Whitney, Ray

Renton, Tim

Whittingdale, John

Richards, Rod

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Riddick, Graham

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Robathan, Andrew

Willetts, David

Roberts, Sir Wyn

Wilshire, David

Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wolfson, Mark

Rowe, Andrew

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Young, Sir George

Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Scott, Sir Nicholas

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 304.

Division No. 31]

[10.16 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Aitken, Jonathan

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alexander, Richard

Day, Stephen

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Ancram, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Dover, Den

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan, Alan

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Ashby, David

Dunn, Bob

Aspinwall, Jack

Durant, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Eggar, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Elletson, Harold

Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

Emery, Sir Peter

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Baldry, Tony

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bates, Michael

Evennett, David

Batiste, Spencer

Faber, David

Bellingham, Henry

Fabricant, Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beresford, Sir Paul

Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Biffen, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Body, Sir Richard

Forman, Nigel

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Booth, Hartley

Forth, Eric

Boswell, Tim

Fowler, Sir Norman

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Freeman, Roger

Bowis, John

French, Douglas

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

Fry, Sir Peter

Brandreth, Gyles

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Gallie, Phil

Bright, Sir Graham

Gardiner, Sir George

Brooke, Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodlad, Alastair

Burns, Simon

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butcher, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Butler, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, John

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Channon, Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Churchill, Mr

Hanley, Jeremy

Clappison, James

Hannam, Sir John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harris, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Coe, Sebastian

Hawkins, Nick

Colvin, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Congdon, David

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Heath, Sir Edward

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, Sir John

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Heseltine, Michael

Couchman, James

Hicks, Sir Robert

Cran, James

Higgins, Sir Terence

Critchley, Sir Julian

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

Curry, David

Horam, John

725

Hordern, Sir Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Howard, Michael

Page, Richard

Howell, David (Guildf'd)

Paice, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Patten, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Pawsey, James

Hunter, Andrew

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hurd, Douglas

Pickles, Eric

Jack, Michael

Porter, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Portillo, Michael

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jessel, Toby

Rathbone, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Redwood, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Renton, Tim

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Richards, Rod

Jopling, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rifkind, Malcolm

Key, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

King, Tom

Roberts, Sir Wyn

Kirkhope, Timothy

Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

Knapman, Roger

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Knox, Sir David

Ryder, Richard

Kynoch, George

Sackville, Tom

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

Lamont, Norman

Scott, Sir Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Legg, Barry

Shephard, Mrs Gillian

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Sims, Sir Roger

Lidington, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lilley, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

MacGregor, John

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

MacKay, Andrew

Spink, Dr Robert

Maclean, David

Spring, Richard

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sproat, Iain

Madel, Sir David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stanley, Sir John

Major, John

Steen, Anthony

Malone, Gerald

Stephen, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stem, Michael

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan

Marlow, Tony

Streeter, Gary

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sumberg, David

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sykes, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mellor, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Thomason, Roy

Mills, Iain

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Moate, Sir Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Monro, Sir Hector

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tracey, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Needham, Richard

Trend, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Neubert, Sir Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Newton, Tony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholls, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waldegrave, William

Norris, Steve

Walden, George

Onslow, Sir Cranley

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waller, Gary

726

Ward, John

Willetts, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wilshire, David

Waterson, Nigel

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Watts, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Wells, Bowen

Wolfson, Mark

Wheeler, Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Ray

Young, Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cunningham, Dr John

Ainger, Nick

Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

Allen, Graham

Dafis, Cynog

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Darling, Alistair

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Ashton, Joseph

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Austin-Walker, John

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barron, Kevin

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Battle, John

Denham, John

Bayley, Hugh

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Dixon, Don

Beith, A J

Dobson, Frank

Bell, Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H

Benn, Tony

Dowd, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Benton, Joe

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bermingham, Gerald

Eastham, Ken

Berry, Roger

Ennis, Jeffrey

Betts, Clive

Etherington, Bill

Blair, Tony

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Blunkett, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Boateng, Paul

Fatchett, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Faulds, Andrew

Bradley, Keith

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fisher, Mark

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Flynn, Paul

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Foster, Derek

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burden, Richard

Foulkes, George

Byers, Stephen

Fraser, John

Caborn, Richard

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Callaghan, Jim

Galbraith, Sam

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Galloway, George

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Garrett, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

George, Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Gerrard, Neil

Cann, Jamie

Gilbert, Dr John

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Godsiff, Roger

Chidgey, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Church, Ms Judith

Graham, Thomas

Clapham, Michael

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grocott, Bruce

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gunnell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hain, Peter

Cohen, Harry

Hall, Mike

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hardy, Peter

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corbett, Robin

Harvey, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hattersley, Roy

Corston, Ms Jean

Henderson, Doug

Cousins, Jim

Hendron, Dr Joe

Cox, Tom

Heppell, John

Cummings, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hinchliffe, David

727

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hoey, Kate

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Milburn, Alan

Home Robertson, John

Miller, Andrew

Hood, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Morgan, Rhodri

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Morley, Elliot

Howells, Dr Kim

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hoyle, Doug

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardey)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mudie, George

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mullin, Chris

Hume, John

Murphy, Paul

Hutton, John

Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

Illsley, Eric

Oakes, Gordon

Ingram, Adam

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Hara, Edward

Jamieson, David

Olner, Bill

Janner, Greville

O'Neill, Martin

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Orme, Stanley

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môon)

Parry, Robert

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pike, Peter L

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Pope, Greg

Kaufman, Gerald

Powell, Sr Raymond (Ogmore)

Keen, Alan

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Prescott, John

Khabra, Piara S

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Kirkwood, Archy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Radice, Giles

Lewis, Terry

Raynsford, Nick

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Reid, Dr John

Litherland, Robert

Rendel, David

Livingstone, Ken

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Loyden, Eddie

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rogers, Allan

McAllion, John

Rooker, Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Rowlands, Ted

McCrea, Rev William

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Macdonald, Calum

Salmond, Alex

McFall, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McGrady, Eddie

Sheerman, Barry

McKelvey, William

Sheldon, Robert

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shore, Peter

McLeish, Henry

Short, Clare

Maclennan, Robert

Simpson, Alan

McMaster, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Madden, Max

Snape, Peter

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Spearing, Nigel

Mallon, Seamus

Spellar, John

Mandelson, Peter

Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

Marek, Dr John

Steel, Sir David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stevenson, George

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Stott, Roger

Martlew, Eric

Strang, Dr Gavin

Maxton, John

Straw, Jack

Meacher, Michael

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

728

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wicks, Malcolm

Thumham, Peter

Wigley, Dafydd

Timms, Stephen

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Touhig, Don

Wilson, Brian

Trickett, Jon

Winnick, David

Turner, Dennis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tyler, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Vaz, Keith

Wray, Jimmy

Walker, Sir Harold

Wright, Dr Tony

Wallace, James

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Tellers for the Noes:

Watson, Mike

Mr. David Clelland and

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document COM(96)641 relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A rumour is spreading round Westminster that a car park pass in the name of an hon. Member is being used by someone else who is associated with the leadership of the official Opposition. Will you confirm that car park passes should be used only by those who are officially authorised to use them?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not deal in rumours.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 18th December, do adjourn till Monday 13th January.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

COUNTY COURTS
That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES
That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2958), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

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

COMMUNITY RAILWAY POLICY
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10003/95, relating to the development of the Community's railways, and 9654/96, the Commission's White Paper on the revitalisation of the Community's railways; and endorses the Government's position on the actions proposed by the Commission.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (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 referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That at the meeting of the Committee on Monday 13th January, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of any Motion which may be made in relation to the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill at half-past Two o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  PETITION

    Children's Hospital (Manchester)
    10.32 pm
    Ms Ann Coffey: The 1,000 names of Stockport residents on this petition were collected by Mr. and Mrs. Geldard and their family. They are determined that the recommendations of the Ashworth report be implemented so that no other family should have to undergo the pain and anguish that they have suffered and still suffer. The petition states:
    In December 1995 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard died of a brain haemorrhage after a 12-hour ordeal. He had been shunted between four hospitals because there were no paediatric intensive care beds available in Manchester. An inquiry into Nicholas's death found many failings in the local health service and made major recommendations.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to ensure the urgent establishment of single specialist children's hospital in Manchester where children can be diagnosed and treated; that in the interim all children's intensive care services are reorganised to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk through bad organisation; and that those hospitals with paediatric intensive care beds be ordered to publish details of usage of those beds and how many children have been turned away each month, so the public can make sure that every sick child in need has access to a local intensive care bed.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Green Belt
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    10.34 pm
    Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the protection of the green belt. There is no doubt that the green belt policy, which has been in place for almost 50 years, has been successful.
    The metropolitan green belt is well established. Most of my constituency lies within it. Without it, we probably would have had urban sprawl and ribbon development all the way between London and Oxford, if not further afield. The green belt policy is certainly firmly supported by the two local authorities that cover my constituency—South Buckinghamshire district council and Wycombe district council.
    There is always the need for constant vigilance of the green belt. There is constant development pressure on my constituency, which already has three motorways—the M4, the M25 and the M40.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: There is no doubt that there is pressure on the green belt, but does my hon. Friend know of the plan to build 868,000 more houses in the south-east of England by 2011? That will certainly put enormous pressure on the green belt.
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. We need to try to ensure that as many of those houses as possible are built in urban areas on reclaimed derelict land, rather than in the green belt where they would take up more of our lovely countryside.
    There is constant pressure on the green belt. As well as the three motorways in my constituency, there is gravel extraction, the proposed expansion of terminal 5 at Heathrow, the complementary relocation of the Perry Oaks sludge treatment works to Iver, the Eton rowing trench and the Maidenhead flood relief scheme. I am glad to say that we saw off the threatened Central Railway project.
    The Maidenhead flood relief scheme is under construction by the Environment Agency. One might think that a body called the Environment Agency would be particularly concerned about the environment. Construction of the scheme has only just begun, yet in a letter from the chairman of Dorney parish council, Mr. Ken Richmond tells me:
    "it is becoming apparent that the Environment Agency has little or no interest in the local environment or in our opinions as to how the problems which the Agency is causing could be addressed."
    Mr. Richmond also sent me three photographs of the desecration that the Environment Agency has already caused. Unfortunately, it is not possible to reproduce photographs in Hansard. I wish it were; it would probably be a little bit more interesting if it were illustrated. All that evidence underlines the need to adopt an absolutist policy on protecting the green belt. There should be no exceptions to the policy; we must have a very tough approach and be vigorous at all times.
    732
    Given the context, I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I read with some amazement the latest consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment, which is entitled:
    "Proposed New Permitted Development Right To Extend The Garden Of A Dwellinghouse."
    It was published last month, and says:
    "The Department is concerned that the benefits of requiring a planning application are not significant".
    I strongly challenge that assertion. I believe that they are significant and that the damage that would be done if one did not have to get planning permission to extend a garden into the green belt has been grossly underestimated by my hon. Friend's Department.
    The paper goes on:
    "Concern has been expressed to the Department that the requirement to obtain planning permission … is an unnecessary burden."
    Could my hon. Friend tell me by whom that concern has been expressed? I was unaware of a great clamour for a change in the law in this respect. Most people understand that they need planning permission and accept it.
    The paper continues:
    "It is argued that neighbouring householders and other users of adjacent land would not be adversely affected".
    I beg to differ with that too. Neighbouring householders could be severely adversely affected by the proposal. Indeed, some already have difficulty with what people do in their gardens. If the new right were introduced, life would be made even more difficult for them. The paper states:
    "very little is … gained in planning terms by the current controls in this area."
    I strongly disagree with that too.
    On the document's second page—its main virtue being its brevity—which is also to do with extending a garden, it says:
    "Householders would … be able to fence the land, erect porches, garden sheds, tennis courts, garages and oil tanks, and install swimming pools, satellite antenna and hard surfaces subject to the same restrictions currently set out in the Order for existing gardens."
    That could all be done without any planning permission.
    The next paragraph says:
    "There would be no restriction to the area which could be added to a curtilage under the proposed permitted development right."
    In ordinary language, that means that one could buy a five-acre field, fence round it, make it one's garden and, over a period of time, build any number of swimming pools, tennis courts or whatever.
    I received a response to that from the director of planning services of South Buckinghamshire district council, Mr. Paul Geehan, who is an excellent planning officer. He said:
    "I was absolutely amazed to receive the attached consultation paper from the DOE. Essentially the proposed changes in planning rules would allow householders to annex an area of countryside, including the Green Belt, and incorporate it into their garden. They would then have the same permitted development rights to build in the extended gardens as currently exist in existing gardens or grounds of houses. These include covered swimming pools, domestic stable blocks, domestic garages, sheds, laying a hard surface, summerhouses, etc. Providing these buildings were more than 5 metres from the dwelling, no higher than 3 metres (with a flat roof) or 4 metres (with a ridged roof) and did not cover more

    733

    than 50 per cent. of the total curtilage excluding the original dwelling, basically people could do what they liked providing it stayed ancillary to the residential use.
    With your intimate knowledge of the green belt, you do not need me to tell you the sort of things people get up to and the pressure the area is under. The proposal now before us would give a green light to urbanising the Green Belt and if it goes ahead, I believe its impact would be disastrous."
    Mr. Steen: I follow my hon. Friend's argument about the green belt and I agree with it, but that is as far as I would go. Would he be happy to confine his remarks to the green belt? Does he agree that extensions should be allowed to houses and in green fields that are surplus to agricultural use, as set out in the Green Paper?
    Mr. Smith: I am not at all sure about that. My main concern is with the green belt, because the whole of my constituency lies within it. My hon. Friend is better qualified to speak on other matters.
    The planning officer continued:
    "As an example of what could be done, a householder living in a property on the edge of the Green Belt could buy the next field, annex it to his property and build over at least half the field. Providing the use were for the householder and his family, subject to the height restriction already mentioned they could build an indoor swimming pool and changing area, a stable block and other buildings for pets, a tennis court, a new drive, a multi-car garage block, a recreation complex (e.g. snooker/gymnasium), sheds, domestic workshops, greenhouses, caravan hardstanding area, summerhouses, a chapel etc., etc., etc. Even if one of these developments were carried out, Green Belt policy would be seriously undermined. In addition of course, there would be nothing in planning terms to stop playing fields or areas of open space being annexed. The proposal seems to be in conflict with national policy on keeping Green Belts open (PPG2) and on policies which stress the value of recreation and open space (PPG17)."
    I have had a similar letter from Stoke Poges parish council, where I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) lives; he has considerable knowledge of the area. The clerk there said:
    "These dangers are already apparent in Stoke Poges. For example, I enclose a map of some land at the rear of properties in West End Lane and Park Road indicating where fences have been erected partitioning off a field in the green belt. It is very important to preserve these fringe areas of green belt otherwise the extent of the green belt will be eroded and its aims and objects impaired. In this case not only is the green belt affected but public footpaths interfered with."
    The purposes of the green belt are set out in planning policy guidance note 2. They include the aims
    "to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas"
    and
    "to safeguard surrounding countryside from further encroachment."
    In my view, although it sounds like a modest measure of deregulation, the Department of the Environment's proposal could be the thin end of the wedge. It undermines the objectives of PPG2, and I hope that when the consultation comes to an end the Department will throw it out.
    10.43 pm
    Sir Michael Shersby: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I should like to contribute briefly to this important debate.
    734
    When I first saw the deregulation news release from the Department of the Environment, I thought for a moment that the publication date had to be 1 April, in which case I could have understood why it had been sent to me. I certainly thought that it was a hoax of the first order.
    I am astonished and amazed that the release could have crept out of the Department under the guise of deregulation. I have such respect for my hon. Friend the Minister that I can only assume that he was away on holiday when it was sent out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has correctly pointed out a number of things that could happen if the ghastly proposal ever came to fruition. The owner of the extended garden would probably want to fence it. That would result in small pockets of land, or whole fields, sprouting fences up to 2 m high without the need for planning permission. That would break up the countryside and damage the all-important concept of openness, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware is one of the crucial criteria for green belt land.
    Since half a garden may be covered with buildings, sheds, hard-standings and the like, developments could include multi-storey garages, indoor or outdoor swimming pools, recreation rooms and stable blocks—later perhaps to be converted to a granny bungalow when the owner discovers that he does not have any horses. Although existing rights of way would not be expunged, one can imagine that they might soon be obstructed, or that the owner might try to have cross-field paths legally closed on the ground of lack of use. As we all know, most people are reluctant to cross what looks like a private garden. Such rights of way might be diverted to the edge of the property.
    What about a person who wanted to conduct some activities which are unacceptable in the green belt? He could buy a house bordering it, buy the land behind the house, fence that land and then conduct the activity while claiming that it was related to the amenities of the house and within its curtilage. Alternatively, the person might already own the land behind the house, buy the house, unite the two sites and proceed to behave as I have described.
    The Department might say that such suggestions are far-fetched, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, given his knowledge of the subject, will readily agree that such manoeuvres can take place. They are real problems, which arise in real life.
    The proposal, were it to come to pass, would create what I can only describe as shed city on the green belt. It would set neighbour against neighbour. It would be a nightmare for planning officers, for councillors of every kind, and, not least, for hon. Members. We would be faced at our constituency surgeries by angry constituents who had discovered that they could do absolutely nothing about the buildings that had sprouted up on the green belt land near their homes.
    It is a matter of great regret that there are only a few days to object to the proposal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House that he is willing to consider extending the period for consultation so that elected representatives of every kind can have the opportunity to make their objections known.
    I am sorry to say that I feel that the consultation paper is the most ill thought-out, environmentally damaging and unsustainable suggestion that the planning profession has

    735
    been requested to respond to in recent times. It is difficult to believe that the Department is serious, particularly at a time of increasing environmental awareness and support for the protection of the countryside for its own sake.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rightly asked what are the concerns that have been referred to in the consultation document and have apparently been expressed to the Department. There is no evidence to support what has been asserted. The amount of concern and the importance to be attached to it needs to be seriously questioned. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am running out of puff. I regret to say that I strongly oppose the Department's proposal, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect that it might have on the effectiveness of Thames valley water, which has helped to restore my voice to this debate.
    10.49 pm
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for providing the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the green belt, and about the suburbanisation of the countryside. What better example of that can there be than the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary who is to reply to the debate? Croydon was once a wonderful rural area, but it is now totally suburban. There is something to be said for guarding against the expansion of the green belt.
    I would like to throw in the caveat that we must distinguish between green belt land and green-field sites. The idea that green-field sites might end up full of tarmacadamed drives, stable blocks, granny flats and swimming pools seems to suggest that people who own their own land will lower the value of that land. Self-interest and private enterprise are the hallmarks of the Conservative party, and deregulation is at the centre of our economic policy. I am fortunate enough to chair the Conservative party's Back-Bench committee on deregulation.
    I agree that the inclusion of the green belt extension is a damaging precedent, but the use of alternative land means that green fields go fallow. That is a tremendous burden on the public purse, and the money could be used for something useful. One must conclude that people who own land will use it to the best advantage, and we must remember that there is a distinction between the green belt and green fields.
    10.51 pm
    The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We must congratulate the Environment Agency on one point. It now contains the National Rivers Authority, which was responsible for the glass of water that allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) to conclude his speech.
    This has been a much more entertaining debate than I expected—that was this week's understatement. When the Government publish a consultation document, we like
    736
    to receive varied opinions and reactions to it. We try to put the document in the simplest of forms so that it can get the fullest of answers. This evening, we have had the fullest of answers, with two of my hon. Friends on one side and one on the other.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on raising this matter. By the time he finished, I had visions of Barnum and Bailey or Ringling Brothers' circus being parked in his and his neighbours' back yards. That was a slight exaggeration. There is a consultation document, and I shall take the points raised in the debate on board. We will read tomorrow the points raised by my hon. Friends, and ensure that they go into the consultation.
    We accepted that effective limits would be set by the criteria that the land must form part of the curtilage of the house and be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house. The slight exaggerations that we heard this evening—although emphasising a point—were a little beyond the pale. We are not talking about huge garden extensions that cover large parts of the countryside and change its real nature. We have issued the consultation document on the proposals, and we specifically asked for views on the principle and the detail. Careful attention will be paid to those views. It is worth reiterating that this is part of a full package that includes policy planning guidance note 2, which refers to green belts.
    It is worth stating one or two facts about green belts to emphasise the importance of bringing the discussion document into perspective. Green belts are popular at home and are widely admired abroad. I remember as a child looking at pictures of the English countryside, and it is a beautiful part of the English scenery that we all know—including those who come here as tourists. Since 1979, the extent of green belt land has more than doubled, and it now covers 12 per cent. of England—some 3.8 million acres. This also applies to the metropolitan green belt—as has been mentioned this evening—which covers a substantial part of the region around London and the home counties. About 21 per cent. of the south-east is formally designated as green belt, and it encompasses some of our thriving towns. Green belt land is very important—it remains an essential tool for containing urban sprawl and it is one of our major assets.
    Housing policy and the difficulties with development that we will encounter were mentioned. When discussing that policy we have to recognise that the Government have acted in various ways to ensure that development and new households—the demand for which is there, whether we like it or not—are brought to so-called brown land. We are already succeeding—about 50 per cent. of new dwellings are on brown land and we hope that that figure will rise.
    I appreciate my hon. Friends' comments, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Uxbridge, both of whose constituencies are on the edges of London. It is vital that we retain the green belt and I back my hon. Friends all the way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Battersea power station was closed as an electricity generating station. [8715]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that operations ceased in 1982.

  Transport Schemes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations his Department has had concerning the regulations making utilities liable for 18 per cent. of the costs of diversionary works for major transport schemes. [9295]

  Mr. Clappison
  Discussions have taken place at official and ministerial level with the Department of Transport which has the main responsibility for the legislation in question and these are still continuing Consultations have also taken place with the national joint utilities group.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he estimates the private finance initiative will make to the capital programme of local authorities. [7789]

  Mr. Curry
  We have announced support for up to £50 million of PFI investment in 1996–97, and £200 million in 1997–98. The public private partnerships programme has recently announced a series of PFI pathfinder projects which are expected to be signed during the next 18 months.

  Personal Social Services Funding
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the 1996–97 and 1997–98 standard spending assessment control totals for personal social services—PSS—by sub-block, putting the 1996–97 figures on the same basis as those for 1997–98, adjusted for changes in function and with the community care special transitional grant—STG—added to PSS control totals for 1996–97; what was the percentage change in each total so calculated; and if he will relate the above figures to the totals for funding for personal social services. [9046]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information on standard spending assessments is set out in the table. Funding for local authorities comes from specific and special grants and from the general revenues of the local authority. Specific and special grants for personal social services are proposed to be £453.9 million in 1997–98. Other forms 412
  of revenue funding are not hypothecated so it is not possible to determine their contribution to funding personal social services.

  Standard spending assessments for personal social services

  Adjusted 1996–97 (£ million)

  Provisional 1997–98 (£ million)

  Change (Percentage)

  Children's social services

  1,754.7

  1,754.7

  0.0

  Elderly residential social services

  2,557.5

  2,558.3

  0.0

  Elderly domiciliary social services

  1,599.9

  1,599.9

  0.0

  Other social services

  1,479.2

  1,479.2

  0.0

  Waste Management (Costs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the on-cost to business of the implementation of the European initiated waste management strategy; and if he will make a statement. [8961]

  Mr. Clappison
  The European initiated waste strategy does not have any legal force and as such it has no direct cost implications for business. It is simply a review, largely summarising existing EU policies, which will provide a framework for future work.

  Any specific proposals which may arise as a result will of course require a compliance cost assessment to be undertaken before passing into United Kingdom law. We would also expect the Commission to produce a fiche d'impact. In negotiations for any future proposals, the UK will always take into consideration the important balance between the need to improve environmental standards and practices against the costs to industry.

  Care (Accommodation)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had regarding accommodation for young people with welfare agencies; [9205]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of care leavers who are at present seeking accommodation; [9209]

  (3) what proposals he has to assist care leavers to find accommodation; [9207]

  (4) if he will list the figures for care leavers in (a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands seeking accommodation; [9210]

  (5) what discussions he has had with charities with special reference to Barnardos and the Children's Society regarding accommodation for care leavers. [9208]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ministers and officials in the Department have contact with many organisations to discuss and seek views on a range of housing issues, including the housing needs of young people such as care leavers. For example, the views of Barnardos and the Children's Society were obtained to inform the drafting of the code of guidance on parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996. On 20 January 1997, section 179 of that Act will come into force, requiring local housing
  413
  authorities to ensure that advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available to anyone in their area, including care leavers.

  On 1 April 1997, provisions in the 1996 Act will come into force requiring local housing authorities to give reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing to people with a particular need for settled accommodation on welfare grounds, which can include care leavers and other young people at risk. These new measures complement social services authorities' duties and powers under the Children Act 1989 to assist care leavers, and housing authorities' duties under the homelessness legislation to ensure that vulnerable young people who become homeless unintentionally have access to suitable accommodation. My Department does not collect data on the numbers of care leavers seeking accommodation.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been conducted (a) by and (b) on behalf of his Department, on the impact of the uniform business rate on small businesses in (i) urban and (ii) rural settings; and if he will publish the findings. [9211]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Research into the impact of non-domestic rates costs on different types of business, conducted by IFF Research Ltd. on behalf of my Department, was published in February 1995.

  Housing Registers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the new code of practice for housing registers. [9206]

  Mr. Clappison
  The new code of guidance on the allocation of local authority housing and homelessness, issued under parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, was published on 31 October. Copies have been sent to all local housing authorities in England.

  Telecommunications Antennae
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the results of his Department's consultation on amending the planning controls regarding the installations of telecommunications antennae. [9153]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Housing Resources
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make an announcement about the distribution of housing resources for 1997–98. [9602]

  Mr. Curry
  I am today announcing decisions about the distribution of resources for housing in 1997–98.

  Councils will receive housing investment programme allocations totalling nearly £900 million for 1997–98. Under the competitive HIP process, we have again been able to direct funding to those councils which are best able to make use of them.
  414
  Within the HIP programme, £628 million is for general purpose allocations, or housing "annual capital guidelines". For the first time this year, these have been allocated on a fully competitive basis in line with the Government's move towards increased challenge and competitive funding as a means of improving the allocation of capital funding and the value for money obtained.

  In addition to these annual capital guidelines, £193 million has been allocated for private sector renewal and £56 million for disabled facilities grant. These have also been allocated on a fully competitive basis.

  As part of the assessment of its performance, each local authority is required to submit a housing strategy statement, setting out a comprehensive framework for housing programmes for at least the next three years, covering not only the plans of the local authority, but the contribution to be made by the private housing sector. The strategy is prepared in consultation with all those interested in the local housing scene, including the Housing Corporation, housing associations, tenants' groups and the private sector. Once again, there is a continuing improvement in the performance of the great majority of local authorities.

  I am depositing tables in the Library of the House listing each authority's annual capital guideline and allocations for private sector renewal and disabled facilities grants for 1997–98. Together these comprise the HIP allocation. In addition, I am depositing a list of the authorities whose performance is assessed as being well above the average for their region.

  Last month, the Government announced a new package of measures aimed at encouraging local authorities to transfer more of their stock to registered social landlords. Within the package of new measures, the estates renewal challenge fund will receive an additional £70 million over the next three years bringing spending to almost £500 million. Authorities will be granted a three year 'holiday' from the large-scale voluntary transfers receipts levy and the rules governing the use of LSVT receipts will come into line with those for right-to-buy transfers, making 25 per cent. of any receipt available to authorities to spend on housing. The limits on the size of a transfer to any one landlord will be increased from 5,000 to 12,000.

  We also propose to use the housing investment programme to encourage such stock transfers and we will be consulting on changes to the 1997 HIP round in the new year.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the shortlist of prospective purchasers of the Building Research Establishment. [9555]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Following our consideration of a number of indicative offers for the Building Research Establishment, we have decided to short list two bids, the Built Environment Research Foundation, formed by University College London, and the BRE management bid team. They have been invited to submit final bids by 20 January 1997, following which a preferred bidder will be chosen.

TRANSPORT

  London Transport Staff
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by London Transport in(a) managerial and (b) administrative posts; and, for each category, what is the annual cost. [9155]

  Mr. Bowis
  The total number of staff employed by London Transport at October 1996 was 19,424. The total staff cost for London Transport for the year ending 31 March 1997 is forecast to be £548.3 million. My Department does not have a detailed breakdown between managerial and administrative posts. This is an operational matter for London Transport.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Jubilee line extension to be completed; and what was the target date for completion. [9154]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport assure me that it is me still aiming for the original target opening date of 28 March 1998.

  Trans-European Transport
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the United Kingdom's share of funds available in 1996 for priority projects and other schemes under the European Community's financing programme for trans-European transport networks. [9638]

  Sir George Young
  Priority projects in the United Kingdom will receive some £27.6 million, which is over 16 per cent. of the total funds available for priority projects in 1996 and more than any other member state will receive from the EC fund, apart from Germany. A total of £20 million will go towards the Channel tunnel rail link, with £5.75 million for the west coast main line and £1.85 million for schemes along the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link. The UK will also receive almost £2 million for other schemes, of which £1.34 million is for four traffic management projects and £0.65 million for a development study of the great western line between Bristol and Penzance.

  Traffic Projections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the traffic capacity of the M65; and what is the current traffic volume; [8196]

  (2) what is the traffic capacity of the A59 between Clitheroe and Skipton; and what is the current traffic volume; [8195]

  (3) what projections his Department has made of trans-Pennine traffic growth on the M62 over the next 20 years. [8194]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  416
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the M62 and M65 motorways and the A59 trunk road.
  M62 Motorway
  You asked what projections the Department has made of Trans-Pennine traffic growth on the M62 over the next 20 years. Based on National Traffic Growth Forecasts which were last updated in 1989, the forecast annual traffic growth on the M62 over the next 20 years ranges between 31% and 44% for cars and from 45% to 72% for heavy goods vehicles.
  M65 Motorway
  You asked about the traffic capacity of the M65 and the current traffic volume. A measure of capacity is the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF), which is derived from a number of factors including carriageway width, vertical and horizontal alignment, and the proportion of HGVs. Regional maps with explanatory notes have been deposited in the House of Commons library (Vol 282, Columns 1100–1101) which describe the relationship between CRFs, congestion and capacity.
  The CRF of the M65 ranges from 80,000 on the two lane section between Junctions 9 and 10, to 125,000 vehicles per day on the section between Junctions 7 and 8.
  The existing traffic flows on the M65 range from 35,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day.
  A59 Between Clitheroe and Skipton
  You asked about the traffic capacity of the A59 between Clitheroe and Skipton and the current traffic volume. The Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) of the A59 between Clitheroe and Skipton is within the range 18,000 to 22,000 vehicles per day subject to the varying standard of the route.
  Existing traffic flows on the A59 are 10,000 vehicles per day at Clitheroe dropping to 6,000 between Gisburn and the Lancashire/North Yorkshire county boundary, and rising to 14,300 between the A56 and Skipton.

  Road Projects
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which road projects(a) completed since 1991–92 and (b) not yet completed included private sector involvements. [6743]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking which road projects (a) completed since 1991/92 and (b) not yet completed, included private sector involvement.
  As part of the Department of Transport's response to the private finance initiative, a number of schemes in the roads programme are being developed as Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) projects. This is an innovative way to introduce private sector finance and expertise into scheme development and management of the network.
  Contracts awarded so far, including the major construction projects involved, are as follows:-

  Financial Year 1995/96
  A69 Carlisle to Newcastle (Haltwhistle Bypass)
  A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough
  A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester (A419/A417 Cirencester & Stratton Bypass, A417 North of Stratton to Nettleton Improvement and A419 Latton Bypass)
  M1-A1 Yorkshire Link (Lofthouse to Bramham Improvement)

  417
  Financial Year 1996/97
  A50 Stoke-Derby Link (A564 Doveridge Bypass)
  A30/A35 Exeter to Bere Regis (A35 Honiton to Exeter Improvement and A35 Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass)
  M40 Junctions 1–15 (Junctions 1A-3 Widening)
  A19 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel (Norton-Parkway Interchange Improvement).
  Clearly, it is too early for any of the major projects involved to have been completed yet.
  Added to these DBFO projects, the Secretary of State announced after the Budget statement that we are going ahead with seven more DBFO projects involving 33 separate major construction schemes. These are as follows:-

  M6 Extension Carlisle-Scottish Border
  incorporating:
  M6 Carlisle-Guardsmill Extension.
  This forms part of M6 DBFO project being taken forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The DBFO contract is in the final stages of negotiation and subject to bids being value for money, a contract could be awarded in the early part of next year.

  Cumbria to Bradford DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  A590 High and Low Newton Bypass

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass

  A65 Gargrave Bypass

  A629 Skipton to Kildwick Improvement

  A650 Bingley Relief Road

  A650 Hard Ings Road Improvement.

  Weald and Downland DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  A21 Tonbridge Bypass to Pembury Bypass Dualling

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  A259 Pevensey to Bexhill Improvement

  A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western Bypass

  A259 Hastings Eastern Bypass.

  South Midlands Network DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  A6 Rothwell and Desborough Bypass

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  A43 Whitfield Turn to Brackley Hatch Dualling

  A43 M40 to B4031 Improvement

  A428 Norse Road Link.

  Wessex Link DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  A36 Salisbury Bypass

  A303 Wylye to Stockton Wood Improvement

  A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Improvement

  A303 Ilminster Bypass Improvement

  A36 Codford to Heytesbury Improvement

  A303 Chicklade Bottom to Mere Improvement.

  A13 Thames Gateway DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  Al3 Ironbridge to Canning Town Improvement

  A13/A117 Woolwich Manor Way Junction Improvement

  A13 Movers Lane Junction Improvement

  A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane Junction Improvement.

  418
  West London Approach DBFO Project
  incorporating:

  A40 Gypsy Corner Improvement

  A40 Western Circus Improvement.

  Development of these new projects is going well and we would expect to award contract for the first three before the end of the next financial year. Contracts for the A13 and West London projects should be awarded Spring/Summer of 1998. The Wessex Link will be taken forward as soon as the post public inquiry assessments for Salisbury Bypass have been concluded.
  Outside the DBFO initiative, three major projects involve private finance. These are:
  Dartford Thurrock Crossing (completed in October 1991)
  Second Severn Crossing (completed earlier this year)
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road (still going through statutory processes).
  There are also many smaller schemes, including simple junction improvements, which are privately funded either wholly, or in part, under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. This provision allows developers or private companies to finance improvements to trunk roads necessitated by development. Over the five year period from 1991/92 to 1995/96, agreements were reached to promote schemes totalling over £37m. Most of these schemes have been constructed, but a few have been delayed because they are linked to developments. Figures for 1996/97 are, of course, not yet available.

  Trunk Road Construction
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the schemes within the 1996 trunk road programme which are expected to commence construction between(a) 1 January 1997 and 31 March 1997, (b) 1 April 1997 and 30 June 1997, (c) 1 July 1997 and 30 September 1997, (d) 1 October 1997 and 31 December 1997 and 31 December 1997 and (e) 1 January 1996 and 31 March 1998. [8445]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list the schemes within the 1996 Trunk Road Programme which are expected to commence construction between (a) 1 January and 31 March 1997, (b) I April and 30 June 1997, (c) 1 July and 30 September 1997, (d) 1 October and 31 December 1997 and (e) 1 January and 31 March 1998.
  Contracts for two schemes on the Al2 (Hackney Wick-M11 Contracts 1 and 3) were let on 14 November 1996. It is likely that they will commence construction during one of the periods listed but I am not able to give a more precise date at the present time.
  Contracts have also been signed for eight Private Finance Initiative (PH) Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) projects during 1996. Construction has already started on nine of the eleven schemes included in these DBFO contracts, and the A19 Norton-Parkway Interchange Improvement and M40 Junctions 1A–3 Widening are both expected to start early next year.
  For all schemes included in a DBFO project, it is for the DBFO company to determine the construction programme. However, the shadow toll regime is structured to include strong incentives for early construction.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the Ministers in his
  419
  Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9381]

  Sir George Young
  Since 1 January, Transport Ministers have undertaken the following official ministerial visits:

  Secretary of State for Transport

  39 visits in the UK

  4 visits abroad (including one to the EC Transport Council).

  Minister for Railways, Roads and Local Transport

  55 visits in the UK

  2 visits abroad (both to the EC Transport Council).

  Minister for Transport in London and Road Safety

  28 visits in UK

  2 visits abroad.

  Minister for Aviation and Shipping

  14 visits in UK

  6 visits abroad (including two to the EC Transport Council).

  Management Objectives
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the annual management objectives for each of his Department's divisions. [8327]

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 December 1996 Official Report column 103]: I have now agreed the following revised aims for my Department:

  Statement of Purpose
  To promote safe, efficient and environmentally sustainable transport for people and goods, responding to the individual's need for mobility and supporting economic growth.

  Aims
  The Department will seek to:
  Reduce transport-related deaths and injuries by promoting safety and security, providing rescue services and investigating accidents;
  Reduce the damaging effects of transport on the environment by promoting sustainable growth and greater use of public transport, and by preventing, reducing and dealing effectively with pollution;
  Improve choice, quality, value and accessibility for transport users by promoting competition wherever practicable and creating opportunities for transport providers, by investing in and making better use of existing infrastructure, and by encouraging transport providers to make their services accessible to all.
  In pursuing these aims and broader Government aims the Department will:
  Carry out tax-collecting, licensing, standard-setting, regulatory, enforcement, grant-payment, contingency planning and other functions efficiently and fairly, maintaining a high standard of service;
  Keep Parliament and the public informed about transport policies and developments, and monitor their impact;
  Promote effectively UK interests in the European Union and other international bodies and in bilateral relations;
  Work effectively with local authorities, law enforcement agencies, other Government Departments and other organisations in both the public and private sector;
  Create opportunities for all its staff and ensure they are equipped with the skills they need;
  Manage its resources efficiently and effectively.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Charities)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the jobseeker's allowance on charities which previously relied on unemployed people working voluntarily. [8075]

  Mr. Forth
  We do not expect the replacement of unemployment benefit and income support with the jobseeker's allowance to have any adverse impact on charities which previously relied on unemployed people working voluntarily.

  As with unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people, there is no limit on the hours a person may undertake voluntary work while in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, so long as they are actively seeking work and available for work at 48 hours' notice—rather than the normal requirement to be immediately available.

  Professorial Pay
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average level of professorial pay in the university sector currently; and what it was in 1980. [8941]

  Mr. Forth
  According to the new earnings survey, the average level of gross weekly earnings of full-time male "university and polytechnic teaching professionals" in April 1996 was £577. The average level of gross weekly pay for the closest comparator group—full-time male university academics—in 1980 was £250. This is the equivalent of £474 at 1996 prices.

  Truancy
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total number of truancies in days per year for each of the last three years for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Sheffield; and if she will make a statement. [8919]

  Mr. Forth
  Regular school attendance is important for pupils' progress, but the data collected for the performance tables now published each autumn show that significant amounts of valuable learning time are lost due to unauthorised absence. Rates of unauthorised absence at maintained schools in Sheffield for the last three years were about twice the national average, as follows:

  Unauthorised absence in maintained primary schools

  percentage of half days missed

  average number of half days missed per absent pupil

  School year

  Sheffield LEA

  England average

  Sheffield LEA

  England average

  1993–94

  1.0

  0.5

  13

  11

  1994–95

  1.1

  0.5

  14

  10

  1995–96

  1.2

  0.5

  13

  10

  Source:

  DfEE National Pupil Absence Tables 1994, 1995 and 1996.
  421

  Unauthorised absence in maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of half days missed

  Average number of half days missed per absent pupil

  School Year

  Sheffield LEA

  England average

  Sheffield LEA

  England average

  1993–94

  1.9

  0.9

  30

  22

  1994–95

  1.9

  1.0

  29

  22

  1995–96

  23

  1.0

  29

  21

  Source:

  DfEE National Pupil Absence Tables 1994, 1995 and 1996.

  Schools (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when schools inspectors last visited(a) Fovant school; (b) Dinton school and (c) Barford St. Martin school in Wiltshire. [8900]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Fovant church of England first school was inspected under the statutory four-year cycle by Ofsted-registered inspectors between 3 and 5 October 1994, and Barford St. Martin's church of England first school between 19 and 21 September 1994. Dinton first church of England school is due to be inspected by Ofsted in February 1997.

  Members of Her Majesty's inspectorate visited Fovant school in April 1996 and Dinton school in connection with Wiltshire local education authority's proposals for Fovant and Dinton schools in October 1996.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in Wiltshire have been given grant-maintained status during 1996. [8901]

  Mr. Forth
  Four schools in the Wiltshire local education authority area have become grant maintained since 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Wiltshire local education authority has expressed itself(a) in favour of closure of the Fovant school and (b) against grant-maintained status for the school. [8902]

  Mr. Squire
  Wiltshire local education authority published proposals to cease to maintain Fovant school on 16 May. The authority has made a statutory objection to the proposals for grant-maintained status published by the governing body of the school.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have made representations to her or to her Department(a) in favour and (b) against grant-maintained status for Fovant school in Wiltshire. [8903]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received two statutory objections to the proposals for grant-maintained status for Fovant school, and one non-statutory objection.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have made representations to her or to her Department(a) in favour and (b) against closure of Fovant school in Wiltshire. [8904]
  422
  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received 11 statutory objections to the proposals to close Fovant school, including one from the governing body of the school.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the original application for grant-maintained status from the governors of Fovant school in Wiltshire was dated; when it was recorded as received by her Department; and when she expects to reach a decision. [8905]

  Mr. Squire
  Proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status for Fovant schools were published on 29 February 1996, and a copy received in the Department on the same date. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision as soon as is compatible with full consideration of all the relevant issues, including the separate local education authority proposals to choose the school.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the target time scale for a decision on an application by a school for grant-maintained status. [8906]

  Mr. Squire
  We aim, so far as possible, to reach a decision on proposals for grant-maintained status where there are conflicting proposals by the local education authority, within five months; of publication of the authority's proposals.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the proportion of training for work leavers who six months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job with their work-experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit and (j) doing something else in the most recent period for which figures are available; and what was the proportion of training for work leavers who completed the training agreed in their initial action plan. [3928]

  Mr. Plaice
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Table 1: Training for Work All leavers — outcome six months after leaving training

  England and Wales

  April 1995–February 1996. Per cent.

  In a full-time job with their work experience employer

  11

  In a full-time job with another employer

  16

  Self-employed

  3

  In a pan-time job

  10

  On another government training programme

  2

  On a full-time education or training course

  3

  Unemployed and claiming benefit

  42

  Unemployed and not claiming benefit

  5

  Voluntary work

  4

  Something else

  5

  Completed programme of agreed training

  69

  Source:

  TfW national follow-up survey

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department plans to spend on celebrating Christmas and the new year. [7574]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: It is not possible to disaggregate this information except at disproportionate cost, although such costs are included in the running cost expenditure for this Department which is published in the annual report.

  Hospital Education Units
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many education units for school age in-patients there were in NHS trusts in England in each of the last five years. [8478]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not held centrally. However, the following table shows the number of hospital schools in England in each of the last five years:

  1992: 42

  1993: 40

  1994: 38

  1995: 31

  1996: 27.

PRIME MINISTER

  Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech at the Lisbon summit of 2 December, if he will make a statement on the role of the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and in respect of the expansion of the activities of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. [8647]

  The Prime Minister
  I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Lisbon on 2 and 3 December, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary. The meeting adopted the Lisbon summit declaration and the Lisbon declaration on a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century. Copies of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Lawyers

  Administrative staff

  Legal trainees

  Casual staff

  Total

  1 August 1986

  939.0

  1,031.0

  0

  n/a

  1,970.0

  1 January 1987

  1,234.5

  2,007.0

  0

  n/a

  3,241.5

  1 January 1988

  1,289.0

  2,529.0

  0

  n/a

  3,818.0

  1 January 1989

  1,410.0

  2,743.5

  0

  n/a

  4,153.5

  1 January 1990

  1,552.0

  3,189.5

  27

  181.5

  4,950.0

  1 January 1991

  1,690.0

  3,294.0

  111

  182.0

  5,277.0

  1 January 1992

  1,939.0

  3,724.0

  106

  138.5

  5,907.5

  1 January 1993

  2,141.0

  3,925.5

  130

  220.0

  6,416.5

  1 January 1994

  2,211.5

  3.974.0

  123

  235.0

  6,543.5

  1 January 1995

  2,241.5

  4,067.0

  101

  276.5

  6,686.0

  1 January 1996

  2,148.5

  3,963.0

  76

  234.0

  6,421.5

  1 December 1996

  2,019.0

  3,785.5

  57

  146

  6,007.5

  424
  The summit welcomed a separate decision on the mandate for negotiation next year on modernising the treaty on conventional forces in Europe.

  In the margins of the summit, I had discussions with several Heads of State and Government, including the Presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Chancellor Kohl of Germany, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin of Russia and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.

  Prospects for strengthening European security in the next century were the theme of many speeches to the summit and of my bilateral meetings. I explained to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin not only that enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union would be evolutionary transparent processes, but our strong conviction that European security for the future should be built in partnership with Russia.

  The declaration on the security model includes a decision to consider developing a charter on European security which can serve the needs of our peoples in the new century. The United Kingdom will contribute actively to this work. We shall emphasise the need for security organisations which adhere to OSCE commitments to work together, as in Bosnia, to defuse tension, prevent conflict, and build prosperous, democratic civil society throughout Europe.

  The Lisbon declaration draws attention to the OSCE's expanding role in conflict prevention, management and resolution, including particularly the high commissioner on national minorities and long-term missions in countries such as Moldavia and Georgia. The parliamentary assembly contributes to this effort particularly through its election monitoring programme. The Lisbon declaration confirmed moreover, that the OSCE would continue to play an important role in the consolidation of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1997.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) lawyers, (b) administrative staff and (c) others have been employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since its establishment. [8677]

  The Attorney-General
  In each year since its establishment, the Crown Prosecution Service has employed staff in the following numbers.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8533]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8550]

  Mr. Bates
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: The Civil Service Appeals Board has made three new appointments and 10 reappointments during 1996. Of these, two of the new appointees and three of the reappointees were first identified by the public appointments unit.

  The deregulation task force has made two new appointments and the Security Commission has made two reappointments during 1996: none was identified by PAU.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role his Department has in respect of applications for new nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement. [8463]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: Proposals for new power stations in England and Wales over 50 MWs in capacity require my Department's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. All such applications are considered on their individual merits against the background of a policy that, as a general rule, matters such as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel used and type of plant are commercial matters for the applicant.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Rogers (Rhondda)
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many claims have been settled under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme in each year since its inception. [8351]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Radiation Experiments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what radiation experiments on humans involving British volunteers the Atomic Energy Authority has conducted or is conducting. [8866]
  426
  Mr. Page
  Details are contained in AEA Technology's radiological protection research annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what involvement his Department currently has in radiation experiments on humans. [8865]

  Mr. Page
  None.

  Electrical Goods (Home Repairs)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to introduce legislation to provide consumer protection for repairs on electrical goods carried out in homes. [8843]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1982, traders who repair electrical goods, whether on their business premises or at consumers' homes, are required to do so with reasonable care and skill and within a reasonable time. Failure to do so amounts to a breach of contract for which the consumer may seek redress. We have no plans to introduce further legislation.

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Hawk training aircraft destined for Indonesia are being converted into ground-attack aircraft in the United Kingdom. [5914]

  Mr. Lang
  As announced to the House on 21 November, an export licence has been issued for the supply of a further 16 Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. These aircraft, which are to be supplied for external defence, have a range of capabilities, including ground attack. This was taken into account when the export licence application was considered.

  Neither this case, nor in respect of the first consignment, has there been modification of trainer aircraft destined for Indonesia into ground attack aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Crown Agents
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Crown Agents and its subsidiary companies require export licences when exporting or trans-shipping military, security, police or paramilitary equipment or services. [8656]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Crown Agents and its subsidiary companies are subject to the same licensing requirements as UK-registered companies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Crown Agents and its subsidiary companies required export licences prior to privatisation when exporting or trans-shipping military, security, police or paramilitary equipment or services. [8657]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Crown Agents and its subsidiary companies are subject to the same licensing requirements as UK-registered companies. Privatisation will not affect this position.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a British-based company is required to apply for an export licence for military, security, police or
  427
  paramilitary goods or equipment when the goods or equipment are to be exported or shipped by the Crown Agents. [8658]

  Mr. Nelson
  Where placing a contract and also arranging shipping, the Crown Agents would normally apply for any licence required. Where the Crown Agents act purely as a freight forwarder, the supplier of the goods concerned would have to apply for any necessary licence.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a British-based company was required to apply for an export licence for military, security, police or paramilitary goods or equipment when the goods or equipment were exported or shipped by the Crown Agents prior to the privatisation of the Crown Agents. [8659]

  Mr. Nelson
  Where placing a contract and also arranging shipping, the Crown Agents would normally apply for any licence required. Where the Crown Agents act purely as a freight forwarder, the supplier of the goods concerned would have to apply for any necessary licence. Privatisation will not affect the licensing requirements.

  Personal Business Advisers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring procedures are in place to ensure that there are adequate safeguards against personal business advisers recommending services solely to generate income for themselves. [8940]

  Mr. Page
  In order to become accredited, a business link must demonstrate to an independent assessor that the advice given by a personal business adviser and other advisers is both impartial and independent. To do this it must follow the guidelines on the independence of advice to customers set out in D47—D49 of the "Business Link Service Guide".

  This includes, among others:
  Outside their counselling and diagnostic role, PBAs and other advisers should have no personal interest in the supplier recommended or chosen.
  PBA targets should not include any that link a PBA's pay to performance measured by the volume of services taken up by customers, or to earning money for the business link or its partners. The same should also apply to others wholly or substantially involved in advising customers under the business link brand.

  Business Breakfasts
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the first two business breakfasts held on 11 November at Luton and Lincoln. [4294]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: The cost of catering, presentational materials and hire of venues for the two events including VAT, has now been confirmed as £8,780.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of commissioning the Coopers and Lybrand review of the dual support transfer for the Office of Science and Technology. [8889]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Excluding VAT, the Office of Science and Technology—OST—paid Coopers and Lybrand in total £81,862.16, comprising £76,650.00 consultant fees,428
  £4,022.16 for expenses and £1,190 for 700 copies of the final report. VAT amounted to £14,325.88. The associated administrative costs to OST is making and managing this contract were covered routinely within the office's running costs budget.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the role of Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C, whose names have been supplied to him, in the application for a regional selective assistance grant by Synex Ltd. [6234]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 November 1996]: In the application by Synex Ltd, Mr. A. provided independent accountancy advice under the terms of his contract with the Government Office for the South West. Further details are contained in my reply of 10 December 1996, Official Report, column 87–88.

  Mr. B. and Mr. C. were, at the time of the Synex application, both members of the South West industrial development board—SWIDB—which provides independent advice on applications for regional selective assistance. The board comprises senior business people with wide experience of commerce and industry who, like Mr. B. and Mr. C., voluntarily give their time freely in support of the important work that the SWIDB performs. Details of the attendance of Mr. B and Mr. C at board meetings which considered the Synex case are contained in my replies of 10 December 1996, Official Report, column 88.

  I understand that it is also the case that Mr. B and Mr. C had some private discussions with Synex Ltd. They were responsible for declaring any interests which may have arisen from these discussion and my replies of 10 December 1996, Official Report, column 88 reflect the outcome of this.

  The decision on the Synex case was taken by my Department on 19 May 1995. The company appealed against the decision on 31 May 1995 and Mr. C provided advice to the Government Office for the South West on 29 June 1995 as part of a further technical assessment. Although Mr. C had previously declared an interest in the case and had not participated in board discussions leading up to the decision, the Government office believed that he could properly make a contribution at this stage on the technical aspects alone. The Department's decision to reject the case was confirmed on 31 July 1995.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations prevent members of an industrial development board from advising the DTI on the merits of an RSA application while giving paid advice to the same applicant. [6230]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 November 1996]: Appointments to the industrial development boards are made in accordance with the Cabinet Office's guide to public appointments procedures and the Treasury code of best practice for board members of public bodies. These cover avoidance of potential conflicts of interest and, among other things, prevent board members from offering advice on the merits of an RSA application on which they had received payment for advising the applicant. Members are required to provide the Government Offices with a list of current interest such as directorships and

  429
  registers of these interests are maintained and regularly updated. The registers are checked by officials before members are included in the consideration of any case.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the potential environmental impact of the burning of orimulsion in power stations; and if he will make a statement. [8527]

  Mr. Page
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is currently considering an application for consent to extend a power station in order to enable it to burn orimulsion. Environmental information has been submitted as part of that application and objections received to the proposal but no conclusions have yet been reached in relation to the application.

  National Fibre Optic Network
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure the United Kingdom has a national fibre optic network; and if he will make a statement. [7606]

  Mr. Taylor
  The provision of a stable regulatory environment has successfully encouraged the growth of competition in both telecommunications services and infrastructure. This has led to substantial investment in the sector, including rapid growth of optical fibre networks in the UK, to produce a network of seamlessly interconnecting networks. Prices have fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms, quality increased, and number of household covered risen to 93 per cent.

  Within the cable sector alone, investment is running at more than £2.5 billion a year, and some 45 per cent. of homes in the country already have the possibility of connection to cable operators.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Azad Kashmir (Prisoners)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the introduction of new laws by the Government of Azad Kashmir enabling prisoners to apply for bail if detained for up to two years without trial; how many prisoners have been granted bail under these laws; and if he will make a statement. [9203]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Since we have not received such reports, we have asked our high commission in Islamabad to obtain details. I shall arrange to pass these to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the current circumstances of Ghazanfer Ali recently granted bail after being detained in Mirpur prison; and if he will make a statement. [9279]

  Dr. Fox
  We understand that Gazanfer Ali, who is a Pakistani national, was released from Mirpur prison on bail on 30 November and that he was due to appear in court on 7 December.

  Sri Lanka Citizen (Medical Treatment)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will permit Sudarga de Silva, of Sri Lanka, to visit the United Kingdom to receive private medical treatment. [9134]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  It is policy on grounds of confidentiality for Ministers not to comment publicly on individual applications for entry clearance. I will therefore write separately to the hon. Member.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Treaties (Ponsonby Rule)
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to provide explanatory memoranda with treaties which are laid under the Ponsonby rule. [9430]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We accept that explanatory memoranda can usefully supplement the established Ponsonby procedures by bringing to the attention of Parliament the main features of the treaties with which they are laid. In future therefore every international agreement laid under the Ponsonby rule will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. This new procedure will apply to all international agreements signed after 1 January 1997 which are laid under the Pensonby rule, namely those agreements which are concluded subject to ratification, accession, acceptance or approval, and which are laid for a period of 21 sitting days after signature and before ratification or its equivalent.

  Arrangements will be made to lay copies of the note for Departments entitled "Guidelines on Explanatory Memoranda for Treaties" in the Libraries of both House.

  We should like to thank Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose initiative led directly to the introduction of the new arrangements.

  Ghana
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Ghana. [8912]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our assessment is that these elections were free, fair and transparent. The Commonwealth and EU observers have issued statements indicating that they share this assessment. I am placing these in the Library of the House. I understand that other international observers have reached similar conclusions. We congratulate the Ghanaian people on this reaffirmation on democratic values.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence how many(a) soldiers, (b) sailors, (c) Air Force personnel and (d) medical personnel who were mobilised for Operation Granby in the Gulf war (1) served in (i) Saudi Arabia, (ii) Kuwait and (iii) Iraq and (2) were held in reserve at other locations. [9283]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of gross domestic product was spent on defence by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) the United States of America in the last year for which figures are available. [9011]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested, for calendar year 1995, is as follows:

  (a) United Kingdom 3.1 per cent.

  (b) France 3.1 per cent.

  (c) United States 3.9 per cent.

  Future Offensive Air System
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the future offensive air system for the Royal Air Force. [9704]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence has decided to carry out a feasibility study into a future offensive air system. The Tornado GR1—now being upgraded to GR4

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  Officers

  Ratings

  Officers

  ORs

  Officers

  ORs

  1991–92

  141

  2,140

  424

  9,525

  207

  1,834

  1992–93

  56

  1,667

  221

  6,810

  163

  1,241

  1993–94

  84

  1,396

  226

  5,628

  126

  1,149

  1994–95

  121

  1,691

  358

  6,499

  167

  1,456

  1995–96

  161

  2,639

  384

  5,591

  223

  2,149

  British Aerospace Companies
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to support the Society of British Aerospace Companies' foresight action initiative. [9309]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The foresight action initiative proposed by the Society of British Aerospace Companies—SBAC—contains a number of very interesting projects, the aims of which are firmly supported by the MOD. My officials are now awaiting detailed submissions from SBAC before evaluating the potential of these projects and the scope for incorporation into MOD plans.

  Bowman Project
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Bowman project. [9316]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Bowman is a new combat radio system which will replace the Clansman family of radios. Work on the project definition stage of the programme is 432
  standard—provides a long-range power projection and air interdiction capability. The study will examine a range of options for maintaining this capability beyond the planned withdrawal date of the GR4 in the second decade of the new millennium.

  Study contracts to the value of £35 million are expected to be placed in the new year. Options to be examined include variants of the Eurofighter and other new design and off-the-shelf combat aircraft; unmanned air vehicles; and stand-off air-to-ground missiles launched from transport aircraft. Collaborative options will be pursued.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many industrial tribunals have considered cases brought against his Department in each of the last 10 years. [8791]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally, but at least 32 industrial tribunals in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have considered cases brought by civilian or service personnel against the Ministry of Defence.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have applied for premature voluntary release in each of the services in each of the last five years. [8792]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of service personnel who have applied for premature voluntary release in each of the last five years are as follows:

  largely complete and equipment is being tested in field trials, which are due to end in May 1997. The MOD is currently examining the procurement options open to the Department for production, to determine the most cost-effective way forward. A decision on the way ahead will be taken as soon as possible.

TREASURY

  Unemployment Benefits (York)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new claims for unemployment-related benefits have been made by people living in the York travel-to-work area since April 1992; and how many people living in the York travel-to-work area have made one or more new claims for unemployment-related benefits in the same period. [8532]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  433
  Letter from Tina Holt to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many new claims for unemployment-related benefits have been made by claimants living in the York travel-to-work area, and how many claimants have made at least one new claim for unemployment-related benefits since April 1992.
  The database used to complete this analysis does not contain ward level data and therefore information can not be provided for true travel-to-work areas. However, information can be provided by jobcentre best-fit travel-to-work areas.
  Since 1 April 1992, an estimated 50,040 new claims for unemployment-related benefits have been made by claimants registering at York Clifford Street Employment Service Jobcentre or York Stonebow Employment Service Jobcentre.
  The estimated number of claimants who have experienced at least one new spell of claimant unemployment at both of these jobcentres, since 1 April 1992, is 28,580.

  Typical Family (Definition)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the definition of a typical family used by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [8247]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the definition of a typical family.
  The Office for National Statistics does not define a "typical family". In the General Household Survey (GHS), the source of most statistics on families, a family is defined as:

  (a) a married or opposite sex cohabiting couple on their own or

  (b) a married or opposite sex cohabiting couple/lone parent and their never-married children, provided these children have no children of their own.

  Persons who cannot be allocated to a family as defined above are said to be persons not in a family although they could be related to one or more family members.
  The type of family which is relatively most numerous depends on the classification of families which is used, but from the 1994 GHS, of all the families defined above (and where the family head was resident in Great Britain and aged under 60):

  21% were married couples with no children

  6% were opposite sex cohabiting couples with no children

  50% were married couples with children

  4% were opposite sex cohabiting couples with children

  18% were lone parents families with children

  (Due to rounding the percentages do not total to 100)
  An analysis of the trends, numbers and characteristics of families was recently published in an article entitled Population Review: (6) Families and households in Great Britain which appeared in Population Trends 85, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  "Financial Statement and Budget Report"
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer,434
  pursuant to his answer of 6 December, Official Report, columns 835–36, for what reason the Department of Natinal Heritage is excluded from the table. [8740]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: The Department of Natinal Heritage was excluded in error and an incorrect figure was inadvertently given for Legal Departments. The complete table should have read as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  Defence

  40

  FCO/ODA

  0

  Agriculture

  0

  DTI

  1—

  DfEE

  0

  Transport

  550

  Environment

  80

  Home Office

  120

  Legal (LCD)

  10

  National Heritage

  1—

  Health

  70

  Social Security

  130

  Scotland and Forestry Commission

  30

  Wales

  20

  Northern Ireland

  10

  Chancellor's departments

  30

  Local authorities

  50

  TOTAL

  1,130

  1 Less than £10 million.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the review of the Inland Revenue executive officers' framework documents is complete; and if he will make a statement. [9702]

  Mr. Jack
  Following completion of the next steps evaluation review of its executive office structure earlier this year, the Inland Revenue has now revised its executive offices' framework documents in line with the findings of that review.

  The department's internal services have been reorganised following the transfer of information technology functions to its strategic partner—Electronic Data Systems—and the department's senior management review. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of service executive offices. From 1 January 1997 the department will have 20 operational and four service executive offices.

  Copies of each of the executive offices' framework documents—which set out the statutory, policy and resources frameworks within which the offices operate—will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths that involved(a) ecstasy as the sole drug concerned and (b) alcohol poisoning, occurred after the victims consumed the substances (i) in clubs, (ii) in public houses, (iii) at raves and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the last five years. [6627]
  435
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 2 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many deaths resulted from ecstasy, or poisoning from alcohol after the victims consumed the substances in (i) clubs (ii) public houses (iii) raves and (iv) elsewhere, in each of the last five years.
  ONS do not hold this level of detail as to where the substance which caused the death was consumed. The information is not recorded on the death certificate nor by the coroner, and would be very difficult to record with any degree of accuracy. Alcohol, for example, may have been consumed in a number of different places.
  The following table shows, (a) the numbers of deaths where Ecstasy was the sole drug mentioned and (b) the numbers of deaths from alcohol poisoning, in England and Wales in the last five years.

  Year

  Deaths from ecstasy1

  Deaths from alcohol poisoning2

  1991

  6

  152

  1992

  5

  126

  1993

  12

  138

  Month of prosecution

  Vessel

  Offence

  Total fines £

  Country of Registration

  January

  NORINA

  Fishing logbook

  10,000

  United Kingdom

  LADY T. EMIEL

  Fishing logbook

  10,000

  UK

  LE DERBY

  Fishing in six-mile limit

  17,500

  France

  ANTAEUS

  Fishing in six-mile limit

  22,500

  France

  February

  CHRISTINA

  Fishing logbook and landing declaration

  27,500

  UK

  March

  NICOLA ANNE

  Quota and landing declaration

  11,000

  UK

  ZEEDUIVEL

  Gear and undersize fish offences

  9,000

  Belgium

  TIJL

  Fishing 12-mile limit

  7,500

  Belgium

  MARILYN JANE

  Fishing logbook

  5,500

  UK

  April

  BAFFIN BAY

  Unlicensed fishing

  5,000

  UK

  KVITSJOEN

  Quota

  5,000

  Norway

  FISKEBERG

  Quota

  6,000

  Norway

  VAN DIJCK

  Fishing logbook

  5,000

  Belgium

  May

  ATLANTIC C

  Quota

  9,500

  UK

  June

  AROSA

  Quota

  12,000

  UK

  July

  ITXAS

  Fishing logbook and undersize fish

  15,000

  UK

  MOUNT EDEN

  Quota

  67,500

  UK

  SOPHIE LOUISE

  Fishing logbook and landing declaration

  17,000

  UK

  August

  MERCURIUS

  Gear and undersize fish

  8,000

  Belgium

  September

  ROWNLEA

  quota

  8,000

  UK

  TITAN

  Quota

  8,000

  UK

  FLOURISH

  Fishing logbook

  11,000

  UK

  October

  ATLANTIC C

  Licensing and quota

  30,000

  UK

  November

  AMARADIA

  Transhipment licence and statutory declaration

  34,000

  Cyprus

  December

  ALMA C

  Fishing logbook and landing declaration

  10,000

  UK

  Cattle Cull
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 580, if he will list methods of disposal that are (a) permitted and (b) currently in operation for (i) condensate and (ii) wash water from the rendering of cattle slaughtered under the 30-month scheme. [8799]
  436

  Year

  Deaths from ecstasy1

  Deaths from alcohol poisoning2

  1994

  10

  123

  1995

  15

  130

  1 Deaths in which ecstasy was the only drug mentioned on the death certificate. None of these deaths included mention of alcohol.

  2 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 980.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Offences (Prosecutions)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the successful prosecutions for fisheries offences undertaken by his Department since 1 January which have resulted in fines of £5,000 or more, including details of the fishing vessels involved, country of registration and the offences committed. [9432]

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of the successful prosecutions and the details requested are set out in the following table. Where appropriate, the fines relate to the total fines against both the master and owner of the vessel. There are other prosecution cases, but these are the subject of an appeal and are not therefore included in the table.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: Most wash water and condensate from rendering plants is discharged to sewer. Such discharges are regulated by sewerage undertakers, who are empowered by the Water Industry Act 1991 to impose a wide range of conditions on the discharge consent issued to an individual plant.
  437
  A small number of rendering plants discharge wash water and condensate, after treatment, to controlled waters or to land. Discharges of this kind are subject to regulation by the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The methods of disposal specified in consents and licences will vary according to the circumstances and full weight is always given in determining such consents and licences to the need to protect public health and the environment. Dischargers who fail to comply with relevant discharge consents or licence conditions are liable to prosecution and other regulatory action.

  All rendering plants involved in the scheme are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, which implements EU rendering standards, and the Specified Bovine Material (No. 3) Order 1996.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional assistance he has produced to beef producers during the last six months. [9040]

  Mr. Baldry
  United Kingdom farmers have received additional direct financial assistance totalling nearly £110 million. In addition, the advance payments under the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes have been paid at a rate of 80 per cent. rather than the normal 60 per cent. Market support measures, such as the expanded intervention coverage for beef and the calf processing scheme, have also served to enhance producers' income.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the system of subsidies in respect of farmers who buy rather than breed beef animals. [8956]

  Mr. Baldry
  Producers who buy male cattle to fatten for slaughter are currently able to claim under the beef special premium scheme, subject to observance of scheme rules. Those who marketed adult cattle, including heifers, for slaughter for human consumption between 20 March and 30 June were able to claim additional subsidies worth £66.76 per head of cattle marketed. A second round of marketing payments is now available in respect of cattle marketed between 1 July and 30 September. Claims must be made before 8 January. The payment rate under this second phase in likely to be around £55 per head. I have no plans to alter this position or to seek any amendments to existing subsidy schemes for this category of producer.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the profit made on animals by beef producers during the last six months. [8957]

  Mr. Baldry
  Beef profitability varies widely and depends on the farm type and production system. Various estimates of annual profitability are published each March in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  Fishing Regulations
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) pursuant to his answer of 438
  3 December, Official Report, column 625, on buying and selling fishing quotas and licences, when his Department first authorised the sale of fish quotas; [8954]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 3 December, Official Report, column 625, on buying and selling fishing quotas and licences, what rights of ownership over a fish quota are transferred when that quota is exchanged between fishermen's groups. [8955]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry has not authorised the sale of fish quotas. Fishermen's groups are free to swap or transfer between themselves quota allocated to them annually subject to the approval of the Fisheries Departments. No one has ownership rights over United Kingdom quotas.

  Quota Hopping
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to sustain the present level of fishing effort in the period before the determination of the quota-hopping issue. [8958]

  Mr. Baldry
  Discussions are still taking place in the Fisheries Council on the need for reductions in fishing effort following the expiry of the current multi-annual guidance programme at the end of this year. We are also continuing to press for treaty changes in the intergovernmental conference to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. I have, however, made it clear that I am not prepared to contemplate any further compulsory capacity or effort controls on UK fishermen while these issues remain unresolved.

  Genetically Engineered Food
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of imported foodstuffs which will contain genetically engineered ingredients in(a) January 1997 and (b) January 1998; and if he will make a statement. [8960]

  Mr. Browning
  Of the 1996 USA soya bean harvest, about 2 per cent. has come from genetically modified plants, this is anticipated to rise to 10 per cent. in 1997. Of the 1996 USA maize harvest, approximately 0.6 per cent. comprised genetically modified plants and it is expected that in 1997 this will rise to 5 per cent.

  Other countries are planting genetically modified crops next year. The level of imports into the UK cannot be predicted with any accuracy at this time.

  Cattle Insemination
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers his Ministry has to require minimum standards of training, and permanent contract conditions, for inseminators for cattle AI programmes; and if he will make a statement. [9179]

  Mrs. Browning
  Provisions relating to the training and business status of inseminators for cattle AI are included in regulation 24(b) of the Artificial Insemination of Cattle (Animal Health) (England and Wales) Regulations 1985. Any breach of these regulations constitutes an offence under section 10(6) of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made to ensure that lottery funds can be used for expenditure on items other than capital items. [7607]

  Mr. Sproat
  The National Lotteries Charities Board and the Millennium Commission have always been able to make revenue awards. In April, I announced changes to the policy directions to allow the Arts and Sports Councils to make revenue awards. The first arts and sports revenue programmes were announced in November. The National Heritage Bill will allow the heritage lottery fund the same flexibility.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to increase the percentage of national lottery funds directed to good causes. [7608]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The Director General of the National Lottery appointed Camelot as the operator of the national lottery because over the course of the licence it offered the best return to good causes. The National Audit Office reviewed the evaluation process and supported the director general's decision. The percentage of funds going to the good causes could be increased only through a change to the licence, with Camelot's agreement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will ensure that greater priority is given to projects benefiting children and young people in the distribution of lottery proceeds. [7609]

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  Young people and children are already benefiting greatly from the lottery. At least 1,500 awards, worth more than £175 million have already been made.

  I directed the distributing bodies specifically to take the needs of young people into account when I issued a new policy directions to them in April this year.

  The schemes launched last month by the Arts and Sports Councils under these directions will allow children and young people to benefit even further from the lottery.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total sum contributed by the national lottery to organisations, groups and charities in the borough of Southend-on-Sea. [7613]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Twelve national lottery awards have been made in the borough of Southend-on-Sea with a total value of £2.3 million.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the role of the national lottery in preserving the nation's historic churches. [7614]

  Mr. Sproat
  The national lottery provides a tremendous opportunity for the preservation of historic churches and cathedrals in this country. To date, the heritage lottery fund has made 121 grants totalling £14.8 million to preserve our ecclesiastical heritage.
  440
  The heritage lottery fund and English Heritage have also worked together to produce a single procedure whereby churches and other places of worship can apply for funding from both sources through a single route; £20 million a year could be available through this joint scheme which will make it easier for congregations to apply for funding.

  Mr. Lull
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grants the national lottery funding bodies have made to protect and conserve the nation's heritage since the inception of the lottery. [7619]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The heritage lottery fund, which has responsibility for allocating lottery proceeds specifically to projects concerned with the protection and conservation of the nation's heritage, has made 604 grants totalling £368 million.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the effect on smaller charities of the national lottery; and if she will make a statement. [7622]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The introduction of the national lottery has given charities and voluntary organisations of all sizes unparalleled opportunities to secure significant new funding for projects and initiatives across a wide range of activities. While I have received many representations about the effect of the national lottery on small charities, it is too early to say or to identify what other effects, if any, the national lottery is having on charities' incomes, and my Department is engaged in research into the matter. What is certain is that the lottery has led, and will lead, to hundreds of millions of pounds of additional money reaching charitable and voluntary organisations every year.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on national lottery awards to disadvantaged groups. [7612]

  Mr. Sproat
  The National Lottery Charities Board has made 5,160 awards, with a total value of £352 million to charitable, benevolent and philanthropic groups.

  Millennium Bids
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in respect of which national lottery millennium bids decisions have been deferred until March 1997; and if she will give the reason for the delayed announcements. [7170]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many projects supported by Millennium Commission awards are currently being taken forward. [7610]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission is taking forward into contract, construction and implementation 93 projects: 87 capital projects on 2,038 sites and six millennium award schemes. In addition, 58 first and second-round projects are under detailed consideration and 1,011 projects are at initial appraisal stage.

  Cross-channel Transport
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will commission a study of the different cross-channel transport modes as means of promoting tourism to the United Kingdom. [7611]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The British Tourist Authority continues to research opportunities in Europe and to work closely with the airlines, ferry companies and channel tunnel operators to promote Britain as a tourist destination.

  The growth in tourism from western Europe has been spectacular: it increased by 15 per cent. in 1995, and by 17 per cent. in the year to September 1996.

  English Poetry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to fund further public readings of English poetry. [7615]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards will spend nearly £3 million on literary activity this year, including supporting organisations which give public poetry readings. In addition, my right hon. Friend has announced the establishment of the national reading initiative to encourage more children to read more books, and the advisory panel will be advising on ways to take the scheme forward. This may include public readings of literature, inlcuding poetry.

  Historic Buildings (London)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the safety of the oldest buildings of national importance in the cities of London and Westminster. [7620]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the safety of old buildings of national importance lies principally with their owners. Where the buildings are in public use, or where the public has access, the local authority has responsibility for ensuring that the buildings meet current health and safety standards. Government Departments are individually responsible for the safety of those historic buildings which they occupy.

  Historic Churches (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representation she has received concerning grants to historic churches in Basildon. [7621]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received no such representations.

  Tourism
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the British tourism industry. [7617]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Last year, we reversed a 10-year trend by increasing our world market share of tourism, and we set a record for export earnings. We are set to break the record again in this year.
  442
  Tourism is forecast to create up to 1 million new jobs during the next 10 years. I am championing the importance of this key growth sector both within Government and more widely. I will launch the next phase of our tourism strategy in January.

  Buckinghamshire County Museum and Art Gallery
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to pay an official visit to the Buckinghamshire county museum and art gallery to discuss developments at the museum. [7618]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no such plans currently.

  Volunteering
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to take forward the work of the "Make a Difference" initiative and for the promotion of volunteering. [9682]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, North-West (Mr. Richards) earlier today.

  WRVS
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the proposed move of the head office of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. [9683]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Women's Royal Voluntary Service is to move its head office from its present location in Stockwell road, Brixton, to the site of its new training centre, Milton Hill house in Oxfordshire. The cost of the new head office and the move are to be met by the WRVS trust. The surrender of the lease on the existing head office is to be financed by the use of £2 million accrued from the sale of other properties held in trust for the Crown by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

  Parliamentary approval to this use of proceeds from the sale of other properties will be sought in supplementary estimates.

  Television Violence
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has for increasing the powers of(a) Broadcasting Standards Council and (b) the Independent Television Commission in relation to violence on television. [8928]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [13 December 1996]: The BSC and the ITC will be revising their codes relating to violence and other programming issues in 1997. Their existing statutory powers are sufficient to ensure that those revised codes are complied with.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what evidence her Department has recently evaluated on the amount of violence on television. [8930]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]: The BBC, ITC and BSC recently provided me with wide-ranging reports on violence on television and action taken to protect vulnerable viewers. The main source of

  443
  evidence provided on the amount of violence on television was a study by Sheffield university, funded by the ITC, the BSC, the BBC and other broadcasters, which suggests that the amount of violence on terrestrial television has fallen in recent years. We shortly expect further results from that study, taking in a wider range of channels.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has for introducing legislation to reduce the amount of violence on television. [8929]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]: Existing legislation, recently extended to new digital services by the Broadcasting Act 1996, sets a framework within which broadcasters and their regulators are responsible for the content and scheduling of programmes. There is no need to amend that legislation framework. I have recently agreed with the chairmen of the BBC, ITC and BSC a co-ordinated programme of action to meet public concern about levels of violence of television.

  Charity Collections
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what recent consultation her Department has had with local authorities and charities concerning public charitable collections; and if she will make a statement; [8733]

  (2) what plans she has to amend the Charities Act 1992 to introduce protection against fraudulent public charitable collections; and if she will make a statement; [8734]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the total money donated to fraudulent public charitable collections in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [8735]

  (4) when the regulations provided under part III of the Charities Act 1992 concerning public charity collections and referred to in the report, "Public Charitable Collections: Response to Consultation" will come into force; and if she will make a statement; [8887]

  (5) what plans she has to institute London-wide regulations on decisions to prosecute for offences related to conducting charity collections in the street without a licence; and if she will make a statement. [8883]

  Mr. Sproat
  Good progress has been made in implementing the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993, most recently with the commencement on 1 March this year of the statutory framework for charity accounts and reports. Against that programme it has been necessary to delay bringing into force the provisions in part III of the Charities Act 1992, dealing with public charitable collections. This sought to rationalise existing law which provides separately for the licensing of street collections under the Police, Factories Etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and house to house collections under the House to House Collections Act 1939. Since this legislation is already in force, implementation of part III has been given lower priority than other parts of the 1992 and 1993 legislation, which introduced more substantial reforms.
  444
  A meeting on public charitable collections was held with practitioners from charities, local authorities and others on 28 February and my officials met with Westminster city council on 23 May. As indicated in the publication "Public Charitable Collections: Response to the Consultation", referred to by the hon. Member, the practical issues involved are complex and it is essential that these are fully considered in designing the regulations, guidance and accompanying practical arrangements before bringing part III into force.

  Estimates of the total amount of money donated to fraudulent collections in each of the last five years are not available. In general, however, the public should be vigilant in responding to appeals, as to the charitable status of the organisation to which they are making a donation and as to the bona fides of the collector. The Charity Commission has recently issued a press release to warn people to give carefully to charities, especially at Christmas.

  Part III of the Charities Act 1992 was amended by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to remove the maximum advance period for applications, in response to a recommendation of the deregulation task force on charities and voluntary organisations. There are no further plans to amend part III. It is already an offence to conduct an unlicensed street collection for charity in London, as it is in other areas for which local regulations have been made under the 1916 Act; in addition, criminal offences—for instance, obtaining property by deception—may be committed where collections take place falsely purporting to be for charity.

  Portable Antiquities
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action the Government intend to take in response to the discussion document on portable antiquities which her Department published in March. [9681]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the discussion document on portable antiquities published in February 1996, we sought views on proposals for a scheme for the recording of all archaeological finds, of which perhaps as many as 400,000 a year are currently being discovered, in the belief that there was an urgent need to improve the current arrangements. We received a total of 173 responses and I would like to pay tribute to the care which many of the respondents took with their replies. There is a great deal of invaluable advice in the responses which will guide us as we take the initiative forward. I would like in particular to single out the detailed statements from the standing conference on portable antiquities and the National Council for Metal Detecting. Copies of the responses have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Everyone who responded agreed on the importance of recording archaeological finds and on the need to improve the current arrangements, while the balance of opinion was strongly in favour of a voluntary rather than a compulsory system. This means that, for the first time, we have a broad consensus for the way in which this should be taken forward.

  In the light of these responses and following further consultation by my Department, I can now announce that we intend to establish a two-year programme of pilot

  445
  schemes to commence on 1 September 1997 and that we are making £50,000 available for the eight-month period that falls within the year 1997–98. The scheme will be co-ordinated directly by this Department and the funding will be channelled through the Museums and Galleries Commission. The aim of the pilot schemes will be to enable an accurate estimate to be made of the resources that would be needed to extend the scheme across the whole of England. The funding will be directed towards employing additional staff in three or four areas to record finds. Our first step will be to invite any suitable body—museums, but also perhaps county planning departments or other archaeological bodies—to express an interest in bidding for funding and we intend to do this early in the new year.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current median waiting periods for patients needing(a) cataract treatment and (b) hip replacement treatment at each hospital where this operation is provided for patients whose operations are purchased by Welsh health authorities, and for Wales as a whole and the equivalent waiting times in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [7467]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on the median waiting time for those patients who had the relevant treatment in each of the last three years is given in the following table. For each category only those hospitals where there is full information on waiting periods and more than 10 operations were performed have been included. The figures are for operations purchased by health authorities and GP fundholders in Wales.

  Median waiting times (days) for treatment received, by purchasing organisation.

  Hospital

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cataract treatment

  Breconshire War Memorial

  8

  15

  39

  Bridgend General

  312

  165

  150

  Bronglais

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Glamorgan

  211

  205

  79

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital

  103

  68

  72

  Llwynpia

  20

  19

  44

  Morriston

  2—

  1—

  1—

  Nevil Hall

  2—

  2—

  47

  Prince Charles

  115

  278

  366

  Prince Philip

  7

  7

  1—

  Princess of Wales

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Royal Gwent

  2—

  2—

  326

  St. Woolos

  195

  190

  2—

  Singleton

  76

  93

  194

  University Hospital of Wales

  81

  113

  109

  Withybush General Hospital

  31

  267

  1—

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  362

  388

  228

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  106

  210

  159

  Wales

  96

  94

  95

  Hip replacement treatment

  Aberdare

  2—

  1—

  1—

  Bronglais

  2

  40

  7

  Bridgend General

  2—

  1—

  2—

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  126

  115

  1—

  Caephilly District Miners

  76

  145

  23

  Cymla

  2—

  1—

  1—

  East Glamorgan

  1—

  2—

  1—

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital

  242

  193

  175

  Gorseinon

  2—

  2—

  1—

  Morriston

  186

  236

  1—

  446

  Median waiting times (days) for treatment received, by purchasing organisation.

  Hospital

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Neath

  59

  78

  1—

  Nevill Hall

  107

  114

  90

  Princess of Wales

  44

  39

  32

  Prince Charles

  355

  286

  167

  Prince Philip

  8

  11

  18

  Royal Gwent

  139

  139

  161

  Tredegar

  2—

  1—

  1—

  Withybush General Hospital

  463

  400

  286

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  160

  133

  167

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  124

  119

  96

  Wales

  84

  91

  85

  1 No operations performed or full waiting period data not available.

  2 Less than 10 operations performed.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the budget of Tai Cymru between 1996–97 and 1997–98(a) in real terms and (b) expressed as a percentage. [7762]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The reduction in net capital expenditure between the 1996–97 and 1997–98 financial years is(a) £27.2 million; and (b) 29.9 per cent.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the study by Dr. Peter Dyrynda into the effects of the Sea Empress disaster; and if he will make a statement. [8043]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend, established the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee—SEEEC—to assess the environmental effects of the Sea Empress oil spill. Dr. Dyrynda's report, along with a number of others, is being considered by SEEEC whose final report is expected next year.

  Ambulance Paramedics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the objective that ambulance trusts in Wales will provide one qualified paramedic on each emergency medical service ambulance by 1 January 1997 will be achieved. [9343]

  Mr. Hague
  This is assessed annually at the end of March. The latest position is set out in the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, third report on the training of ambulance paramedics printed on 24 July 1996 and in the Government's response printed on 30 October 1996. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the final outturn figures for NHS expenditure in 1995–96 to be published. [9341]

  Mr. Hague
  Outturn figures for NHS expenditure in 1995–96 are in the appropriation account for Wales; and the summarised accounts of district health authorities, family health service authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and NHS trusts in Wales. It is the
  447
  responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General to lay copies of these accounts before both Houses of Parliament.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh local government associations concerning the transfer arrangements for funding care in the community from 1 April 1997; how much additional money will be provided to each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [9344]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had the usual consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association on the local government revenue settlement and on the future distribution of mental handicap and mental illness strategy resources. I announced on 12 December the provisional standard spending assessments for local authorities in Wales. The following table shows each authority's provisional SSA and the amount included in the SSA in respect of community care and the mental handicap and mental illness strategies. In addition, each authority will receive direct grant under the mental handicap strategy in 1997–98. These grants will be announced shortly.

  Local government revenue settlement 1997–98 Amounts included in the 1997–98 SSAs to allow for community care responsibilities, the mental handicap strategy and the mental illness strategy

  Settlement: Provisional

  All amounts in £000

  County and County Borough Councils

  Total SSA

  Community care

  Mental handicap and mental illness strategies

  Blaenau Gwent

  65,375

  4,240

  747

  Bridgend

  109,937

  7,241

  1,361

  Caerphilly

  147,579

  9,148

  1,767

  Cardiff

  251,077

  15,991

  3,253

  Carmarthenshire

  152,073

  11,142

  1,701

  Ceredigion

  61,623

  4,258

  739

  Conwy

  93,113

  7,326

  1,071

  Denbighshire

  80,281

  5,901

  897

  Flintshire

  115,617

  7,257

  1,561

  Gwynedd

  109,679

  7,704

  1,201

  Ilse of Anglesey

  61,859

  3,987

  672

  Merthyr Tydfil

  56,665

  3,821

  594

  Monmouthshire

  66,144

  4,540

  892

  Neath Port Talbot

  122,454

  8,909

  1,418

  Newport

  118,887

  7,356

  1,410

  Pembrokeshire

  102,108

  6,353

  1,148

  Powys

  118,573

  7,548

  1,243

  448

  Local government revenue settlement 1997–98 Amounts included in the 1997–98 SSAs to allow for community care responsibilities, the mental handicap strategy and the mental illness strategy

  Settlement: Provisional

  All amounts in £000

  County and County Borough Councils

  Total SSA

  Community care

  Mental handicap and mental illness strategies

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  210,746

  15,553

  2,507

  Swansea

  196,484

  13,596

  2,388

  Torfaen

  78,568

  4,627

  932

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  96,003

  6,028

  1,215

  Wrexham

  100,795

  6,684

  1,284

  Total County and County Borough Councils

  2,515,641

  169,209

  30,000

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities concerning the future of the treatment centres at Rhydlafar, Cardiff and Bridgend. [9342]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Health authorities, NHS trusts, GPs, community health councils and the centres themselves, were recently consulted by my Department on the future of the treatment centre initiative. The initiative will now continue in 1997–98 as originally planned.

  Welsh Language
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects his Department to have its Welsh language scheme approved by the Welsh Language Board and in place. [9703]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office's Welsh language scheme was approved by the Welsh Language Board on the 29 November 1996 and will be operational from 13 January 1997. The scheme specifies the measures my Department has taken and will be taking to give effect to the principle established by the Welsh Language Act 1993 that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. Printed copies of the scheme will be placed in the libraries in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Court Proceedings (Juveniles)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Pigot report and other matters relating to the treatment of juveniles in court proceedings. [7625]

  Mr. Maclean
  The advisory group on video evidence, chaired by Judge Thomas Pigot QC, made a number of recommendations in its 1989 report on the treatment of child witnesses—and other witnesses—in criminal trials. The majority of these recommendations have been implemented.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided, in respect of sexual offences and offences involving violence or cruelty, for pre-trial video recordings to be used as a child's evidence-in-chief at court; for a prohibition on the defendant cross-examining a child witness in person; and for trials involving child witnesses to be transferred direct to the Crown Court without the need for a magistrates court to consider the case. The Act also provided that a child's evidence in criminal proceedings should be given unswom; abolished the presumption that children were not competent as witnesses; and raised the age limit governing a young person's eligibility to be cross-examined via a television link from under 14 to under 17. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 removed the requirement, in sexual offence cases, that the judge warn the jury about convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim.

  In addition to the legislative changes, the Government have issued, or contributed towards the production of, a variety of documents and guidance notes to promote ways of assisting those children who become involved in the criminal justice system as witnesses. This includes guidance to magistrates courts on the use of screens, as recommended by the Pigot report, and a memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses in criminal proceedings. In addition, in January, a video, funded by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Home Office, will be launched offering good practice advice of judges and barristers for handling cases including child witnesses. All these measures are consistent with the Government's policy of giving a high priority to the needs of victims of crime.

  The measures that we have implemented are subject to review and research to test their effectiveness. The Government will continue to make further changes where we consider that they will bring improvements to the operation of the justice system.

  State Opening of Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he received from the Metropolitan police concerning the question of 450
  20 November, Official Report, column 621, from the hon. Member for Newport, West on the cost of the state opening of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [8021]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: The Metropolitan police provided a rough estimate of £286,200 for the cost of policing the state opening of Parliament. This figure was, however, not a proper costing. It did not take into account the cost of the normal duties which the officers would otherwise have undertaken; it did not include pre-event planning or post-event debriefs and it was worked out on the basis of a complete eight hour tour of duty for all staff using average manpower cost figures and a ready reckoner. It also excluded the cost of permanent Palace of Westminster staff. It was not, therefore, an accurate reflection of the additional costs to the Metropolitan police nor of the total costs which had been incurred. The extent to which Metropolitan police officers are deployed to police a public order event is an operational decision for the commissioner.

  Economic Key Points
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who is responsible for the security of United Kingdom economic key points; [9042]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure that the security of economic key points is maintained and improved; and if he will make a statement; [9044]

  (3) if he will list the locations of economic key points within the United Kingdom; [9041]

  (4) who is responsible for financing the security of economic key points; and what is the total cost; [9043]

  (5) who is responsible for financing the security of (i) the national grid site in Wokingham and (ii) the chief reception sites for North sea gas; what measures are in place to ensure that the security of these sites is maintained and improved; and if he will make a statement. [9045]

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for the security of sites designated as economic key points—EKPs—including the cost of protection, rests with their owners. The Government, through the relevant Departments, promote and monitor protective measures and provide advice, guidance and support on security matters. It is not Government policy to disclose the location of EKPs or to detail their security arrangements.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reports he has received from the Director General of the Prison Service on the medical condition of Roisin McAliskey; and if he will make a statement. [8560]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the conditions under which Ms Roisin McAliskey is held; and if he will make a statement. [8559]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated

  451
  to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Ms Roisin McAliskey.
  Throughout her time in custody Ms McAliskey has received regular medical attention. There are no specific medical concerns at present; but, as a precaution, following her complaint of stomach pains, Ms McAliskey was taken to Greenwich District hospital for a scan and a full examination by a consultant obstetrician.
  The obstetrician confirmed that Ms McAliskey was in good general health, that her 16 week pregnancy was progressing normally and there was no cause for concern. As a further precaution Ms McAliskey was returned to Holloway Prison where specialist ante-natal care is more readily available, should it become necessary.
  Representations have been received from some Members of Parliament, the organisation Catholic Justice and Peace and a person claiming to be a friend of the family.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the treatment of Roisin McAliskey; what visits she has been allowed from(a) her mother, (b) other relatives and friends, (c) legal advisers, (d) Irish Teachda D'ala and (e) British hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [9174]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Roisin McAliskey.
  Representations have been received about the treatment of Ms McAliskey from some Members of Parliament, a local interest group and a person claiming to be a friend of the family. The Irish Embassy also enquired about a visit for her partner. This visit took place on 28 November.
  Ms McAliskey was visited by her mother on 6 December. Her partner has visited her on three occasions and she has also had visits from her father, sister, and from legal representatives. One Member of Parliament has also visited Ms McAliskey.

  Prisoners (Drug Dependency)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the most recent guidelines issued by him concerning the treatment of drug dependent prisoners in prison; and how many guidelines, or amendments to guidelines, have been issued since 1990. [9163]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about guidelines concerning the treatment of drug dependent prisoners.
  452
  There are three documents two of which are already in the Library: "Caring for drug users", issued in April 1991 and the current Prison Service Drugs Strategy, "Drug misuse in prison", issued in April last year. In the same month we also published Health Care Standard 8, "Clinical Services for Substance Misusers." I enclose a copy for your information, and I am arranging for a complete set of Health Care Standards to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total number of drug dependent prisoners currently detained in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9200]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about estimates of the number of drug dependent prisoners.
  Drug misuse is a covert activity which makes data on prevalence difficult to obtain and interpret. We do not have definitive information about the scale of drug misuse in prisons; but it is a significant problem. The matter has been the subject of some independent research. For example, a recent study (Maden et al 1995) of 995 males, male youths and females remanded in custody in England and Wales showed that upon psychiatric examination 26% had a harmful or dependant misuse of substances (adult males 23 %, male youths 23% and women 33%). These figures do not include alcohol or cannabis.
  When these subjects were questioned about their drug use prior to entering prison 32% had used cannabis, 14% had used opiates, 9% had used prescribed benzodiaezepines, 7% had used illicit benzodiazepines, 8% had used crack cocaine, 6% had used amphetamines and 2% had used cocaine.
  A previous study by the same researchers of 1751 sentenced male prisoners in England and Wales (1991) showed that before entering prison 43% had used cannabis, 9% had used opiates, 9% had used amphetamines and 5% had used cocaine.
  A major new source of information has also recently become available. Since April 1996 all English and Welsh prisons have introduced mandatory random drug testing. One important result from this development is that for the first time we are routinely assembling a database of the level and nature of drug use in our prisons. Eventually this will allow us to understand more, to follow trends, to manage and target our resources more effectively for tackling drug problems—and in time to be able to measure the impact of our policies.

  Prisons (Standing Orders)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the current prison standing orders which apply to prisons in England and Wales; and which public officials are denied access to prisons for inspection purposes under those standing orders. [9166]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether a copy of prison standing orders will be placed in the library of the House, and which public officials are denied access to prisons for inspection purposes under those standing orders.

  453
  Copies of the current standing orders have already been placed in the library of the House. There is nothing in those orders which deny access to public officials who duties legitimately necessitate visiting a prison for the purposes of inspection.

  Patrick Christopher Lynch
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when an application by Patrick Christopher Lynch detained at HMP Parkhurst to be repatriated to the Republic of Ireland was received; when the application was referred to the appropriate authorities in the Republic; what response has been received; when he expects a decision to be made; and if he will make a statement. [9175]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A request for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland, made by Christopher Lynch, was received at Prison Service headquarters on 17 April 1996. Requests are decided only after consideration of all relevant information by the two states concerned. An initial decision on whether to refer Mr. Lynch's repatriation request to the appropriate authorities in the Republic of Ireland will be made once all the relevant information requested has been received and considered.

  Prisoners (Needle Sharing)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received, in each of the last three years, and the current year to date, about the extent of needle sharing between HIV positive and other prisoners in prisons in England and Wales. [9167]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about reports received in each of the last three years and the current year to date, about the extent of needle sharing between HIV positive and other prisoners in prisons in England and Wales.
  There have been no reports of incidents of needle sharing between HIV prisoners and other prisoners in prisons in England and Wales during the current year or the previous three years.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expenditure on the prison medical service for the current year; what is the projected expenditure over each of the next three years; and what proportion of such expenditure is devoted to the costs of drug treatment. [9169]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the expenditure on the Prison Medical Service for the current year; what is the projected expenditure over each of the next three years; and what proportion of such expenditure is devoted to the costs of drug treatment.
  454
  The delivery of the health care to prisoners in accordance with set standards has been devolved to prison establishments. Governors must therefore allocated appropriate resources from within their establishment budgets. For this reason it is not possible centrally to differentiate health care staff cost from the overall Prison Service budget, nor forecast precise future expenditure.
  The expenditure for specialist services and medical suppliers is however known, and for the last financial year is set out in the attached table.

  Health care expenditure 1995–96

  £ million

  Locums

  4.15

  Dentist

  1.90

  Opticians

  0.47

  Psychiatrists

  1.44

  Medical/pharmacy supplies

  4.45

  Total

  12.42

  For drug treatment and testing initiatives, the following money was secured from the 1995 Public Expenditure Survey.

  £million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1990–00

  Testing

  4,880

  6,090

  7,340

  7,340

  Treatment

  5,440

  5,571

  5,710

  5,710

  Total

  10,320

  11,661

  13,050

  13,050

  These monies are in addition to that already being spent by prisons on existing rehabilitation programmes.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Dr. Rosemary Wool's appointment as chief medical officer of the prison medical service ended; when Dr. Wool left the service; and if he will make a statement. [9204]

  Mr. Howard
  Dr. Wool was due to retire on her 60th birthday, the normal retirement age for Home Office employees. As arrangements to find a successor had not been completed by then, Dr. Wool was granted an eight month extension of service and retired on 31 March 1996. A permanent successor has yet to be appointed and the post is currently filled on a temporary basis.

  Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the denial of(a) compassionate leave and (b) normal parole facilities to prisoners detained in Northern Ireland on temporary transfer. [9170]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Representations are received occasionally from various sources, including prisoners, legal representatives, hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament and the public, about applications from prisoners for compassionate temporary release and parole. Some of these concern prisoners temporarily transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland.

  Bradford Riots (Inquiry Evidence)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the evidence submitted by an official in his Department to the Bradford commission inquiring into matters in the aftermath of the Bradford riots. [9178]
  455
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Yes. A copy has now been placed in the Library.

  Category A Women Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A women are in(a) Holloway and (b) Belmarsh prisons (i) on remand and (ii) after conviction; and how many ae pregnant. [9273]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Category A women in Holloway and Belmarsh prisons.
  On 12 December 1996 there were three Category A women in Holloway prison and none in Belmarsh prison. Of those in Holloway prison two were convicted and one unconvicted. The unconvicted prisoner is known to be pregnant.

  Category A Remandees
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A remandees have subsequently been granted bail before court hearings during the last five years. [9275]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of category A prisoners who have subsequently been granted bail before court hearings during the last five years.
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many office telephone taps have been authorised by chief constables in each of the constabularies in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [8858]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of decisions by chief constables to tap the office telephones of senior employees of police authorities. [8857]

  Mr. Howard
  The interception of a communication in the course of its transmission by a public telecommunications system requires a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. A decision by a chief constable to monitor calls on a private telephone system operated by the police is not covered by the 1985 Act; such a decision is an operational matter for the chief 456
  constable concerned. There is no central record of such authorisations and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for The Home Department, what notification he received of the decision of the chief constable of Merseyside to tap the office telephone of Ms Alison Halford when employed by the Merseyside Police Authority; and if he will make a statement. [8856]

  Mr. Howard
  It is not the practice of the Government to confirm or deny allegations that interception has taken place in any particular case. Any decision by a chief constable to monitor calls on a private telecommunications system operated by the police is an operational matter which would not require notification to the Home Office.

  Ms Alison Halford
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Government Departments and public bodies involved in the proceedings relating to Ms Alison Halford before the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights, indicating the rank and names of the officials who will attend the court hearing in Strasbourg; and if he will make a statement. [8863]

  Mr. Howard
  The Departments involved are the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has not yet been decided which officials will attend the hearing in Strasbourg.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) drivers and (b) passengers have been prosecuted for not wearing seat belts in the (i) front seats and (ii) back seats of vehicles in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [8206]

  (2) how many (a) drivers and (b) passengers have been prosecuted for not wearing seat belts in the (i) front seats and (ii) back seats of vehicles in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8207]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 December,Official Report, column 404.

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost in the last 12 months of sending Ministers and officials to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe in connection with his Department's handling of EU business. [4947]

  Mr. Howard
  I have placed a note in the Library setting out the readily available information, which relates to the cost of attending such meetings over the period April to October 1996. Statistics for the last 12 months couldbeobtainedonlyatdisproportionatecost.

  Television Licences
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many(a) men and (b) women

  457
  are currently held in prison in connection with charges or convictions relating to non-payment of the television licence. [7760]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 13 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many men and women are currently held in prison in connection with charges or convictions relating to non-payment of the television licence.
  Provisional information for 31 October 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, is that three males and no females were held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in connection with non-payment of television licences

  Airguns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many airguns are currently licensed. [7046]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 2 December 1996]: Higher-powered air weapons require a firearm certificate issued by the police. Information about how many are licensed is not recorded centrally and is not distinguished from other firearms in the total figure. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 596, on paediatric intensive care beds, how many of the additional beds (a) are scheduled to open this year, (b) will open shortly, giving the timetable and location and (c) are now available, indicating their location. [6670]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]: The report "Paediatric Intensive Care" (May 1996), copies of which are available in the Library, described plans to open 23 additional designated paediatric intensive care beds and seven high dependency beds in 1996–97. The current position is as shown in the table.

  Location

  Additional beds now open (November 1996)

  Additional beds planned to open 1996–97

  PIC

  HD

  PIC

  HD

  Trent

  2

  1

  2 March

  —

  North Thames

  1

  —

  1 December

  —

  1 January

  North West

  3

  4

  —

  —

  South and West

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Anglia and Oxford

  2

  3

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  2

  —

  1 January

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3

  —

  1 January

  2 January

  South Thames

  2

  —

  2 by April

  —

  Total

  20

  8

  8

  2

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce changes in the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [9680]

  Mr. Horam
  Further to my announcement on 7 November at columns 623–25, when I said that a further announcement would be made on one additional appointment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, I am pleased to announce that the following has been appointed as a member:Dr. Joan Kathleen Stringer, principal of Queen Margaret college, Edinburgh, and member of the Scottish standing committee of the national committee of inquiry into higher education.
  This appointment, in common with those announced previously, was made in accordance with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments following the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan Report Cm 2850–1, May 1995.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government are making in their target of reducing to 56 by 31 December the number of hours worked weekly by junior doctors. [8804]

  Mr. Malone
  Steady progress is being made in reaching the ceiling of 56 hours average weekly working hours for junior doctors. This target is contained in the "New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours", copies of which area available in the Library. At 30 September 1996 regional task forces reported that 22,221 junior doctors, or 78.4 per cent. of all juniors, were complying in full with all the new deal hours limits, including the 56-hour ceiling.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has made to alter the target of 56 hours to be worked weekly by junior doctors by 31 December. [8805]

  Mr. Malone
  I have no proposals to change the target of 56 hours maximum average weekly hours of work contained in the "New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours", copies of which are available in the Library. I have made it clear that the Government have a strong commitment to action to bring all junior doctors within this ceiling.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent NHS executive internal report on junior doctors' hours. [8807]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The report concerned is an internal discussion paper and as such is covered by exemption 2 part II of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Internal Advice)".

  Tuberculosis, Scurvy and Rickets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) tuberculosis, (b) scurvy and (c) rickets were reported (i) nationally and (ii) in each region in each year region in each year since 1980. [8806]

  Mr. Horam
  The numbers of notifications of tuberculosis to the Office for National Statistics for 1980 and provisional figures for 1995 are given in the table. Figures for the intervening years are given by standard
  459
  region in table 5 of the annual publications "Series MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. Changes in the methods for recording numbers of notifications mean that total notification figures for 1980 and 1981 include cases of chemoprophylaxis but from 1982 totals excludes chemoprophylaxis are given. Cases of tuberculosis chemoprophylaxis are not cases of actual tuberculosis and most are therefore not notified. There was 458 cases of chemoprophylaxis in 1995.

  TB notifications

  Standard region

  1980 (including chemoprophylaxis)

  Provisional figures for 1995 (excluding chemoprophylaxis)

  North

  486

  194

  Yorkshire and

  884

  597

  Humberside

  East Midlands

  625

  413

  East Anglia

  146

  80

  South East

  3,767

  2,656

  South West

  355

  202

  West Midlands

  1,164

  654

  North West

  1,325

  630

  Wales

  390

  180

  England and Wales1

  9,142

  5,606

  1 Excluding Port Health Authorities.

  Data are not collected centrally on scurvy or rickets. National diet and nutrition surveys since 1980 do not show any evidence of the vitamin C deficiency which causes scurvy in the general population. There are occasional reports of rickets in young children, caused by vitamin D deficiency from insufficient exposure to sunlight. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has established an expert sub-group on the nutritional aspects of bone health which is considering this.

  Practice Nurses (Pensions)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reasons practice nurses have not been allowed to transfer their contributions from the NHS pension fund to practice pension schemes; [8964]

  (2) for what reasons no explanation was given to practice nurses in respect of requirements made of them to remove their pensions from the NHS pension fund and to take out private pensions; [8966]

  (3) how many practice nurses have been advised to take out private pensions to date; [8962]

  (4) what factors underlay his decision to remove practice nurses from the NHS pension fund; [8963]

  (5) how many practice nurses came out of the NHS pension fund in (a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991; [8965]

  (6) when he last had discussions with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nurses about the removal of practice nurses' pensions from the NHS pension fund to private pension schemes. [8967]

  Mr. Malone
  There will be an announcement shortly on entry of general practitioner practice staff including practice nurses to the national health service pension scheme.

  Genetically Engineered Soya
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to protect public health regarding the increased use of imported soya which has been genetically engineered; and if he will make a statement. [8959]

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers are advised on the safety of foods and ingredients obtained from genetically modified—GM—organisms by an independent committee of experts, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The ACNFP assessed the imported GM soya beans developed by Monsanto in 1994 and concluded that they were toxicologically and nutritionally equivalent to, and therefore as safe as, conventional soya beans.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of E.coli infection have been reported in east Lancashire since 1 December;[9223]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the source of the E.coli infection in east Lancashire. [9222]

  Mr. Horam
  E.coli infection has been isolated in clinical samples from 12 individuals, including one outside the area who has been linked to this outbreak. Of these, nine have been or are ill, but all are recovering. The outbreak is being investigated locally by a control team, which comprises medical, scientific and environmental health experts. Officials in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are closely monitoring the progress of the local team and the action taken. Detailed epidemiological and microbiological investigations are continuing and precautionary measures have been taken to ensure that public health in the locality is not jeopardised.

  Social Services White Paper
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he(a) has had and (b) proposes to have with local authorities about his forthcoming White Paper on social services, with reference to the first paragraph of part D of the guidelines on central-local relations. [9317]

  Mr. Burns
  We expect to meet leaders of the social services authorities to discuss the proposed White Paper early in the new year.

SCOTLAND

  Potato Prices
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collates about the current levels of potato prices; and if he will list the prices for the current year and each of the past five years. [8346]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information about average wholesale market prices is collected for statistical purposes and published annually in the "Economics Report on Scottish Agriculture" by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department and these are as follows for each of the last five years. Current year (1996) provisional figures should be amiable in February 1997.
  461

  Average price £/tonne

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  1st earlies

  104.88

  64.47

  93.87

  171.65

  113.18

  Ware

  78.48

  73.28

  57.96

  130.81

  206.79

  Seed

  107.93

  102.17

  78.12

  129.78

  145.41

  1 Provisional.

  Detailed price figures are also published by and may be obtained from the Potato Marketing Board.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification his Department received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in respect of the fires in the D9833 wet silo at Dounreay; and what investigations have been conducted by the Scottish Environmental Protection agency. [8674]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Notification of incidents of this nature would be made by the authority to the nuclear installations inspectorate. Nevertheless, reports by HM industrial pollution inspectorate covering the period April 1988 to March 1996 refer to an incident in 1992 when a small fire occurred in a radioactive waste store as a result of the reaction of traces of sodium metal with moisture. The fire was quickly brought under control and extinguished. Monitoring undertaken in the vicinity at the time indicated no radioactive material had been released.

  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency was established on 1 April 1996. It has received no notification of any fires in the wet storage facility. The agency will continue to monitor closely operations at the site.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and percentage of students in Scotland who received Scottish Education Department grants in 1990. [9082]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]: In academic year 1990–91 70,742 students held awards from the Scottish Education Department. This represented 97.8 per cent. of the Scottish domiciled students undertaking full-time courses of higher education in Scotland.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost to public funds of student loans in Scotland in each year since their introduction. [9081]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]: Expenditure by the Scottish Office on student loans, in each year since their introduction in academic year 1990–91, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Net total £

  1990–91

  8,005,194

  1991–92

  16,486,843

  1992–93

  24,446,864

  1993–94

  36,904,818

  462

  Financial year

  Net total £

  1994–95

  56,589,238

  1995–96

  78,321,353

  1996–971

  111,714,000

  332,372,310

  1 Estimated.

  Fishery Protection Orders
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list each protection order currently in place under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; and if he will make a statement; [8968]

  (2) if he will list each amendment made to the River Tay protection order in each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement. [9039]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The following protection orders have been made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976:-

  The Rivers Tweed and Eye Protection Order 1980;

  The Upper Spey and Associated Waters Protection Order 1982;

  The River Lunan Catchment Area Protection Order 1983;

  The River Tummel Catchment Area Protection Order 1983

  The River Tay Catchment Area Protection Order 1986;

  The West Strathclyde Protection Order 1988;

  The River Earn Catchment Area Protection Order 1990;

  The River Don Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1990;

  The Loch Morar and River Morar Protection Order 1992;

  The Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992;

  The River Clyde Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1994;

  The North West Sutherland Protection Order 1994;

  The River Arkaig, Loch Arkaig and Associated Waters Protection Order 1995.

  I have renewed the River Tay Protection Order in 1990 and 1993 to ensure its continuance. The order was varied earlier this year so that it now runs without limit of time. All other protection orders which previously required renewal have been varied in the same way.

  Prisoners (Drug Dependency)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of drug dependent prisoners currently detained in prisons in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [9202]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of drug dependent prisoners currently detained in prisons in Scotland.
  Drug misuse is an illegal activity which makes it difficult to obtain data on the number of prisoners dependent on drugs. Information is not collected centrally on the number of prisoners being treated by prison medical officers for drug dependence. A number of studies have produced data on the proportion of prisoners who misuse drugs, based on information provided anonymously by prisoners. In the 1994 Prison Survey 45% of

  463
  prisoners claimed to have used drugs at least once in the previous six months in prison (cannabis 40%, temgesic 22%, heroin 9%, other drugs 15%—some had used more than one drug). The injecting of drugs, however, might be a more useful measure of drug dependence. In the 1994 Prison Survey, 5% (191) of prisoners who responded said they had injected drugs during the previous six months in prison (heroin 4%, temgesic 3%, other drugs 2%—some had used more than one drug). In 2 studies this year, prisoners were asked if they had injected drugs at some time prior to imprisonment. In HMP Low Moss 113 out of 293 prisoners who responded had done so, while in HMP Aberdeen 53 out of 157 prisoners who responded had done so.
  Mandatory drug testing, which is being phased in across the Scottish Prison Service, will eventually provide accurate and objective information on the scale and trends of drug misuse. It complements the measures already in the SPS drugs strategy. That includes searching and surveillance to minimise the amount of drugs getting into prisons, closed circuit TV at visits, the use of sniffer dogs and a range of other measures. It also complements the constructive work that is being done in the context of reduction and detoxification. There are drug treatment programmes in 7 prisons, with more planned, and a new abstinence unit was opened at Low Moss prison earlier this year. Prisoners receive a comprehensive information and training programme on HIV, AIDS and drugs within 2 week of admission to prison. All prisons provide education and counselling. Extensive links have been established with community-based drug agencies to provide throughcare and continuing support for prisoners on release. Taken together all these measures represent a major commitment to reduce the drugs problem.

  Feudal Superiors
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to widen the remit of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to cover all claims of unreasonable and oppressive behaviour by feudal superiors under feudal law. [4822]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 27 November 1996]: The present remit of the Lands Tribunal already allows it to vary or discharge land obligations which have become unreasonable or inappropriate, those which are unduly burdensome compared with any benefit resulting or which would result from performance of the obligation and those which impede some reasonable use of the land. I do not therefore propose to consider amendments to its remit until the Scottish Law Commission's proposals on a new system of land tenure to replace the present feudal system are available.

  Stone of Destiny
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs were incurred by his Department in respect of(a) transport, (b) security and (c) ceremonial functions in connection with the return of the Stone of Destiny. [7715]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 December 1996]: The costs incurred in relation to the return of the Stone of Destiny are still being collated.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs of the events at(a) Coldstream and (b) Edinburgh of the ceremonies involved in the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland; and from what budgets the costs are being met. [7922]
  464
  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: The costs incurred in relation to the return of the Stone of Destiny are still being collated.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Law Society's proposals for the reform of legal aid with special reference to the control of the legal aid budget. [7632]

  Mr. Streeter
  All the proposals contained in the Law Society's paper, "Better Value Better Justice", have been carefully considered. Where possible, we are assessing and taking forward these proposals in consultation with the Law Society and other interested parties.

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of recent representations to his Department about proposals for the reform of legal aid. [7633]

  Mr. Streeter
  I frequently receive representations on this matter from professional bodies and associations, pressure groups, advice services, individual lawyers, and members of the public. I have been encouraged by the response to date and look forward to further discussions and consultation as the reforms progress.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce the costs of legal aid with particular reference to solicitor's fees. [7635]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government's long-term plans for legal aid are set out in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance" (Cm 3305 HMSO). In the short term, I propose to introduce standard fees for advocates in all civil cases and for litigators conducting family and domestic violence cases. Standard fees will provide a better means of controlling expenditure than hourly based payment systems, whilst at the same time providing a quicker more certain remuneration system for lawyers.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what investigations he is conducting into the operations of the Land Registry. [7634]

  Mr. Streeter
  None. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department's relationship with HM Land Registry is one of close and regular liaison. The Department regularly monitors the performance of the Land Registry against targets set by the Lord Chancellor.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about progress with the PFI for new magistrates courts buildings. [7637]
  465
  Mr. Streeter
  The pathfinder PFI project to provide managed court accommodation to meet the requirements of the Hereford and Worcester magistrates courts committee is proceeding on programme. Expressions of interest from prospective providers are at present being evaluated. A letter has been sent to all local authorities and MCCs informing them of my decision to allow a further four projects to go forward during the coming financial year. These projects are Derbyshire, Humberside, Manchester and Merseyside—Liverpool, Sefton, St. Helens, Knowsley, and Wirral.

  Census Returns (Public Access)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to secure continuing public access to the census returns following the closure of the Public Record Office, Chancery lane. [7636]

  Mr. Streeter
  Public access to the census returns at the Public Record Office, Chancery lane is expected to continue until 7 March 1997. From 10 March 1997, public access will be provided at the new family records centre at Myddelton place, Myddleton street, London, EC1.

  Magistrates Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts there were in Wales in 1978–79; and how many are currently operating. [7626]

  (A) Current promotional/public information campaigns

  Campaign

  Total cost (£000)

  Cost to department (£000)

  Who is carrying out promotion

  Duration

  Promotion of innovation and research and development

  275

  275

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  Ongoing

  Promotion of NI as a business location in US, Germany, GB, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong

  3,667

  3,667

  Industrial Development Board

  Ongoing

  Campaign to promote the launch and use of the NCVQ Belfast field office

  17.5

  17.5

  Training and Employment Agency, National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  September 1996 to March 1997

  Contribution to the UK campaign to promote the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  50

  50

  Training and Employment Agency, Employers' Forum on Disability

  October 1996 to March 1997

  Revaluation of non-domestic properties

  178

  78

  Anderson Group Holdings (NI) Ltd.

  October 1996 to January 1997

  Crime prevention public awareness

  2—

  2—

  McCann Erickson, Advertising Consultants

  April 1996 to March 1997

  NSS organ donor register

  8.5

  8.5

  Department of Health and Social Services

  One year from 29 October 1996

  Healthy eating campaign 1996 (fibre promotion)

  21

  21

  Health Promotion Agency

  January to December 1996

  Immunisation

  27

  27

  Health Promotion Agency

  19 November 1996

  Sexual health campaign (convenience advertising)

  38

  38

  Health Promotion Agency

  April 1996 to March 1997

  World Aids Day 1996

  5

  5

  Health Promotion Agency

  1 December 1996

  Contraception education service

  20

  20

  Health Promotion Agency

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Historic monuments campaign to attract visitors

  5

  5

  Environment Heritage Service

  April to December 1996

  Driver licensing—information leaflet to promote road safety and freedom of movement throughout the EC

  1.1

  1.1

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency NI

  Ongoing—leaflet sent to each applicant for a provisional driving licence

  Anti-drink/drive campaign

  135

  135

  Department of the Environment NI

  4 December 1996 to 5 January 1997

  Driver Testing—Information to promote road safety and freedom of movement throughout the EC

  5

  5

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency NI

  December 1996 (One month)

  1 Includes costs not attributable to agency carrying out the work.

  2 Cost of campaign has not been disclosed on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  466
  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 October 1996,Official Report, column 655.

  That is, that there are at present 63 magistrates courts in Wales and that no accurate record exists for the number of courts in Wales in 1978.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment (Belfast, West)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs have been created in the constituency of Belfast, West since 31 August 1994. [5124]

  Mr. Ancram
  Net employment growth figures are not available at constituency level for the period requested. Although not a direct indicator of job growth, unemployment fell from 8,531 in August 1994 to 6,072 in October 1996.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [7409]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is provided in the table:
  467

  (B) Campaigns planned to run during the next six months

  Campaign

  Total cost (£000)

  Cost to department (£000)

  Who is carrying out promotion

  Duration

  No Smoking day 1997

  14

  14

  Health Promotion Agency

  12 March 1997

  Health Eating Campaign 1997 (promotion on eating less fat)

  9

  9

  Health Promotion Agency

  January to December 1997

  Drugs campaign

  192

  192

  Health Promotion Agency

  January to March 1997

  Seat belts radio campaign

  6

  6

  Department of the Environment NI

  Three weeks in February 1997

  Information leaflets on complaints procedures for tenants of registered housing associations

  2.5

  2.5

  Department of the Environment NIOne day in March 1997

  Information on new housing regulations relating to assured tenancies

  0.5

  0.5

  Department of the Environment NI

  One day between January and March 1997

  Anti-speeding TV and radio campaign

  64

  64

  Department of the Environment NI

  One month April/May 1997

  Housing benefit promotion

  2

  2

  Rate Collection Agency

  Six weeks February/March 1997

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency awareness campaign

  0.25

  0.25

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  One day between January/March 1997

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department plans to spend on celebrating Christmas and the new year. [7578]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: The Northern Ireland Departments plan to spend £31,267 for the Christmas and new year festivities.

  Within the Northern Ireland Office, there are a number of functions being hosted by my right hon. and learned Friend, ministerial colleagues and the office. The estimated costs are about £9,200. The cost of Christmas cards, including postage, is estimated at £2,250.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) loyalist and (b) republican life sentence prisoners are currently conforming with prison regulations and have received release dates. [8722]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are currently 12 loyalist and four republican life sentence prisoners with provisional release dates. Provisional in this context means that a prisoner is required satisfactorily to complete a pre-release programme lasting normally around nine months before the Secretary of State will decide whether to release the individual on life licence. Life sentence prisoners are released within 15 days of the Secretary of State's having signed the life licence.

  Prisoners are not categorised into various groupings. However, the definitions requested in the question are recorded for purely management purposes and reflect the prisoners' perceived affiliations.

  None of the 16 prisoners with a provisional date for release have had the date varied or withdrawn because of a breach of prison regulations.

  Action for Community Employment Scheme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many(a) 18 to 25-year-olds and (b) 25 to 60-year-olds long-term unemployed people have participated in the ACE scheme (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the previous five years; [8709]

  (2) how many participants in the ACE scheme are working part-time; and what is the average number of hours per week they work; [8710]
  468
  (3) how many people are currently participating in (a) jobskills, (b) the ACE training scheme and (c) the community work programme; and how many places are available; [8711]

  (4) what was the average wage of an ACE participant (a) in the present year and (b) in each of the previous five years; [8712]

  (5) how many (a) people aged 40 years or above, (b) men, (c) women, (d) married men, (e) married women and (f) people aged 18 to 25 years have taken part in the ACE scheme in each of the last five years including the current year; and how many participants there were in total. [8714]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Majorie Mowlam, dated 16 December 1996:
  Parliamentary Questions Nos. 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2032
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (T&EA), to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) scheme, Jobskills and the Community Work Programme (CWP).

  Parliamentary Question 2027 (Ref: 8709)
  The ACE scheme is targeted at the long term unemployed in the 18–64 year old age group. I regret that I am unable to provide you with a detailed breakdown of the two age groupings requested. The information is not readily available and could not be provided other than at a wholly disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Question 2028 (Ref: 8710)
  On 27 September 1996, the latest date for which comprehensive information is available, there was 2510 part-time participants on the ACE scheme.
  The information you requested regarding the average number of hours worked by part-time workers is not available. Part-time workers are employed by sponsoring organisations and the T&EA does not collect information on average hours worked from them. However, sponsoring organisations are required to employ part-time workers for a minimum of 16 hours and maximum of 30 hours per week.

  469
  Parliamentary Question 2079 (Ref: 8711)
  The number of participants on the dates indicated is as follows:

  A. Jobskills—at 8 November 1996: Training for 16,881 young people and adults is supported through the Jobskills programme, with a further 2,606 trainees similarly supported in the Agency's own Training Centres. All 16 and 17 year olds are guaranteed a training place but adult training numbers were capped when Jobskills reached full capacity in September 1996.

  B. ACE—at 29 November 1996: 8040 places were available of which 7228 were filled;

  C. CWEP—at 6 December 1996: 1190 places were available of which 1020 were filled.

  Parliamentary Question 2030 (Ref: 8713)
  The T&EA does not record information on the actual wage rates paid to ACE employees. Sponsoring organisations are paid £93 per week for each ACE worker employed. Of this up to £11 can be used to defray overhead expenses. The balance must be used as a contribution towards paying the local rate for the job being undertaken by the ACE employee. Any shortfall between Agency's funding and the local rate is met by the sponsors pay well in excess of the shortfall.

  Parliamentary Question 2032 (Ref: 8714)
  Much of the information you are seeking is not readily available and could only be provided immediately at a disproportionate cost. The following information is available:

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1996

  3,700

  4,005

  7,705

  1995

  5,117

  5,027

  10,144

  1994

  4,894

  4,582

  9,476

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  9,690

  Information in respect of 1992 and 1991 is not available.

  I am sorry I am unable to be more helpful in reply to some of your questions but I hope you find the information I have supplied useful.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made in Northern Ireland for the payment of compensation for the slaughter of young bulls aged between 24 and 30 months. [9583]

  Mr. Ancram
  A scheme was introduced to allow the eligible animals to be slaughtered. Parliamentary approval for this new service will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate for the Northern Ireland agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support vote, class 1 vote 2. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure totalling £3.25 million has been met by the way of a repayable advance from the contingency fund.

  Trials (Delays)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made to reduce delays in coming to trial in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [9582]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Hon. Members will know that a system of administrative time limits has been operating since 1992, aimed at reducing the time defendants spend in custody awaiting trial on indictment.

  On 7 December last year, in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Denton in reply to a question from Lord Hylton, Official Report House of Lords, column 87, set out the results of the scheme's first three years. She also
  470
  announced that the scheme would continue until at least 30 June 1996 and that from 1 November 1995 the overall target for cases to move from first remand to arraignment would be reduced from 11 months to 10 months.

  I can now report on the scheme's first four years up to 30 June 1996. Over this period, 80 per cent. of defendants in custody awaiting trial for scheduled offences were arraigned within the set target. Over the past year, the average time to process such defendants has been maintained at 37 weeks. Ninety-five per cent. of non-scheduled defendants in custody also met the target, the average time again being maintained at 29 weeks. The latter is a particularly commendable achievement in the light of a substantial increase over the past year in the proportion of non-scheduled cases.

  Worthwhile improvements have also been recorded in the period between arraignment and start of trial. Comparing 1993 with performance over the past year, the average wait for scheduled defendants has fallen from 28 weeks to 11 weeks and for non-scheduled defendants from 11 weeks to nine weeks.

  The criminal justice agencies' efforts remain effective, whilst they also continue to explore other means of streamlining and accelerating procedures. In highlighting their effective progress in the operation of the scheme, I have decided to extend it until at least the end of June 1997.

  Travelling Community Sites
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently living at the travelling community site(a) on the Glen road and (b) at the Monagh bypass, in Belfast, West. [8891]

  Mr. Moss
  I am informed by Belfast city council, which has responsibility for the provision of sites for travellers, that the number of people currently living at the travellers' community sites(a) on the Glen road and (b) at the Monagh bypass, in Belfast, West are:

  Number of people

  (a) Glen road

  227

  (b) Monagh bypass

  74

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the planned completion date of the Monagh woods site for the travelling community, in Belfast, West. [8892]

  Mr. Moss
  The provision of accommodation sites for travellers in Belfast is a matter for Belfast city council. I understand that Belfast city council is carrying out an economic appraisal of the various options available to provide accommodation for the travellers currently on the Monagh bypass site.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children(a) under 11 and (b) under 16 years, are currently living in the travelling community sites (i) on the Glen road and (ii) at the Monagh bypass. [8893]
  471
  Mr. Moss
  I am informed by Belfast city council, which has responsibility for the provision of sites for travellers, that the number of children(a) under 11 and (b) under 16 years of age currently living at the travellers' community sites (i) on the Glen road and (ii) at the Monagh bypass are:

  (a) Under 11

  (b) Under 16 (including under 11s

  (a) Glen road

  86

  112

  (b) Monagh by-pass

  21

  40

  Race Relations Order
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to lay the draft race relations order for Northern Ireland before Parliament. [8894]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is my intention to lay this draft order before Parliament at the earliest possible date.

  £ million

  Figures announced 11 December 1995

  Figures announced 10 December 1996

  Percentage change1 2

  1997–98

  1998–993

  1997–98

  1998–993

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Northern Ireland Office

  Law, order, protective and miscellaneous services4

  858

  850

  934

  920

  4.7

  3.6

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Northern Ireland agriculture and forestry services and support

  149

  140

  148

  130

  -0.7

  -7.1

  Industry, trade, energy and employment

  539

  530

  550

  530

  2

  0

  Roads and transport

  174

  180

  172

  170

  -1.1

  -5.6

  Housing

  267

  270

  243

  240

  -9

  -11.1

  Environmental and miscellaneious services

  252

  220

  226

  190

  -10.3

  -13.6

  Law, order and protective services (fire service)

  44

  40

  44

  40

  0

  0.0

  Education, arts and libraries5

  1,431

  1,430

  1,376

  1,380

  -0.8

  -0.7

  Health and personal social services

  1,623

  1,630

  1,642

  1,670

  1.2

  2.5

  Social Security administraton

  158

  160

  158

  160

  0

  0

  Other public services

  60

  60

  59

  60

  -1.7

  0

  NI block (excluding social security benefits6)

  5,536

  5,510

  5,553

  5,500

  0.1

  -0.2

  Social security benefits

  2,479

  2,590

  2,494

  2,590

  0.6

  0

  NI Block6

  8,035

  8,100

  8,046

  8,090

  0.2

  -0.1

  National agriculture and fisheries support

  172

  170

  175

  170

  1.9

  0

  NI programme6

  8,207

  8,270

  8,222

  8,260

  0.3

  -0.1

  1 Since the comparisons are based on changes between 11 December 1995 and 10 December 1996 in the plans relating to 1997–98 and 1998–99, the cash and real terms percentage changes are the same.

  2 The 1997–98 changes are based on figures rounded to the nearest £1 million to ensure like for like comparisons with the figures published on 10 December 1996: 1998–99 changes are based on figures rounded to the nearest £10 million and comparisons need to be treated with greater caution.

  3 Rounded to nearest £10 million.

  4 For the purpose of like for like comparisons, the law and order percentage changes are adjusted for the technical adjustment to the PANI grant for accruing superannuation liability which was made in the 1996 survey.

  5 For the purpose of like for like comparisons, education, arts and libraries percentages are adjusted to exclude the effect of Northern Ireland's share of student loan debt sale receipts allocated in the 1996 survey.

  6 The overall block and programme percentage changes are adjusted to exlude the effects of the accruing superannuation liability and the student loan debt sale recipts.

  Melbourne Declaration on Injury
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department has signed the Melbourne declaration on injury prevention and control, adopted on 22 February. [8643]
  472
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions relating to the availability of living space for members of the travelling community in the district council areas will be included in the proposed draft race relations order. [8895]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no specific provisions in the draft legislation relating to this matter.

  Public Expenditure Allocations
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list Northern Ireland Office expenditure for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 broken down into the same categories as in his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 130, to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) showing, for each category, the corresponding figures and the percentage real terms change from the projections published in his answer of 11 December 1995, Official Report, columns 538–39, to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). [9015]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Moss
  [holding reply 6 December 1996]: The Melbourne declaration does not provide for formal endorsement by Government of its conclusions. Prevention of accidents and trauma is a key area in the Department of Health and Social Services' regional strategy for Northern Ireland. The Department of the

  473
  Environment for Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Department of Health and Social Services also published a strategy in July 1995 to reduce fatal and serious road traffic accident casualties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, columns 591–21, on national insurance, how many employees paid (i) at and (ii) below the maximum national insurance contribution rates; and what was the total estimated employed population in each year from 1979–80 and 1995–96. [7933]

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

  Number of people who paid Class 1 national insurance contributions in each relevant year (Great Britain)

  000

  Earnings equal to or above the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL)

  Earnings below the UEL

  1979–80

  997

  22,004

  1980–81

  931

  21,313

  1981–82

  877

  20,361

  1982–83

  888

  19,932

  1983–84

  927

  19,830

  1984–85

  1,020

  19,855

  1985–86

  1,088

  20,104

  1986–87

  1,102

  20,315

  1987–88

  1,294

  20,679

  1988–89

  1,603

  20,930

  1989–90

  1,747

  21,113

  1990–91

  1,831

  21,005

  1991–92

  1,707

  20,364

  1992–93

  1,833

  19,791

  1993–94

  1,802

  19,710

  1994–95

  1,855

  19,782

  Source:

  Lifetime Labour Market Database, a 1 per cent. sample of national insurance records taken at February 1996.

  Notes:

  1. Data relates to whole tax years and includes people who were employed and paid contributions for any part of the year.

  2. Figures exclude women paying Reduced Rate Contracted-out National Insurance contributions, as they information is not available.

  Total estimated employed population—(Great Britain)

  000

  Employees

  1979–80

  1—

  1980–81

  21,405

  1981–82

  1—

  1982–83

  20,288

  1983–84

  20,515

  1984–85

  20,746

  1985–86

  20,852

  1986–87

  20,892

  1987–88

  21,601

  1988–89

  22,167

  1989–90

  22,388

  1990–91

  22,034

  474

  Total estimated employed population—(Great Britain)

  000

  Employees

  1991–92

  21,520

  1992–93

  21,313

  1993–94

  21,415

  1994–95

  21,675

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey historical supplement 1996.

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1979 and 1981 are not available as the source survey was biennial prior to 1982.

  1. Figures taken in March of each tax year, and as such are point in time figures. They are not seasonally adjusted.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 November,Official Report, columns 597–8, what is his estimate, at 1995–96 prices and if present contribution rates continued to apply, of the gross value of national insurance contributions for (a) the employed, (b) the self-employed, (c) employers, (d) class 1A for cars and car fuel and (e) the total of (a) to (d), before deducting NHS charges or allowing for occupational and personal pension rebates, for the years (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2010–11, (iii) 2020–21, (iv) 2030–31, and (v) 1995–96. [8252]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is as follows:

  Great Britain (1995–96 prices)

  £ billion

  1995–96

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Employees

  21.00

  25.65

  29.40

  31.65

  32.30

  Self-employed

  1.45

  1.65

  1.90

  2.05

  2.10

  Employers Class 1 NICs

  27.65

  34.65

  42.30

  49.25

  55.05

  Employers Class lA NICs

  0.50

  0.50

  0.60

  0.70

  0.80

  Total

  50.60

  62.45

  74.20

  83.70

  90.25

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Notes:

  1. Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

  Child Support Appeal Tribunals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals which have been lodged with a child support appeal tribunal are currently pending; what is the average length of time between the lodging of an appeal to a child support appeal tribunal and its hearing; and in how many cases the child support officer's decision has been upheld. [8793]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  At the end of November 1996, there were 4,227 appeals pending with a child support appeal tribunal of which 524 had already been listed for a future session. The average length of time between lodgement and first hearing was 26 weeks. During November, 466 cases were determined: in 84 cases the child support officer's decision was upheld.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims were made in the last
  475
  available year for war pensioner's mobility supplement; and how many of these were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful. [9338]

  Mr. Heald
  In the 12 months ending September 1996, the last period for which figures are available, there were 3,351 claims made in respect of war pensioner's mobility supplement. During the same period 4,435 decisions on claims for the supplement were made, of which 2,619 resulted in awards. The decisions made in any one period may not necessarily relate to the claims made during the same period.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals currently receive the war pensioner's mobility supplement; what is the average amount paid per recipient; and what is the total amount paid each year as a percentage of total social security expenditure. [9337]

  Mr. Heald
  As at 30 September 1996, the last date for which figures are available, 23,602 war pensioners were receiving mobility supplement. The current amount payable is a flat rate of £37.75 weekly. Expenditure on mobility supplement is estimated at £45 million in 1996–97. This amounts to 0.05 per cent. of total social security expenditure.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the expected savings from the proposed changes to war pensions(a) in total and (b) for each proposed change, indicating the percentage of total social security expenditure in each case. [9335]

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

  Programme savings (£ million cash prices)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  War pensions mobility supplement 40 per cent, disablement gateway

  1 (0.001 per cent.)

  3 (0.003 per cent.)

  4

  Allowance for lowered standard 40 per cent. disablement gateway

  Unemployability supplement 80 per cent. disablement gateway

  1 (0.001 per cent.)

  3 (0.003 per cent.)

  5

  combined for all four options

  Unemployability supplement no claims from over age 65

  Widows rent allowance - no new claims

  negligible saving

  Cease reminders to return claim forms

  2 (0.002 per cent.)

  3 (0.003 per cent.)

  4

  No copy decisions to third parties

  not costed

  Abandon long-term assessment (LTA)

  0

  0

  0

  Require evidence to justify review

  + neg.

  0.5 (neg per cent.)

  1

  Backdating—new rules

  3 (0.003 per cent.)

  3 (0.003 per cent.)

  3

  Align payment start dates

  negligible cost

  Automatic War Widows Pension for 80 per cent. and Unemployability supplement cases. War Widows pension

  -1 (0.001 per cent.)

  -1 (0.001 per cent.

  1

  476

  Programme savings (£ million cash prices)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  restoration for cohabitees

  negligible cost

  Abolition of gratuities on remarriage/cohabitation

  not yet costed

  Clothing allowance one rate (the higher)

  0.5 (neg per cent.

  0.5 (neg per cent.)

  -0.5

  Funeral grants for 80 per cent. and Unemployability supplement cases

  negligible cost

  Remove rank differentials for gratuities

  -0.5 (neg per cent.

  -0.5 (neg per cent.)

  -0.5

  Total

  5(0.006 per cent.)

  10 (0.012 per cent.

  15

  1 Expenditure figures are not available for 1999–2000.

  1. Negligible = Less than £250,000.

  2. All amounts are rounded to the nearest 0.001 per cent.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. A minus sign indicates a cost.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of war disablement pension failed to apply for a pension increase in the five most recent years for which figures are available; and how many increased awards were paid to recipients of war disablement pensions in each of those years. [9331]

  Mr. Heald
  A war disablement pension may be increased for a range of reasons; for example; as a result of uprating of age changes which are made automatically or because the pensioner's service-related disablement has increased. In the latter case, the war pensioner may ask the Secretary of State to review his assessment of the degree of disablement. Information on the number of war pensioners whose disablement has increased but who have not required such a review is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information in the table shows the number of awards increased following request for a review.

  1991–92: 13,699

  1992–93: 13,196

  1993–94: 14,204

  1994–95: 18,576

  1995–96: 14,514

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of war veterans who would cease to be entitled to the war pensioner's mobility supplement if the 20 per cent. disability threshold for entitlement were raised to 40 per cent. [9333]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that, annually, 800 war pensioners with disablement assessments below 40 per cent. would no longer qualify.

  No one already in receipt of mobility supplement at the point of the proposed change would be affected.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of war veterans who would cease to be entitled to the unemployability supplement if the 20 per cent. disability threshold were raised to 80 per cent. [9332]
  477
  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that about 400 new claims for unemployability supplement would not succeed if the threshold for disablement were raised to 80 per cent. No war pensioner currently receiving the allowance would be affected.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for war pensions were made in the last available year by(a) men and (b) women aged over 65 years. [9334]

  Mr. Heald
  In the period October 1995 to 30 September 1996, a total of 27,215 new claims for war disablement pension were made. The number of claims made by men and women aged over 65 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reminder notices for returning forms claiming pension increases were issued to war pensioners in each of the last five years. [9330]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there will be a waiver of the seven-year rule for unconditional claiming of war pensions following discharge in the case of Gulf war veterans whose entitlements will not be determined until the conclusion of the studies he has commissioned into Gulf war illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [9173]

  Mr. Heald
  No. Such a waiver is unnecessary. Anyone who considers that disablement may be due to service in the Gulf may claim a war pension at any time. Where a claim is made within seven years of termination of service there is no onus on the claimant to show that disablement is due to service. Even where a claim is made more than seven years after termination of service, it is only necessary for there to be reliable evidence to create a reasonable doubt that disablement might be due to or aggravated by service. The benefit of that reasonable doubt is always given to the claimant.

  The Secretary of State may review a decision to reject a claim at any time and on any ground. Where a claim made within seven years of termination of service is later reviewed the same conditions which applied at the time the claim was made apply to the review.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will recalculate the figures in table 6, para 7.12 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age"(a) on the basis of current prices and (b) on the assumption that an individual reverted to the full basic state pension at 70 years of age. [9162]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Table 6, paragraph 7.12 of options for equality in state pension age: recalculated on the basis of 1996–97 benefit rates

  Basic pension available at different ages 1996–97 prices

  Age 63 "pivot"1

  Age 65 "pivot"1

  60

  49

  42

  61

  53

  45

  62

  56

  48

  63

  61

  53

  64

  66

  56

  478

  Table 6, paragraph 7.12 of options for equality in state pension age: recalculated on the basis of 1996–97 benefit rates

  Basic pension available at different ages 1996–97 prices

  Age 63 "pivot"1

  Age 65 "pivot"1

  65

  72

  61

  66

  77

  66

  67

  84

  72

  68

  92

  79

  69

  101

  86

  70

  110

  95

  Table 6, paragraph 7.12 of options for equality in state pension age: recalculated on the basis of 1996–97 benefit rates assuming pension increases to full basic pension at age 70 for those retiring before the pivot

  Basic pension available at different ages

  Age 63 "pivot"1

  Age 65 "pivot"1

  60

  40

  27

  61

  45

  31

  62

  52

  35

  63

  61

  41

  64

  66

  49

  65

  72

  61

  66

  77

  66

  67

  84

  72

  68

  92

  79

  69

  101

  86

  70

  110

  95

  Note:

  In the second table, it has been assumed that where someone retired before the pivot age then their reduced pension will be increased to the full basic rate when they get to 70. For those that retire after the pivot age, and thus receive a higher initial pension, it has been assumed that this higher rate of pension will continue to be paid after age 70.

  1 Pounds per week at 1996–97 prices.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding recent changes in disability allowance; and if he will list the organisations concerned. [9307]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not yet available in the format requested. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations. The organisations which have written since the beginning of October are: Mencap, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, Disabled Drivers Association, the Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the Patients Council, the Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, the Robert Ferguson Unit and Escape.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with the outstanding information.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have had their disability allowance(a) reduced and (b) discontinued since the introduction of the benefit. [9305]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. Information on attendance allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit, the pneumoconiosis,
  479
  byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit scheme, the workmen's compensation supplementation scheme and war disablement pensions is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability living allowance awards reduced and discontinued—6 April 1992 to 30 November 1996

  Numbers (thousands)

  Award reduced1

  51

  Benefit discontinued2

  450

  Source:

  Analytical services division.

  Notes:

  1 Awards reduced relate to decisions made on renewal claims, reviews and appeals.

  2 Includes termination of award due to death, no renewal of award and other reasons e.g. disallowances.

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent medical evidence has been evaluated by his Department in respect of the link between hearing loss and military service; and if he will publish the evidence. [9336]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on 12 December 1996,Official Report, column 360.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) hospitals and (b) community homes in the NHS have had their mobility allowance withdrawn or reduced since the introduction of the benefit. [9306]
  480
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Prior to the changes to legislation governing payment of the mobility component of disability living allowance to people in hospital, the mobility component was not affected by admittance to hospital or similar institutions.

  Some 7,000 people were affected by the withdrawal of mobility component of disability living allowance when the changes were introduced on 31 July. It is not possible to identify separately those in hospital and similar institutions.

  Information regarding the numbers subsequently affected by withdrawal of the mobility component is not yet available.

  War Widows' Rent Allowance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list(a) the number of widows who currently receive the war widows' rent allowance, (b) the average amount paid per recipient and (c) the total amount paid in each of the last five years as a percentage of total social security expenditure; [9339]

  (2) how many new claims were made in the last available year for the war widows' rent allowance, indicating the number of these that were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful. [9340]

  Mr. Heald
  As at 30 September 1996, the last date for which figures are available, 1,060 widows were in receipt of rent allowance. The current maximum amount payable is £30 a week. The average amount paid per recipient is estimated at £23 per week. During the period January 1996 to September 1996, the only period for which figures are available, 491 new claims were received. During the same period, 447 decisions were made, of which 50 resulted in awards. The decisions made in any one period may not necessarily relate to the claims made during the same period.

  The total amount paid by way of rent allowance over the last five years is not available. Expenditure for 1996–97 is estimated at about £1 million. This is 0.0014 per cent. of total social security expenditure.

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

Railtrack: Freight Services
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any representations which have been made to them or to Railtrack by a group of 25 freight operators, ports and wagon manufacturers alleging that Railtrack is favouring passenger trains while failing to exploit the potential of the network for freight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I am aware of such representations by the Piggyback Consortium. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chairman of the Piggyback Consortium, met my honourable friend the Minister for Railways and Roads and local transport last month to relay the consortium's concerns.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is evidence that Railtrack is obstructing plans to enable freight to be carried in increasing amounts on our railway system simply because it does not want to displace the more lucrative passenger services, and therefore priority is being given almost exclusively to those?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. With regard to the west coast main line freight upgrade, which I believe is at the core of the Piggyback Consortium's concerns, Railtrack is devoting much effort and spending a considerable sum of money on examining the proposal and attempting to produce costings. A number of new freight services have begun. Railtrack is well aware of the importance of freight. As a commercial organisation it is alive to the possibilities that freight provides in addition to passengers on the railways. However, Railtrack is also trying to facilitate the passenger railway.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I go a little further than my noble friend in saying this—that there are serious charges of incompetence against Railtrack right across the country? For example, the capital cost of raising bridges and lowering tracks was estimated by Railtrack two years ago at £100 million, whereas today the estimate is £340 million. That is an extraordinary increase. Will the Minister explain why that is so and why Railtrack is behaving in such a way? It is certainly not popular in Wales, if I may say so.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is clear that Railtrack is seeking to maximise all the opportunities
1266
that are available on the railway. It has a substantial job in trying to make the most of the infrastructure that is in place. I cannot comment on the costing exercise which the noble Lord mentioned, but if he wishes to give me the details I shall investigate that further. Railtrack is a commercial organisation and it must look to all sources of revenue to make the most of its assets. Those assets include freight, which is an extremely important component.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it not a sad reflection of the stewardship of this Government that after 15 years—
Noble Lords: Seventeen years!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am corrected by noble Lords opposite. After 17 years is it not a sad reflection that all the Government can come up with are more studies on how to modernise the west coast main line? Would it not be better if the Government modernised it rather than just studied the modernisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this has been referred to in previous questions. Railtrack is modernising the west coast main line. We have discussed in some detail the £1.3 billion-worth of plans to that end. We have also discussed the £8 billion that Railtrack expects to spend over the next five years in maintaining and improving the network. Those are substantial sums. Railtrack takes this matter seriously.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what benefits in terms of freight are expected from the improvements to which the Minister has alluded? Is it not a fact that Railtrack has written to the Department of Transport stating that if the Government want more goods to travel by rail they will have to pay rather more for that? Do the Government accept that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have a scheme, the freight facilities grant, whereby under specified circumstances the Government can contribute to the infrastructure costs and the capital costs of key infrastructure where that would result in taking lorries off the road and enabling goods to be transported by more environmentally sensible methods of transport. The Government can contribute, they play their part and they have a scheme in place to do so. This is a partnership between the public sector, in terms of the Government and their ability to provide such subsidy, and the private sector in bringing the dynamism and investment to the railway which it so sorely needs.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a great pleasure to travel by train as a passenger because the services have improved so much?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. I find myself in wholehearted agreement with my noble friend. These days so many people are noticing the changes. They realise that the freight companies are working;

1267
passenger companies are seeking to attract people on to the railways. It is only common sense that if you provide the service that people want at the price that they wish they will travel on the railways.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, on her exceptional good fortune?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is exceptionally fortunate in sitting on our side of the House. Therefore she gives the best view possible of the improvements that the great policy of rail privatisation has brought. If the noble Earl wishes to benefit from that, he has only to walk behind the Chair and approach this side.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Viscount please arrange for his noble friend to travel from Euston to Holyhead?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is probably beyond my powers to compel noble Lords to travel on the railway. It seems that noble Lords wish to travel on the railway because of the great services that are on offer.

EU: Partnership of Nations
2.43 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that war in Europe has been, and is more likely to be, avoided under the federal model of Europe proposed by Chancellor Kohl or under the partnership of nations proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the greatest achievement of the European Union has been to replace a habit of conflict which caused two world wars this century with a habit of co-operation. We believe that that achievement is most likely to be consolidated by maintaining the EU as a partnership of nations. Chancellor Kohl has explicitly rejected a "centralised European state".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I should have thought that it was NATO, and not the European Communities, which preserved the post-war peace in north-western Europe. Be that as it may, does my noble friend accept that the German Chancellor said on 2nd February of this year:
"European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century"?
As he and others seem determined to pursue that integration with such unhealthy haste, would the Government care to put a question to Chancellor Kohl?
1268
Would they ask the Chancellor when a modern, bourgeois nation such as the modern Germany last caused a war?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, perhaps I may quote to my noble friend:
"We want unity and diversity. We do not want a centralised European state that subsumes regional, national and cultural traditions or dismisses historical experience".
That is not John Major speaking; it is Chancellor Kohl in his speech to the Bundestag on 27th May 1994. We believe in a Europe that respects political and cultural diversity, which concentrates singlemindedly only on what needs to be done at a European level, and doing it well, and which does not interfere when it is not needed.
Perhaps I may add this. I feel that further discussion on this Question could pre-empt the Statement that is to be made this afternoon, when my noble friend the Leader of the House is to make a Statement. I believe that it would be inappropriate if I were to answer further questions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it has hitherto been the received wisdom emanating from Her Majesty's Government that the peace of Europe has been maintained by our possession of the nuclear deterrent?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the more that European countries work together on economic, social, political and military grounds, the less likely is war to break out between them?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is a proper Question which has been answered. It deserves some further supplementary questions. Do Her Majesty's Government support the view of Herr Kohl, Herr Lammers and Herr Brok that the nation state is completely outdated and should be replaced by a country called Europe?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, no.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to force distinct and separate nations into a federation or superstate would increase rather than diminish the chances of eventual conflict, bearing in mind that over the past 100 years there have been more civil wars globally than wars between nation states?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wish to repeat the second part of my reply to the supplementary question. We believe in a Europe that respects political and cultural diversity, which concentrates singlemindedly only on what needs to be done at a European level, and doing it well, and which does not interfere when it is not needed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I may not be able to intervene in the Statement which is to come later—can I press my noble friend that the Government should at least put to Chancellor Kohl that modern, democratic bourgeois nations do not cause wars such as we have seen erupt from some of the things that Stalin tried to do? I refer to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Transcaucasus, the former Yugoslavia, and so on. Is that question not worth putting to the Chancellor?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that we are getting into rather hypothetical areas. I prefer to stay where I am.

Beef Exports: Ban
2.48 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the absence of any firm commitment either by the European Commission or by the governments of member countries to suspend the ban on the export of British beef, they will abandon the proposal for selective slaughter.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a Statement shortly in the other place. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that that will limit what I can say to him today. However, I can confirm that we shall be implementing in full the Florence agreement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend in that he finds himself constrained by the rules from telling the House whether what was said on the BBC this morning was true or not. That is not his fault and I make no point of it; I am extremely sorry for him. However, will he bear in mind that, in the event of the cull going ahead and there being no date agreed either by the Commission or by member governments for the raising of the ban, this move will be greeted with widespread dismay, if not horror?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think not. There has been a very considerable turn-around in farmers' opinions on this matter over the past few months. Farming organisations, and now farmers themselves, are clearly wholeheartedly in favour of some form of selective cull if it is quite clear that a selective cull is the only way in which we can make progress on the matter of exports. If that is what we decide to do, I am certain that all sides of the House will support us.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many farmers who do not support the NFU's call for a targeted cull but go along with veterinary opinion and that of the Government's scientific advisers that this will do little to speed up the end of BSE? Given that the consumer confidence card is being played, will the Minister explain how
1270
confidence is increased by killing livestock unnecessarily? Given, too, that farmers have experienced great difficulty in gaining access to slaughtering facilities for their normal culls, will the Minister agree that the NFU's claim that farmers have been undertaking the targeted cull themselves is purely hogwash?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear that any selective cull is for the purposes of making progress in relation to lifting the European export ban. It will reduce the number of animals dying of BSE but it will not bring forward by one day the elimination of the disease. Nonetheless, that is felt by many to be something worth achieving. I should have thought that, as a dairy farmer, the noble Lord would understand that his colleagues in the beef industry have particularly strong feelings on this matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on this side of the House we are very pleased that the Government have at last made up their mind, in view of the tremendous harm that they have done by making an agreement at Florence, then putting it into suspension and then going back to it? If the Government are to be consistent, at least that may restore some of the respect felt for us in Europe and may eventually help to achieve an agreed lifting of the ban.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Rathcreedan: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that in the event of the cull going ahead, the Government are confident of being able to trace all the animals that will be at most risk from BSE? That may be a weakness when we return to our European partners and say that we have carried out the Florence agreement: they may cast doubt on whether we have been able to trace all the unregistered cattle (not pedigree cattle but those that are unregistered) which will need to be slaughtered in order to fulfil our side of the bargain.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, should we go ahead, we shall have to wait and see exactly what state all the necessary records are in. Clearly, no exercise has been carried out to trace these cattle. Until it is done, I do not wish to put my head on the block to say that it will be perfectly executed. However, at the moment we have no reason to suspect that we cannot carry out the necessary tracing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on the radio this morning a Member of the other place from Ulster advised the audience that the ban on beef sales from Ulster would be lifted within two months of certain government actions? Can the Minister confirm that it is a feasible proposition that cattle from Ulster would be allowed to be exported?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are looking at a United Kingdom solution, not a solution for any particular part of the UK. Ulster has certain advantages; namely, its

1271
cattle traceability system and the low incidence of BSE. But I have no information that any special arrangements are proposed or are being made for Ulster as opposed to those for herds that might fall within some particular category.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is only a few weeks since the Government said that they did not intend to go ahead with the selective slaughter scheme because it would not make much difference to the incidence of BSE and our European partners would not lift the export ban even if the scheme were introduced? His right honourable friend the agriculture Minister stated that in another place on 15th October. Now it seems that there is a complete U-turn. Apparently the Government are going ahead with the scheme but still with no guarantee of a lifting of the export ban. Why has there been this change of mind?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think there has been a great change of mind. We said that we would pause and examine again the science on a selective cull, and that we would consult with our European partners whether there might be better ways forward. During that time the farming unions have changed their mind. That makes a considerable difference as to how effective and appropriate a selective slaughter policy might be. I do not think that we are looking at anything that can be described as a U-turn. Rather, we looked for a sensible confirmation that what we proposed was right before we went ahead.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what has been the cost to date of the selective slaughter scheme?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have that information. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister say what the cost will be of the additional cull? Is he aware that people in this country, including myself, are completely and utterly bewildered at government policy? The Government say that there is no scientific evidence for the cull and yet they can give no guarantee that, if it is carried out, the export ban will be lifted. So apparently, at great cost to the taxpayer, we are to kill a further 142,000 animals for no definite good purpose. Will the Minister say whether he has received any statement or any representation from the RSPCA, which ought to be concerned about the fate of over 1 million cows?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware of any representations on this matter from the RSPCA. There are many aspects to the noble Lord's question which, with leave, I shall skirt round since they will be covered in the Statement in another place later today. It seems quite sensible on some occasions to take a risk and rely on one's partners being as good as their word, to put
1272
oneself in the position where one has the advantage of the high ground and to hope that those with whom one is in association live up to their word too.

Housing Benefit
2.57 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will defer the introduction of their proposal to restrict housing benefit for single people to the rate for shared accommodation until they have evidence to show that the supply of shared accommodation is sufficient for the purpose.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are consulting the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations on this proposal and will take final decisions after considering carefully all representations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister remember that when he introduced a similar restriction on housing benefit for the under-25s the view was expressed that there was simply not enough shared accommodation to go round? Does he now have any reason to believe that there is enough shared accommodation for the under-60s? Or does he believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, once put it, that it will be all right on the night?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the evidence that we have seen in relation to the position of students, for example, suggests that a growth in private accommodation available for people to use on a single room basis took place over the two years from 1993–94 to 1995–96. As regards changes that we have already made for the under-25s, we have monitored the results of that policy through discussions with rent officers and through day-to-day contact with local authorities. All the sources suggest that there have been very few hard cases and that the situation is working reasonably well. We believe that the market will respond to the new changes, as it does to every other change.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister also prepared to consider the views of the associations of ex-service men and women who express anxiety about this proposal? As I am sure the Minister will agree, they have a right to have their views considered.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was not aware that any ex-service organisations had expressed anxiety on the point. As I would be the person to receive any mail from them, I shall check when I return to the office but as of an hour ago I had received no such observations from that source.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, that is why they write to me, they do not trust others.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the example of, say, a middle-aged

1273
woman who cares full-time for her frail mother in a self-contained flat and they are on housing benefit? However, next October the elderly mother dies. If the changes go through, will not the carer lose her home, because she will only receive sufficient housing benefit to cover a bed-sit? She has lost her mother and, after 30 years, will lose her home. She may be forced into a squalid and unsafe bed-sit, sharing kitchen and bathroom with strangers, alcoholics and former offenders. For paltry savings, is that decent for a middle-aged woman?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as is so often the case, the noble Baroness dramatises the situation almost beyond recognition. The position is that we believe that single people on benefit ought to be under the same strictures as single working people; namely, they must take account of their income when deciding on the kind of accommodation they can afford. That is the case for everyone in this country and it should also apply for those on benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the situation which I described of a middle-aged vulnerable woman—a carer who loses her parent—if the regulations go through from next October she will also lose her home?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am reluctant to follow the noble Baroness down her imaginary route. The position will be that a single person will be eligible for the single rate base of housing benefit. Whether she can stay in the house she inhabits will depend largely on the difference in rent and whether she can afford to bridge the gap. As usual, the position is, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, exaggerates hugely. It would be nice to hear from her whether she and her party intend to see increases in social security spending over and above that planned for the next two or three years. Your Lordships might be interested to hear from her and her party the answer to that question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will the Minister confirm another example known to me? It is of a single woman occupying a six-bedroomed house. All her rent except £8 a year is paid for by the local authority. That denies five bedrooms to a family that needs them when she only needs one bedroom.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend paints another picture, but one that we know exists. It underlines the point that people should not be able to afford accommodation at the expense of the taxpayer which they could not afford if they were on modest earnings.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if he will possess his soul in patience for a few months, he will be able to ask my noble friend that question? He will be in opposition and she will be in government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, from that question I presume that, first, the noble Lord has
1274
looked into his crystal ball. He must have found it very cloudy indeed if he thinks that that will be the outcome. Secondly, I presume that the party opposite will not put a figure on a single promise or a single tax increase between now and the next election.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister harangues the House about the morality of his policy, could he try to ascertain its possibility? Before introducing his policy it would be simple for him to conduct a survey of the amount of shared accommodation available. Will he undertake to do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, unfortunately I have not had much time to research the Question because until Thursday afternoon the noble Earl had tabled a quite different Question on the Order Paper. It was only changed to one on housing benefit on Thursday afternoon. My understanding is that there are 670,000 single people in houses or flat-shares in the de-regulated sector. In other words, they are in shared accommodation, either directly paying rent to the landlord or, in partnership with other people, sharing the rent of the flat or the house. The situation already exists. Everyone knows from their youth that that is how they started and that is how our children start in shared accommodation. They do that because it is what they can afford. The same rule of affordability ought to apply to people on benefit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister accused my noble friend of dramatising the situation because she gave a specific example. Perhaps I may ask him a more general question. If, according to his previous answer, the rate of housing benefit in future will he single housing benefit, does it mean that if a married couple have been on housing benefit and one of them dies, the widow or widower will no longer receive sufficient housing benefit to remain in their matrimonial home?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are talking about people under the age of 59. The noble Baroness did not give me a real example. If it was real, I should be interested to know the name and address of the person and I would look into it.
On the general question, if someone is in the situation postulated by the noble Lord where a person dies, the partner—husband or wife—will remain for 52 weeks on the housing benefit already in place. The housing benefit will then be reviewed and will be at the level of the single person's charge. It will then be for that person to decide whether they can bridge the gap in some way or move to accommodation they can afford. However, that happens to people who are in work. Why should it only be people in work who are confronted with these dilemmas and not those who are on housing benefit?
Baroness Gardner of Parks: My Lord—
Lords McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is the turn of our side, we have only had one question on the

1275
matter. Can my noble friend answer a question on the incentive given in his Budget by the Chancellor enabling a landlord letting a room in his own home to receive an additional £1,000? Would such a property be available for people on housing benefit and is that classified as shared accommodation if a person takes a room in someone's home?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that important tax incentive. The tax threshold to enable owner-occupiers to rent out their spare rooms will be increased to £4,250 from April 1997. That is important. One of the great problems we must face in this country is the increasing creation of single person households. The Opposition can stand on their high horses as much as they like, but it is a reality. Looking into the future, 4.4 million new households will be formed over the next 15 or 20 years. Eighty per cent. of them will be single-person households.
We have to look to the public purse; at least, we on this side must do so and we must try to contain the increase in housing benefit. If the party opposite has no desire to contain any of the increases in benefit costs, then so be it. Let them say that to the electorate.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the economic summit in Dublin.

Telecommunications (Fraud) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Police Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Clause 47,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 2 to 17,

Schedule 3,

1276

Clauses 18 to 44,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 45 and 46,

Clauses 48 to 62,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 63 to 88,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 89 to 96,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 97 to 99,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 100 to 124,

Schedules 9 and 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Rule Committee]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("including at least one with particular experience of practice in county courts").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 2.
The amendments mirror those tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner at the previous stage. At that stage I undertook to reconsider the amendments.
As I have stated previously, it is my intention that the lawyer members of the new rule committee should be able to bring with them the broadest possible range of litigation experience. I take the point that it is important to ensure that at least some of the practitioner members on the rule committee have up to date and extensive knowledge of the practice of the county courts. That had always been my intention; my only doubt was whether it needed to be said. On reflection, I am content to adopt the way the point was addressed in the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to move this amendment. It will be a particular pleasure to the Bar Council, which was anxious that this point should be made as so much of the civil work is now dealt with in the county courts, whose jurisdiction is constantly being extended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("including at least one with particular experience of practice in county courts").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which enables the Lord Chancellor to reimburse rule committee members for their travel and subsistence claims for attending meetings. A similar clause is included in Amendment No. 6 for members of the Civil Justice Council. I think it is clear that this is a reasonable provision to make.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, after ("Rules,") insert—
("(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5.
These amendments arise out of the discussion which focused on the desirability of a new rule committee being a "meeting" committee. It is clear that at the present moment the county court rule committee meets whereas the Supreme Court rule committee does not meet. I believe that the intention of all noble Lords who took part in the discussion was that the new Supreme Court rule committee should follow the model of the county court rule committee. The amendment is designed to secure that that would be the ordinary way in which the rule committee should consider rule changes rather than purely by correspondence.
However, looking at the practice of the county court committee, there are certain occasions when a full meeting of the committee is not necessary, or indeed desirable. For example, there may be minor technical amendments that would not warrant a full meeting. There may be occasions when the committee has all but agreed a rule change but leaves the final drafting to be handled by correspondence. There might also be very urgent rule changes required and it would not be practical to have to convene a full meeting.
The amendments proposed address the balance that is required. The clear message is that the working method of the committee is by meeting. The reservation regarding inexpediency would fall to be construed, if need be, as an objective requirement.
I have considered the possibility of other formulations, but having regard to the advice that I have received and to the way in which the county court rule committee appears to function satisfactorily, with a good balance between meeting and work done on correspondence, this would appear to me to be a reasonable way of expressing the balance of legislation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert (", and
(b) meet (unless it is inexpedient to do so).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause
CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor is to establish and maintain an advisory body, to be known as the Civil Justice Council.
(2) The Council must include—

(a) members of the judiciary,

(b) members of the legal professions,

(c) civil servants concerned with the administration of the courts,

(d) persons with experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs,

(e) persons with experience in and knowledge of the lay advice sector, and

(f) persons able to represent the interests of particular kinds of litigants (for example, businesses or employees).

(3) The functions of the Council are to include—

(a) keeping the civil justice system under review,

(b) considering how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair and efficient,

(c) advising the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary on the development of the civil justice system,

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

(e) making proposals for research.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is brought forward in fulfilment of my undertaking on the last occasion to bring forward a government amendment to establish a Civil Justice Council.
The amendment before your Lordships today attempts to capture both the substance of the amendment as tabled at earlier stages, and also to address other points raised in the very helpful debate that we had on Report. As with the original versions of the draft amendment, I have attempted to preserve the underlying inclusive nature of the council in relation to its participants and its functions. I think it right that the council should be able to develop with some flexibility. Therefore, adopting the line taken in the original amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and others, I feel that this amendment retains a considerable degree of flexibility.
There are some points which require consideration. First, I have added an express provision which will emphasise the advisory nature of the council. Many of the individual functions contained in subsection (3) paragraphs (a) to (e) are different expressions of the ways in which the council as an advisory body will

1279
promote the aims of the civil justice system. Secondly, I have also thought it might be helpful to link the functions of the council to the overall aim in similar terms to those contained in the purpose clause. This is now reflected in subsection (3)(b) of the new clause.
Your Lordships will also see that the clause provides that the duty of establishing and maintaining the council falls to the Lord Chancellor. I can see that we do not want an elaborate regime for appointments to the council. But it seems right that the Lord Chancellor should have the responsibility of taking forward the task of establishing the council.
I have also made a provision similar to that for the rule committee which would enable payment to be made to members of the council for travelling and other expenses. I feel it is appropriate that that should be done. Also, following our discussions on Report regarding the assistance which the council might provide to members of the senior judiciary other than just the head of Civil Justice, I have broadened that category to include advising all the judiciary, including the Lord Chancellor, on future developments.
The final point of detail to which I would draw attention is that, as regards the main participants on the council I have added reference to those representing the interests of particular kinds of litigants. I have in mind that there may be those, for example, in business for whom the efficiency of the operation of the civil courts is a vital consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7:
Line 14, at end insert ("and in particular monitoring the impact of proposed changes.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for tabling his amendments following his acceptance in principle of Amendment No. 2 moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in regard to setting up the council.
I think that my amendments can with confidence be described as exceedingly modest. They are designed to do merely one thing; namely, to emphasise the stature of this council. Before I justify very shortly each of the amendments, I remind your Lordships first that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, who is not here but who has written to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, myself and others supporting my amendments, said on Second Reading that the council was a central plank to his recommendations. Perhaps I may also put on record again the short excerpt from a speech he gave recently at the memorial lecture for Mr. Sargant, which was devoted almost entirely to the council and was in these terms:
"When I set out on the inquiry which resulted in the 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
1280
absence of a broadly based body which has the clear responsibility of monitoring the justice system as a whole and identifying the areas which are in need of reform".
He was referring to the council. Before turning to the amendments I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in the debate on Report. He said:
"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-.—[Official Report, 9/12/96; col. 875.]
Turning to the specific amendments, Amendment No. 7 does no more than stress what is the essential function of the council; that is, to monitor the impact of the proposed changes. Hence, those words are added to proposed subsection (3)(a). Amendment No. 8 provides that the proposals for research should be capable of being initiated by the council and I have returned to the words of the amendment agreed by your Lordships in principle on Report, taking out the word "making" and replacing it by "commissioning". It therefore reads, "commissioning proposals for research", which was the original proposal. That emphasises that this is not purely a consultative body.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 should be taken together. They deal with the question of payment. The provision, as it stands, reads:
"The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses".
That is an indication of Treasury parsimony on the very face of the Bill. It downgrades the stature of the committee. I have looked up the many pages devoted in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Standards, a committee charged with far less responsibility than this committee. It has made reports from time to time, the majority of which have not found support from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The function of the new council is to make sure that the root and branch alterations proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, and accepted in principle by everybody, go through properly. In place of the limitation to making payment of out-of-pocket and travelling expenses, I have inserted:
"Such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as he [the Lord Chancellor] may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine".
It provides a discretion to my noble and learned friend and he has to obtain the concurrence of the Treasury. It imposes no obligation at all except the need to consider the merits of any specific expense. Those are the words which adorn the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee under the Act to which I have just referred. That Act and the schedules go into detail with pensions, compensation and other matters. The amendment merely gives a wider discretion to the Lord Chancellor than he proposed.
Finally, we have the addition in Amendment No. 11 that,
"The Council shall submit to the Lord Chancellor an annual report on the discharge of its functions',
and,
"The Lord Chancellor shall lay the Council's annual report before each House of Parliament".
Again, that is one of the obligations of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee to which I have just referred. It is only right that, with the obligation cast upon this committee to monitor, the public should see what are the results of that monitoring; what is going right and what is going wrong. All I seek to do, therefore, is to enhance the stature of the committee and make sure that it performs the vital task which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf suggested it must be there to do. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I briefly "croak" my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in these amendments. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was speaking in the earlier parts of the Bill, he said that he would keep an open mind with regard to the civil justice council. It is with pleasure that we on these Benches note that he has kept an open mind and has given the council a statutory form. Nevertheless, the three matters referred to in the amendments are of importance.
It is of vital importance that the reforms put in place by the Bill are properly monitored and not simply reviewed; that is to say, that those members of the civil justice council who come from various parts representing various interests should be able to express what is happening on the ground as the reforms are put into place and the new rules come into effect so that any review of those rules can be informed and cogently commented upon.
The later amendments deal with remuneration. It may well be that, in relation to the first three categories of membership of the council—that is, the judiciary, members of the legal profession and civil servants from the Lord Chancellor's Department—service upon the council may be seen to be a legitimate form of career development. But that cannot be said for the other three categories who represent consumer interests and so forth. They are people who would be giving of their time without any possibility that their careers may be affected one way or the other. Such people should be properly remunerated for the job which they undertake.
Finally, with regard to the third aspect of the matter, the annual report, it is right that Parliament should be kept informed of the effectiveness of the Civil Justice Council. One would not wish it to become simply a body talking to itself. If it is to be effective, it must not only carry out its functions but make sure that that work is fully understood and accepted by Parliament. Therefore, I support the amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in supporting my noble and learned friend in moving Amendment No. 6, I desire to make two observations. At Report I spoke of how flattered I was that the noble Lord who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench adopted in its entirety the amendment that I had tabled in Committee. That flattery goes further, because the noble and learned Lord has picked up not only the principle but the functions of my amendment and has tabled and now moved it in your Lordships' House.
My second observation goes to the quality of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Over the years I have moved many amendments in your Lordships' House. If I may lay modesty aside, I have learnt to draft with precision, simplicity and clarity. But it has never been my experience that the text in that regard of my amendments has actually been improved by Her Majesty's Government when they have on the rare occasion accepted my amendments in principle. So often the clear has become obscure and the simple complex. It was therefore with delight that I read the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It was not only precise, simple and clear, but in terms of looking at the whole scope of the function of the proposed Civil Justice Council, he has taken matters a great deal further forward.
That does not mean to say that there is not some room for improvement. I am attracted by Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am attracted, too, by Amendment No. 11. I am not sure whether it is necessary to go to Amendment No. 12. However, if it is necessary to do so, I shall certainly support that. I observe that Amendment No. 7 rather clutters the text. I know the original source of that amendment. It comes from the amendment I tabled in Committee! But it seems to me that the wording of the main draft of my noble and learned friend,
"keeping the civil justice system under review",
is sufficient to cover monitoring as well.
I do not desire to make any observations about the Treasury issues—my noble friend Lord Renton will make some observations about those—which come out in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but there are one or two points in it that do not need to be included. Paragraph (d) refers to,
"persons with experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs".
I wonder why. Litigants are not consumers. Litigants are in any event referred to in paragraph (f) in very wise terms:
"persons able to represent the interests of particular kinds of litigants (for example, businesses or employees)".
I should have thought that that makes paragraph (d) quite unnecessary.

1283
I am a little puzzled by the expression in paragraph (e) about the lay advice sector. If my noble and learned friend could explain what that is, it would enlighten me at any rate, although it may be that other noble Lords understand it.
I come now to subsection (3)(e) on research, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had a good deal to say. I do not agree with him on Amendment No. 8. I prefer the way that the Lord Chancellor has put it:
"making proposals for research".
That does not mean to say that the new body will itself have to carry out the research or commission it. It means that it will be able to make proposals to the Lord Chancellor for the carrying out of research. If I may say so with respect, that is the better way to do it.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to Amendments Nos. 7 to 12. I agree with Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 12. I have already mentioned that I do not agree with Amendment No. 8 and hope that it will be withdrawn. I do not think Amendment No. 10 is necessary. The Lord Chancellor has drafted his amendment in a short and simple way. It says:
"The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses".
I do not think we need more than that. I do not think we need to drag into this the consent of the Treasury. We often drag the Treasury into giving consent to expenditure, for which in any event Ministers answerable to Parliament are responsible. I do not think it is necessary to drag in the Treasury.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, with regard to his comment in relation to subsection (4) of the amendment and my proposed Amendment No. 10, does he appreciate that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor only gives power to reimburse travelling and out-of-pocket expenses whereas my proposal is not the same? It is a trifle more ambitious because it refers to "remuneration" as well as "travelling and other allowances"?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out an omission on my part. However, it was at the back of my mind that if they received their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses that was all that needed to be paid to them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at the moment we are primarily discussing Amendment No. 7. In my submission the phrase that we use,
"keeping the civil justice system under review",
is perfectly adequate to deal with any form of monitoring that the council thinks fit to engage in. There is an ambiguity at the very least in Amendment No. 7 in that it refers to,
"monitoring the impact of proposed changes".
I think I gathered the sense of what my noble and learned friend was speaking of as monitoring the impact of the changes presently proposed. But as a statutory
1284
provision this will go on for a long time in the future and it is not quite correct to talk about monitoring the impact of proposed changes in that kind of way because the changes would need to be adopted and put into effect before their impact could be monitored.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8. I do not know that there is much difference between "commissioning" proposals for research and "making" such proposals. I believe that the word "making" is probably the most direct and effective. Therefore, I prefer my own draft on that matter. As regards Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, my view is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, that this is not the sort of council in which it is right to have a provision for remuneration. If there is money available for the civil justice system, on the whole I would prefer it to be used in advancing the system itself rather than in examining it.
On Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I explained on the last occasion that I understood that the Vice-Chancellor intends to submit an annual report. It has become quite customary now for courts to do that. It is certainly perfectly easy for him to incorporate into the report an account of the work of the civil justice council, which would be part of the total arrangement for the monitoring of civil justice. Accordingly, as far as I am concerned at the present stage and in the light of the arguments that we have heard so far, I would prefer my own Amendment No. 6 unamended by Amendments Nos. 7 to 12. Of course, the Bill will now go to another place, but as far as I am concerned that is the way that I believe the argument has taken us so far.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he be so kind as to deal with the point I mentioned about consumer affairs? If he agrees with me, an amendment can be moved in another place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was really concentrating on the fact that at the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 7. I come to the question that my noble friend asked. It is true that not all litigants are consumers. I was thinking of those who have a general interest in, and responsibility for, matters connected with consumers who as a body are regularly in the court dealing with what is referred to very often as a "consumer contract". That is a body of opinion of very considerable value in relation to the civil justice system.
My noble friend also asked about the lay advice sector. By that I mean the sector which provides advice not necessarily by qualified lawyers. I have in mind specifically the citizens advice bureaux. My noble friend may recollect that having received the report of Lord Justice Otton on litigants in person, one of the suggestions was that I should make some grant to the citizens advice bureaux in the Royal Courts of Justice. It is right to say that the lay advice sector is important in relation to litigants in person who are quite an important part of the total system. In a sense, each litigant is on his or her own. It is not easy to get a body

1285
that represents litigants as a whole. Therefore, we have tried to break it up in this way under the three heads to which I have referred.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down can he help me as regards my amendment proposing that he should have discretion to pay remuneration and the obligation on the council to make an annual report? Both that discretion and that obligation are imposed in relation to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on education and standards. Can he tell us why there should be this marked difference between the two, particularly when one bears in mind that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, proposed, as a result of a two-year study, is accepted to be a root and branch amendment to the civil justice system and therefore involves matters of complexity and importance, certainly as great as advising on education and standards, if not more so?
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it depends to some extent on the nature of the arrangements. As regards this council, I would expect it to be represented in its membership primarily by those with positions in the civil justice system already in the various parts of it referred to in subsection (2)(a) to (f) of the new clause. As my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf indicated on the last occasion he spoke here, he did not expect the number of meetings to be too many. He did not regard it as something that would be very costly from the point of view of resources.
This is dealing with a system in which there are existing, as my noble friend Lord Renton said previously, a number of people with responsibilities already directly on them. Of course, the Lord Chancellor is directly responsible to Parliament in relation to the civil justice system. As I said, at this stage I am not anxious to impose on this council any more in the way of obligations than is necessary to set up the council properly. If the council wishes, and thinks it helpful to submit a report to the public through the Lord Chancellor, there is absolutely nothing to prevent it from doing so. I did explain that the head of the civil justice system intends to make an annual report of that character. The Master of the Rolls also now makes an annual report. As far as I know there is no statutory obligation for him to do so. As regards remuneration, the point that I made a moment ago is the principal one I have to make in that connection.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, because I am also croaking, I have kept my counsel until I had the advantage of hearing the debate, in particular on Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We have been advocating throughout the whole progress of this Bill the establishment of a civil justice council. We therefore welcome Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which closely corresponds to the amendment I moved at Report stage. I am happy, of course, to concede primary authorship for that amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
1286
Dealing in detail with Amendments Nos. 7 to 12, I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the provision that the functions of the council are to include keeping the civil justice system under review would comprehend monitoring the implementation of the proposals in practice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I agree that the words "proposed changes" are not the happiest.
As regards substituting the word "commissioning" for "making" in proposals for research—namely, Amendment No. 8—I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, clarify what is comprehended by "commissioning". I would understand "making" proposals for research to mean that the new civil justice council will make proposals to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It appears to me that "commissioning"—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will confirm or no—would involve the council being entitled itself to commission and therefore to be obliged to pay for research of whatever kind and whatever extent. I certainly do not believe that that can be supported.
As regards remuneration, as I understand it, what is contemplated by the civil justice council is not paid employment for those persons who serve on the council. I would not have thought that an obligation to provide remuneration as distinct from the reimbursement of expenses was necessary in order to have an effective council.
I am, however, rather persuaded that Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 should be considered further. It may be that if the noble and learned Lord reflects further on this matter—and perhaps in relation to the other place—these amendments may be conceded. It is rather odd to have a statutory body such as this council that has no obligation to report to the Lord Chancellor or to either House of Parliament, which has set it up, exactly what it is doing. I was impressed by the short argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it should not be a body that talks to itself but a body whose discussions are known about. That can be done only through a report. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that the head of civil justice will presumably in ordinary course be reporting upon its activities. One must bear in mind that the head of civil justice is not underpinned by statute at all. He was created by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—his choice was that of the present Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott—following the recommendation in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that a head of civil justice be created. However, the head of civil justice is not a position that is underpinned by statute. Therefore, he is under no obligation to report. The Civil Justice Council is a statutory body. It would be odd if that did not have an obligation to report whereas the head of civil justice, a post not created by statute, could be expected to report on the transaction of his functions and also the transaction of its functions by the statutory body. I urge the noble and learned Lord to reconsider his response to

1287
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Apart from that, I have made my observations in relation to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 inclusive.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 7 monitoring is involved in the general obligation to keep the matter under review. That is recognised by my phraseology "and in particular". It merely emphasises one particular feature of the monitoring. I do not mind if it is not there. If it is thought that that emphasis is unnecessary I shall press it no further.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, invites me to explain why I have inserted "commissioning". That is an unusual request, because the phrase "to commission research into the proposed changes in the justice system" reflects the very wording of the amendment that he moved so successfully on the last occasion. I would have thought that he would have known more about it than I do. On the assumption that he does not, I assist him in the following way. I want the council to be in a position to take the initiative. It is not there just to make advisory noises that can be ignored. It should be capable of standing up and doing something. That was my understanding of why the noble Lord inserted it last time, and it was on that basis that I supported his proposal.
There seems to be absolutely no reason why a similar committee that performs a less important task but is also a Lord Chancellor's advisory committee should receive remuneration but this one will not. It may be that when the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee was set up it was looked upon with greater favour by the Treasury than this one is likely to be.
I come to the question of the annual report. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has admitted what is well established. There is no statutory obligation on either the head of civil justice or the head of any division to make an annual report. The Chief Justice does not do so. I believe that the practice was begun by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson when he was Master of the Rolls. It is entirely for them to decide whether they believe that to be helpful. Certainly, if the Vice-Chancellor were to make a report I would not expect him to do so on behalf of inter alios the members of the council.
I give your Lordships an example of why it is so important that they make an annual report. Suppose, as I have rather pessimistically assumed, that there are problems in obtaining resources and the council reports to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there are too few judges, that judges are not properly trained and that the new system is breaking down. Suppose that it receives no satisfactory response. I interpolate that no very satisfactory response was obtained by former Lord Chief Justices when they asked for more High Court judges three or four years ago. The council should be in a position to say in an annual report that it has reported a number of serious matters and pointed out what is needed but has got nowhere. That should come before Parliament, where effective pressure can be brought to bear. If the council has no statutory obligation to say that it is difficult to see how the matter
1288
will come before Parliament, except perhaps by a Starred Question. That is essentially the reason why this matter is so important. I, too, urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give further consideration to the matter. His own advisory committee on legal education and standards has that obligation. Why not this body? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to assist before I sit down.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this matter. However, since I have received such a generous invitation, with your Lordships' leave perhaps I may speak again. I made it plain from the outset of the Bill that I would listen to all that was said without necessarily arriving at a final conclusion on everything the first time it was mentioned. I see the force of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I believe that they require further consideration. I am anxious not to create an unnecessary obstacle to the use of available resources for the civil justice system itself rather than a body that is responsible for monitoring it. On the whole, the chances are that the money will be better used if it is devoted to the system itself rather than to a monitoring system. I am certainly willing to consider these matters further, but at the present time I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in view of the willingness of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider this matter further, and perhaps urge that action be taken in another place at least in regard to the question of submitting annual reports and Parliament's opportunity to see them, I shall not ask the House to divide on any of these amendments.
Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12, as amendments to Amendment No. 6, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.
It is now nine months since, on 14th March, my noble friend Lord Lindsay repeated a Statement in this House on the tragic events in Dunblane Primary School. The House listened in shock and sadness. Noble Lords on all sides of the House spoke of the horror felt throughout the United Kingdom.
Now, nine months later, we are debating the Bill which the Government have introduced in response to those events and the report upon them made by Lord Cullen.

1289
Thomas Hamilton was the legal owner of four high calibre handguns. In the gym in Dunblane Primary School he fired 105 shots in a period of under four minutes. He killed 16 children and their teacher. He wounded 12 other children and three adults. This gave rise to a reappraisal of firearms controls in this country. Lord Cullen was invited to hold a public inquiry and to make recommendations to the Government.
Lord Cullen's report contained 22 specific recommendations to improve upon the existing controls on handguns and, in some cases, firearms in general, and all of these recommendations have been accepted by the Government. Those that require legislation to be brought into effect are covered in this Bill: recommendations which do not require legislation will be introduced administratively. We are also considering his suggestion for amending the appeal system for firearm certificates.
As noble Lords will know, the Government adopted a different approach from that suggested by Lord Cullen on the control of handguns, and I shall explain why we reached that judgment in a moment.
First, I should tell the House that the Government have incorporated a number of changes to the Bill since it was first published on 1st November. These take account of points made during debates in another place and the Bill is strengthened as a result. We have extended the scope of the compensation payment scheme to include ancillary equipment that is used in connection with the high calibre handguns that will become prohibited as a result of the proposals set out in the Bill. We have also taken a power to make payments to owners of small calibre handguns who decide to surrender their pistols to the police if they choose not to join a club.
We have amended the principal clause to exempt muzzle loading guns from the general prohibition on handguns, and we have similarly taken the opportunity of putting carbon dioxide weapons on a par with ordinary air weapons. That is in Clause 38.
Exemptions have also been made to the provisions on expanding ammunition so that people needing to use it for killing wildlife while carrying out their estate management duties will continue to be able to do so. The current wording, "in connection with" in Clause 26 already allows those entitled to use this ammunition for the humane killing of animals to "zero" or adjust their rifles for accuracy.
There will be no change to the existing arrangements for antique firearms. The Government fully understand the importance of the antiques trade and the sentimental and historical value that such guns have. The Government need to do whatever they can—commensurate with public safety—to preserve the nation's historic collection of handguns in private ownership.
My department has been discussing proposals which have been advanced from a number of heritage groups, and has also listened to the views of the Firearms Consultative Committee. In the light of these discussions the Government will table an amendment
1290
for Committee stage which will allow some historic handguns to be exempted from the general prohibition. We are still working on the details.
The amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, calls upon your Lordships to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading because it runs counter to natural justice and does not represent a considered response to the Dunblane tragedy. I have to say that the Bill has come to this House, having been presented to, considered and amended by another place. I believe that today we should follow the normal convention of this House and give the Bill a Second Reading. Consideration in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading presents the proper opportunity for this House to give full expression to its views and its concerns and, where necessary, to seek amendments to the Bill.
Lord Cullen made no formal recommendation on the control of handguns, which he saw as a matter,
"peculiarly within the province of Government and Parliament to decide".
That appears in paragraph 9.111. But he did make two alternative suggestions which are set out at paragraph 24 of his list of recommendations. He saw these as matters which should be considered further by the Government.
His first suggestion was for the disablement of multi-shot handguns when not in use. Lord Cullen suggested that the disabling of multi-shot handguns could either be by removing the slide assembly or cylinder, either of which might be kept securely at an approved club, or by fitting a locked barrel block by an official of the approved club. Many handguns, perhaps more than 90 per cent. of them, could be dismantled in some way or another. However, there are problems with such an approach which have been identified by the Forensic Science Service.
First, it would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual. Such an individual could find it easy to obtain an illicit spare. He might do this by holding back a part of the gun from storage. For example, some individuals will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol. Alternatively, the purchase of an officially deactivated firearm of the same make and model as that held on his certificate would provide outwardly convincing components to be substituted at the time of storage. A barrel block could be readily removed by someone with access to metal working tools.
Lord Cullen went on to say that if disabling was not workable, consideration should be given,
"to the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners".
As Lord Cullen explained in paragraph 9.113 of the report, he envisaged that such guns could be owned only by shooting clubs, where they would be available for use by members. This suggestion would have put an end to serious competitive shooting, since it is vital for a competitive shooter to have a gun which is made and tailored to his specification.

1291
I believe that if the case is accepted for allowing some handguns to be kept in licensed clubs, as Lord Cullen did, then individual target shooters should be free to continue to own them. Indeed, competitive target shooting would not be viable unless those taking part were able to use their own guns and to use them exclusively. The Government therefore have decided to adopt a different approach which draws a distinction between low calibre and high calibre handguns.
As Lord Cullen said, in paragraph 9.44, higher calibre handguns are not target guns in the true and original sense. Many have been developed by the police and the military for self-defence. Their wider use has encouraged some shooters to don the trappings of combat—such as camouflage clothing—and this has, in Lord Cullen's own words in paragraph 9.44,
"caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power".
Target shooting with high calibre handguns has not been a sport in the Olympic Games for some years.
In contrast to higher calibre cartridges, the power of a .22 rimfire cartridge is limited by its special design. It is constructed of thin metal to enable the rim to be crushed when hit by the firing pin. A .22 rimfire handgun is between four to six times less powerful than a typical full calibre handgun.
Taking account of all these factors and having regard to public safety, the Government have concluded that it is no longer acceptable for higher calibre guns to be owned and used by private individuals. Nor could the Government accept that any handguns could be stored in people's homes. The Government believe that with adequate security measures .22 rimfire cartridges can be stored safely in licensed clubs which will have to meet stringent conditions. That is our position which is reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 set out certain exemptions to the ban. Clause 2 deals with those working in abattoirs; Clause 3 with vets, RSPCA officers and others who are involved in the humane killing of animals.
Clause 4 exempts match officials at sports meetings who use starter pistols, and Clause 5 exempts handguns obtained as trophies of war before 1946. The Government will be tabling an amendment to allow trophies to be inherited by the families of the original holders. In all these exemptions, the holder will be required to hold the guns on a firearms certificate and conform to any conditions that the police may place upon him.
Clauses 6 to 9 set out the arrangements under which smaller calibre pistols will be kept in clubs. Clause 10 requires the surrender of guns and ammunition which are to be prohibited. Clause 11 deals with the subject of compensation payments. I hope that the House will forgive me if I now take a little time to make the Government's position clear on that issue.
It has always been the Government's position that payments should be made to those to whom we have a legal obligation. That obligation covers all handguns which become prohibited and are surrendered to the
1292
police, as well as certain accessories that can be used only in connection with those guns. Both individuals and dealers will be eligible for compensation for such guns and accessories.
In the case of individual higher calibre guns and accessories, the Government intend to draw up a list of approximate values which they will discuss with the British Shooting Sports Council and the Firearms Consultative Committee. We are also discussing with these bodies which accessories should be included. Gun owners will be able to accept either a flat rate payment or a payment based upon this list of values. If individual gun owners seek to challenge these valuations—for example, in respect of individual guns which they claim have special features which make them more valuable than the norm—they will be able to provide their own valuations and there will be access to independent valuation.
In addition, the Government will make payments available to the lawful owners of small calibre pistols who decide to surrender those pistols to the police rather than become a member of a licensed pistol club and store them on the club's premises.
Although the previous compensation scheme which was followed in 1988 was dealt with administratively, the Government have agreed that the details of the new scheme will be subject to parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution. A suitable amendment will be tabled for a later stage of the Bill's progress through this House.
As I said, we shall pay compensation for guns and accessories. We cannot, however, make payments for losses suffered by business. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of Government legislation. Where the effect of Government legislation is to deprive people or businesses of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This obligation arises also from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. But this is different from paying compensation for business losses or losses associated with the operation of a club.
The Government are obliged to act when they identify an issue which threatens the safety of the public. This happens with some regularity in one part of government or another. The BSE crisis, for example, has imposed huge losses on beef farmers, on those who provide feed stuffs and on the meat processing industry. It has caused some parts of the industry to be shut down entirely. The introduction of new fire regulations for hotels in the 1970s imposed very large costs on some hotel businesses and caused others to close completely. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave a number of other examples in debates in another place.
If the Government were to be required to pay compensation for business losses suffered by gun dealers and clubs as a result of this Bill, I believe that it would be very difficult for the Government to refuse to do so in relation to some of the other kinds of issues that I have mentioned. Much as I deeply regret the

1293
difficulties which gun clubs and firearms dealers are facing, the Government do not believe that their losses can be or should be underwritten by the taxpayer.
I turn now to the remainder of the Bill. Part II deals with the new arrangements for licensed pistol clubs. These will be licensed only if the Home Secretary, or the Secretary of State for Scotland in the case of Scottish clubs, is satisfied that they meet stringent conditions of security. Owners of these small calibre handguns will be able to use and store them only at these clubs. It will therefore be essential that very meticulous arrangements are in place for ensuring their safety. We are currently consulting the police service and others about the criteria that will be needed. The rest of this part of the Bill deals with the licensing regime that will apply, including the need for these clubs to maintain comprehensive registers of their members' attendances, which is in accordance with Lord Cullen's recommendation.
Part III of the Bill deals with the prohibition on expanding ammunition and the requirements on certificate holders to notify the police about the destruction of firearms listed on their certificates or of transactions involving those firearms. Part III also sets out a new requirement, as recommended by Lord Cullen, for applications for firearm certificates to be accompanied by the names and addresses of two referees who can be required to provide such information that may be prescribed. It is intended that referees will be asked to fill in a structured questionnaire, as Lord Cullen suggested. This part also amends the procedures for obtaining and granting firearm certificates. It gives the chief officer additional powers to revoke certificates if the holder no longer has a good reason for possessing the firearm, and partially to revoke a certificate. It extends constables' powers of entry, search and inspection, with warrants, to civilian officers authorised by the chief officer of police.
Lord Cullen recommended that consideration be given to the reform of the scope for appeal against decisions by the chief officer of police by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion (para. 8.119). We are consulting on this issue and expect to be able to come back to the House with the results of that exercise.
The final part contains financial provisions which provide for payments to be paid out from money voted by Parliament and fees received by the Secretary of State to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. It also makes provision for minor and consequential amendments and repeals, and provides that the Bill is to come into force as appointed by the Secretary of State.
There are three schedules. The first of these covers the transitional arrangements for the handing in to police stations of the small calibre pistols and their subsequent reissue once a certificate holder becomes a member of a licensed pistol club. Schedules 2 and 3 deal with minor amendments and repeals.
I understand that noble Lords may have strong concerns about this Bill. I also accept that there is one aspect on which we are all united; that is, in sharing with
1294
the nation our horror at what took place in Dunblane and our grief at the loss suffered by the families of the children who were murdered there.
I know that there are many who will speak in the debate today who feel very strongly about this issue and who have concerns about this Bill. I think that I can also claim that there is one issue which unites the whole House; it is the horror that I have mentioned. The convention of this House is that Bills sent from another place are given a Second Reading and usually without a vote. The House will wish to give expression to support for and opposition to the Bill and, therefore, I hope that consistent with the convention the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that full consideration of the detailed provisions can be given by this House at the further stages of the Bill.
The dreadful tragedy of Dunblane placed on the Government an inescapable duty to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns. We have not shirked that duty. We have derived great assistance from Lord Cullen's report. We shall implement all 22 of his specific recommendations. This Bill sets out the way in which the Government believe that his objective of strict control on access to handguns can most effectively he achieved. It places rigorous controls over the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of the small calibre pistols that may continue to be used for the sport of target shooting. It puts the safety of the public first. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch).
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford The Earl of Strafford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("That") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it runs counter to natural justice and does not represent a considered response to the Dunblane tragedy.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I must apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had expected there to be a Statement. I believe that it would also be courteous to advise the House that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I know that that will be a great relief to the Government Chief Whip and most, if not all, Members of your Lordships' House.
I owe it to the House to explain why I placed this amendment on the Order Paper and why I left it there. I have become increasingly concerned about the way this legislation is moving and tabled this amendment to get a reaction not only within this House but outside. It has, somewhat to my surprise, achieved its purpose. I was greatly heartened to discover that my noble friend Lord Monson had already tabled a reasoned amendment which has shown that I am not alone. The long list of speakers for this afternoon's debate emphasises that fact. I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Monson for his courtesy in withdrawing his amendment. We felt that two amendments on the Order Paper would be over-egging the pudding.
The first point that I should like to make is that we have never had a proper debate on the Cullen report in this House. That in itself is remarkable. It is normal after any major tragedy to have a public inquiry, which culminates in a report. This report is then debated in both Houses of Parliament, and if it raises important issues requiring legislation, a well-established procedure is followed: a Green Paper followed by a White Paper and finally a Bill. This lengthy consultation period allows time for all the options to be carefully explored and weighed. That is especially important after the emotional tidal wave of Dunblane.
The only justification for short-circuiting that considered approach is if existing legislation is seriously flawed and there is a real danger to public safety. That is clearly not true in this case. Lord Cullen, on page 88 of his report, states that the current legislation for the granting or refusal of firearm certificates is satisfactory, but the interpretation needs revising and strengthening.
On the issue of public safety there have been only two gun massacres in living memory: the first nine years ago at Hungerford; the second this year at Dunblane. The Cullen report identifies serious failures in administration of the gun laws by central Scottish police. If they had interpreted these laws more broadly, which was within their powers, it is highly unlikely that Hamilton would have been granted a gun licence, and Dunblane need never have happened.
It is worth reflecting on why we were not given an opportunity to debate this emotive and vital issue. First, the enormity of the Dunblane tragedy shocked the nation, and the waves of emotion that spread out from it touched us all. The understandable reaction of the Dunblane families was "ban all guns". This initial reaction became more focused, culminating in the Snowdrop Campaign, which became a crusade. Secondly, there is the political consideration. We are in the countdown to the general election. Politicians are starting to woo the voters. That can affect their judgment.
Those two elements came together at the Labour Party Conference, when Anne Pearston made her eloquent and very moving appeal to ban all handguns. The conference said yes, and "ban all handguns" became official Labour Party policy. The Cullen report was not yet published. The Conservatives responded by waiting until the report was published when they immediately stated their position: all handguns heavier than .22 calibre would be banned. Party politics were now colouring the agenda.
The Cullen report came out on 13th November. On 14th November, the Government gave their immediate reaction in both Houses of Parliament. Opposition leaders were given copies of the report but told to keep it under wraps. Backbench Peers only had sight of the report just before our debate. Clearly, no one in this House had time for a considered response to this full and detailed report which raised fundamental issues concerning the place of firearms in our democratic society.
The result is that the Bill which has come up to us is seriously flawed. I asked a respected fellow Cross-Bencher his initial thoughts on the Bill. His answer was: "an emotional reaction with tinges of political expediency". I agree with him. Our politicians have not been able, with a few honourable exceptions, to move through and beyond their first emotional reactions. They are now trying to smuggle the Bill through Parliament. That is highlighted by the undignified speed with which it is being hurried through.
The next event was a fully fledged Government Bill and it was clear that the politicians' thinking had not changed since their first reaction to the Bill, which was either to ban all pistols or most of them. That view went beyond Cullen, who advised that pistols be de-activated but not banned.
I should now like to give you another reaction to this Bill. And this from a police constable with 27 years' service. His comment was: "A knee jerk reaction—banning guns will achieve very little. What we've got to do is stop the odd lunatic having them". I believe that is the central issue. We must look at all guns, which of course includes rifles and shotguns, both of which can be deadly. The point has to be driven home that the shotgun is lethal at close range. Several Members raised this issue on Second Reading in the Commons, but they were brushed aside by the Home Secretary.
The Chief Constable of Hampshire, to whom I talked last week, was just as concerned about shotguns as he was about pistols and rifles. And the question which has to be faced is: would the Government be taking the same attitude if Thomas Hamilton had used a shotgun? He could certainly have obtained one legally.
In examining the gun laws we have to look beyond Dunblane and not exclusively at it. If we do, I believe that we will come to the same conclusion as Lord Cullen. Verification is the key. We must concentrate on the person and not the gun. Using the pistol shooters as scapegoats solves remarkably little. I believe the Cullen report should be our directive. We must keep open minds and find balanced solutions to this complex and highly emotive issue. I beg to move the amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("That") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it runs counter to natural justice and does not represent a considered response to the Dunblane tragedy.")—(The Earl of Strafford.)
4.27 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the House listened with very serious attention to everything said by the noble Earl and I have sympathy for the remarks he made, about the desirability of having had a debate on the Cullen Report, although I speak now in retrospect, as do many of us. The more I examine the report and look at the complexity of the Bill, the more I can see that there was a case for a debate in your Lordships' House and another place before the Bill was drafted.

1297
As the noble Earl said, the process of legislation has been accelerated by political circumstances, but I do not place responsibility for that only on the Government. All of us who have been concerned about the events in Dunblane and the need to do something about it have played our part in accelerating a process which has perhaps gone a little too far too fast.
Nevertheless, I must say that had there been the prospect of a Division on the amendment this evening, I should have advised my colleagues to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill as it stands, not because it is wholly satisfactory, it is not; and not because the opponents have no case, I think they do. But on balance, given the circumstances of the occasion and the Bill which the Government have brought forward, then I believe that the Bill is worthy of support rather than the alternative recommended by the noble Earl.
There are legitimate arguments for four distinct solutions to the problems which led to this Bill. First, we might not prohibit handguns at all but simply tighten the regulations relating to their ownership, storage and use. That is a solution which the noble Earl had in mind, although his amendment does not say so. Secondly, we could act on the proposal in Chapter 9 of the Cullen Report to disable rather than to ban handguns. Thirdly, we could legislate as the Government broadly propose today. Fourthly, we could extend the provisions in Part I, Clause 1 to prohibit .22 handguns as well.
All those courses need to be considered and I am sure that arguments in favour of each of them will be aired very properly in your Lordships' House today. I think that in our debate your Lordships will approach the Bill driven by two underlying motives that tend to pull in somewhat opposite directions. As the noble Baroness has said, we are united in our feelings about the terrible events at Dunblane on 13th March. We share the pain of those who suffered and we want to bring them comfort. More particularly, we want to show them that we have learnt the lessons that will save others—parents and children—from their tragic fate.
At the same time we cannot, having escaped the tragedy, let our sense of guilt and helplessness, lead us into legislation that is unnecessary, unworkable, or irrelevant. The legislation—whatever form it may take—must stand on its merits and not just be a deeply felt emotional response to Dunblane, nor a response to the unpredictable act of one man, Thomas Hamilton. What has to be said—whatever your Lordships may decide, and whatever form this legislation may eventually take—is that this Bill cannot guarantee there will never be another Dunblane. We would send the wrong message to the country if we pretended that. It may well be that public safety will still mainly depend not on legislation but on how the regulations are enforced and the competence of the police in dealing with illegal weapons.
I wish to comment briefly on the options I have mentioned and then on compensation. There are many other detailed matters but I think they can all wait until the Committee stage of the Bill. I wish first to comment on the position of the handgun holders who will lose their sport, to a lesser or greater degree, as a result of
1298
this Bill. I have received letters from 60 or more of them, and no doubt your Lordships have also received many. A few are naïve, a few are angry, and a few are silly, but for the most part they are responsible and fair minded. I do not believe that anyone has a natural right to own a handgun, least of all one of a particular calibre. However, we should not take away the opportunity to do so without good cause. The test must be the public interest. What we must ask ourselves—to set against the extent to which we deprive shooters of their legitimate sport—is: will this make the country a safer place for its citizens? That is the criterion by which we must make our decisions.
As for the options, if there is no prohibition on the ownership and use of handguns, 160,000 will remain in circulation, owned and used by 57,000 certificate holders. Given their lethal capacity and the problems of storage and transport, they will represent a serious, potential threat to the public, even if all the regulations are effectively enforced. On balance, I believe this is a risk we should not take.
The second option was the one that was spelt out by Lord Cullen. As the Minister of State has said, he made no recommendation but explored certain possibilities for disabling handguns. I agree with the Government, with the Home Secretary on Second Reading, with the Minister of State today, and with the Forensic Science Service, that these proposals are unconvincing. Indeed, Lord Cullen had some doubt about them himself. I do not believe they would work well enough to justify their embodiment in legislation.
As for the third option—the Government's proposals—they are simpler and more practical than Lord Cullen's suggestions and they will do more to relieve public anxiety. In the absence of anything else, I believe they deserve your Lordships' support. However, my preferred option, and the one I would recommend to my honourable friends, is something better; namely, a ban on all handguns, including .22 rim-fire handguns and smaller calibre weapons. As the Minister of State said today—repeating what has been said in another place—it is perfectly true that they are less powerful than heavier weapons. However, a .22 will kill as readily as any other, heavier handgun. The line drawn between the two is, in my view, an arbitrary one.
The next point has carried much weight with me in forming my opinion. As the police have said, there are many practical obstacles to a half-and-half scheme which will prove expensive and possibly unworkable and will eventually please no one. On logic alone, the only real alternatives would be either no prohibition of handguns at all, or total prohibition and no messing about in between.
I have said that I think there are overwhelming reasons—although I recognise a different point of view—for banning handguns. I therefore conclude that banning all handguns in the circumstances set out in this Bill, including .22 rim-fire handguns, is the right course to follow. As the Minister of State has said, the Government have moved their ground on compensation during the progress of the Bill in another place. I hope

1299
they will move further. I certainly welcome the changes where were made, which were perhaps reflected in the financial effects of the Bill. The Bill, as initially printed, stated that it estimated the total amount of compensation to be paid could range between £25 million and £50 million. However, the Bill before your Lordships' House estimates that the total amount of compensation to be paid could be about £150 million. I welcome these changes and I am sure the whole House will do so. It is a recognition of the extent to which the Government have been prepared to follow the lead given in another place and to look again at what they proposed. Compensation will now be paid both on guns and accessories. There will also be independent financial arbitration, as the Minister has said, and the details of the compensation scheme will be subject to parliamentary approval. I share the welcome that has been widely given to these changes in the legislation.
There remains the awkward question of compensation for loss of business. The Minister of State in another place, Miss Ann Widdecombe, referred in Committee to the precedents that would be set,
"if we departed from the long-established principle that, if we ban something, we compensate for the banned products but do not compensate across a general sphere for any associated business loss".
She then offered examples of what had happened in the past. She was supported by the Labour Party spokesman, Douglas Henderson, when he said that these businesses, meaning dealers in guns and accessories, were,
"no different from businesses in the past that had to modify their operations because of Parliamentary decisions".
That view has been stated again this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I can understand the fear of the consequences for public expenditure of an even larger figure of compensation than the one now in the Bill. However, I believe that that cannot override what is just and fair to those who will inevitably be the victims of the legislation. I found the precedents for the proposals, or rather the arguments for not changing the rules (if they are rules) offered by Miss Widdecombe in Committee in another place unconvincing. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I found the reasons she gave today unconvincing. I thought that the remarks of the Home Secretary on Report were more to the point, but I am far from sure that we have yet got the extent and incidence of compensation right. I shall say no more, but we shall wish to pursue the matter further in Committee.
Clearly the Bill will be subject to close scrutiny on all sides of the House. These are not party political issues. There are differing views in each party. We need legislation that will make the events of Dunblane less likely, but legislation that is credible, fair and will endure.

European Council, Dublin
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise to all those who
1300
were expecting the Statement a little earlier for the delay in making it. It is a delay for which I take full responsibility.
With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 13th and 14th December, which my right honourable friend attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library.
The main issues on the agenda were the Intergovernmental Conference and economic monetary union. The Statement is as follows:
"The Council discussed the prospects for the Intergovernmental Conference at some length. Shortly beforehand, the Irish Presidency had tabled a general outline for a draft revision of the treaty. This has been deposited in the House. It summarises fairly the position reached in the negotiations and the views of different member states. The views of the United Kingdom are fully reflected.
"The Council conclusions reaffirm the target of completing the IGC at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 and welcomes the presidency document as a good basis for the work that lies ahead. This work was in no way prejudiced by the Council's conclusions in Dublin. We will continue to advocate our own proposals and press our own concerns.
"In discussion, I welcomed the progress made in a number of areas: subsidiarity; a greater role for national parliaments; making the common foreign and security policy more effective; improving the quality of European legislation; and introducing greater openness into the workings of the EU. I also spelled out the United Kingdom position on a number of key points. I see no point in a new employment chapter in the treaty. It will not create a single job. I do not accept that an enlarged European Union needs more qualified majority voting. On defence we welcome co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union, not merger or subordination of decision making. I will not agree to justice and home affairs issues falling under Community competence. And it is unthinkable that the United Kingdom would relinquish its frontier controls.
"I also emphasised our requirement for progress on quota hopping in the common fisheries policy and on the Working Time Directive.
"The outcome of the IGC will do much to determine the future direction of the EU. Some advocate a more integrated, centralised Europe. I respect that view but I do not share it. It would not be right for Britain. I believe the European Union must be a partnership of nation states, with Community competence where it is needed, but only where it is needed. This is more than a free trade area, but very much less than an embryo European state.

1301
"There is only one way these competing visions can be reconciled. And that is through the development of a more flexible Europe. This is one of the most important issues before the IGC. Those who want to integrate further in particular areas should not be frustrated unreasonably although, if they wish to use European Union institutions, they can only proceed through unanimity. Those who do not must not be forced into unwanted obligations which build up resentment.
"I first set out the need for flexibility at Leiden some years ago. This is now widely accepted. But we need to ensure that it is developed in a way that protects the vital interests of those who do not wish to integrate further in particular areas. There is much more work to be done here and very little time in which to do it if the Amsterdam deadline is to be met.
"Economic and monetary union was the subject of much interest, although the European Council did not itself discuss the issues at any length. The Council agreed a report by ECOFIN covering three issues on which my right honourable friend the Chancellor has reported to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks: the stability pact, the legal status of the euro, and the new, voluntary, exchange rate mechanism. The conclusions—to which the ECOFIN report is annexed—make it clear that these issues remain subject to our parliamentary reserve.
"If the single currency goes ahead, it is a vital British interest, whether or not Britain is a member, that it succeeds. So I welcome the progress on the stability pact. The agreement reached strikes the right balance between the necessary discipline and the need for the Council of Ministers to retain control of the disciplinary process if individual countries get into difficulty.
"The House will welcome the clear statements in the ECOFIN report that the arrangements for economic surveillance to be agreed for countries not in the single currency cannot lead to sanctions of any kind.
"I have made no secret of my doubts about whether enough countries will be sufficiently convergent to allow a single currency to go ahead safely on the present timetable. I repeated these doubts in Dublin.
"It is important that the figures themselves are not fudged. But, whether or not particular countries meet particular targets on a particular day is less important than the extent of genuine economic readiness for such a far-reaching step. I am therefore pleased that the ECOFIN report makes clear the importance of not only achieving economic convergence on a particular day but being able to sustain it over the long term.
"I should also report that the President of the European Monetary Institute presented to the Council, and subsequently publicly, designs for the proposed single currency's banknotes. These designs are the responsibility of the Central Banks—as indeed, such designs are the responsibility of the Bank of England in this country now. Everyone will have their own views on these.
1302
"The decision on whether to go ahead with a single currency will be the most far-reaching decision the European Union has ever taken. Although we expect to meet the required economic conditions, we have the right to decide whether or not we want to join, if it goes ahead. We will make our decision when we are clear about all the necessary issues including, crucially, our assessment of the prospect for real and sustained economic convergence.
"The Council also discussed employment. Unemployment in this country is lower than in the other major European Union economies, and is falling faster. I circulated at the Council a paper on United Kingdom policies and their results, and commended it to our partners.
"The Council adopted a declaration on unemployment. My agreement to it was subject to three conditions: first, that it confirmed that primary responsibility for employment policy rested with member states; secondly, that the European Union's approach remains based on the supply side policies agreed at Essen in 1994; and, thirdly, that the declaration in no way prejudiced the question of an employment chapter in the treaty. These conditions were agreed.
"The European Council also discussed justice and home affairs, where we welcome greater European co-operation, as long as it remains firmly on an intergovernmental basis. The Council confirmed the priority of the fight against drugs, and endorsed an Anglo-French initiative to combat transit and production of drugs in the central Asian republics. It called for ratification of the Europol Convention by the end of 1997—achieved only by the United Kingdom so far—and agreed that Europol should work in conjunction with national agencies to support the fight against international crime.
"The Council also created a high-level group to draw up an action plan against organised crime, welcomed joint actions against sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings, and confirmed the need for intensified co-operation against terrorism.
"On BSE, I briefed my colleagues on the steps we have taken to eradicate BSE, notably progress under the 30-months slaughter scheme. I sought and received confirmation that future decisions on lifting the ban would be taken on the basis of science, as agreed at Florence. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will be making a statement a little later on the next steps.
"On foreign policy, the Council endorsed the London Conference document on Bosnia as an excellent basis for work next year. On the Middle East, the declaration issued reflected our concern about the current state of the peace process.
"The Council also expressed its strong interest in a smooth transition to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year and its support for the existing representative democratic institutions of Hong Kong. This was a welcome endorsement of our approach.

1303
"The European Union is approaching some historic decisions over the next 18 months, both on a single currency and its future direction. The result of the intergovernmental conference may well mark a crucial turning point in Europe's development.
"The President of the European Commission said last week that the moment of truth lies ahead. There is one sense at least in which he is right. The choices made will determine not only the success and stability of Europe as a whole, but Britain's relationship with it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Richard, who, when I saw him on Saturday, was expecting to leave hospital today after a successful operation, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement made in another place. Indeed, I thank him for delivering it with a good deal more panache and conviction than the Prime Minister himself, who tended to read his brief at a fast lick without showing much emotion. At least the Lord Privy Seal seemed to appreciate the quality of the text he had to repeat.
It will be well known that we support a very large number of the conclusions that the Government brought back from the European Council meeting in Dublin. In particular, I want to emphasise our support for the measures being proposed in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and the sexual exploitation of children, the measures on enlargement, and many of the foreign policy initiatives that were debated.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the Prime Minister and his colleagues as they return from this summit meeting. For reasons that will be obvious to all in the Conservative Party, they have to pretend that nothing has changed. Indeed, the Statement seeks to give that impression. The difficulty, if one looks not simply at the Statement but at the communiqué and the annexes that came from the presidency after the meeting, is that a great deal has changed. The communiqué uses the phrase, "further decisive progress towards European monetary union". I think it will be generally recognised that many of the obstacles that had been anticipated to European monetary union have been successfully resolved, largely by negotiation between France and Germany and very little as the result of any intervention or activity on the part of this Government. So it will be recognised that the Prime Minister has a difficult argument to put before Parliament, and above all before the different factions in his party.
There are so many issues in relation to which the Government had to pretend they were taking action and had to use phrases such as,
"spelled out the UK position",
but it was not possible to say, as Ministers claimed in the two-day debate in another place before the summit, that the influence of Britain was fundamental in the activities of the Council and in the conclusions of the meeting.
1304
Perhaps I may ask the Lord Privy Seal about the issue of flexibility and what is the Government's attitude. If, as one thinks, flexibility means that it is possible for some nations to go ahead against the opposition of others, and if that could mean, as it appears it could, permanent exclusion for those others from the inner core, what action have the Government effectively taken to resist that kind of flexibility? What have the Government said about the desirability of such a change, which, were it to take place, would clearly be immensely damaging to the interests of this country? The intergovernmental conference has been described by Ministers on many occasions as dangerous to the interests of this country and some of the proceedings also as dangerous.
The Irish draft treaty, accepted at Dublin this weekend, provides, as the communiqué says, a good basis for negotiation. Did the Government do anything other than spell out the UK position? Did the Government achieve any changes to the Irish draft treaty? Or is it the case that the dangerous revision of the Maastricht Treaty which is to be the result of the intergovernmental conference is proceeding without us and proceeding with very little input from this country?
On European monetary union, the Statement says nothing about the stability and growth pact, and still less (if less than nothing is possible) about the French proposal that there should be a stability and growth council, which should meet before ECOFIN meets again. What is the Government's response to that? The communiqué makes it clear that the major obstacles on the legal status of the euro have been overcome. What was the input of the Government to those negotiations?
On the second voluntary stage of the exchange rate mechanism, is it not the case that the Government have agreed that there should be deficit limits, penalties for default, rules for exceptional circumstances and means for enforcement of them? Have the Government not agreed that there should be penalties for default in case of breach of the convergence criteria? On a number of occasions the Government have made the point that ERM2 is voluntary and that the penalties do not apply to those who do not take part in it. However, the ECOFIN report states:
"Member states outside ERM2 and thus not having a central [exchange] rate will present policies so as to enable appropriate surveillance in the council, which can make, when necessary, non-binding recommendations. This surveillance will seek to ensure that their policies are oriented to stability and thus to avoid real exchange-rate mis-alignments and excessive nominal exchange-rate fluctuations".
Have not the Government agreed to that? Have not the Government already agreed that exchange rates are, in the terms of the treaty, matters of common interest? Have not the Government agreed to a system of assessment and monitoring even for those who are outside ERM2?
The Lord Privy Seal said that real decisions are yet to be made. That is no doubt true. It is also no doubt true that all these matters are subject to parliamentary reserve and that there has to be some opportunity for further parliamentary debate. I hope that the Lord Privy

1305
Seal will agree that we will take part in that before a new negotiating team goes to the next summit in Amsterdam.
Is not the truth that the disagreements and divisions within the Conservative Party have fatally weakened the Government's negotiating position in Dublin in the coming months? Are not those divisions and disagreements made clear by the report in this morning's Daily Telegraph that 147 Conservative candidates propose to say in their election manifestos that they disagree with the Government's "wait and see" view on European policy?
I do not believe that I can conclude more appropriately than by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in The Times this morning. He said that,
"the British have no policy and no influence [in Europe]".
Is that not the truth?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, perhaps I may start with some points of agreement. On the stability pact, I am sure that we on this side of the House agree with the Government in supporting the view that if a government have to take measures to counter serious recession, then any possible fine can only be imposed by a political decision.
We may also agree with the contention that much the most important guarantee of stability is real convergence. That is the best chance of success for monetary union. We should not wish to see a soft political decision to let in as many states as possible in a last minute dash to be a member of the first group. But if a judgment is made on convergence criteria, then it must be a bona, fide judgment. It must not be a case of looking for excuses to disapprove, in order to pacify Europhobes.
I turn to areas of less agreement: the attitude of the Government to the intergovernmental conference. The issues at stake are of great importance to this country. They include enlargement which we have always regarded as a crucial objective of our policy in Europe. They include a re-weighting of the votes in the Council. They include too an effective policy, which will be all the more effective if it is a common policy, on terrorism, asylum and immigration.
Is it not abundantly plain that the Government's present stance will frustrate our aims and harm our interests? It has been made clear by our partners that there can be no progress towards a re-weighting of the votes in Council unless there is also some extension of qualified majority voting. It has also been made plain by our partners that there cannot be enlargement unless there is some extension of qualified majority voting. That is a reasonable proposition if one is looking towards a Community which may be a community of 20 or more states.
If we are totally inflexible—as the Government have announced they intend to be on qualified majority voting (something which has greatly benefited us in the past in the single market)—if we are totally inflexible, we shall frustrate those aims. How can we protect our interests and extend our influence and control over our own
1306
affairs—which is essentially what sovereignty is about—if we are isolated and boast of our isolation and glory in it and if we go around threatening the veto and the boycott? Have the Government learnt nothing from the fiasco of our policy over BSE? We started with a policy of bluster but it ended in humiliation and surrender. It did not achieve any of our aims and left us with neither influence nor respect.
Finally, on flexibility—flexibility from an inner core—one can understand it if the Government insist on retaining a veto within the institutions of the Community or within the Maastricht Treaty on issues where we wish to remain part of the decision-making process—for example, in foreign policy and defence. But how can the Government justify also retaining a veto on those issues on which we may wish to exclude ourselves from being part of the decision-making process? Is that not yet another recipe for alienating every single one of our friends whom we shall need in times to come?
At its end, the Statement says that the next year or so will be crucial in the relationship between Britain and the rest of the European Union. The Government's policy is setting us on a very dangerous course and we are entering a very dangerous phase in our relationship.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Front Benches for the measure of agreement that they have been able to give. First, on behalf of the whole House, I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to convey—and, for once, I put it in a spirit of non-party partisanship—to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the good wishes of the whole House for his recovery and imminent return. It is no reflection on the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when I say that I greatly miss his noble friend.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that invidious comparisons between my method of delivery and that of my right honourable friend do not bode well for any future career which my right honourable friend might have. I hope that the noble Lord will not draw attention to his remarks in another place.
We must be clear about what underlies a great deal of the rhetoric we have heard from both noble Lords in the past few minutes. It is clear that this party and the two parties opposite differ about our assessment of what is in the interests of this country. We have a clear view of what delivers competitiveness, prosperity and therefore employment. I have to say to both noble Lords that although unemployment is still far too high in this country, the supply side reforms and the other reforms of the past 18 years have begun to make a significant contribution to unemployment, above all, which is rightly top of the list of priorities in the European Union. With the greatest respect to both noble Lords and our partners in Europe, we need no lessons from them about it.
It is in the spirit of that overall observation that I believe it would be right for me to emphasise to both noble Lords that we shall agree, wherever we can, with our European partners; but we shall negotiate as hard as we possibly can to protect our position where we feel

1307
that our vital interests are at stake. Neither I nor my colleagues on the Front Bench here or in another place are in the least apologetic if, sadly, we find ourselves in a minority of one on a number of issues. However, it is easy for noble Lords opposite to overestimate the areas where we are in that position. A fair number have been recognised clearly in the document produced by the Irish presidency. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it was a good basis for negotiation. I should point out to him that it is no surprise to anyone, least of all my right honourable friend, that the Dublin Summit was a way-station on the way to the final decision in Amsterdam. If I understood the implication of what the noble Lord said, he was asking whether I, as a future Leader of the House in the next Parliament, would be prepared to allow him, as Opposition Deputy Leader, a debate on the parliamentary reserve. Although no Parliament can bind its successor, I believe that I can give that undertaking without any fear of contradiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talked about the questions of enlargement, about terrorism, about asylum and about immigration. It would be fair to say to the noble Lord that extending eastwards the security and prosperity that we take for granted is a fundamental task for Europe over the next decade. He and I agree about that, and I believe that he, with the greatest of respect to him, perhaps underestimates how hard this country has worked in taking a lead to create conditions for successful enlargement, particularly by pursuing the reform of both the CAP and the structural funds, for reasons that he will readily appreciate. Again, I do not want him to feel that we are in any way isolated, as he implied on that question—rather the reverse. And the same applies to terrorism. He will have noticed from the conclusions that there was agreement on terrorism, and that again is something that has been a gratifying intergovernmental area of agreement, where we can build a partnership.
As far as asylum and immigration are concerned, I must also say to the noble Lord that we are perfectly clear about our position and always have been. We are perfectly happy for other countries to look at other forms of immigration and asylum control. Our geographical position and our own traditions make it absolutely right for Her Majesty's Government to insist, as we do, that this must be always a question for Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We have not been moved off that and we have no intention of being moved off that.
The noble Lord talked about an extension of QMV and I should tell him about our position in Amsterdam. Again, our position is perfectly clear and has not changed after Dublin. We see no case for more QMV. We said in our White Paper that the Government would oppose further extension of QMV. We do see, on the other hand, a case for streamlining the Commission and the re-weighting of votes, and that is something that has been under discussion, as the noble Lord knows, for some time.
Both noble Lords talked about the stability pact. It is worth underlining what my right honourable friend said in his Statement. He made it perfectly clear in Dublin
1308
that the contents of the report by ECOFIN are subject to a UK parliamentary reserve. That is written on the first page of the report and indeed in the European Council conclusions. The reserve covers the issues of a stability pact, agreements on the details of the new ERM and indeed the legal framework. We will ensure that the process for completing parliamentary scrutiny is conducted shortly. I should add for the benefit of both noble Lords that, as my right honourable friend said in his Statement, we do not see that there is any future, so far as British interest is concerned, in seeing the launch of a single currency, whether we are members of it or not, turning into a disaster. That cannot be good for us and it cannot be good for our exports to Europe.
It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has played a full part in the negotiations in ECOFIN which have led to the conclusions which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh referred to as being contained in the annexe to the Presidency Conclusions paper. He will see in that—and he is quite right—that the convergence requirements for the "outs" (including ourselves, if we do not join) do not undermine the United Kingdom opt-out. It is still our right to opt in or out and it is not affected one jot by the discussion at Dublin. At Dublin no formal proposals were made on convergence arrangements for the "outs" and, when the proposals are made, we shall of course ensure that they respect United Kingdom interests.
Equally, it is clear that arrangements for the "outs" cannot have a binding effect upon freedom of action over their economic policies. There will be no sanctions on the "outs", just as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in the wake of ECOFIN.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will allow me to clarify one matter. In his phrase in the last sentence before one he implied that the United Kingdom was one of the "outs" for the purpose of protecting our interests. I wonder whether he really meant that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, I must phrase my language with great care when I am confronted by the noble Lord. Of course he is right: our option is whether to go in or whether to go out. It is an option which we preserve and which we have managed to preserve during the course of the weekend in Dublin.
Also, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would agree that if the euro is to be launched successfully it is right for its legal status to be agreed. He would not expect me to dispute that. That is what he clearly implied. There are all sorts of financial documents and arrangements which will straddle the launch of the euro and it will be important that those documents cannot be undermined, so the legal status of the euro was an extremely sensible thing to be agreed at Dublin.
I should also emphasise to the noble Lord that the conclusions say that ERM2 is a purely voluntary affair. We have said that we would not join it, and that was certainly agreed at ECOFIN.

1309
I am very conscious that my answer has been rather a long one, and I apologise to the House. However, many matters were raised. I wish to point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the most gentle terms, that there are a great many amusing jokes to be made about both our parties at the moment. It is worth his remembering that the leader of his own party in 1983 made all sorts of commitments in his election address. Just taking a couple of examples, he was committed to taking this country out of Europe and he was against the nuclear deterrent. It is only fair to spare the blushes of the noble Lord and not to go through that rather embarrassing document in greater detail today. However, I would remind the noble Lord that when he talks about British interests and indeed when the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talks about British interests, we are told that the Labour Party, were they to win the next election, would find itself perfectly happy to give up the veto on regional policy, the veto on environmental policy, the position that we have adopted on the working time directive, and indeed the veto on the treaty on employment. All those matters would undermine the present success of this country in reducing the scourge of unemployment where we have made such advances in the last two or three years.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm what I believe he said more than once, but it is of such importance that it justifies confirmation, that nothing which was discussed at Dublin and none of the discussions which he quoted undermine in any respect the right of this country to retain its separate currency independently and separate from the European currency?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very happy to give my noble friend the assurance he seeks. The opt-out was one negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, and it is an opt-out which is still protected, even after Dublin.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have one short question to ask the noble Viscount, but before I do so I would remind him that it was his government that took this country, without the consent of the people, into the Treaty of Rome, into the Single European Act and, indeed, into the Maastricht Treaty without consulting anyone at all. Therefore, it behoves him ill to mention my right honourable friend Tony Blair, the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in the light of the stresses and strains which there are now in the Tory party among those decent members who accept that mistakes have been made by a Conservative government.
I should like to ask him just one question, because we want to get on with other business. On page 12 of the communiqué, in the area of justice and home affairs, in the last sentence of paragraph 1 there is a note which states:
"Europol should have operative powers"—
I hope that the noble Viscount takes note of that—
"working in conjunction with the national authorities to this end".
1310
What does "operative powers" mean?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, rise to his feet and imply so clearly that the Labour Party is united on matters of Europe. But there is a difference—I respect the noble Lord's capacity for textual analysis—between operational powers for Europol and operative powers. I hope that I can allay his fears. We would certainly not accept—it is our understanding that it was not in any way implied—that we would give powers of arrest or even of investigation to Europol. Our adherence and ratification of the Europol Convention implies that Europol's role is still and will continue to be to assist the national law enforcement agencies and certainly in no way to replace them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the Statement. In the interests of time, I shall not press him on how subsidiarity may work better or how there will be greater openness in the working of the EU, unless, of course, he would like to enlighten us on those points. My worry is concerned with a point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and what my noble friend said about the stability pact and so on for EMU. He said that they cannot lead to sanctions of any kind on non-member countries.
That may be so for the stability pact and convergence criteria for EMU themselves, but is that quite the whole picture? Are we not left in the background with the position in the treaty whereby under Article 3 of the Protocol our opt-out does not come into action until we say that we will not move to Stage 3? So my first question to my noble friend is: when we say that we will not move to Stage 3—assuming that we do say that—are not we still left with everything that we have agreed in the meantime?
My second question, which is related to the first, is even more difficult. Even after we have said that we will not move to Stage 3, are not we still left with many articles of the treaty, such as Articles 102, 103 and 109, which mean that action can still be brought against us in the Luxembourg court if we do not run our economy on communautaire lines? Articles 169, 170 and 171 can be used against us and, as I understand the treaty, unlimited fines can be imposed upon us in the Luxembourg court. I do not know how my noble friend will be able to reply to that kind of detail this afternoon. But my general question to him is: is our opt-out on EMU likely to turn out to be as unreliable as our opt-out on the social chapter?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend is well known as a sceptic in every sense of the word. We are satisfied that the opt-out is safe and the ECOFIN conclusions have reinforced that view. I could trade—rather less effectively than my noble friend—the various articles and subsections of the treaty. But I believe it will be sufficient for me to say that I am sure that my

1311
noble friend will return to this question and I shall be extremely happy to help him monitor my assurance during the course of the coming months and years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I try to keep up with developments in Europe as much as is possible on the basis of published information. Can the noble Viscount indicate to me under whose authority the President of the Commission presumed to address himself to the entire Council and—I understand from the press—deliver an admonition to Her Majesty's Government? Is he in agreement with the principle in general—I make the inquiry in all good spirit—and are the Government in a position in which they accept quite willingly the right of the President of the Commission to lecture the United Kingdom?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I understand that even Lord Palmerston was lectured when he was Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister of this country when it was reputedly at its most jingoistic. It is nothing new in our history for officials of one kind or another to lecture this country. The question is whether or not the lecture carries with it a stick. In this case we have managed to resist that stick—if it exists. As I said to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, our opt-outs are ones which we are willing and happy to live with.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that two of the points made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister are absolutely crucial for the British people to understand? First, the decision on whether to go ahead with the single currency will be the most far-reaching decision that the European Union has ever taken. Secondly, if the currency goes ahead, whether or not Britain is a member, it is a vital British interest that it succeeds.
In that context, does my noble friend agree that it is appropriate once again to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on having secured the opt-out at Maastricht, ably assisted at that time by my right honourable friend Mr. Lamont? Is it now widely recognised that the Prime Minister on one of the ablest international negotiators on the scene today? For that reason alone and quite apart from any others, in this crucial matter it is very much in Britain's interest for the Prime Minister to negotiate on behalf of Britain throughout and at the Amsterdam Conference next year.
Let me make two other points. Would it be wise for the European Union, if it wished to press ahead with the euro, to do it in a more modest stage of merely making it legal tender in all countries and seeing whether or not people use it? That would be a real market test as to whether there is merit in it.
Finally, let me say how glad I was to hear in the Statement that the Council of the supreme body of Europe underwrote the democratic arrangements reached in Hong Kong. I hope very much that the Government of the People's Republic of China will pay due regard to that important consensus.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as your Lordships would expect, I wholly endorse what my noble friend
1312
said about the negotiating skills of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I suspect that, if my right honourable friend had not secured the opt-out at Maastricht over EMU and indeed the social chapter, the debates in both Houses of Parliament would have taken on rather a different character. No doubt it is an enormous relief to all parties, quite apart from the people of this country, that they can rely on something as reliable as the opt-out when so much is still uncertain about the future of the euro. Certainly, the evidence that my right honourable friend is one of the finest international negotiators that we have on the European scene will, I am sure, be taken fully into account at the next general election, whenever it may come.
Of course, my noble friend is right and EMU is a far-reaching proposal. As I said, if it is to be launched—whether or not we are to be members of it—it is extremely important that it should not, to use an Americanism, "bomb". Nothing could be more unhelpful to the prosperity of western Europe, should that happen.
I am grateful too to my noble friend for drawing attention to yet another idea of my right honourable friend which he introduced when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; he called it "parallel currencies". It was something which my noble friend's former magazine, The Economist, at one time took a good deal of credit for. I am glad that he has not forgotten the idea.
I am glad also that during the course of a series of exchanges which concentrated on domestic European matters above all, my right honourable friend found time to talk about the arrangements in relation to Hong Kong. That was a matter in which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, implied, our European partners were only too happy to support us. We are extremely grateful to them for underlining the importance of a democratic settlement in the colony after it leaves British tutelage next year.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
5.30 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find myself in the extraordinary position of being not only the first speaker from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party, but also the only speaker from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party. In case there should be a scintilla of doubt about the matter, I should say that I shall be speaking only for myself. I should make it clear also that I am not a shooter, I do not shoot; I am not a member of any gun club; I do not represent any gun club or any other interest; I have never used a pistol at any time in my life and the only time I ever held a rifle was when I was in the Home Guard—and when the officer saw how I was holding it, he immediately ordered me off the range.
Everyone is desperately sorry for the bereaved of Dunblane. The hearts of the whole nation went out to parents, relatives and friends of those slaughtered by the

1313
madman, Thomas Hamilton, and to the people of Dunblane who are still coming to terms with the tragedy. Above all, everyone grieves for the 16 children whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out in a moment of one man's madness; for their teacher who died bravely trying to save them; and, of course, for the children who survived but who are still suffering the physical injuries and the mental and emotional trauma of that terrible day.
Having said that, I believe that the Government acted correctly in setting up the public inquiry under Lord Cullen. That had general agreement. There was huge support for the inquiry and I am sure everyone would agree that the inquiry was thoroughly carried out. In those circumstances, it is a great pity that the Government announced their own proposals before the publication of the report; indeed, on the morning of its publication. They pre-empted it; they devalued it by that announcement and that was most unfortunate.
Parliament had had no opportunity to see the report, let alone debate it, before the Government decided their policy. No time was allowed for mature reflection of the issues involved, nor for proper consultation with those who would be adversely affected by the proposals. The Bill before us today is not therefore the product of long and serious deliberation after consultation and time for mature reflection. It is a Bill cobbled together in haste, one suspects for party political purposes. I fear that Her Majesty's Opposition have also failed in their duty by co-operating with Her Majesty's Government to rush through ill-considered legislation instead of trying to stem the tide of hysteria which swept this premature Bill before Parliament. It is outrageous that such a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons on a guillotine. It is now the duty of the House of Lords to give it proper scrutiny in as much time as that takes; it should not be hurried.
We have seen time and again that ill-considered legislation produced in response to a supposed overwhelming public demand and rushed on to the statute book has ended up causing injustice, chaos and confusion. Such a piece of legislation was the Dangerous Dogs Act. How many of your Lordships would now defend that Act? I doubt that there is one—not even the noble Baroness who sits on the Front Bench.
The Child Support Act was introduced, and what a mess that has been! What problems it has produced; what injustices it has caused! There have been suicides as a result of that Act. Those who were supposed to be caught were not caught, and those who were paying their dues in fact had to pay more.
The Criminal Law Bill introduced unit fines and we ended up with the spectacle that burglars were being fined £40 for burgling and people who parked on double yellow lines were being fined £500. The War Crimes Bill was introduced, though one admits that that was an Act of the House of Commons rather than an Act of the full Parliament. We have not yet completed one prosecution. So we should beware of hastily cobbled together legislation.
1314
This Bill commits the ultimate injustice, for it imposes a collective punishment on 56,000 innocent people for the atrocious act of a single madman who was able to choose firearms as the instrument of his mad revenge, due to failures on the part of the police in relation to the granting of firearms' certificates. It is ironic indeed that the police and the Home Office, who have failed to enforce properly existing legislation, should bring forward and support this Bill which can only punish the innocent. I remind the House that collective punishment has a bad history and should never be used in a democracy. But that is what this Bill does.
The shooting community has already been punished by being lampooned and demonised in the press and, even worse, in the House of Commons. The characters and integrity of the members of that community have been impugned and labelled as oddballs to justify the provisions of this illiberal Bill. I can understand why people, particularly those directly affected, were impatient for action; but, far from guaranteeing that there will be no future Dunblanes or Hungerfords, this Bill will serve to penalise responsible shooters while ignoring the real problems of enforcement and the increase in illegally-held firearms.
On 7th November the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a Question for Written Answer, which was answered at col. WA 68 of the Official Report. He asked how many homicides had occurred in Scotland between 1990 and 1995. He also asked how many involved the use of firearms and how many of those firearms were legally held. The number of homicides in Scotland between 1990 and 1995 was 669. In 44 of those cases, firearms were used. In only three of those cases did the accused hold a valid gun licence. Those figures are very interesting because most of the homicides were committed with unlicensed guns. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that problem.
So far as I am concerned, I suspect the Government's motives, for the number of child deaths in the United Kingdom every year is large and unremarked. Every month 26 children are killed on the roads, some by drunken drivers. Five hundred a month are seriously injured. Yet we do not have a Bill about that.
Amendments are threatened which would completely outlaw handguns, causing even more injustice and loss of livelihood to the innocent people who will be punished and disadvantaged by the existing provisions of the Bill. I shall certainly not support any amendments which will make the Bill more onerous and unjust than it already is.
The best thing that could happen is that the Bill should be shelved. However, I understand that the amendment has been withdrawn, so there is no possibility of that. It would have been better if the Bill could have been shelved until after the next election, which cannot be long delayed. We could then have had a new Bill framed in calmer circumstances after proper consultation and mature consideration of the implications of its provisions and its effect on the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of decent, ordinary people.

1315
However, the Bill will not be shelved. It is therefore up to this House to bring forward amendments to mitigate its baleful effects. The least this House can do is to attempt to alter the Bill to conform to the reasonable and properly considered recommendations of the Cullen Commission and to ensure that no financial disadvantage is imposed on innocent citizens.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his inimitable way, has done the job of opposition which the Official Opposition have singularly failed to do on many of the issues associated with the Bill.
I must declare an interest. I was chairman from 1989 to 1994 of the Firearms Consultative Committee, set up after Hungerford, before handing over to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I am also, under my noble friend Lord Swansea, vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council.
The fact that haunts me, with hindsight and in the light of the tragedy of Dunblane, is that we made two very bad mistakes after Hungerford. First, the emphasis was on listing and prohibiting the types of automatic and assault weapons used by Ryan. They were coming on sale legally to people in this country on an enormous scale. There was even one automatic smooth-bore Israeli pistol with an extending stock which was coming into this country under a shotgun licence. Those were the kind of weapons that occupied us and were our priority after Hungerford. There was the additional problem of large magazine pump action shotguns.
Secondly, in Chapter 4 of the first report of the Firearms Consultative Committee we dealt with the question of persons who could act as a counter-signature for a firearms certificate. Here again we made a mistake. There was too great an emphasis on the list of professions who should act, rather than asking that we should have a person of similar standing to the applicant. What is encouraging is that Lord Cullen has dealt with this problem in depth. His reference in Chapter 8.81 calls for two referees who have known the person for at least two years and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, with an ability to answer a police questionnaire to bring out the extent of their knowledge of the applicant. The Bill addresses this problem in so far as future applicants for firearms certificates are concerned. Quite correctly, there is no change in the provisions for shotgun certificates. But Lord Cullen's provision meets, alas too late, a great weakness in the present system.
There is one other recommendation in the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. Chapter 3.21 recommends that an appeals procedure should be established which is informal and inexpensive on the lines of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which is chaired by a High Court judge. An applicant for a firearms certificate which is refused could appeal to the tribunal rather than to the Sheriff's Court in Scotland or the county court in England. One
1316
of the tragedies of Dunblane was the argument put forward by officers of the Central Scotland Police Force that it was cheaper to renew Hamilton's certificate than to have to fight him on appeal to the sheriff. I know that our present Home Secretary, as a learned lawyer, has a personal dislike of tribunals, but I hope that in Committee we can look at this proposal. There is more than sufficient distinguished legal expertise in this House to guide us in the right direction. I am relieved to hear that the Government are now consulting on this issue.
Knowledgeable counter-signatures and quick and efficient appeals are two of the Firearms Consultative Committee's recommendations that should have been implemented before the Dunblane tragedy. The Seventh Annual Report of the Firearms Consultative Committee lists in Appendix 1 all seven reports and their recommendations, giving the action the Government have taken. It is not correct to say that they have been ignored. Some primary legislation has been introduced and carried through both Houses of Parliament.
Every leisure activity in this country at the moment is meeting an increased demand. This is true of revolver and pistol shooting. There are some 2,118 pistol and rifle clubs and it is estimated that within those clubs the pistol shooters make up 40 per cent. of those wishing to shoot. The sport is "skill at arms" and competitive shooting at all levels up to Olympic standard. I have now been convinced that the Government are right to take the view that competitive shooting should be limited to .22 rim-fire pistols. The largest calibres, and other weapons, are for military purposes. I thank the Home Secretary for recognising that, and at least saving one growing aspect of the sport. We can argue in Committee about some of the other calibres—I do not think the arguments will prove to be very convincing—and even about centre-fire ammunition.
I do not want to pursue those points now because at Second Reading today I want to emphasise the demand there is for the .22 rim-fire sport and my real concern about the Bill—the need to keep open the facilities for using and holding individuals' cherished and precious weapons.
I would hope that before the Committee stage we may see guidance from the Government on their proposals in Clause 16(2) for the granting of a licence for a club and its premises. It is referred to by the shooting community as the fortification of the pistol ranges. The fear is that it will be too expensive for many of the really good clubs. The really good clubs in this sport are the very small ones where everybody knows each other and there is no danger whatsoever of an unreliable person being a member of that community.
There are problems of isolation and planning permission for many of these ranges. There is a case for looking at secure and safe storage away from the range with transportation between an armoury and the range in an authorised fashion. The Home Secretary's reply in the Official Report of another place on 4th December at col. 1150, gives me hope on that count. I must press

1317
the noble Baroness for an opportunity to explore this before the Committee stage. Any sympathetic comment that she can make tonight would go a long way to alleviate the fears of so many of these small and enthusiastic clubs.
Many noble Lords have mentioned, and others will mention, the point about compensation. It must be fair. It has been enlarged in another place in the broadest financial resolution that I have ever seen taken to any Bill. But many of us are concerned about people personally at risk by the closing of a function or facility—for instance, a pistol range for higher calibre weapons and semi-military targets may have no future in the .22 rim-fire Olympic shooting.
I am sorry to tell the House that after much research and help from the Government's forensic laboratory I can no longer support disassembly as a method of secure storage in the home. Barrel blocks were looked at in the fourth report of the Firearms Consultative Committee and rejected by it, as they were by the Cullen report. I believe that your Lordships must take note of the letter lying in the Library from Mr. Warlow, the head of the Government's forensic laboratory, who says, quite categorically, that disassembly is no safeguard for the general public.
In conclusion, I say thank you to the noble Baroness for saving a large and growing section of the handgun shooters' sport, but that is no good without sufficient safe and secure facilities. Can we examine this before Committee?
5.52 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, like all your Lordships I feel the deepest sympathy for the parents, the families and the friends of the children who died in this shocking attack by a brutal psychopath. Of course, we are all anxious to take all relevant—I stress "relevant"—action to stop such a ghastly event ever happening again. But I doubt very much whether this Bill does achieve that.
The proposed legislation is yet another example of the unacceptable face of electoral politics. There is on the Order Paper a reference to the Police Bill, which is to reach its Report stage. As your Lordships may know, that Bill contains a startling clause which enables the police, on the say-so of a senior police officer, to enter not only the house of a suspect, but his lawyer or anyone who might be connected in any way with him, and without the support or authorisation of any judicial figure, to bug; to collect material and wholly to disregard what has hitherto been the rights of the individual to be protected from that sort of arbitrary behaviour.
An amendment had been put down by the Liberal Democrats supported very strongly by the judiciary. It received no support from the Opposition because it is suffering from this near-pathological anxiety of being thought soft on crime. No amendment has yet been produced by the Government. One would have thought that the provision might be modified by limiting it to an emergency or something of that kind.
1318
There is shortly to come before your Lordships' House—I believe after Christmas—the Crime (Sentences) Bill. That Bill abolishes parole and imposes automatic life sentences in certain cases and minimum sentences in others. It has been strongly criticised in this House on a number of occasions. But I have watched its passage in another place and I see little prospect of that criticism being renewed.
Just a year ago, on 20th November, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the debate on the Address, said at col. 215 of the Official Report:
"If the Home Secretary means what he said at Blackpool in early October, then he is in for a shock when he comes to this House. Those measures would not only be wrong in themselves but would be wildly expensive, would increase the prison population from its present 50,000 to at least 70,000 and probably more than that. I do not believe that such measures could get through this House. Even if a whipped majority in another place insisted on them, I do not believe that they would survive the considered view of your Lordships".
I do not believe for one moment that he will be allowed by his Front Bench in another place to make observations of that kind. From what I have read in the debates in Committee in another place, I do not believe there will be any resistance to these major matters when the matter comes here.
Why? It is for the same anxiety: "We must not run the risk of it being thought, rightly or wrongly, that we are soft on crime". Is that not basically what has happened as regards this Bill? Why was not the Cullen report debated? There was material in it to show the public that what essentially went wrong was the failure of the senior police officer or officers to ensure that the licence which this evil man had was removed. The causative effect, if that had occurred, was remarked on in fairly strong terms by Lord Cullen in his report at Paragraph 6.69. He said:
"If Thomas Hamilton had been finally deprived of his firearm certificate and hence lost his firearms and ammunition, how far would this have altered the course of events? Would he have sought and obtained illegal possession of one or more other firearms and ammunition? Would he have resorted to other means of causing death? Or would the loss of his own firearms and ammunition forestalled the development of homicidal intentions? The Inquiry heard some evidence that it was unlikely that Thomas Hamilton would have been able to obtain a firearm from members of the criminal fraternity. Even without such evidence it seems to me to be highly improbable that he would have embarked upon, let alone been successful, in such an approach. However, by some means or other he might have purloined a firearm, whether legally or illegally held, from someone known to him. On the other hand it is difficult to envisage that he would have been able to amass a collection of firearms and ammunition similar to that with which he approached the school. This all presupposes that Thomas Hamilton would have had an intention to perpetrate a mass shooting which was independent of the non-availability of his own firearms and ammunition. It is clear that what he did on 13th March 1996 was planned in advance. However, it was planned in the context of the continuing availability of his own firearms and ammunition. Further, his attitude to his own firearms seems to me to be of some importance. They were his 'babies': and he gloated over them. He used them as a means of exercising power over his victims and their relatives. It does not appear to me to follow from the evidence that Thomas Hamilton would have sought in any event to perpetrate a mass shooting. It seems to me to be at least likely that the availability of his own firearms and ammunition influenced him in the way in which he proceeded. Now it is possible that he would have sought out some other means of causing death. In the light of the evidence of Dr. Baird it would require to have been a means

1319
which encompassed his own death. I am not able to reach any conclusion as to what he would have done in this direction as it is too much a matter of speculation".
That is a good indication that one of the major issues that should have been the subject-matter of debate was the causative feature of the availability of the firearms which was due essentially to the failure of the police to carry out the appropriate procedures.
Lord Cullen then dealt with the extent to which there should have been a restriction on firearms. It is true that he made no distinct recommendation, but he proposed that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre held by individuals for target shooting. He said that that should be done by their disablement while they were not in use either by removal of the slide assembly cylinder which would be kept securely on the premises of an approved club, of which the owner was a member, or by a club official, or by the fitting of a barrel block by a club official.
From the material that I have read I accept that there may be a number of pistols or revolvers where such disassembling cannot be done, but they should be outlawed. Those are the weapons that should be made unlawful. I understand that their numbers are relatively small. Lord Cullen points out in paragraph 9.107 on page 130 that,
"the appalling result of the actions of Thomas Hamilton should not obscure the fact that such outrages are comparatively rare; and that the number of crimes which are committed by means of firearms which are or have been in lawful ownership is relatively small, especially so in the case of handguns. A ban on multi-shot handguns would to a very large extent destroy the sport of target shooting and have significant effects on the economy".
It is that kind of observation that should have been the subject matter of debate. The effect on the economy, which is apparent from the material that has been distributed to many noble Lords, is considerable. The scale of compensation is very high. All of this needed to be balanced out, instead of which emotion took over from reason because of the deep anxiety not to be thought for a moment to be soft in dealing with crime. I believe that this precipitate and ill-considered legislation is a matter that we shall learn to regret slowly but painfully.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, when I first came to your Lordships' House, my noble friend then on the Front Bench said that he did not mind slings and arrows being hurled at him from the front but when he got a dagger between his shoulder blades he really did object. I do not see much evidence of slings and arrows from the other side of this House this evening. I can assure my noble friend on the Front Bench that she has no fear that I shall point a pistol at her back.
I had no intention of speaking until I read the amendment tabled for debate at this stage of the Bill. I thought that it was a most unusual occurrence. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, say that he had tabled his amendment to get a reaction both inside and outside this House. I believe that the response
1320
of Her Majesty's Government to the report of Lord Cullen is sensible. I agree with the terms of the statement issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers which was that the proposed ban on high calibre hand guns and the tightening up on firearms controls generally would provide significant improvements in the protection of the public. It is a measured statement that achieves the right balance. it also points to the fact that it is not a panacea that, ipso facto, prevents the actions of people as deranged as Hamilton. The association goes on to support the comprehensive measures to deal with the security of weapons and ammunition at gun clubs.
Those of us who live and work in Scotland have perhaps been closer to the horrific tragedy at Dunblane. I believe that that dastardly deed affected people in an extraordinary way in my part of the world. The report of Lord Cullen, some of whose recommendations are contained in the Bill, says in an introductory paragraph that it is right to regard a gun as dangerous and to treat some guns as more dangerous than others. Handguns are attractive in the ease at which they can be carried and concealed and in the speed at which they can be aimed. Surely, given these words and the views expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which I have referred, we must look sensibly at amendments to the Bill rather than take the extreme view as expressed in the amendment or by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Two weeks ago, some of us were pleased to have a visit here from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, accompanied by the Convenor of the Church and Nation Committee of the Kirk. That committee considers such matters as this Bill on behalf of the Kirk. Unlike the Church of England, whose right reverend Prelates adorn the Bishop's Benches—I do not see many of them here today, my Lords—the Kirk does not have official representation in this House. As a humble elder in my own kirk in Bowden, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to our discussions and correspondence following that visit. The Kirk played a central role at Dunblane in the very difficult circumstances that followed the tragedy on 13th March. I believe that this House should take due notice of their views on these issues as expressed to me and others. I quote from a letter dated 4th December addressed to me from Dr. Alison Eliott, Convenor of the Church and Nation Committee:
"The Church's commitment to promoting a culture of peace rather than a culture of violence in our country is well established and was reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the Kirk this May. In this connection we are encouraged by the steps that the Government have taken in the Firearms Bill toward increasing the control of handguns".
She goes on to say that in Scotland in particular 1996 has been a year when the Dunblane tragedy not only has caused people great grief but has opened their eyes to the extent of violence in our society. It is true that the committee wanted a complete ban on guns. I disagreed and said so. But the committee understood that any government had to make careful judgments about the pace and extent of change through legislation.

1321
Three other points arose in addition to the Kirk's basic point. First, legislation had a powerful and educational function as well as its more obvious instrumental function—that is that it expresses a society's values.
The second reason is that broad support across the political spectrum is important in such legislation; and, third, it is the Kirk's judgment that this measure would not be precipitate or out of line with the public will or the power of the public desire for significant change.
I have no doubt that subsequent stages of the Bill will produce detailed discussion on the measures proposed—compensation issues in particular. I share the concern about those. But I also see some of the difficult issues that my noble friend the Minister will have to address so far as lost business is concerned. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball in his remarks about small gun clubs and how they are so important to many, many communities; but I hope sincerely that the expansion in the use of higher calibre and higher capacity handguns, and their ammunition, will be stopped in its tracks in the UK and that the provisions of Clause 31 to 36, which strengthen the police powers to refuse to grant or to revoke firearm licences, will remain unaltered.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has just implied, we can be confident that if the next general election were four-and-a-half years rather than four-and-a-half months away, we would not have this Bill before us in its present form. This is knee-jerk, panic driven and, above all, tabloid press driven legislation; although to be fair some tabloid comment—notably editorials in the Evening Standard and an article by Mary Kenny in the Express—has been extremely sensible and balanced. The role of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in all this last October also leaves much to be desired, as the Daily Telegraph points out in its leading article this morning.
If the Bill goes through without major amendments, it will adversely affect more than 100,000 people, many of them very seriously indeed, including 90 per cent. of pistol shooters—by whom I mean all those who shoot full bore pistols and at least half those who shoot with .22 pistols but whose clubs will not be able to afford expensive security systems—together with their families, many of whom are active or passive participants in the sport.
The right honourable Member for Putney was extremely disparaging, to put it mildly, about people who engage in the sport of pistol shooting. The truth is that nearly all of them are highly respectable individuals, many of them professional people, some serving or retired police officers, many of them ex-servicemen who have fought for this country in the Battle of Britain, on the Normandy beaches, in the western desert, or in the Korean or subsequent wars.
There are also many disabled shooters most of whom, for obvious reasons, particularly those in wheelchairs, can manage a pistol but not a rifle.
1322
It will also ruin dealers and the owners of pistol ranges, many of which are run by co-operatives. Indeed, a great many people stand to lose their mortgaged homes as a result of the Bill if it is not amended. It goes without saying that the Bill as it stands imposes heavy burdens upon the taxpayer. The hundreds of millions of pounds involved could surely be better spent elsewhere.
The Bill's provisions will also greatly handicap the United Kingdom in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Some may claim that this is not of earth-shaking importance, but I wonder if they have thought through what this says about Britain to the world at large. The French, German, Spanish, Swiss and Norwegian Governments trust the French, German, Spanish, Swiss and Norwegian people, as, indeed, most governments of civilised countries trust their people. But the British Government evidently does not trust the British people.
Incidentally, while we are talking about statistics, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that there are 50 times as many licensed pistols in Switzerland as there are per capita in the United Kingdom and yet the incidence of armed robbery in Switzerland is 21 per cent. less than it is here. I invite your Lordships to ponder upon that.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to make the point I would have made had I put my name down but was unable to do because I have had 'flu. We have been awarded the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. We seek the Olympic Games for London in the next century. In both cases we have to give clear undertakings—we have already done this for Manchester—that these shooting sports will be included. Does the noble Lord agree, therefore, that we need to know from the Government how they intend to honour those obligations and allow British shooters to take part in them?
Lord Monson: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Howell, makes an extremely good point. To claim that you will have virtually the strictest controls on legal gun ownership in the world is surely a matter for shame rather than a matter for self-congratulation.
It is true that in the Republic of Ireland legal gun ownership is very tightly circumscribed, but at the same time there are massive stockpiles of illegal weapons, some of them used by the IRA and the INLA in the north of Ireland, and some used by powerful Dublin gangsters. Indeed, a journalist, going about her lawful business, was recently gunned down with total impunity on a busy dual carriageway on the western outskirts of Dublin, so I do not think the Republic of Ireland is the best example to follow.
One of the problems is, of course, semantics. Pistols, in a more or less modern form, have been with us for 129 years, since 1867. For approximately 50 years, from 1870, the pistol called the British Bulldog could be bought without any licence at all for about a guinea—about two days' wages for a bank clerk or a skilled artisan. They were widely carried and, as I mentioned in my speech on this subject on 24th October, the police would occasionally borrow pistols from passers-by to pursue armed criminals—there are well-documented

1323
instances of this—and yet the overall armed crime rate at that time was extremely low. As I say, this was at a time when pistols could be bought without a licence.
The word "handgun" is synonymous with the word "pistol": in other words, there is no need to use the word "handgun" except as a form of psychological warfare designed to frighten gullible members of the public into imagining that a novel and alien species of weapon has been introduced into Britain.
How can we avoid the painful and unjust consequences of this Bill as presently drafted? The answer in a nutshell is disassembly, as recommended by Lord Cullen. I know that a couple of Home Office officials maintained initially that it would not work with most pistols but I am glad to see that the Government now concede that more than 90 per cent. of them can be disassembled.
In this way, well over 90 per cent. of those who now engage in pistol shooting would be able to continue doing so, rising to almost 100 per cent. if those few with the wrong sort of pistol switch to a type which can be disassembled. Dealers and shooting-range owners would not be bankrupted. There would no longer be any need for such extremely expensive security precautions, as a gun minus some of its vital parts is of very little value to a professional criminal given the widespread availability of illegal weapons. The Times of 17th March 1995 has some extremely interesting data on this point. My latest information is that illegal guns can be bought in most of our big cities for between £50 and £200. That is why the noble Baroness's contention that a really determined individual could get round disassembly falls down. Yes they could, but it might well be cheaper and easier to buy an illegal gun instead. There would be enormous savings for the taxpayer as compensation would only be payable for 5,000 pistols at most, those which could not be disassembled.
Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, so eloquently reminded us, tens of thousands of innocent respectable individuals would not be punished for the sins of one evil man who, in most parts of the United Kingdom outside central Scotland, would never have been allowed the arms and ammunition that he, Hamilton, possessed.
If passing a bad law could bring back even one murdered child, one might seriously have to contemplate passing that bad law, but we know that it can do no such thing. The House of Commons did not have a fair crack of the whip at this Bill because of the guillotine and the heavily rigged Standing Committee. In this House we have both the right and the duty to do everything in our power at subsequent stages to make a bad Bill better.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of speakers in this debate and that Committee and Report stages of the Bill promise to be somewhat interesting, I intend to limit my comments to what I believe to be the minimum. I shall delay your Lordships no longer than is necessary.
1324
I must declare my interest. I am the current chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, an independent advisory committee set up under the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act to advise the Home Secretary on matters concerning firearms and the workings of the firearms Acts. The committee is made up of representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO Scotland, the Forensic Science Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and experts from the shooting sports world. We produce an annual report to the Home Secretary, the reading of which I commend to the House.
In the past seven annual reports, the FCC has made a considerable number of sensible and well thought out recommendations. Sadly, to date only a handful have been actioned. Recently, the FCC has been scrutinising the Bill now before your Lordships, and I know that the committee would wish me to convey to your Lordships its considerable disappointment that some of its recommendations have not been included. Perhaps the situation will alter at Committee and Report stages. We in the FCC firmly believe that the inclusion of a number of our recommendations would make this a better Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the officials who look after my colleagues and I at the FCC. They have been under considerable pressure to produce this Bill, and as always they have looked after me with considerable courtesy and efficiency.
The news of the appalling atrocity at Dunblane on 13th March shook the FCC to the core. We had a scheduled meeting the following day, and the joint and several feelings of the members was one of complete horror and disgust at Hamilton's criminal actions. But we all agreed at that stage that a knee-jerk reaction would be disastrous. So when Her Majesty's Government announced the wise appointment of Lord Cullen to hold an inquiry, the FCC greeted the news with vigorous support. Indeed, we felt that the Cullen Inquiry would provide a window for a new efficient, workable firearms Act which would correct all the anomalies of both the 1968 and 1988 Acts and would last as an effective piece of legislation for the next 20 years.
No one was in any doubt that the shooter would have to pay for the privilege of taking part in his or her chosen sport. Many of us felt that such legislation should include the establishment of an independent firearms control board together with an independent appeals tribunal—both recommendations of the FCC.
Sadly, that was not to be. I have the greatest respect for my honourable friend the Member for Burton in another place, but I felt that it was not a wise move for the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place to inquire into the subject of handguns, as it was always clear to me that those deliberations, whatever the conclusion reached, would always pre-empt Lord Cullen's findings. Of course, that is exactly what happened, and the media took the HAC's deliberations to be an inquiry into Dunblane. All of a sudden, the whole matter was thrown to the political wolves. I believe that Her Majesty's Government were then forced into an untenable position.

1325
I submit that the result is a Bill which will make absolutely no difference to the possibility of such a similar atrocity taking place in the future. I find it absolutely sickening to witness all the political parties doing their utmost to score points against one another over this tragic matter. I believe that the Labour Party behaved disgracefully when its leader pre-empted the results of Lord Cullen's inquiry by announcing at the Labour Party Conference:
"I believe we should ban the private ownership and possession of handguns".
Also, I find it sickening to read and hear in the media persons such as the honourable Member for Putney accusing legitimate firearms licence holders of being "perverts". I submit that the sensible course of action would have been to implement all of Lord Cullen's recommendations; provide more powers and resources to the police to enable them to make very serious inroads into the vast stockpile of illegal weapons and ammunition; and to persuade our European partners to tighten their gun control laws and their border operations to restrict severely the inflow of illegal weapons from the former eastern bloc countries. That is a major problem. It seems to me quite ridiculous that some of our Euro-partners have gun laws which are at best weak when this country has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. I hope that Brussels will look carefully at the lead being taken by this country in such matters.
I turn for a moment to the matter of compensation. Many people stand to lose their livelihood from the effects of this Bill. It is a disgrace in a civilised society that people can be so deprived of their ability to earn their living through absolutely no fault of their own, through what amounts to legalised theft, with no compensation for the loss of their businesses. I am fully aware that the amount of money available for compensation purposes has grown from an original £25 million to £50 million to some £150 million. I commend the Government on that, and for the fact that the scope of the compensation is now wider. But this is, to my mind, a monstrous injustice, unworthy of a country which has always believed in the virtues of fair play. I hope that the Government will make every possible effort to minimise the financial hardships which the Bill will most certainly cause and that your Lordships will amend the Bill to widen the scope of compensation, when we come to Committee and Report stages, to include the small number of specialist dealers and manufacturers—often small businesses and family based.
It is a very great pity that both Hamilton and Ryan committed their atrocities with legally held weapons. The problem does not lie with those who legally hold guns. The problem lies with the millions of illegally held weapons which are cheap and freely available. This is the area where tough and decisive action is needed, not the needless persecution of the legally held gun-owning community.
1326
The 1968 and 1988 Acts are full of anomalies but in essence they are readily workable. In the case of Hamilton, the systems were not used properly. The result was that Hamilton, who should never have been able to possess a certificate, became a certificate holder.
In conclusion, I trust in the enviable reputation which your Lordships' House has earned over very many years—a reputation for fairness and knowledge and for improving bad legislation. That is our primary function, and I fervently trust that on this occasion we shall not be found lacking in this area.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I own two handguns (two pistols). They have been good friends of mine during my life. I am happy to give them up if that is what is required. I shall be a bit sad, but I have never kept them in my house. I do not believe that a pistol should be kept in anyone's house. They have always been kept in a secure place where I know that they can do no one any harm. I have also to say that I am not a director of anything pertaining to this debate; I do not belong to a gun club any more; I do not belong to a security company; and I do not consult for any.
I have seen and been to a number of gun clubs. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said, some are outstanding, some are average, and some are below average. The areas in which they are below average occur also in those which are average; that is, the security of their arms and ammunition, right across the board.
After Hungerford, a great effort was made. Everyone woke up. The only people who have been to sleep since are the Government. The Government have been to sleep. They have said that Hungerford is all over and people have woken up. I am especially disappointed that while the Cullen inquiry was in being the Home Office did not take a good hard look at gun clubs. I believe that in many ways they have been given some confidence and could assert the law so as to improve the situation. After Hungerford people appeared to go to sleep in the belief that everyone was happy.
The members of the Association of Gun Clubs and the committees of the gun clubs must take their duties more seriously. The committees should act more like trustees so that they have overall control of their clubs. They must be much more fussy about who is allowed membership. Discipline as regards the ranges and the keeping of armaments must be further considered. Guns should be kept in a gun club.
Many of today's excellent police officers have not done National Service. Therefore, apart from those in the special armed units, their knowledge of guns is minimal. There is in this country a great wealth of experience of weapons and of their security and that pool should be made use of. We have been rather lax in doing so.
I wish to refer the Minister to two aspects in respect of which we should take care. Indeed, perhaps amendments can be made in Committee. First, she lightly brushed over the heritage pistol. It is not a muzzle loader but a pistol, as the noble Lord, Lord

1327
Monson, described. It is part of our heritage and is the admiration of world heritage, as are our suits of armour, sabres, pikes and so forth. As time passes such items become part of our heritage. If the collectors, learned bodies and societies which own and study such items were to turn them in we would lose part of our heritage.
Furthermore, if in the meantime the owners cared to get rid of them some people on the Continent and in America would pay through the nose for them. But, once more, we would be giving our heritage away. We are quite good at doing that with our pictures and so forth. I believe that the compensation figure of £150 million would not cover the cost of the heritage pistols which are owned throughout Britain. They are lovely weapons, if I may use that expression, and an art form.
I am no expert but I have been advised that the total cost will be £800 million to £900 million. The Government are not going to pay for that, so I urge them to do something about it in Committee. Of course such weapons are lethal—they are working—but there is no requirement for them to have ammunition. However, in my humble estimation, I believe that we do not want to lose this part of our heritage. Lancaster, Webley, Wilkinson, Bland, Farbery, Henry and so forth were great pistol makers and have provided us with some of that heritage. We should hold on to it.
I turn to the second matter which I ask the Minister to consider. The total remit of a few security companies is the protection of VIPs. They are able to provide that service. They are well run and are part of our export earnings. They work overseas; there is no requirement for them here but they are based here. They work against intense competition, mainly from French, Israeli and American competitors, and they bring money back to this country. It will look odd if we are unable to provide that service, which does not affect people in Britain. Employees of such companies must keep weapons, train and practise with them and maintain them. Furthermore, they must have ranges. Often, indoor ranges are sufficient—indeed, I have designed several—upon which one can play many of the necessary actions. With modern technology they can be made secure. I believe that under the Bill such companies will go out of the window and I urge the noble Baroness to do something about that. Let us be positive and not say that everything is rotten and bad. Let us see the worth of some aspects, whether it is shooting for the Olympic Games or whatever.
Like many speakers, I am amazed that there has been no debate on the Cullen Report. We are at the end of a parliamentary term, when I normally rise to debate defence. The business managers always put that debate on just before a Recess, but now we are taking this Bill rapidly just before the Christmas Recess. That shows a weakness on the part of the Government. They cannot spend time and energy to get the Bill right so it comes up at the end of the term to be passed quickly when everyone will flannel it through.
It is a pretty lousy Bill and I do not believe that it has much to do with stopping people being murdered by criminals. Most of the 50,000 or 60,000 members of gun
1328
clubs are extremely honourable, good citizens. There are bound to be a few macho men who join a club in order to wear a camouflage smock, which no member of any self-respecting club that I have attended wears. But there are a few who go for the beer. The committees and the Association of Gun Clubs should sort out such people and ensure that they attend clubs in order to improve their competitive marksmanship to a certain standard.
There could be something to be said for allying the gun club system to the Reserve Forces. It was done in Queen Victoria's time. We do not want members to be running up and down hills trying to be soldiers, sailors or airmen. However, we need the discipline of the military man with his weapon and we need his expertise in the security of his weapon. Above all, members of gun clubs would feel that they were part of something and were doing good for the nation in their competitive shooting role. Various standards of marksmanship could be instituted to which they would have to adhere if they wished to remain members. I have always found that if a club is difficult to join there are always a good few people who wish to become members. In that way, the best membership is achieved.
I am not sad about the Cullen Report because it is a good report. But I am very sad about the way in which politicians have pandered to an early election and have all leapt to their feet and made a great deal of noise. That is not a pretty sight to the average citizen of this country. We have a lot of work to do if we are to take on this Bill. It must be put right and I hope that noble Lords who are to speak and who have spoken will make certain that we make the best of what, frankly, is a fairly bad job.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as the holder of a firearm and shotgun certificate. Obviously I should like to be as supportive as I can of the Government and their Bill which we are now considering on Second Reading. However, the best that I can offer is to say that the alternatives proposed by the Labour Party would be significantly, and perhaps very significantly, worse than what the Government have put forward.
Why do I believe that this is a bad Bill? Partly it is for the reasons set out so lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. But essentially—and it is a bit of a cliché so I am surprised that nobody has yet said it in the debate—because it is not guns which kill people; it is people who kill people. This Bill is all about guns and not about people.
If I had a real point of criticism to make in relation to why the situation arose in Dunblane, it would be to condemn the Home Office for their longstanding incompetence in administering the licensing of firearms. That is an incompetence which, in my view, is matched only by its incompetence in administering the custody of prisoners. It may not be directly relevant, but I have been recently establishing some of the facts in relation to that matter. I find from a Parliamentary Answer that when people are sent to prison not only are their passports not removed but there is not even any attempt

1329
to inform the passport-issuing authorities that those people are in prison. I expect to discover shortly that prisoners can obtain new passports while in prison, just in case they should need them!
As we know, the tragedy in Dunblane happened on 13th March 1996. I had become very uneasy about the administrative system for both firearms and shotguns back in December 1995. I tabled a series of Questions for Written Answer to try to establish exactly what was wrong. I found that there was absolutely no proper co-ordination or cross-referencing of records on who possessed weapons. There was no linkage between police forces as to who had licensed weapons and nothing covering the sort of people who should and should not possess such weapons. Anybody who reads the Cullen Report will see that weapons were possessed by a wholly unsuitable person who was, as a result, able to commit that monstrous crime.
One obvious and easy measure to take would be to have a cross linked computerised record of the ownership of all such weapons, enabling the suitability of individuals to be checked. My noble friend Lady B latch—and I say this in criticism of the Home Office and not of my noble friend—had to report to me in a Written Answer of 24th January:
"The Government remain to be convinced that the substantial resource implications of establishing a central computer register for all firearms is justified".—[Official Report, 24/1/96; col. WA 76.]
We are now considering a Bill providing for £150 million of taxpayers' money is to be spent on compensation. I suggest that might not have been necessary had there been such a proper register.
Indeed, by 30th January 1996, I had reached such a stage of frustration that I wrote a letter to my noble friend in which I said:
"The information you have supplied me with so far",
this followed a whole series of Written Questions,
"shows two things. First that the present system is unbelievably bureaucratic and secondly that it is widely inefficient and inadequately used".
I then went through some of the details in particular in relation to computerisation and the need to check on people's suitability. I continued:
"I hope that you can see why I feel that the present arrangements are thoroughly inadequate, unsatisfactory and unduly burdensome … 1 sense that the Home Office has put the shutters up against what it no doubt sees as the impertinence of a mere legislator questioning what it sees as its sole prerogative!"
The tragedy at Dunblane is merely an aspect of the failure of successive governments, but particularly, I am afraid, this Government, to realise that in dealing with citizens there are certain requirements. Those are: to protect society from those who are going to commit crimes; to protect society from those who are going to defraud society; and to protect society from those who are going to ill treat each other. Something that the state most needs is a proper computerised personal record system with a single identity number—I am not talking about cards which are a subsidiary issue—so that proper checks and records can be made on such matters as the holding of firearms. Sadly, none of that is included in
1330
the Bill. I shall try to amend the Bill in order to ensure that in future, through this Bill, we can focus more on the individuals rather than on the weapons.
It is always sad to see a government dancing to the tune—perhaps I should say the screech—of the tabloids and sad too to see the Opposition seeking to dance even more rapidly to the same tabloids. It would be very sad indeed if your Lordships' House were not to have sufficient confidence in its own future to subject this Bill to the criticism and amendment which may be necessary, regardless of superficial public opinion.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I was out of the country at the time of the Dunblane massacre. Every newspaper carried the story on its front page and the impact of that fateful day will never be forgotten by any of us. Of course, we all grieve for the parents of Dunblane.
I decided to speak in this debate because a member of my family has been a keen competitive shooter for years. He is invariably placed near the top in many of the competitions he enters. He shoots with a Smith and Wesson .38 revolver which has been especially modified for precision target shooting. The gun is probably worth in the region of £1,200 excluding accessories. This type of gun is adopted by the top competitive sportsmen for full-bore events, and will be among those to be handed in, so I believe that the sport will be destroyed. On numerous occasions my relative has represented England and club while competing both here and abroad. He is also treasurer of a pistol and rifle club in Surrey and is worried that his club will not survive the proposed measures.
I, like many noble Lords, have received a large number of letters from legitimate shooters and sportsmen. Most of them have read Lord Cullen's report and mention that the Government have chosen to ignore many of its recommendations. I believe the Bill will probably destroy all open competitions due to lack of participation, as most clubs will be unable to comply with the new measures. The letters reveal a great sense of injustice and betrayal. Many of my letters are from executive members of rifle and pistol associations. One writer even asks whether the 1689 Bill of Rights could be upheld. As already said by other noble Lords, it would seem that about 57,000 law-abiding gun owners are being found guilty for the crime of one deranged man.
At the end of the day, of course, it is up to the Government to take action to prevent another Dunblane, and this Bill is intended to do just that. But I have to say that like many others I have my doubts. It is easy to disarm the law-abiding citizens who are few in number, but how on earth are the police going to get to grips with the illegal guns around? I have been given one estimate of about 4 million. Some 96 per cent. of crimes involving guns are committed with unlicensed firearms. I would think it would be extremely difficult to trace those. The tragedy here is that Thomas Hamilton possessed four legally registered guns. Reading Lord Cullen's report I got the impression that perhaps the

1331
deputy chief constable had erred when reviewing Hamilton's firearm certificate. Surely there must have been doubts about the man's behaviour to make the deputy chief constable think again and refuse a certificate. I for one simply cannot believe that he did not have the power to do so.
There is another point. I am told that customs officials do not often check individual vehicles at ports since the borders became more lax. Bringing a gun into this country must be relatively easy as a result.
Compensation is going to be extremely costly. I was glad to read at col. 707 of Commons Hansard of 18th November that the Secretary of State has confirmed that compensation for clubs, retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers would be in order, and that he would accept an amendment to that effect. Do I now understand that that would not be the case? I thought I heard the Minister say something to that effect when she opened this debate. The tragedy of all this is that if you have enough money I suspect there is nothing on earth that you cannot buy, either in this country or any other for that matter. Purchasing an illegal firearm would be child's play for those who were desperate enough.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we all sympathise with the parents of Dunblane. But, however distraught people may be, emotion makes bad law. Thus British shooters have all been found guilty for another man's crime on the premise that if one goes berserk, the others must follow. Legal gun owners are found guilty without trial and must all be punished for no crime at all.
Dunblane hit the headlines but it was no more a tragedy for those families affected than for any other family losing a child. Indeed, tragedy is worse for individuals who suffer losses as they have no group comfort. There are scores of sudden tragedies, both individual and en masse in the air and on the roads. But, as one journalist wrote, Dunblane tapped a deep well of emotion. There is something frightening about a political system that responds to emotion and not to reason. It reminds us how close we are to lynch law.
Last year 43,700 children below the age of 16 were killed or seriously injured on the roads. Some 459 aged under 10 were killed and another 2,500 seriously injured. Each death was traumatic for the family concerned. Does that not put Dunblane into proportion? However, aircraft and cars are not to be banned. More children die each year from dangerous dogs and from the actions of drunk drivers than from gunshot wounds. The difference is that they die by ones and not by the mass and so do not attract the attention of the media.
There are some 57,000 target shooters in the country. They include ex-servicemen, policemen, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, teachers and—as has been mentioned—many wheelchair shooters who would have difficulty with a larger weapon. Those people are not Rambos. Many pistol shooters have fathers and grandfathers who fought in the wars. They see it as a personal insult that the rights for which they fought should now be taken away as a knee-jerk reaction.
1332
The Dunblane women have understandably wanted to see the end of private ownership of guns, but many other women have written to me to ask that their menfolk should be allowed to retain their sport. They compete in events leading up to the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, but that will be no more, or, at best, they will have no chance of success without the weapons with which to practise. Banning .32 and .38 for UIT centre fire events will deny participation to the British in the 2002 Commonwealth Games event and will deny British competition in the Olympics in that sport. Will competitors from abroad receive an exemption to come to this country with their guns, or will the event itself be banned? Why should foreigners be trusted with weapons that the British cannot use?
It would be misleading to pretend that the streets will be safer as the threat from criminally held illegal guns, of which there are four to five to every gun with a licence, will remain the same. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that most gun related crimes involve illegally held guns. Of 657 weapons used in armed robberies in the Metropolitan area between 1988 to 1991, half were imitations and only one of the rest had been licensed. That is some 320 illegal weapons. In Glasgow firearms can be hired for £50 a day with a discount if the gun has not been fired, and they can be bought for just over double. Had Hamilton not had pistols, he could have either obtained them illegally, or used some other weapon. The logical outcome of the ban is to drive more guns underground.
Incidents such as Dunblane and Hungerford are so rare that they form a poor basis for legislation. There is no law that can be written that can stop homicide on whatever scale if a maniac intends to do it. If murder is in the heart of a "nutter", there are plenty of other ways for such people to commit murder. At Monkseaton in 1989 a shotgun was used to shoot 14 people; at Sullivan Upper School it was a home made flame thrower constructed from a fire extinguisher. In Tasmania it was rapid fire from a rifle and in Wolverhampton it was a machete. A petrol bomb can be used. A bus queue of children can be mowed down by a car. All are obvious possibilities. A baseball bat can kill many before the assailant is overcome. Is the ownership of petrol cans, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, machetes, and motor cars to be made illegal? Any object can be used. However, it is not the object itself that is dangerous but the "nutter" behind it with the access to the target. One simply cannot ban everything that a lunatic could use to cause damage.
As society becomes more centralised, and as control is increasingly exercised over doubtful characters such as Hamilton, they feel themselves to be more isolated and alienated than ever before. From time to time we shall see the consequences of those who perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they are discriminated against. They will burst out into mass killings. Having trained our population with constant exposure to violence, and fuelled their fantasies with pornography in the media, on film and on video, we cannot be surprised if we now reap the harvest of gratuitous violence, road rage and sexual deviation. We must expect a shift in the whole pattern of human behaviour leading to cases of ever

1333
more bizarre and aggressive behaviour. Therefore, more episodes such as Dunblane and Hungerford are highly probable. Removing handguns will only make the next "nutter" use something different. If he uses a rifle, will rifles then be taken from all legitimate owners? Will the same thing happen to shotguns? The decision to ban the guns as a result of the Cullen Report was taken before any reasoned debate, and before the tens of thousands of shooters were able to put their case. It was knee-jerk legislation without considered debate.
Few clubs will have the resources to meet the storage criteria. Members are likely to move to another sport. Storing the handguns in one place in a club presents a challenge to thieves to break in and get a worthwhile haul of a number of guns in one raid. Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that every natural and legal person shall be entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and shall not be deprived of them except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. It guarantees citizens full and generous compensation in respect of retrospective prohibitions of property.
Many people have their own ammunition and magazines, holsters, gun safes, and so on. I am glad that the Government will now include those in their compensation. One person's equipment was valued at £6,500. He believes that he will receive only £450 in compensation. If that is true, how can that be called fair for someone who has done nothing wrong?
Furthermore, when will the compensation be paid? After Hungerford, when self-loading guns were banned along with shotguns holding more than two cartridges, they were bought in by the Government. I am advised that some of those who handed their guns back 10 years ago are still waiting for compensation to be paid. To promise compensation and then not to pay is dishonest. I am so glad that the concession has been made for historic weapons. That is a great concession.
There are those who rely on gun sport for a living. Some 1,800 traders actively deal in firearms. For them, some 70 per cent. of their trade is reportedly derived from pistol shooting. They probably hold more pistols and accessories than the public and they alone could account for a demand for compensation of some £380 million. Some gunsmiths will go out of business, yet there is little likelihood of their receiving compensation.
The Bill will destroy some 2,000 businesses, wasting the talents of some 10,000 highly skilled and law-abiding people. Some have worked for years building up their target shooting businesses for them now to be taken from them through no fault of their own and for no legal misdemeanour, with no compensation for their businesses. One site owner spent £30,000 building his range. There is a 40-year lease that will cost the club a further £40,000. Another club spent £60,000 on improving facilities. That will be lost; there will be no income to meet the charges. One site owner has seen the withdrawal of a purchaser of his ranges when he wanted to retire after a figure of £200,000 had been agreed, which represented the retirement fund for the owner. Will he be compensated?
1334
Many ranges are purpose built, very professionally run, and with high investment. There is a total investment in property and buildings which could add up to something like £200 million. The livelihood and retirement finance of many of these people will be ruined. Will that bring satisfaction to the Dunblane parents as a quid pro quo for the loss of their children? Two wrongs never make a right.
The cost to many of the clubs of becoming secure enough to keep the .22 pistols will in most cases be quite beyond their ability to pay and the clubs will close. Even if the sums were available, and one is talking of sums of six figures. planning laws may prevent the building of, for example, security walls.
The whole value of compensation in the country could add up to £1 billion. Will the Government pay that? Alternatively, will they contravene human rights and confiscate without adequate compensation? If they did so, what would they do if the European Court were to find in favour of compensation for the gun and range owners?
I am surprised that the Opposition are so keen on the Bill. If they manage to win the next election it is they who will have to find the money, on top of all the other promises of largesse that they have made. Or would they rat on the Bill?
Then there is the cost of making some 10,000 people unemployed, many of an age at which they will not be conveniently retrainable or able to get a job if they were retrained. The cost of maintaining those people on social security could run to £91 million a year.
The answer to the problem of mass attack does not lie in banning from every law-abiding person every weapon that is or could be used by some nut case. That would end up with everything from the motor car to the rolling pin being made illegal. Nothing but a wooden spoon would be safe. The answer lies in protecting the public, and schools in particular, with security devices just as do many businesses and flats now with their electronic doors. It would be far more effective to spend the compensation budget on that aspect than on compensation for one weapon after another without the hope ever of stopping the determined mass murderer from finding an alternative for his act.
Hospitals must also be better protected. At the moment a madman could walk into many a hospital and pull out the tubes from a dozen patients before he would be stopped. It is quite frightening. With deranged people about there is nothing that might not happen, and most action results from ideas disseminated by the idiot box in the corner of the room.
If precautions are taken as a matter of routine, there is a chance of avoiding the next mass murder which will be either with an illegally held handgun or with any weapon that may be available—petrol can, machete, poison, or screwdriver—you name it. I cannot, therefore, support the wholesale destruction of pistols when it will not achieve any result. Such destruction will deprive 57,000 innocent people of their sport. It will debar the country from competitions. It will throw many people out of work. It will bankrupt businesses. It will contravene human rights and will be the vehicle for

1335
inadequate compensation for perfectly law-abiding citizens. If this bad Bill is passed, there must be fair compensation not only for the guns but also for the ancillary equipment and the businesses with a time limit for payment by a definite date.
The Bill is ill thought out, will cost a lot of money in compensation, and will not work any more than did the withdrawal of repeater guns 10 years ago. It is a waste of public money, an insult, and grossly unfair to shooters; and it will not prevent another tragedy.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend was not exactly flattering about the Bill. However, I must remind him that the House of Commons has accepted the broad thrust and balance of what is contained in the Bill. It has done so by a large majority. In effect, it has agreed with the Government that the confidence of the public in its safety demands that Parliament should go somewhat further than Lord Cullen recommended. In fact, the other place gave the Bill a Second Reading by a majority of 384 votes to 35—no small majority.
I agree with other noble Lords who have said that in this particular circumstance it would be highly inappropriate for this unelected House to decline the Bill a Second Reading here, either on the ground that the Bill goes too far or that it does not go far enough. At the same time, the Bill needs careful examination in this House. The legal expertise which resides here, as well as local knowledge of city, town and countryside, and knowledge of the sport of target shooting and of firearms in general, are already revealing themselves in the debate. That will mean that we can have a detailed and, I hope, a very constructive Committee stage.
I do not regard myself as a pistol packing Annie—as a shooting lobbyist, as the media would have it—but I know very well, as did my noble friend Lord Sanderson, of the fears that Dunblane kindled in many a house across the whole of Scotland. In Committee your Lordships may be able to find practical and workable ways to achieve the thrust and the difficult balance that the Bill strikes and at the same time protecting, somewhat better, the freedom of people to pursue their leisure interests which are unavoidably affected.
I should like to suggest two particular aspects at which the Government might look. The first—I do not think that it has been mentioned—is the position of small handgun clubs in scattered rural areas. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate—he has been sitting throughout the debate beside my noble friend the Minister until a few moments ago—probably knows that in Angus and East Perthshire, where I live, a number of small clubs pursue their sport entirely in the open air. They have no premises. They simply bring their weapons to properly set up ranges in quarries, on hillsides or at outdoor military ranges—at the marine base of HMS "Condor" and the army camp at Barry Buddon. Clearly the tight rules proposed in the Bill will make the organising of shooting in that way virtually
1336
impossible even for .22 and below weapons. Creating a safe lock-up and transporting the guns to the ranges would be far too complicated and expensive.
I do not know whether there is a way round this problem. If not, one way forward might be for the Ministry of Defence to help by enabling clubs of that kind not just to use its open ranges but to have some secure storage on its premises so that members could keep their weapons there. Although the distances travelled by club members would be greater and probably clubs would have to amalgamate, at least they could survive if they wanted to. Perhaps my noble friend will indicate when she replies whether the Government have considered that possibility, or whether she might feel able to raise the matter with ministerial colleagues and ask them to discuss it with defence Ministers. There are a number of defence establishments across Scotland and it might be very helpful if that could be arranged.
The other point I want to raise is how appeals against police refusals to grant and police decisions to revoke firearms certificates are dealt with in Scotland. In paragraphs 8.114 and 8.115 Lord Cullen sets out the reason why there is uncertainty when an appeal goes to the sheriff in Scotland, whether it is the sheriffs duty simply to decide whether the police have exercised discretion capriciously or inappropriately, or whether it is his duty to look at the appeal afresh. I am advised that an analysis of the Home Office submission to Cullen shows that in Scotland under current arrangements only 3 per cent. of appeals to the sheriff are granted, and that it is felt by lawyers specialising in this matter that it is often difficult for Sheriffs to be able to draw on adequate expertise in order to make their decisions. The dubiety as to the nature of the decision must add to the dilemma.
This is likely to be even more of a problem in the future when the powers of the police will increase and they may, understandably, tend to en- even more than now on what they see as the safe side from their point of view. Appeals against their decisions may therefore be more numerous and a greater number may possibly be legitimate.
It was suggested to Lord Cullen that such appeals might be heard before a specialist panel or tribunal rather than before the sheriff. Lord Cullen rejected that and favoured retaining the present system, as I understand it, but with a limited list of grounds for appeal. I should be interested to learn whether the Government have looked carefully at the question of whether a tribunal or small panel would be a preferable approach. It would enable lawyers who have expertise in this area, and other citizens with specialist knowledge, to take part in the panel; and it might create more faith in the system. Those are two points among very many that have been raised. I greatly look forward to the Committee stage. In the meantime, I hope this House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I put my name down on the list of speakers for this debate because, about four years ago, I discussed with a variety of Members

1337
of this House the possibility of bringing forward a Bill to ban the ownership of handguns. I did not do so because I was reliably informed that it did not stand a chance of becoming law. If there was ever an occasion in relation to which I feel bad about not doing something and listening to the undoubtedly correct advice of my colleagues, it was that.
We have heard a great deal about how it is not handguns that kill people; it is people who kill people. I could hardly believe it when I heard that. When we talk of a handgun, we are talking about a mechanical device that is designed to kill people. Historically, handguns were always developed to fire at man-sized targets. Throughout history that is what they have existed for. We may have changed their use to that of a sporting device, but that is the history of the handgun. It is a close-range offensive weapon. It is also used as a defensive weapon, but inflicts death and damage on people from short range. It does not matter that its use has changed; that is its capacity.
The growth in popularity of the handgun as a personal weapon started in the days when such guns could be made efficiently; namely, when the wheel lock was introduced. Just to show that there is nothing new in the idea of handguns being dangerous, I refer the House to an Act of Henry VIII in 1542 forbidding the use of pistols. One of the reasons given against their use was that they enabled people to carry out "detestable murders, robberies, felonies, riots and routs". Even at that time you had something with an enclosed firing mechanism; you could take it out of your pocket, point it at somebody, squeeze the trigger, and you had a lethal discharge. That is the origin and history of what we are talking about. 1 suggest that we bear that in mind. There is already an historical precedent for banning these weapons.
It is also worth bearing in mind that handguns replaced swords as the weapon of choice when an accurate firing mechanism and multiple shots became available. People quite often miss when using pistols. I studied the history of duelling pistols as part of a military history course when I was preparing for a course in personal insight at university. I learnt that a gentleman undoubtedly hit a target when he was practising, but when it came to the real thing he invariably funked it and shot something else. Lots of rounds are needed to make these weapons effective. It is the magazine that enables somebody to carry on shooting. That is why Hamilton was so deadly. If he had had a .22 pistol he would probably have had to fire more shots at people in order to kill them because the smaller bullet displaces less tissue as it tears through somebody—that is, the holes are not quite so big. But if there is sufficient magazine capacity and there are enough bullets you can always put a few more holes in someone. The lethal capacity is still there.
Another small historical anecdote may put all this in context. Colonel Colt was called the great equaliser because of his six-shots handgun of the wild west. If I remember the expression correctly, it is: "God made men big, God made men small. Colonel Colt made them all equal"—because anybody could use a handgun. That is the history of what we are talking about.
1338
I leave the House to judge whether it is a greater violation of civil liberties to remove from a section of our society the right to use such guns as sporting implements (I do not say banning handguns altogether, or at least multi-shot handguns, which is what I hoped would be the result of this Bill) or whether it is a greater reflection on our civil liberties to allow people to carry on enjoying life, limb and happiness. However, if we are going to discuss this issue, let us be honest about what we are dealing with. We are talking about a weapon. It is not a sporting implement; it remains a weapon if it fires a metal projectile through the air so that it can pierce a target. The sword, which the handgun replaced as a personal weapon, is not a very easily used lethal weapon. The emphasis is on ease of use. Even with a full swinging Napoleonic cavalry sabre, one still had to get close enough to a person to hit him. The difference between using a bladed weapon to kill and using a handgun was displayed in the two attacks on children in playgrounds. In Wolverhampton, people were hurt but they did not die. It was a barbaric act, but people did not die. I suggest that if we bear that in mind, the true essence of what we are talking about becomes clearer to all concerned.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I do not know whether he has considered the damage that can be done by a sawn-off shotgun, loaded with buckshot. It is rather more than a .22 pistol.
I do not shoot with a pistol, so my only interest to declare with the Bill is perhaps as the father of a 12 year-old daughter. As such, my heart goes out to the children and families in the Dunblane atrocity. So it is for all of us. But I cannot support the Bill. Were it not for the conventions of your Lordships' House I should certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, in the Division Lobby. As it is, I can only congratulate him on the lucidity with which he introduced his amendment and on his courage in putting it on the Order Paper.
I have had more letters about this regrettably unjustifiable Bill than on any other Bill. They are nearly all well written and well reasoned letters from decent people who see their recreation and sometimes their livelihoods removed at the hasty and nervous stroke of the politician's pen. The Bill is therefore in the mould of the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Child Support Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned. It is also in the mould of the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act of last year which was the politico-bureaucratic machine's knee-jerk reaction to those young people who died so tragically in a canoeing accident. On that sad occasion, as with the events leading up to Dunblane, the existing regulations had not been followed. I am told by friends in the Scout movement, for example, that that Act has made life very difficult for many scouting activities, without any discernible benefit whatever. In the Dunblane case, a senior police officer has resigned—honourably no doubt—because he did not make sure that the existing procedures were carried out.

1339
The large majority who voted in favour of the Bill in the other place does not make me think that it must be a good Bill. Instead, it makes me worried about the state of our democracy which is being devoured by bureaucracy and by misguided professional politicians.
In the interests of brevity, I shall take issue with only one specific point made by the Minister today. She said that disablement and/or taking the gun to pieces and perhaps keeping the pieces in separate places would, none of it, solve the problem. I think I heard her say that it would not deter the determined and motivated individual who would be able to acquire the spare parts illegally. But one of the policemen who has written to me points out that there are many more illegal firearms in this country than legal ones. He says:
"It has been suggested that owners would obtain illicit spares. But this would of course require the necessary criminal contacts, from whom it would be far simpler to obtain a complete illegal gun than a particular component part of a particular make and model of gun".
He also points out that component parts are defined in existing legislation which covers major components such as frames, cylinders and barrels for revolvers to go with slides for self-loading pistols. These components are already subject to the same controls as a complete firearm. They require police authority to be acquired legally and may require fitting by a trained gunsmith. So I cannot follow the Minister down that particular route.
I also have to say that compensation is not the point. These people do not want compensation; they want to keep their livelihoods and their sport. So I regret to say that I agree with all those noble Lords who say that this is a bad Bill. It is unlikely to save a single life, but it will blight the enjoyment of thousands of honourable people. I hope very much that the Government will think again.
7.24 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, if there is one fact that unites this whole House, it is that the origin of the Bill stems from one of the greatest tragedies to beset any community. I, like so many other noble Lords before me, express my deepest sympathy to all those who have suffered in any way because of this ghastly Dunblane tragedy.
We can quite understand the course of action that was taken by some as a result of the disaster. I think it is easy to sympathise with those whose initial instincts are to ban all handguns. But whether that call is wholly justified, fair, practical or would achieve its purpose is, as other noble Lords have said, highly debatable.
I wish to start by declaring an interest, as I am president of the Gun Trade Association. I am bound to say that there is a very strong sense of betrayal by members of that association and by many others besides, that those involved with handguns, in whatever legal form, have not been given a fair hearing. They feel that they have been badly let down, and I have to say that to a large extent I agree with them.
Noble Lords have mentioned a number of letters that they have received on the Bill. I have received over 200, from good, honest citizens who have participated in the
1340
sport and who feel that, largely because of political opportunism, their sport will be curtailed. I very much regret that the agreement which was made by all three main political parties with regard to Lord Cullen's Report was not adhered to.
How much more satisfactory it would have been, as was originally proposed, to have delayed the report until after the party conferences and then to have engaged in rational, sensible debate, based on this fully researched and learned deliberation. The consequences of such a move would, I am sure, have been legislation founded on fact and devoid of excessive emotion which, as we all know, invariably leads to bad law.
Unfortunately, a combination of timing, a small parliamentary majority for the Government and political opportunism all got in the way and we have this compromise before us today. I was hoping to avoid making any party political points; but I must take issue with a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I think he said it was the Government's fault that this compromise to which I referred earlier broke down. That is not my recollection of what happened. I believe that it was his party who took the opportunity of exploiting—and I use the word carefully—the Snowdrop Campaign at their party conference. It was that, combined with the quick decision made by the other Opposition party, that forced the Government into this position and forced us into having the Bill before us today. But at least we have something to offer those
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way? I am obliged to him. The point I was making was that the Government announced their intention in advance of the publication of the Cullen Report. That was the criticism I made of them. But of course it is always the responsibility of the Government to act responsibly because they are the Government.
Earl Peel: My Lords, that may well be the case, but I suggest
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene because it is important to deal with the point here and now. The Government did not announce anything before the Cullen report was made available to them. There may have been interesting speculation on what the Government would say; but they did not anticipate the report. They received it and then responded. I hope that that will be noted for the record.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her remarks. I think it would be best if we rested on that. We have before us now a Bill which will offer some refuge to those people who wish to continue their sport. It is not perhaps what they would have liked, but at least it is a reasonable compromise.
The truth behind this whole ghastly affair is that it could and should have been avoided, as other noble Lords have already said. I believe it begs this question: whether we would not be more sensible to consider yet again, as we did in 1988 after the Hungerford case, the question of whether it would not be prudent to consider

1341
the introduction of an independent licensing authority, similar to the DVLC, which operates in Swansea, dealing with all motor vehicle licences.
I am bound to say that most organisations and individuals with whom I have spoken on the matter, who clearly know a great deal on the subject, are in favour of such a scheme. I know that the idea is very much supported by the Firearms Consultative Committee, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. The obvious advantages would be that we would have real specialists dealing with the problem; it is true to say that not all the police involved are real specialists. We would have consistency, which we certainly do not have at the moment, throughout all the regions. I believe that it would he more efficient and it would certainly save police time.
As I understand it, it is the cost that has been regarded as the major obstacle to such a suggestion, but I would have thought that if one were to introduce a higher initial cost for licensing fees, making sure that the licensing fee lasted over a longer period, this could overcome the high establishment costs of such an institution. I would be grateful for an indication from my noble friend the Minister whether the Government would consider this seriously. It very much goes along the lines my noble friend Lord Marlesford was suggesting in his speech. I thoroughly agree with what he said on that matter.
Moving on to the question of compensation, I accept and welcome the fact that the Government have moved some way on this very thorny matter. There is no doubt that other noble Lords have quite clearly stated that there will be businesses which are likely to suffer considerably. I do feel that more will have to be done to help them. As Sir Jerry Wiggin put it in another place (at col. 1069 of Hansard for 4th December):
"the Bill will … deprive many dealers, manufacturers, agents, transport companies, suppliers and others [of] their livelihoods".
He goes on to say that it could ruin individuals who are liable for long term leases and mortgages for clubs and ranges and that:
"it is a matter of morality",
that those interests are protected.
I should like to pick up on "morality". I believe that Sir Jerry is absolutely right on this.
In my capacity as president of the Gun Trade Association Ltd, I attended an open meeting in Birmingham quite recently to discuss this Bill, and I witnessed at first hand cases where people's livelihoods will be seriously affected by this Bill. I heard their frustrations, I listened to their concerns and their utter disbelief that, after years of building up a business, it could be destroyed or curtailed at a stroke—just as we are witnessing at the moment—and through absolutely no fault of their own.
This is something we must give time to. There is not the opportunity now to discuss it; but when we come to Committee stage, I am sure that we are going to hear a lot more on this particular subject.
My noble friend Lord Kimball rejected the question of disassembly. I am no expert in these matters. All I am told, (and I have to believe it to be the case) is
1342
that certainly up to 95 per cent. of weapons can be disassembled effectively; whether that is going to answer the question from a security point of view, I am not at the moment in a position to judge. However, I am told by experts in the British Shooting Sports Council that this remains a very real option and a very sensible option, one which would save money and would be easy to put into effect. I reserve judgment on that and again, I believe that this is something we must consider very seriously when we discuss this Bill in Committee.
The Government have made improvements to the Bill in another place, and I welcome them; but I am particularly pleased that the Government have accepted that small calibre pistols may be stored with a registered firearms dealer in addition to a pistol club. This could save small clubs very considerable cost. However, I ask my noble friend to confirm that I have interpreted the speeches made in another place correctly and that this is exactly what the Government are hoping to achieve.
With the number of illegal handguns circulating throughout this country, there will clearly always be the danger of further tragedies and, despite tighter controls on legally held weapons, the opportunity of acquiring illegal ones will always be there—and far too easily, I fear. Surely, that is where the real effort should be directed.
The question we need to ask ourselves is this: are we right to remove the privileges afforded to a very small minority of people simply because a system failed through no fault of their own? Of one thing I am quite certain: had the number of individuals participating in sports involving handguns been significant, we would not now be discussing the abolition of a large part of that sport. Instead, we would be concentrating our efforts solely on considering ways of tightening up the security of such weapons, and that is exactly the conclusions that were reached by Lord Cullen. The removal of the privileges of a minority who have done no wrong but who have been let down by a system is a dangerous one to operate within a democracy. I believe we do ourselves no favours.
However, as I have said earlier, I accept the position that the Government find themselves in, and I support this Bill. There will be much to do in Committee, of that there is no question of doubt, but I believe the Bill is worthy of support, although I give my support with rather a heavy heart.
7.37 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I may have an advantage over many of your Lordships in that I followed through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I was convinced then that the possession of shotguns and firearms had been made as restrictive as the law should make it. That 1988 Act was the panic result of the Hungerford massacre, which was very similar to the Dunblane tragedy. Unfortunately, this Bill before us today is another news media inspired panic Bill. I regret I do not know the background to the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1968, because that was a year before I took my seat in this House.

1343
As I understand the position, we in Great Britain already have the strictest gun laws of any European country. However, there is nothing in our legislation requiring any person to have had any practical experience or safety instructions before being licensed to have a shotgun or firearm certificate. This is where our legislation has gone wrong, but I cannot and should not support the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, in his Motion.
When I took my seat in your Lordships' House, my wife said to me, "Criticise whatever you like but make certain that your criticism is always constructive and never destructive." That is a principle that I have always tried to follow in your Lordships' House.
When I was a teenager, I was put through the strictest gun training, under the estate gamekeeper, on the handling of all guns, as was the custom in those days. All the safety procedure was drilled into me and particularly that you never ever allowed a gun to be pointed at anybody, even when unloaded. I, and I think most of your Lordships who went through a similar gun training, could never, even in anger—except in war against an enemy—point a gun at anybody, because that etiquette was so drilled into us.
A number of European countries require a shooter to have some authorised instructions before being granted a gun licence. We require nothing. That is where the legislation before us is wrong and will do nothing to prevent another Hungerford or Dunblane.
Under the Bill compensation has to be considered. Many firearm certificate holders have bitter memories over the 1988 Act, when semi-automatic full-bore guns and rifles were banned. Many owners of such firearms received only a fraction of their gun's true market value and, I am told, many are still waiting for their cheque to arrive. No compensation was allowed for accessories, such as security lockers, which often cost as much as the gun, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough said.
The provisional estimate under this draconian Bill of doing away with all centre-fire pistols and other handguns is about £150 million. There are about 160,000 such legally held guns in circulation, which means that the compensation would be of a value of £937. I do not know whether or not that is a fair figure. However, Mr. Brian Carter of the Gun Trade Association, who is a member of the Government's Firearms Consultative Committee, as well as Mr. Graham Downing of the British Shooting Sports Council, estimate that a reasonable compensation payout is likely to be £1 billion. That figure includes accessories and allows some compensation to the many firearms dealers and manufacturers who will be forced out of business. I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Blatch said that she was considering compensation for accessories in respect of individuals. I am equally grateful for what the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said about the manufacturers of these guns.
By successive legislation, reducing the variety of guns that can lawfully be held, this Government are strangling our very important gun, rifle and pistol
1344
manufacturers. I ask your Lordships to remember that many of the best guns are virtually hand made. It would be a tragedy if this trade went overseas to, say, Spain.
So, not only will this emotive, panic Bill that is before us cost the taxpayer a lot of money, but it is also bound to increase the number of unemployed. Has the Government's Firearms Consultative Committee considered that? Furthermore, I ask the Government to bear in mind that, if we lose the manufacture of fine quality guns, we may lose other industries, such as the skilled spring manufacturers—and we use springs, almost all hand made, in a hundred household items. We all know that it is through education that we become fit and proper members of society. Around this country there are a number of shooting schools and gun clubs, where qualified instructors can and do teach people to shoot carefully and accurately. The instructors that I have met are competent and dedicated to their job.
It should not be difficult for the Government to introduce legislation requiring every prospective gun or firearms owner to go to a shooting school and for that school to grant a certificate of competency to those persons who have reached the required standard or discipline, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. That standard could be checked by the police. But any person who fails to obtain a certificate of competency should not be permitted by the police to hold a shotgun licence or firearm certificate. The police should also be allowed to refuse a licence to anybody about whom they are suspicious, unless that person has obtained a certificate of competency from an authorised shooting school.
Any person who at present holds a gun or firearms licence from the police for a period of, say, 10 years, should be required to obtain a shooting certificate of competency from an authorised shooting school before being able to renew such licence. In future, persons who hold a shooting certificate of competency should, at the end of, say, 10 years, be required to go back to a shooting school on a refresher course and obtain an endorsement of competency.
While we cannot legislate against the maniac behind a gun or behind the wheel of a car, at least the driver of a car should have passed a driving test, which now includes a written test. No such test is required for guns. Unfortunately, the gamekeepers of yesteryear have almost disappeared. But had Thomas Hamilton been required to obtain a shooting certificate, I think the police at Dunblane would have weeded him out or at least would have had greater powers to take action on suspicion. Those of us who have been properly taught about guns look after them most carefully and guard them with our lives. Properly taught and responsible people do not abuse privileges.
Let me take one other example, that of explosives. No legislation is being considered to control the availability of fireworks. Public records show that there were over 1,500 firework injuries in the years 1994 and 1995; and this year there have been three deaths. If the Government introduce legislation requiring gun owners to go through a proper training it would cost the

1345
taxpayer nothing, but would go a very long way towards only responsible persons being able to hold the guns that they wish to hold.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like many noble Lords I have an interest to declare as, from time to time, I fire full bore handguns at the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club. I also train with the TA, but I do not hold a firearm or shotgun certificate. Incidentally, the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club is not packed with "gun-ho" Members of another place as suggested in the media. They are far too busy representing their constituents. In fact, on my last visit the two previous firers were both young ladies, presumably employees of one or other of our Houses.
I shall never forget the atmosphere in your Lordships' House on that fateful day in March when we received the dreadful news from Dunblane. We could not make any sense of it then and we cannot make sense of it now. My heart goes out to all those affected in Dunblane. I am sure that in similar circumstances I would feel the same as they do and take the same course of action.
It is interesting to compare the number of speakers today with those for the Second Reading debate of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994, to which I contributed. Other contributors included the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Kimball, Lord Monson, Lord Swansea, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Annaly. While recognising that it was a Private Member's Bill and not amenable to amendment, I do not recall anyone, including the Opposition, saying that we must ban all handguns as a matter of extreme urgency. After Hungerford I cannot see how the events of Dunblane can be said to be unimaginable or unforeseeable. Having said that, all contributions to the debate are welcome.
I sometimes wonder, when discussing this matter with the other parties, whether they have actually read all of the report of Lord Cullen.
I listened with interest to the Minister when she repeated almost word for word the concerns of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place involving shooters who,
"don the trappings of combat".
Has the noble Baroness or her right honourable friend referred that problem to the FCC? Was it a problem that suddenly appeared just before Dunblane?
There is no need for me to discuss the general merits and background of the Bill. I could not possibly improve on the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and indeed many others. But I am worried about the lax controls on shotguns. Certain noble Lords seem to think that their shotgun and field sports are safe. But if Dunblane had been perpetrated with a shotgun I am sure the Minister would now be explaining how dangerous a shotgun was; that it was used to kill living things while a handgun was only used for target practice. No doubt she would say that a handgun was safer as it could be moved discreetly and could be
1346
locked away in a floor safe. She might also describe the power and the size of a shotgun cartridge compared with that of a handgun.
Shotguns are extremely dangerous weapons and it is pointless to have Draconian rules for firearms while treating shotguns as toys. I shall be considering tabling or supporting amendments to address that problem. I do not believe that we have a problem with a specific type of weapon; rather we have a problem with control and administration, as many other noble Lords have said.
Shortly after the Dunblane tragedy I contacted a relative who had been a firearms officer in a West Country city. He had received no training; he was not an authorised shot; and he had no special knowledge of firearms. I was not perturbed or surprised because he was "in the chair" well before Hungerford and I thought things would be different now. So I was not a little surprised when I read Lord Cullen's report at paragraph 6.46 where he discussed the part played by the firearms inquiry officer and said,
"It was her one and only firearms enquiry".
Matters do not seem to have progressed very far. There is one criticism of the police that I do not believe to be fair and that concerns their handling of the events of that fateful day. My heart goes out not only to the victims and their families, but also to those who had to try and manage an incident that was infinitely worse than anything they could possibly have planned for or imagined.
The noble Earls, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, and others touched on the concept of a firearms control board. I support that suggestion but there is an obstacle. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned the cost. The Home Secretary's reply to a Written Question in another place makes it clear (at col. 287 on 20th July 1994) that a civilian firearms control board would be beneficial to all. He then went on to say that it had been discovered that it was not economic. I find that extremely interesting. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and we appear to have a similar situation with regard to the private escorting of abnormal loads on motorways and linked dual carriageways. I suspect that the reason in both cases is that ACPO and its Scottish equivalent are following a fundamental rule of public administration; that is, not to voluntarily reduce the size of your train set!
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, rightly mentioned training and experience. The control board would be able to ensure that shooters had the right level of experience for their authorisation. Time is marching on, so I will not trouble your Lordships with any more detail in regard to control except to say that I would expect it to reduce unnecessary ownership considerably and in particular inappropriate types of weapon. It might also have a role with regard to knives.
On glancing through the Bill there are some commonsense exemptions to the ban on handguns. However, Clause 4 is a little alarming. Its effect would allow the use of a working handgun to start races at an athletics meeting and presumably in schools as well. That is incredible. It is hard to believe that it was drafted after the events of Dunblane. Is the Minister aware that

1347
it is easy to kill someone by firing a blank if the muzzle of the revolver is pressed against the victim's head? Is she aware that safe blank firing guns are available that make it unnecessary to use a firearm for that purpose. They can probably also be connected to timing mechanisms. If the Minister thinks that this is a well thought-out Bill, I would hate to see a bad one. This clause will require attention in Committee, as will Section 11(2) of the 1968 Act.
My last observation concerns the confusion over who needs certificates and for what; it is a complicated area. Perhaps we should consider a number of different classes, each one allowing greater access to guns. There could also be different age limits for each class which would allow for early tutoring. No doubt age limits will be discussed during the Committee stage.
We certainly require legislation in this area and the FCC reports identify many important points. We need a regime whereby shooters can carry out their legitimate sport while at the same time providing proper protection for the public.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords the deep sense of grief over the Dunblane massacre. It confirms in my mind the belief that there is no place in our society for guns other than those for which there is a legitimate use and by persons with a legitimate reason to use them.
The spectre of a gun society such as that in the United States being forced upon us unless a total ban of all guns, particularly handguns, is enforced is probably somewhat overdrawn. As noble Lords will know, there are constitutional reasons that make it difficult to improve the gun control situation in the United States.
There is no doubt that in America there are horrendous statistics of gun-related deaths; for instance, 35,000 people each year are killed, many completely accidentally, due to loaded weapons being made available to children, individuals using them without knowing the working of a gun, or the fatal conclusion of the family tiff. Fortunately, our present firearms control legislation, one of the strictest in the world, prevents that situation.
The proposed extension of the legislation to ban certain calibre handguns will make the legislation even more rigorous. I believe that this House would wish to see rigorous regulation of firearms but that that regulation should not be so rigid as seriously to disadvantage groups which hitherto have had a perfectly legitimate right to own and use certain calibre handguns. One such group with a legitimate right are those whose task it is humanely to kill or slaughter animals, such as veterinary surgeons, hunt officials and knackermen. As my noble friend the Minister said earlier, the exemption is provided under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. In that case the calibre of weapon is either .32 or .35, the .22 calibre being insufficient to dispatch a horse efficiently and humanely.
At this point, perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct an impression created at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place when the Minister of State,
1348
Miss Ann Widdecombe, implied that the British Veterinary Association did not agree to the proposed exemption in Clause 3. That is reported at col. 860 of Hansard of 19th November. I should like to state that both the British Veterinary Association and the British Equine Veterinary Association are emphatically in favour of those exemptions. As a member of the veterinary profession, I may be one of the few people in your Lordships' House who is legally entitled to have a high calibre pistol in his possession.
I hope your Lordships will agree that veterinary surgeons and others are responsible and trustworthy people to hold handguns of a higher calibre than .22. The restriction placed on them is rigorous—I know that—but people who have these guns for that purpose live with the regulations and by the regulations. I would submit also that there are other responsible and trustworthy individuals who at present are able to hold handguns of various calibres and who would be deprived of this ability by the new legislation with the exemption of holding .22 calibre weapons; in other words, members of gun clubs, competition marksmen and the like. One is very much aware of the strong feeling on the part of those individuals who point out in letters and lobbying documentation that their firearms are prized, that they look after them with great care and that their firearms are not in any way akin to what is called the "Saturday night special", which is common in the United States and which inflicts the majority of the damage that we hear about. Their guns are not the ones that cause the problem.
As we can learn what not to do from the United States, perhaps we can learn what we might possibly do on the positive side to modify what members of gun clubs see as an unfair situation by an examination of what happens in Australia. In Tasmania there was a comparable tragedy of many people being killed by the use of a repeating rifle. It was not a handgun, but it had the same disastrous effect.
In Australia the possession of handguns has always been strictly controlled. They are owned only by members of shooting clubs approved by a licensing board. Individuals are licensed by that board. A member of a club must participate in club functions at least four times a year. He does not need to go to the gun club simply for a social reason. Individuals not conforming to those conditions may lose their licence and have it revoked for an extended period of time. Guns may be kept at home but in a reinforced concrete facility—a storage room—with double locks and often a timelock too. Ammunition is kept separately.
I have seen facilities in Australia and I have been greatly impressed by the extremely responsible attitude taken by members of gun sports clubs there. Something similar to that in this country, with the same rigour of control, would be a response to the proposal for a total ban on handguns other than the .22 calibre and would not negate the overall aim of tightening gun control so that the possession of illegal firearms was greatly reduced and, one might hope eventually, eliminated altogether. It is not the legal guns that are the problem;

1349
it is the illegal guns that define the problem. I support the Bill in the hope that it will eventually lead to a marked reduction in illegal guns.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, on entering my car three or four days ago, I turned on the wireless and heard a very senior Government Minister's voice stating, "We must not hurry these matters. It is important to get them right". It transpired that he was talking about something else, but how right he would have been if he had applied it to this Bill.
One consolation so far as we are concerned is that the Government have rushed the Bill through the other place at such a speed that the Bill has had totally inadequate consideration. There can therefore be no complaint from the other place if your Lordships, whether hereditary or life Peers, returned the Bill with substantial amendments.
I am quite confident that the desire of everyone in this House will be to secure, as far as possible, the safety of the public. We have not heard that said this evening. As has already been stated, the Bill will do little or nothing to achieve that safety. Just like the 1988 legislation, it is being rushed through when what we need—and the country really needs—is fully considered firearms legislation. I am confident that we can produce a number of amendments which will vastly improve the security of firearms and thereby the safety of the public.
We really must not forget that legally-held firearms certificates should be given only to law-abiding citizens and, provided the police do their duty, the current laws should ensure that that is the case.
Most of your Lordships will have received large numbers of letters from pistol shooters. It is clear from those the anguish which the proposals in the Bill have caused; the feelings of injustice that they are being punished for something that was nothing to do with them. I am sure many noble Lords will remember being punished at school for something one had not done. That punishment always hurt more than those that were justified. I can say that from experience.
But if people are to lose their livelihoods—a business built up over the years; perhaps a job as a skilled tradesman, possibly going bankrupt as several businesses have done at the threat of this legislation—then one must look for some justification for rendering pistols illegal. When one looks at this matter it is very difficult to find any justification. So it is more than possible to understand the bitterness not only of 50,000 pistol shooters but of many more ancillaries, families and friends and, indeed, many rifle target shooters who will have to close down. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned a figure of 100,000 plus. To my mind, that is a substantial number.
Many of the shooters have said that they would hurry to dispose of their pistols if there was any prospect of that saving life, but this legislation does not do that. If the police had carried out proper procedures at Hungerford and Dunblane, the fact that the answers on
1350
the firearms applications were not correct would have come to light and no certificates would have been issued.
The police were to blame for both these disasters and not the law-abiding shooters, who are now being victimised. It was not the fault of the Acts passed in 1968, 1988, 1992 and 1994. The blame was entirely due to the maladministration of the police. For instance, Hamilton applied for a certificate to use a full-bore pistol with the Clyde Valley Club in 1979–80. That pistol club used the range underneath Hamilton police station. It was only licensed for the use of small bore weapons and yet Hamilton applied for a full-bore weapon. In addition, the police never made a check to see whether or not Hamilton was in fact a member of the club. A mere telephone call to the secretary would have quickly put that matter right. The police removed that club's documentation and records, ostensibly for the Cullen inquiry and for the fatal accident inquiry. In fact, the club has had no records since last March. The police left neither a receipt nor, I believe, did they have a warrant. The club could not even secure copies of their records. Noble Lords will appreciate that that makes it rather difficult for a secretary to run the club.
I understand that another club member from the central area applied for the renewal of his certificate for shooting with the Clyde Valley Club, after Lord Cullen had reported. This was granted by central police and in spite of all that had just transpired, this force never consulted the Clyde Valley Club secretary to ascertain whether the applicant was a member.
This club has made a number of applications for the return of its documents and even though the fatal accident inquiry took place on 28th of last month—and I know that the Minister has tried to help to get these documents or copies thereof sent to the club—nothing has yet arrived. A lawyer has also been taken on to try to get recovery of the documents.
Why is there all this secrecy? Why will the police not return these documents? Could it be that the documents show that in fact there were further inadequacies and maladministration by the central police? It seems that instead of taking the advice in 1987 of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and a number of other people, that further supervision was required—I believe that the Government have had similar advice from their Firearms Consultative Committee—that has been constantly refused. Indeed, a recent conference of police superintendents called for a central weapons database. But why was Deputy Chief Constable McMurdo, whom your Lordships will remember was one of the senior police officers who resigned immediately after the closing of the Cullen inquiry, appointed as an Assistant Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland? He was given that appointment on 13th March. Here is a man who was forced to resign being put in a position to advise all the other constabularies in Scotland on how to run their firearms procedures.
I believe that the English police do not yet have consolidated procedures to issue to their officers when making inquiries over firearms' applications. It is only in the past week or so that the Scottish forces have

1351
managed to produce draft procedures. It may be of interest to note that the proposals submitted by the Central Force to this committee were rejected out of hand and I believe that something similar—because of their complication and draconian views—applied to Tayside. It is necessary to see the ACPO minutes and documents which they had been considering. If these are not available to individual Peers then a Select Committee of this House should be set up to examine these matters.
There is a lot that has not come to light over this matter. Surely what is required is an inspectorate with proper firearms' expertise to advise the police forces. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to that. Such a body would indeed lift a lot of the burden from the various chief constables and their firearms officers as they would be in a position to advise, quite apart from also being in a position to ensure, that the right procedures were being undertaken. This sort of operation should have been adopted immediately after Hungerford, but the lesson was not taken. Now we have another disaster and it is absolutely paramount for the safety of firearms management that these procedures are adopted. This is of vastly greater importance than the "ban", "ban", "ban" we have been hearing. Indeed, the current proposals to ban may have the reverse effect, according to Lord Cullen, and this, I am certain, would also be the view of a considerable number of your Lordships.
Are there not justifiable reasons for believing that there has been a big cover up over this horrid disaster at Dunblane? The biggest mistake has been to throw the blame upon the pistol and the pistol shooters, as it was thrown upon the firearms' fraternity at Hungerford. This is, therefore, the second time that the blame has been diverted from the police, where it should justly lie, on to innocent people.
Lord Cullen did a magnificent job on a very complicated matter, but there are serious matters which were never openly brought out at the inquiry. Unfortunately, the three pistol clubs involved, which could have revealed some of these matters, could not afford to be properly legally represented; and finance, which could have been made available to them, was withheld until it was too late for the inquiry.
Certain quarters have tried to attribute blame to Freemasonry. As the present Grand Master Mason in Scotland I can assure noble Lords that extensive searches of the records of Scottish Freemasonry have been carried out and no trace of Thomas Hamilton nor DCC McMurdo can be found as ever having been members of the Craft. The press have harassed the secretary of a Lodge called Garrowhill and considerably upset his wife, who is about to have a baby. This is iniquitous when Grand Lodge have been only too ready to reveal that there are two Thomas Hamiltons in this Lodge, but they are both alive and kicking—at least as far as the older of the two brothers are concerned, because he is over 90. There are a lot of "Hamiltons" living in the central belt of Scotland. The information
1352
given to Mr. Frank Cook was inaccurate in many respects and I gather that his parliamentary researchers may have received misinformation.
However, what was the cause of contact between Hamilton and DCC McMurdo who were reported to be meeting each other? There have inevitably been a number of rumours; talk of local politicians (not, I think, the Secretary of State) putting pressure on the police and there have been suggestions of blackmail. But unless there is an inquiry, presumably we will never know the real answers. There is certainly something very far wrong. It is a great pity that these matters never came out in public in the Cullen Inquiry. What is quite clear is that we now had two instances where the police have been seriously at fault over firearms. Are we to wait for a third disaster before action is taken, as is certain, unless proper steps are initiated? For instance, the Inspectorate of Constabularies in Scotland produced a thematic report on the administration of firearms in Scotland, with particular reference to the Central Force. This was published last March. A report on Hamilton was also produced by Chief Superintendent Paul Hughes for Lord Cullen, but in spite of repeated requests these papers have not been released.
The proposal to keep firearms in a central armoury would inevitably lead to trouble and, however secure, determined individuals could break in. For instance, the keyholder could be held up by somebody outside and threatened or his family could be threatened. It would be quite easy for someone to go into a central armoury. I understand that recently about 40 weapons were stolen from a police armoury in Bedfordshire. It appears that in recent weeks weapons have been stolen from a police station in Dumfriesshire. Police officers are the culprits in each case. The police say that they are the only ones who can be sufficiently responsible to take in the weapons. Does this mean that they do not trust the dealers to whom they have granted permits?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my interruption. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will deal with these extremely wide-ranging allegations concerning the police both in Scotland and the Thames Valley. Some of the statements that have been made by the noble Lord are quite disgraceful. He has tried to put forward a very convoluted conspiracy theory, believing that there have been cover-ups and all the rest of it. On the direct issues, particularly that concerning the Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland who has resigned from the police service, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will deal with these allegations when she replies.
Lord Burton: My Lords, your Lordships may be interested to know that one of the Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament for the Highlands was president of a local pistol club. I am told that he greatly enjoyed being wined and dined by that club. No doubt he was encouraging it to give him its vote. When this legislation appeared he spoke out openly that all handguns should be banned. I understand that the club suggested that he

1353
might resign his presidency. At the initial stages he refused. I believe that he has now done so but it took a considerable amount of pressure.
Both the Labour and Liberal Front Benches have advocated the banning of all weapons, including .22s. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench tell noble Lords whether that will greatly increase the amount of compensation? At the moment .22s are not the subject of compensation. If dealers are to be compensated the amount of compensation required will increase enormously. One wonders how much compensation the Treasury is able to stand. Necessary compensation to meet existing promises could well be greater than the £150 million proposed in the Bill. My noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Balfour drew attention to this matter. One wonders from where such a frighteningly large sum of money will come.
I understand that almost every clause of the Bill runs contrary to European Union rules. I never expected that one day the European Union might be able to help this country, but I understand that legal opinion from eminent QCs, is that there is every prospect of success in an appeal to the European Court for the overthrow of many of the proposals in the Bill.
Anyone who listened to the Cenotaph service on the wireless last month would have heard the commentator say that it was written "in memory of those who gave their all for justice and freedom". This Bill is grossly unjust and will impose a severe restriction on the freedom of a considerable number of our citizens. Many alternatives have been suggested today to alleviate the situation and at the same time provide the protection that is sought; indeed, give much greater protection. Most of the Bill should be changed. Let it not be said that in 1996 politicians of all parties, their advisers and the media betrayed those who gave their all. As 1996 rolls to a close let there be reflection, and when we return in 1997 let there be a new light shining.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, from all that has been said at great length, your Lordships are definitely in a no-win position. Even its supporters say that this is not exactly a good Bill. Whatever we do with it, we are bound to be wrong. At this stage in the debate on the Bill it is difficult to avoid making reference to points already made. However, I shall try to follow as a theme some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. Understandably a great wave of emotion followed the deplorable tragedy of Dunblane. But is it right to produce this knee-jerk reaction at immense cost that penalises an innocent section of the population and the taxpayer generally? One understands that politicians must be seen to be doing something. Senior speakers from all parties have vied with each other, I suspect mostly to attract votes. This may be understandable. Perhaps it is their business. But why are all of them barking up the wrong tree?
Let us consider for a moment the incident at Hungerford. Here one had a known nutcase. I suggest that he was irregularly, illegally and irresponsibly issued with a licence to purchase types of weapons which his
1354
gun club—membership of which he gave as the reason for acquiring the certificate—was not licensed to use. Clearly, it was a simple breakdown in administration that had nothing to do with the then gun laws. Then one witnessed the "to be seen to be doing something" syndrome and a similar reaction set in. There was an attempt to tinker with the gun laws and avoid the real problem. What was done then did not cure the problem. Dunblane provides the proof that what was done following Hungerford was not the solution. There appears to have been a similar breakdown in administration, in that the gun laws were not properly administered in Dunblane as they had not been in Hungerford.
All of us have heard the analogy of the man who flings a brick through the window of a jeweller's shop in the high street, grabs a diamond bracelet and dashes off. The authorities arrive and, because the man has gone, decide that they really must do something about the brick. That is exactly what is happening now. But it is even worse than that. We are discussing the size of the brick—for example, a .22 brick. It is rather a childish exercise. It is rather like a number of eminent physicians standing round a patient's bedside and saying that they do not understand the disease and they will not bother to find out but they will treat the symptoms. The problem is not how but why. To address that problem is not simple, nor is it dramatic or evidently publicised as something being done. We return to the same old mantra chanted by politicians. When they become bemused and befuddled and do not know what to do they simply suggest that the gun laws should be tightened up, but they do not get to the root problem. If we did the wrong thing last time at Hungerford why are we trying to repeat it.
I do not have the resources, facilities or necessary research to investigate the real problem of why such tragedies occur. As a starting point I make the following suggestion. It is now almost impossible to turn on one's television set without seeing on any channel somebody pointing a gun at somebody else and possibly firing it. In the past we all played cowboys and indians. We would say, "Bang, you're dead". We believed that we were in a faraway mythical place known as the wild west—a thought much engendered by Hollywood. Now such actions are depicted in everyday life and surroundings. Is that not conducive to making people believe that such action is normal in everyday life? As a result, the myth that we live in a safe society and a safe country ought to be debunked. Any glance at the newspapers daily will show that that is absolute rot.
Here I must declare a somewhat antiquated interest of over 30 years ago. My firearms certificate covered some of the most lethal handguns. I had them for a specific purpose: my company used to make nice bronze screens for banks. In the early 1960s the banks started to get "matey" with their customers and they said "Take these screens away", and so the screens were taken away. It happened to be at that time that guns started to be used across bank counters and my company and I decided to manufacture efficient, bullet resistant glass. I therefore had .45s, .44s, .38s, .38 specials and, what I considered to be the most lethal weapon of the lot at the time, the

1355
357 magnum firing the Winchester metal-piercing cartridge. We were able eventually to design a sandwich of glass only 21.5 mm thick which would keep that out. We also introduced the louvred glass window—now very much outdated—which said, "Speak here". Nobody wanted to speak there at all, they wanted to speak through the hole underneath, but nevertheless those would keep out the 357 magnum with that special Winchester cartridge.
But I must tell you that the most dangerous weapon of all was not that Ruger with that special cartridge, which was almost an armour-piercing cartridge, it was the shotgun—the shotgun at short range, even sawn-off. The police would not allow me to have a sawn-off shotgun but they very kindly sent an inspector down to the range at my works and we tried it out. It was infinitely more lethal. So had Ryan and Hamilton not had a licence, there is very little doubt they would have found some other means of a "how".
In the 1930s one was told that certain areas of the country were so dangerous—around Docklands I think it was—that the police had to go in twos. They go in twos around Westminster now and armed police, totally unknown in the 1930s, are available more or less on request when a serious situation arises. So we do not live in a very safe society. Something has gone wrong. Incidentally, there are no party points to be made out of this because most of the time when I was making my bullet resisting glass it was under a Labour Government.
I suggest that this is a bad Bill addressing the wrong problem. It may satisfy those who appear to feel that somebody must be made to pay for Dunblane, no matter who, and politicians seem to be currying favour in pandering to this. But I suggest that it is very cruel to induce people to believe that this Bill will stop another Dunblane. Tightening up the gun laws is just a diversionary political tactic.
We all know, and we have heard it said, that in the United Kingdom and the British Isles, Ireland has had the tightest gun laws for decades. I can speak for quite a long time ago—in 1946 I was a military attaché in Dublin and I used to go to the North quite a lot. One could see even then that the place was awash with weapons. So illegal weapons abound despite tight gun laws.
The futility of this Bill was illustrated by the BBC announcer the day the Bill was published. He said it will result apparently in the destruction of some 160,000 weapons but many times that number of illegal weapons are in circulation. Some figures have been given to us, but in fact, the main effect of this Bill will probably be to enhance the price of illegal weapons for criminal activities.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of our "oh so clever politicians" to find a way not to penalise an innocent section of the community and the taxpayer in order to be seen to be doing something. But could they please spend their time, effort and resources in facing up to the real underlying problem; try to do something about "the why" of these events and not just think about the bricks and the symptoms.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a life-long shooter, a member of the Council of the National Rifle Association, and a founder member and former chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. I must express my deepest sympathy with the parents and families of those children so tragically done to death at Dunblane. This caused shock and horror all over the country and throughout the world. The Government's response was out of all proportion, fuelled by public opinion and the tabloid press.
The Government were right to set up a public inquiry chaired by the honourable Lord Cullen, a wise and distinguished judge. His report was very sensible and well balanced. The Government chose to ignore it and to go way beyond his recommendations. One might well ask why they decided to hold an inquiry at all. They could have saved the country a great deal of money by not having it. They chose to ignore it. One would have thought that Parliament would be given the opportunity to debate the report but no, the Government were in too much of a hurry to get the Bill through Parliament before Christmas. It is up to your Lordships to lick it into a more acceptable shape, however long it takes.
The Bill can only be described as an abomination aimed at stamping out a harmless sport enjoyed by thousands throughout the country. I have received about 200 letters from pistol shooters, all expressing the same theme: why have we been made scapegoats for the sins of one madman when we have committed no crime and are never likely to do so? A couple of letters came from disabled women in wheelchairs for whom pistol shooting is the only competitive sport they are able to practise. Such people do not like being labelled as potential criminals and murderers.
Possession of a firearms certificate is evidence that the holder is a responsible citizen who has been judged trustworthy to have lethal firearms in his possession, yet the Government are now saying that the same people cannot be trusted to hold firearms. That is palpably absurd—you cannot have it both ways.
The massacre at Dunblane claimed 16 young lives and brought grief to many sorrowing families. This Bill aims to create up to 57,000 more victims who have done no wrong and who will be prevented from carrying on a harmless recreation. For generations British shooters have won their share of awards in international competition whether in the Olympic or Commonwealth Games or in other world events. If the Bill goes through in its present form these people will be deprived of the opportunity to develop their ability to the full. A pistol shooter in the top rank of his or her sport needs to have daily access to his pistol for actual firing on a range, for dry firing without ammunition or for tuning and adjustment. All that is essential for keeping the firer and his pistol up to top trim.
The proposals in the Bill for storage of pistols are beyond belief and are beyond the capabilities of most clubs. Many clubs have no premises of their own and may not even have a range of their own. Their only premises may be the secretary's own house. To expect such clubs to go to the expense of building a secure

1357
store for the housing of the members' pistols would be asking the impossible and might well force the closure of the club. Perhaps that is what the Government want.
A system of storage, such as that envisaged in the Bill, with police permits for a pistol to be taken out for any purpose, would place an impossible burden on the police and lead to a further increase in bureaucracy. I can foresee an inevitable result—yet another increase in firearms fees for firearms certificates.
A concentration of fully assembled working pistols in one place would be an open invitation to any terrorist organisation to mount a raid on the place. Surely the better solution would be to allow the owners to keep them at home. A person judged suitable to hold a firearm certificate must be presumed to be sufficiently responsible to be aware of the lethal potentialities of his pistol or pistols to exercise proper care over their storage. If that were to be combined with the practice of "disassembly", or the removal of certain essential components, and their separate storage elsewhere, so as to render the pistol inoperable, total security would be achieved. I follow that principle myself with my own rifles, which are put away with the bolts removed and stored elsewhere. The result is that a thief is faced with a useless chunk of metal which is quite harmless. The same principle should of course be followed with the ammunition, so that the weapon, its firing mechanism and the ammunition can never be brought together except when the owner is going to shoot on a range. Lord Cullen and ACPO have expressed their preference for that method.
The objection has been made that the owner might provide himself with a spare of the component to be removed so that he could re-activate the pistol at will. However, to obtain such a spare would involve a variation of his firearm certificate, which the police would be unlikely to grant. The purchase of a spare barrel or cylinder for a revolver counts as a variation of a firearm certificate. So the police would have that control over it.
I should like now to say a brief word about what I shall call heritage arms. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, this country was in the forefront of the development of new designs. Models such as the Webley-Fosbery, the only true semi-automatic revolver, and the Gabbett-Fairfax "Mars" pistols, probably the most powerful pistols ever invented, come to mind and are highly sought after by collectors. To condemn such pistols to total destruction would be vandalism of the worst kind, and I hope that the Government will recognise the need to preserve such milestones in museums for posterity. Many of them are superb examples of the gunsmith's art.
I shall not dwell at length on the question of compensation to be paid to owners of pistols which are to be surrendered other than to say that the sums which have been mentioned are niggardly in the extreme and do not reflect the true value of the pistols. That is nothing less than legalised theft. Doubtless other noble Lords will have something to say about that and about other aspects of this abominable Bill.
1358
The Government, in introducing the Bill, have brought upon their heads the wrath of some 57,000 law-abiding users in a harmless recreation. Doubtless they have been panicked into legislating, not only by pressure from the public and the uninformed popular press but also by the imminence of a general election. They cannot be unaware that in so doing they will lose a large number of votes which they can ill afford. On the other hand, the shooting community cannot be unaware of the declared intentions of the party opposite should it form a government. In that case the shooters will be out of the frying pan into the fire, and their last state will be worse than their first.
I want to assist the Government and help them to salvage something from this mess. They have chosen the line of least resistance in attacking an innocent body (the legitimate shooters) as a soft target and one that is readily identifiable. Much of the blame for what happened at Dunblane lies, not with any deficiency in the present law, but with the way in which it was not administered properly by the police. Lord Cullen makes that clear in his report.
The setting up of a central firearms control board, which has long been advocated by the BSSC, would go a long way towards eliminating the wide differences in the administration of the firearms Acts as between different police forces. Moreover, even if all pistols above .22 calibre are to be banned, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a vast pool of illegally held firearms in the country which are used in crime. No one knows how many there are. We can only guess. Some estimates put it as high as 4 million, far outnumbering the legally held pistols. If the Government were to concentrate their efforts on tracing and eliminating that enormous pool instead of hounding the innocent legitimate shooters they would be able to gain some credibility in the eyes of the shooting public.
It is not too late even now for the Government to withdraw this terrible Bill and replace it with another on the lines recommended by Lord Cullen. I urge the Government to do just that, and I leave this thought with your Lordships. It comes from America:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, our debate has highlighted some of the practical concerns felt by Members of this House and by the wider public outside. The proposals contained in the Bill will bring changes to the ownership and care of handguns and the way in which they are kept and used. I shall restrict my comments to four points: first, the Government's prime responsibility in protecting the public; secondly, an overall reduction in legally held handguns; thirdly, the compensation given; and, fourthly, exemptions to the Bill.
Whether we are participants in the sport of rifle shooting, or merely, as I am, a member of the public, we must be aware of the concerns expressed about the increase in violence, whether perceived or actual. Some of my noble friends have referred to the fact that that is

1359
probably being accentuated with the coming election, but I do not agree with them. It is a genuine fear of many members of the public.
The tragic death of Philip Lawrence and the Dunblane shooting brought the whole issue to the fore. A tightening up of the ownership of handguns and the use of knives had to be reconsidered. Lord Cullen's excellent report gives us practical ways of how that can be tackled.
The Government's proposals that all high calibre guns should be removed should be welcomed. The removal from circulation of 180,000 guns is a good move. That, together with other proposed measures on the authorisation of ownership and the keeping of small calibre handguns, should help in the fight against crime. As ACPO says:
"The proposed ban on high calibre guns and the tightening up of firearm controls generally will provide a significant improvement in public protection".
My second point is to ensure that where individuals or businesses hold guns which will be banned by the new regulations, adequate compensation is given. The market value of such guns, before 16th October 1996, will be paid to the owners whether individuals or gunshops. Compensation for kit which can only be used with such guns is also to be included. I welcome the £150 million already put on one side to help.
Individuals may be most helped, but perhaps we might further consider gun clubs. They have not been directly included. I know that this may sound flippant—although that is not my intention—but I ask my noble friend the Minister whether an application by small clubs for lottery money might be considered. After all, money is given to sporting clubs. I wonder whether that point has been considered. Again, the question is not meant flippantly.
My third point relates to exemptions to the Bill. The Bill rightly says that professionals, such as vets, huntsmen and slaughterhouses will be allowed to hold high calibre handguns to enable them to do their normal daily work. The Bill will also ban expanding ammunition except where it is necessary for the culling of vermin and wildlife in the context of estate management. There are exemptions which will allow people to continue their normal working commitments.
Fourthly, I turn to the use of handguns for sporting purposes. The proposals in the Bill will affect them directly with the requirement that handguns should no longer be held at an individual's home but at a secure, authorised gun club. In her letter to The Times today Mrs. Sarah Cooper says that the Bill will destroy pistol shooting. That is not strictly true, but there will be greater requirements as to how the sport is carried on. She asks that the Government exempt the small and highly defined group of competitors who make up the national squad. But to reach the top, one needs to start at the grassroots. If one does that, how would one come through the system? How would we define them?
In the middle of her letter, Mrs. Cooper compares the position of other high profile sporting people: Steve Redgrave, sitting on the towpath, or the English football
1360
team being precluded from taking part in this year's European championship. That is ridiculous. It is not a comparison. Guns in the wrong hands kill people. Surely, footballs and boats are not lethal.
I appreciate that the proposed regulations will add to the difficulties of those pursuing their legal sport, but in the wrong hands guns are dangerous. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, says that he keeps his guns in a central place, but some people have expressed doubts about doing so. The thought is that criminals would know exactly where to find the weapons. But that is true of both the police and our Armed Services today. Anyone reading of the recent death of Kenneth Speakman would have been moved. He was a sportsman who died about a month ago when his home was burgled and his handguns stolen. Interestingly, his rifles were not stolen. People will appreciate that however careful, and I understand that he was, one is still vulnerable.
The debate gives us the opportunity to express detailed suggestions to make sure that this Firearms (Amendment) Bill will work. I return to where I began. The Government's responsibility is to the public. They expect us to provide as safe an environment as possible. We cannot alter the awful events of the past in Hungerford and Dunblane, but we can and should make every effort to ensure the safety and wellbeing of future generations.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, as a regrettably infrequent attender to your Lordships' House, I must say how impressive I have found tonight's array of speakers. I was astonished to discover that a great majority were critical of, and some strongly opposed to, the Bill. I confess at the outset that I approached the matter in a state of sublime innocence. I had no interest, knowledge or awareness of pistol shooting as a hobby or sport. The attraction of firing bullets at bull's-eyes is to me as unfathomable as the obsession I detect in otherwise rational human beings for hitting balls into small holes in the ground. What I have found most impressive during the past two weeks is the evidence from correspondence, mostly hand written and individual rather than from organisations, that pistol clubs claim an allegiance and affection of their members which is in no whit inferior to that of golf clubs to their members.
Most of the arguments and facts that I had carefully prepared have been laid before the House and I shall pursue the unusual course of not repeating them. I say simply that whatever one's initial reaction to the horrific events in Dunblane, the persuasive report of Lord Cullen, if people will only read it, can hardly leave undisturbed the raw views fashioned in the heat of that outrage. Before tonight's illuminating debate I was most affected by the letters I received from ordinary men and women about the devotion to their strange sport and its competitions and activities.
Lord Cullen's report offers far-reaching safeguards which are well short of a draconian ban on the private ownership of multi-shot handguns. He offers a detailed change in the law, in its application, to bar people

1361
unfitted to hold gun licences in the future. He proposes membership of clubs and participation in competitions as necessary proof of the bona fides of the interests of the applicants in target shooting. Above all, in place of the crude ban the report offers the lifeline to shooters of dismantling self-loading pistols and revolvers so that key components are kept separate and secure in gun clubs. That appears to me an eminently ingenious and sensible suggestion.
The Government deserve some credit for withstanding the intense emotional and political pressure to impose full prohibition. But by restricting the calibre and requiring the remaining guns to be kept intact at reinforced club armouries the Bill simultaneously makes pistol shooting less attractive and far more expensive to an extent that must wipe out the sport except for the super-rich.
The only case for the Government to go beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations is that public opinion has spoken and public opinion must be heeded. Such a view has a natural appeal to Members of the Lower House with an election coming over the horizon. But its superficial ring of democracy should have less resonance in this Assembly. Indeed, the strength of this House, which we may shortly be urging in our own defence against a Labour Government, is precisely that it provides a pause for mature reflection.
Like the great philosophers of individual freedom through the ages, I absolutely acknowledge that proven danger to third parties provides sufficient warrant to contemplate the abridgment and, in the last resort, the abolition of most prized freedoms. However, the rival danger against which this House especially must be equally vigilant is that the legitimate concern for health and safety should precipitate hasty action that inflicts lasting damage on freedom without any offsetting benefit. Responsible experts have satisfied me that Lord Cullen's dismantling option could achieve more safety at far less cost in freedom, composition, compensation and unemployment. When amendments are tabled in Committee to achieve such multiple advantages, I hope that this House will not shrink from accepting them.
8.57 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must declare a number of interests in this Bill. First, I have been shooting with a shotgun and a rifle since I was eight years old. Secondly, I am the chairman of the Campaign for Shooting, run jointly by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Field Sports Society and the Game Conservancy Trust. Thirdly, I am a director of the British Field Sports Society and chairman of its shooting committee and, fourthly, I am also a life member of the Deer Society of Great Britain. It has been suggested to me that those facts should bar me from taking part in the debates on this Bill. I venture to suggest that the opposite is the case.
This is not a bad Bill; it is a sad one. Sad because it fails for the second time to address the basic issue of firearms control, and sad because, while discriminating against a significant group of law-abiding citizens, it
1362
fails to afford protection to the people of this country against a repetition of the ghastly events of Hungerford and Dunblane.
I am sympathetic to the points raised by many noble Lords in this debate who have reminded the House that rushed law is usually bad law. I understand that honourable Members in another place are under a great deal of pressure to be seen to do something quickly, and that the great tide of emotion and revulsion that rightly swept the country after the Dunblane tragedy has found its reflection in the proceedings in another place. But I trust that in your Lordships' House we will be more informed, more dispassionate and less emotional. It is the duty and the role of the Upper House to take a more detached and careful view of the Bill. I trust that in Committee the Government will listen to the suggestions from all parts of the House and judge them on their merits, and not simply on whether any changes we propose will be acceptable to another place.
We must recognise that, while the majority of your Lordships are familiar with guns either through the use of sporting weapons or through military and national service, the majority of the people of this country, especially those under 55, are not. They have a healthy respect for, and often an understandable fear of, all guns.
In common with other noble Lords who have spoken already in this debate, I believe that we are once again failing to address the basic issue: that it is the individual, not the weapon, that should be controlled. It is clear from the report by Lord Cullen that he shared that view, although he did not go as far as I and other noble Lords would go in setting up an independent and professionally staffed firearms licensing board. It may be that I and other noble Lords will put this forward as an amendment to the Bill at a later stage. I trust that the considerable sums of money flowing into the coffers of the constabulary will not be the deciding factor.
I must ask my noble friend the Minister to give the House an assurance that this Bill was produced in the light of the Cullen report, and after the appropriate consultations, as promised by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. There is a widespread view that the first drafts of the Bill, and the consultations with other departments, were prepared in the second half of September, before the Cullen report was published. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House on this point.
However, I feel that the Minister will find it more difficult to persuade this House of the necessity of going so much further than the measures suggested by Lord Cullen. I understand that she has received a large number of submissions from a wide variety of interested individuals and groups, and I hope she will agree that the concerns they have expressed are genuine and not, as some members of another place and the tabloid press would have us believe, the rantings of an extremist group.
While I have every sympathy with the concerns that lie behind the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, I fear that this is not the time to provoke a dispute between your Lordships and another place. Whether I shall find myself forced to support such an

1363
amendment when the House votes on whether this Bill do pass will depend in large measure on the assurances that my noble friend the Minister can give the House that she is going to listen and act on the suggestions put forward by your Lordships in Committee.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I have no interest to declare regarding the measures in this Bill. I do not possess a pistol and am not a member of any pistol shooting club. However, I do possess a shotgun, and I shoot a rifle when I go stalking but I do not actually own a rifle myself. As I said in the debate on the gracious Speech, I have three small children and I can well relate to the feelings of the parents following the dreadful Dunblane tragedy.
We now have before us a Bill which was born in that tragedy. As I am No. 30 on the list of speakers, most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made and I shall not repeat them all. I shall merely mention one or two.
I feel that the Government were in a very difficult position. I am afraid that, as has already been said, politics became involved too early before it was possible to debate Lord Cullen's report in this House or the other place. I believe that that was a mistake. I should have been much happier if we now had before us a Bill much more in line with Lord Cullen's proposals.
I do not know whether I have received 200 letters, as some noble Lords have, but I have received a great many letters. They vary somewhat but I believe that they are all from decent law-abiding people, who all have different concerns. The main concern is that great injustice may be caused. I believe that it is wrong that we should now be legislating against what is quite a small minority of people. My noble friend Lord Peel made that point in his speech. For example, it is not a sport to drive a motor car but if a maniac, either with or without alcohol, had driven into a group of children and killed them on purpose, we would not be bringing in legislation to ban motor cars. Motor cars are just as lethal as pistols. Therefore, I feel that we are in danger of sweeping under the carpet the interests of law-abiding people and I am not at all happy about that.
I support and admire the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford. He put his case very succinctly and well. But I am glad that he does not wish to press the amendment because, as other noble Lords have said, I do not believe that it would be right to cause a problem between your Lordships' House and the other place.
Perhaps I may comment on a few points that I should like to see dealt with at a later stage. There is the question of dismantlement. I have not seen the letter in the Library to which my noble friend Lord Kimball referred but I am advised that in 95 per cent. of cases it is possible to have an effective system of dismantlement and, obviously, the other 5 per cent. of weapons would have to go. That seems to me to be quite reasonable.
As regards compensation, it is a question of morality and justice, straight and simple. A great many firearms dealers, manufacturers and those running clubs and
1364
ranges have all built up their livelihoods in connection with guns and are now faced with losing those livelihoods through no fault of their own. They will not receive proper compensation and that is unacceptable.
As has already been mentioned, there are sporting exemptions—and here perhaps I differ with my noble friend Lady Byford as regards the national squad. Over the past 100 years this country has led the olympic sport of pistol shooting. I wonder what the rest of the world would say if we suddenly said that we could no longer compete. There are 40 to 48 people in the national squad. Those people are well known. Special rules ought to come into play to allow those people to continue with their sport. My main concern is one of justice. I am sad for all the law abiding people who will suffer if this legislation is enacted.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am the holder of a firearms certificate which includes a weapon which would be covered by this legislation.
When I considered speaking today I was well aware that many other noble Lords would speak in the debate. Therefore I asked to speak late in the debate as I was sure that most of the points which I might wish to make would have been covered far better by previous speakers. That has indeed been the case. Therefore at this late hour I do not propose to go over them again.
However, I wish to refer to one point which was made eloquently by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank; namely, the question of compensation. Although I welcome the extension that the Government have allowed, it seems to me quite wrong that one effect of this tragedy that led to this legislation should be the bankruptcy, or potential bankruptcy, of legitimate traders. Certainly it is Parliament's sovereign privilege to take such action if it wishes, but, if compensation is not to be paid it will be seen as unwarranted vindictiveness and would be both unreasonable and unworthy of both Houses.
We are considering this legislation for only one reason. There are occasions—mercifully rare—of such devastating impact that for the rest of our lives we remember their horror and our feelings. As with the assassination of President Kennedy, most of us will remember where we were when we heard the news.
In my case, I had just flown south from a happy visit to Scotland. I was driving around the M.25 as the news of the Dunblane tragedy came over the radio. I honestly could not believe my ears. As I began to take in what was being said, a picture of my youngest son, still in primary school, came into my mind. For a brief moment I had a glimpse of understanding of the heartache of the parents involved. As I drove around that motorway I wept. Even today, each time I read the measured description in the Cullen report I cannot do so without feeling an anguish that brings tears to my eyes. As I listened to those radio reports, I was also struck by the calm dignity of those at the centre of the tragedy. In particular, one interviewee—I do not remember who it was—when asked whom to blame by the interviewer, calmly refused to indict, focusing instead on the tragedy.

1365
Yet already by the following morning the whole tone of the news coverage had changed. The blame culture, now so common in our news media, had fully asserted itself and trial by interview was in full sway. Anyone listening to the "Today" programme as I did must have been struck by the imbalance between those who rapidly established a call for blaming the gun on the one hand, and on the other hand the rather inarticulate and bemused secretaries of gun clubs who were suddenly called on to defend themselves. To all intents, this debate was fought and lost long before the Cullen inquiry or Parliament debated the outcome.
It is of course absolutely right that Parliament should take account of public sentiment but in this modern age of spin doctoring and aggressive journalism it has perhaps never been more important that individual Members of both Houses rely on their own intellects and judgments. This Bill owes much more to the media than to reasoned thought. I therefore ask your Lordships to reflect on the actual merits of the arguments rather than on the electoral value of this Bill. Again I felt that my noble friend Lord Rodgers put those arguments particularly cogently, irrespective of the side one is on.
I believe the media campaign has in this instance done us a disservice as it has forced the debate to concentrate entirely on the weapon rather than on the human who actually perpetrated this outrage. Here I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Addington. I believe that it is important to look at the human being as well as the instrument. It seems to me that Dunblane is not an isolated incident; rather, it is part of a pattern of increasingly senseless and amoral violence which pervades our society. Taken in the wider context of other equally appalling though less devastating incidents, I am forced to consider the forces in our society that create this urge for senseless violence. Until we are prepared to take on the root causes, then those who are driven to these acts will continue to find weapons, whatever they may be, whether legal or illegal, to execute their foul fantasies. If we really want the answers to Dunblane, I do not think that we shall find them in gun clubs. We should be looking for the forces which created Thomas Hamilton and which propelled him to act as he did.
I enjoy a good action movie; but, increasingly, I find the use of gratuitous violence in such films unacceptable. We have reached the stage where for profit films are produced which feature violence for the sake of violence. It is a thin line between action which portrays violence for the sake of the plot and films which portray violence simply to titillate. But more and more the videos which I have seen seem to produce and glorify violence for no other reason. The entertainment media are not the only ones who must answer questions. The news media produce ever more horrendous pictures and one cannot help wondering, as one watches the six o'clock news about the effect on our children of watching endless bloodshed in Palestine, Bosnia, Africa and all the other flashpoints of the world.
Tonight we choose to blame a lump of steel for Dunblane. But I believe that we should be looking for a greater explanation for this catastrophe. As part of that greater explanation, we should not shy away from
1366
looking at all our media, both entertainment and news. The power of communications, in particular with television, has never been stronger and the effect on our society never more pervasive. Yet those who control what is probably the most potent force in our society today do so with only one regard; and that is to make profit. Our future society and culture is being moulded entirely on the basis of what sells papers or achieves high ratings. I do not blame the media for Dunblane any more than I blame Browning or Smith and Wesson. However, I believe that the influence of the media in our society, and the constant denigration of moral values coupled with the glorification of gratuitous violence, have conspired to create a climate where Dunblane can take place. For that I hold the media culpable.
This is not a good Bill. For all the reasons which we have heard already from so many noble Lords, I doubt that it will achieve its objectives. It will cost many law-abiding citizens a great deal of money, and in all probability will have no impact whatsoever on the availability of illegal weapons. However, had we been asked to vote tonight I would have voted against the amendment, and for a Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that, above all, this House, as regards a Bill of this nature, must respect the will of another place. I put that constitutional belief above everything and even above my unease on the failings of this legislation. However, I believe that in this Bill we have formulated the wrong charge and put the wrong prisoner in the dock.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I have a shotgun certificate from Angus police; I also have rifles. However, I do not have, and never have had, anything to do with handguns or pistols as described in the Bill. That is apart from June 1958 when I was a young soldier in the Scots Guards and was told to take a weapons training course at Hythe. I was not particularly accurate with a pistol.
Secondly, the Bill and the events following Dunblane afforded me a unique amount of mail. Between 65 and 70 letters on the subject were addressed to me, all cogent and fairly well written. I have attempted to reply to almost all of them.
Thirdly, I have noted a great deal of fairly effective lobbying. In many cases I was reminded of what one of my honourable friends, when he went to Northern Ireland, said in another place about bees looking for bonnets in which to settle. The letters and lobbying over the past two months reminded me of that saying.
However, perhaps I may concentrate on the Bill and the Cullen Report. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her opening remarks which have shortened my speech by at least two minutes. She referred to the pistol clubs in Angus. Until Dunblane and the Bill, I was not aware of the number of pistol clubs in Angus. I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board the points made by my noble friend about the facilities for practice and the storage available for the permitted weapons and as regards possible surrender and compensation. I hope that the terms for compensation will be both adequate and generous.

1367
I found it interesting that when my noble friend spoke there were present no fewer than five Peers from the county of Angus. One of my noble friends and neighbours has been here throughout the debate. It shows that there is considerable interest in the Bill. I stress the serious point, made by my noble friend and neighbour, that in Angus there is enormous emotion. Unlike Dunblane, which is fairly near the big cities, the area is very rural. Shotguns and rifles are a particular part of its life. I hope that the emotion that is felt in Angus will be perceived as part of the contribution to this discussion.
I direct the attention of my noble friend the Minister to Part III of the Bill, to Clause 26(4)(b) on page 12 and to line 31 which refers to expanding ammunition. The only time I have heard of expanding ammunition is its use in the control of vermin or deer where it is to be permitted. I have received one or two communications about that. I am very pleased to see that it is included in this part of the Bill.
Perhaps my noble friend can give some guidance in relation to Clause 31(2) and applications for firearms certificates. She will see the reference to,
"two persons who have agreed to act as referees".
Presumably that refers to firearms. Am I right in thinking that it refers to rifles? I have certainly not been aware, as perhaps I should have been, when filling in my application that two people had vouched to the Tayside or Angus police that I might be a suitable person. If the reference is shotguns I hope that we shall be able to cope at a later stage, considering all the bureaucracy involved in filling in the applications. We shall come to the matter in Committee. I beg my noble friend to make any instructions or amendments as simple and straightforward as possible. Otherwise I think there will be complications and difficulties—and bureaucracy, which figures very largely throughout the Cullen Report.
When we come to examine Clause 33, perhaps my noble friend will be able to give some help on revocation and the two incredible words, "good reason". I believe the Bill is reasonably clear. However, I am a little worried that a reference to "good reason" in relation to having a shotgun or rifle could become slightly entangled with a similar line in the construction and use regulations on my motorcar. I am on occasions rather scared when I go out on the road that there might be a screw loose in the car and the constabulary will say, "Tut, tut, there is something out of order." I hope that that will not be the case in relation to Clause 33. We can examine that point in Committee.
I turn to paragraph 4.67 on page 42 of Lord Cullen's report. We see that Mr. Thomas Hamilton was said not to be a very frequent attender of the meetings of the Stirling Rifle and Pistol Club. We find that,
"When the command at twenty metres distance was to fire six rounds … he would 'blast off twelve".
In paragraph 5.16 on page 50 we see that Mr. Crawford had one or two things to say. In paragraph 5.17 he describes Mr. Hamilton at the pistol and rifle club as firing "a fusillade of shots". At paragraph 5.18 we see
1368
that Hamilton said there was "a bit of a hold up" about obtaining his certificate. If we consider paragraph 5.21, on page 51, we see that Mr. Gillespie was more than startled by the conduct of Mr. Hamilton with his pistol.
I have some small experience of attending clay pigeon shoots. All around Angus one finds country folk, gamekeepers and those who are interested in sport sometimes skeet and trap shooting. I am sure that all my noble friends and everyone who has spoken in the debate today would consider that anyone who behaved in such a way at a rifle club or with a shotgun should be drummed out straightaway and sent off the premises. If that were to happen, there would be no need for putative bureaucratic written material. There would merely be one or two simple questions to the police describing the adequacy or otherwise, good reason or whatever it was, for the individual having any type of firearms certificate.
I reiterate what was said by my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lady Byford that nothing we could do would ever restore the Dunblane victims. The notable speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, reiterated that.
On page 78 of Lord Cullen's report, noble Lords will read the observations on the system. To add a slight note of levity, it seems to me similar to what is thought to be a well oiled rugby three-quarter line: the responsibility seems to be passed from one police officer or one person to another until either the ball is dropped or someone makes a mistake.
I hope that we shall be able to examine the system and consider the points I have mentioned, particularly from Clauses 31 and 33 and onwards when we reach the Committee stage. Whoever takes responsibility for firearms legislation—and in a small part we do—it cannot be left entirely to the police or individuals who participate in the sport. I hope that we shall all learn and apply the lessons. As my noble friend Lord Annaly said, we must seek to remove some of the worst unfairness of the Bill. I look forward to the next stage.
9.26 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, first I should like to declare an interest: I am chairman of Atkin, Grant and Lang, a maker of best English shotguns; I also served for a number of years as a director of John Rigby and Company, a maker of best English sporting rifles. I am currently a member of the livery of the Gunmakers Company who run and have run the Proof House for some 300 years. I personally have no interest in handguns and have never made them or sold them.
I should like today to try to put the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies into some kind of perspective. I hoped that after Dunblane there would be a reasoned and sober reaction by the Government and the Opposition to the horrors perpetrated by both Ryan and Hamilton. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Both the main parties have been trying to outdo each other in attacking the legitimate owners of handguns.
To ban all handguns over .22 calibre completely is, to my mind, quite futile. It is a fact that for every legally held handgun there are at least two illegally held guns.

1369
It has been said that there are some 6 million unlicensed firearms in the country, compared with 2 million legally held ones. There is a limitless supply of firearms coming over from eastern Europe since the break-up of the USSR and I am told that they can be purchased for as little as £50 each, with ammunition. In 1954, there were 200,000 firearm certificate holders and four armed robberies per annum in this country. Today, there are 150,000 certificate holders and several armed robberies per day. So much for firearms control.
To give an up-to-date example of the futility of the proposed ban, in Washington DC, USA, handguns were banned in 1976 when the homicide rate was 45 per 100,000 people per annum. Today the hand gun related homicide rate is 78 per 100,000 per annum.
I would compare this Bill with the Dangerous Dogs Act which, as your Lordships know, has caused great distress to numerous quite innocent dogs and owners. However, that Act, for all its imperfections, has at least gone some way to alleviate that particular problem.
I have received well over 50 letters from handgun owners and pistol shooting clubs and they all say that the root of the problem is the fact that in the case of both Ryan and Hamilton the police did not apply the law. In both cases they were warned about these individuals and failed to act. I do not want to use this opportunity to attack the police; they have a difficult and demanding job to do, enforcing the laws passed by Parliament. However, in the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents the police failed to spot these two psychopaths and they slipped through the net with disastrous consequences.
In my opinion, the law as it currently stands with regard to firearms is quite adequate. It merely has to be applied vigorously to make sure that madmen and guns are kept apart. I suggest that the vetting process is looked into carefully. Perhaps the police are not the best body for the job. I know from experience that the various firearms departments are under constant pressure and are usually short of staff. I suggest that this is what the Government should be looking at.
Putting a blanket ban on all handguns over .22 calibre is, in my opinion, an admission of failure. It will not do the slightest good. It will cost the taxpayer dear. On page 25 of your Lordships' Library notes it is reckoned that the whole thing could cost £455 million. It seems a lot of money to me. It is in the Library notes, so perhaps it might be worth having a look at those. It will ruin a number of people and take their livelihood away.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to say that he ought to recognise that the table on page 25 of the Library notes gives as its source the Sportsmen's Association; it is not an independent valuation by your Lordships' Library.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Yes, I agree that could be the case, but it gives some idea of the possible costs of this ban.
1370
In conclusion, currently only one male in 220 is skilled in the handling of firearms. We are all set to reduce this number further. Have the Government thought about the possible implications for national security?
9.33 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, many claim that this Bill has been drafted by the heart and not by the head. Certainly, no reasonable person can have been other than moved to the depths of their being by the horrors of the massacre at Dunblane. All who survived the hail of bullets, all the bereaved, all who knew Hamilton, all who had dealings with him, all the police involved in checking on him and in the issue of his firearm certificates, all must have been dreadfully shocked by the event, including the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Scottish MPs who had personally met and knew Hamilton.
Of course, all these people and many, many more are determined that steps must be taken to prevent such agony and suffering and heartbreak ever happening again. Their concern is wholly understandable, admirable and worthy.
Lord Cullen was asked to look into the tragedy and to make recommendations. It seemed that the head was beginning to take over from the heart. A thorough and full inquiry by Lord Cullen would give us all a chance to take stock of all the evidence, to consider the best ways of proceeding with legislation if that were required, and to identify what to do to safeguard schoolchildren and protect the public from the actions of an armed maniac. Lord Cullen's report deals with all the issues in a clear and admirable way. It was also completed with commendable speed. Within eight months we had the report and a considered government response to the public inquiry.
But despite the passage of time and the clarity of Lord Cullen's recommendations, I am left with the feeling that the Bill before us is still drafted by the heart and not by the head. Emotion is not a good foundation for legislation. We are in danger of passing into law provisions which are not reasonable or fair to many law abiding citizens in this country. Once more we are finding the Weatherill law of unintended consequences stalking the passage of a Bill. Your Lordships will recall—certainly the noble Baroness the Minister will recall—that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill made reference to this point a fortnight ago when we debated the cost to charities of a provision in the Police Bill.
My mailbag and indeed those of many noble Lords and others have given us all an understanding of what it is like to have your business, maybe your house and your whole way of life, liquidated and removed at a legal stroke by the passage of a Bill. Of course, the revolvers and ammunition which Hamilton used killed most horribly. But mass murder on a similar scale is conceivable with smaller calibre weapons, with .22 rim-fire ammunition, with shotguns, machetes, flamethrowers, kitchen knives, and axes or even a screwdriver. It might take a killer a minute or two longer than it did at Dunblane to massacre a room full of helpless children.

1371
It is heart, not head, which argues that removing large calibre handguns is essential to ensure that a tragedy such as Dunblane does not strike again. Large calibre guns are no more or no less likely to be the tools of a future massacre. The mind and actions of the killer will be responsible, not the weapon used.
But maybe even at the expense of poor law and all the downstream consequences and costs of poor law, and even if it comes to dealing with the ramifications of unintended consequences, the heart and, dare I say, politics on this occasion will have their way. But law is far better if based on good reason. How often have we heard of the need to consider the actions of a reasonable man?
I am sorry that we are faced with such a gut-reaction Bill. It penalises far too many law abiding citizens for a crime in which they had no part, a crime which could not have happened as it did if the police guidance on the issue of firearm certificates had been followed. It will destroy the livelihoods and lifestyles of far too many innocent, law abiding citizens.
In two world wars the country has had good reason to be thankful for the many conscripts to National Service who could shoot straight. We shall not find their like again. How many may be driven to despair, even suicide, because they will lose all? It is horrifying even to contemplate. But the parallel with cattle farmers who took such a step because they had lost all due to the BSE scare is too close to ignore.
We are now targeting a low risk event of another Dunblane with a blunderbuss. We are trying to "nannycoddle" ourselves with restrictive legislation. It is legislation which adds insult to injury by failing to deal adequately with compensation. It will not help to uphold respect for the laws of this land. It will cost the taxpayer dear. It will never be possible to prove that it has forestalled another Dunblane. I doubt whether that intended consequence will flow from what we have before us today.
What Parliament passes in a mood of hasty emotion may return to haunt us. But pass it will, if time allows. I hope that in this House we shall succeed in Committee in putting a far better Bill onto the statute book.
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a member of a gun club and have been for several years. What happened at Dunblane came as the most appalling shock to me and my family. We have three small children ourselves and it was unthinkable that something like that could ever happen in this country.
When I was taught to use a gun by my father's gamekeeper, he stressed the aspects of safety in no uncertain manner—my noble friend Lord Balfour had the same experience. I am sure that it stood us in good stead all our lives. People who are granted firearms certificates today are given them with no instruction whatever. It is expected that they will find a tutor to show them how to use a gun. The police seem to
1372
presume that if one applies for a firearms certificate one knows how to use a gun already, perhaps an air gun, and one is buying a more up-market weapon.
When I first joined the Cumsliehill Joint Services Pistol Club as a probationary member I was given instructions by the secretary to make sure that I understood the safety regulations of the club; that is, that one always pointed the gun down the range; one never swung a gun around and, if it was a revolver, one always carried it with the chamber unlocked and one's fingers through the top of the pistol so that everybody could see that the chamber was empty and that one was carrying the pistol so that it would not go off. All those aspects are taught at gun clubs and one is expected to behave in a rigorously safe manner. Perhaps the Dunblane club did not have such regulations; I do not know because I have never been there.
If I thought for one moment that the Bill would serve the purpose of preventing another horrific incident such as that in Dunblane I would be in favour of it. I am definitely in favour of this House discussing it in a Second Reading debate. We must have the opportunity to air our views and table amendments to the Bill.
It was suggested that after the centre-fire weapons have been removed from the possession of members, they could shoot with a .22 pistol and those pistols could be kept in highly secure safes either at the club secretary's home or on gun club premises. I doubt whether any club secretary would go along with those proposals. He would be the sole key carrier of a fairly large arsenal of weapons, albeit .22, and would be open to attack by gangsters or terrorists who wished to get their hands on a supply of guns. "No thank you" he would say.
Perhaps the police should hold the weapons or somebody else who is allowed to shoot at people. The club secretary would not be allowed to shoot at gangsters who came to his home to relieve him of his large arsenal of weapons. He would be in breach of the law himself if he did that. I do not think many clubs could afford to take on the expense of putting in such high security. My club shoots at a small quarry up in the hills above Lauder. Even with a fully alarmed safe it would take at least a quarter of an hour for the police to arrive, and by that time the fox would have left the scene.
There is the whole question of hollow-pointed .22 ammunition being banned. Hollow-pointed .22 ammunition is never supposed to be used with a pistol, but using it is the only humane way to shoot vermin such as rabbits. If we are not allowed to use dum-dum ammunition of that kind the vermin will suffer horribly. They will crawl away and die in agony.
The Bill says that an estate owner may shoot a marauding dog which is disturbing sheep on his farm. Does the term "estate manager" or "estate owner" also

1373
include farmers and other people such as gamekeepers who would be going about their duties? Is my noble friend the Minister replying in the negative?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I just turned round. I was not seeking to intervene on that point.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, there is also the question of the forms which the police issue to candidates who wish to apply for a firearm certificate. A standardised form or an ISO 9000 would restore a degree of confidence in all European countries that the police administration procedures were being fully followed in respect of the use of rifles, pistols and shotguns for sporting and land management purposes. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that in the case of Dunblane and possibly Hungerford the inspectors of constabulary failed to ensure that good practice was adopted throughout forces in England and Wales and especially in Scotland. If they had so ensured, neither of these incidents would have occurred involving weapons held on certificates.
I should also like to know what provisions have or are being made to allow certificate holders to be able to sell their weapons abroad. Contrary to Ministers' statements, currently there is not a market for centre-fire weapons in this country, and we cannot dispose of these things. The idea that clubs can be reformed as .22 pistol users only with a high security lock up is, as I have said before, totally impractical. I believe that it will probably be in January that we reach the Committee stage of this Bill and I look forward to that. I hope that many sensible amendments will be tabled and that we shall show the Europeans that we have made some sense of a very tragic situation.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, before the Front Benches wind up perhaps I may make one point that has been missed in this debate. Even after this Bill becomes law there will still be many people in the police, the Army and civilian life who will carry these heavier categories of weapons for self-protection. If this Bill becomes law in anything like its current form they will be very limited in their opportunities to practise with those weapons. I cannot see that they will be able to maintain sufficient familiarity in the limited opportunities that will be left to them to practise when all the .22 gun clubs have disappeared from the land and to use those weapons in the way that they should. I believe that in understanding only partly the hurt that the parents of Dunblane feel we are unable to deny them their request for action, but can we pass this Bill and deny the people who must use these weapons the necessary practice on which their lives may depend?
Perhaps I may bring the matter slightly closer to home than that. For example, I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was cornered by a mob in his house some years ago and he used his personal protection weapon to very good effect without firing a shot. But if one is not familiar with the weapon and not practised with it, one is unable to use it effectively.
9.53 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords. I am very impressed by the admiration of the House for the report of Lord Cullen. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, gave us the not unreasonable analysis that we should concentrate on the person and not the weapon. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank gave a systematic analysis of what was required, starting with the idea that we might tighten the regulations and move on to disassemble weapons; introduce the Bill or, as we would prefer it on these Benches, include the exclusion of .22 pistols. He went on to discuss compensation which he argued must be extended to business. It is not good enough just to rely on market forces and to pretend that the gunsmiths are suffering a collapse in the market. As to whether the result would be a safer place, he answered the question by saying that the elimination of 160,000 pistols would certainly achieve that. I have a question for the Government. On these Benches we shall be having a free vote. We shall be pleased to know if the Government will allow a free vote on their side of the House.
I ask all noble Lords who have criticised the Central Scotland Police if they are satisfied that their police authority were all using subjective criteria and that the Central Scotland force was the only one still using objective criteria. Some noble Lords have tried to find where the blame lies for Dunblane. My suggestion is that it lies in the social and self-marginalisation of Thomas Hamilton. I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for his passionate attack on the pistol on account of its history and its characteristics. I also thank my noble friend Lord Thurso who spoke up for compensation for the businesses which may go under or have possibly already gone under. He also analysed the origins of the Dunblane tragedy.
We on these Benches continue to support a ban on all handguns. We join other noble Lords who seek to persuade the Government to go further than the Bill allows. I held a range management qualification and ran ranges while serving with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment. I live 11 miles from Dunblane and am a signatory of the Dunblane Snowdrop petition. I am also an acquaintance of some of the organisers of the petition.
The mood in central Scotland is in favour of the removal of these weapons on the grounds that they have only a lethal or quasi-lethal purpose. Whatever else is claimed for the undoubtedly sociable sport of pistol shooting, no one can deny that a pistol emits a small piece of metal at high velocity with considerable penetrating power, and the risk of ricochet and subsequent unintended consequences.
In the 48 hours following the shootings at Dunblane Primary School the mood of those to whom I spoke was characterised by a car sales executive. He told me that when he went home that evening and looked at his young family he reconsidered what was important to him. Suddenly, he found himself discarding much of what he had regarded as important. I approve of the prohibition in Clause 1 of all handguns and regret the exemption of .22 pistols. I welcome the restriction of

1375
permitted pistols to properly constructed armouries at strictly regulated gun clubs. Standards must be set at a very high level. One wonders whether any recommendation for or against is being made about application to the Lottery Sports and Arts Foundation for the funding of armoury construction. I believe that on this subject there would be considerable resentment if lottery funds were diverted to a sport which currently engendered a good deal of criticism.
As to compensation, the rights of pistol shooters are probably being trampled upon, certainly in the short term. I believe that the case for compensation is just. The compensation for state organised loss must extend to pistol owners for their pistols and the equipment that goes with them, to manufacturers and dealers and to commercial pistol range operators and pistol clubs that have taken out long leases or purchased property.
Part II sets out the requirement for the licensing of pistol clubs. I note that in Clause 17 the grant period of a licence is to be six years. I hope to be reassured that inspection and supervision will be ongoing and that the provision in Clauses 18 and 19 for revocation will be used in exemplary fashion. I believe that the guidance concerning range control to be issued should advocate the current Armed Forces model. The arrangements for club registers of stored weapons in Clause 21 should, when tied to the requirements for notification in Clauses 27 to 29, allow a complete record of the whereabouts of all licensed pistols to be made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and other noble Lords, I ask the Government whether an active UK database will be maintained by the Home Office and the Scottish Office. I believe that that would help to keep track of these weapons.
In Part III the regulations for the holding of firearms and shotguns are to be amended. I approve of the stricter approach to be taken. The new role for referees will need to be well explained. Clearly, it is not just a matter of agreeing to the likeness of the photograph. The potential punishment of referees who sign applications for unfit persons should be highlighted. In Clause 31, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I fail to understand why shotgun applicants will not require two referees. The scatter effect of these weapons is just as lethal, if not more so, than a rifle.
In Clauses 32 and 33 I return to the duty of the police to decide on the fitness of the applicant and the quality of the reason for holding a weapon. This duty will move the decision-making process from objective standards to more subjective standards. I can see an increase in appeals to the sheriff court with increased difficulty in justifying a refusal. After reading Clause 38 I am left wondering why we are not registering all carbon dioxide and air guns. I see no harm and only good from knowing the location of all these weapons.
In Schedule 1 I believe that it may take longer to achieve the building standards required for the new armouries. I am glad that the interim or transitional period may be extended as I believe that that will be necessary.
1376
To conclude, the Government have been subject to criticism that the Bill goes both too far and—from these Benches at least—not far enough. We have had a lively debate from both angles, though I note more from one than the other. I persist in hoping that the outcome will be an extension of the powers sought.
10.02 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I may immediately follow the noble Earl, I would say that like the Liberal Democrat party we shall have a free vote at all stages on this Bill.
This has been a very one-sided debate, and I respect the views of those who have been on that one side which I do not share. It has been presented as an issue of civil liberty. The implication of that is that we are supposed to think of it as being an issue of civil liberty against public safety. I would like to suggest to your Lordships that it is by no means as simple as that as an issue.
Civil liberties we can very well define as protecting the rights not only of those people with whom we agree but of those with whom we disagree. I have no difficulty in saying straight away that I have no sympathy whatsoever with shooting of any kind, whether it is shooting with concealed weapons or shooting with large, very visible weapons: the distinction, as I understand it, between handguns and other guns. I have no aesthetic sympathy with it, I have no cultural sympathy with it, and it is not something I have ever in any way been tempted to do. Indeed, in two years as a National Serviceman, as a quarter-master's clerk in the Royal Artillery, the nearest I ever came to dealing with a gun was to have other people sign them out from my stores. That certainly was as close as I would ever wish to come to them.
But I should like to suggest that some of the high-minded talk we have been hearing today about civil liberty is also about the balance between certain kinds of liberty and very important kinds of public safety, because the issue here is the civil liberties of a very small number of people—perhaps six figures but hardly more than that—to pursue what they have described as being a sport (it is not my term) against the right to life of children and the right to life of other innocent people in our society.
Almost every speaker who has spoken about the need to protect this civil liberty has expressed horror at what happened at Dunblane. But they have then gone on to say that we are undergoing an instant hasty reaction to the events of Dunblane. I suggest to your Lordships that that is far from true. What happened at Dunblane was a repeat, with certain changes, of what happened in Hungerford nine years ago. What is happening now is that we are belatedly responding to the possibility of a massacre of the kind that happened both in Hungerford and in Dunblane and we are responding nine years late rather than possibly six months too early. In a moderate speech in support of the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, talked about only two such gun massacres. Is not "only two" too many?
When we are striking the balance between civil liberties and public safety, let us consider what is in the balance and whether it might not be a small price to pay

1377
to deny a limited number of people their support in favour of the protection of a much larger number of people. It is not as though this were an extreme Bill. It does not seek to ban all guns. It seeks to ban only handguns which are, of their essence, guns that can be concealed about the person and fired with one hand. Those who wish to indulge in the sport of shooting guns can do so with all other kinds of guns. Their liberties are being restricted to a limited extent only.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that disabled people in wheelchairs cannot shoot rifles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no idea. I have no difficulty in accepting it, but I have great difficulty in accepting that that is in any way relevant to my argument. Disabled people are restricted from all sorts of activities. It is not the job of the law to make exceptions for them except as provided by law in order for them to lead decent lives and to have the opportunity to have jobs and to be protected from discrimination. It is not the purpose of law to ensure that, for example, disabled people should be able to hang glide or ski or do other things which would be physically difficult for them.
As I say, the Bill is not about guns; it is about a particular kind of gun. It leaves the vast majority of guns which are used for "sporting purposes" entirely untouched. Our disagreement with the Bill—I say "our disagreement" and by that I mean my noble friends who agree with me on this, because my noble friend Lord Stoddart is of course free to vote as he wishes and will undoubtedly do so—that is, those of us who think as Jack Straw, George Robertson, and I think, wish to put before your Lordships the case for a total ban on handguns. It is not that we think that this is a matter of fundamental principle. We applaud the Government for going as far as they have done towards a ban. We believe that the Bill, as drafted, will not only eliminate 160,000 guns, which the Government estimate, but will probably eliminate a good deal more, because the conditions which are laid down in Part II for licensed gun clubs are pretty severe, and they will eliminate many guns.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. How will his party eliminate illegally held guns in this country, which are a major problem? They are a far bigger problem than legally held handguns.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who break the law constitute a problem which goes beyond my party or that of the noble Earl. It is a problem for all society, and it applies to all crimes. None of us is saying that we have a unique, simple solution to that problem. What we are saying is that the availability of legal guns will not make it any easier to have illegal guns. If every gun seen in this country is an illegal gun, action is then that much more simple and straightforward and can be dealt with. We are not saying that by eliminating legal guns we shall automatically eliminate illegal guns. That would be a foolish claim.
1378
I accept that the difference between us and the Government on a total ban is at the margin rather than one of fundamental principle. We believe that a total ban is sensible because the kind of loopholes which will emerge in the definition of guns which the Government wish to preserve will increase. The amount of regulation will be increasingly complex and the cost of enforcement will be that much greater. There is always the danger of slack security in gun clubs and that even with good security gun clubs will increasingly be terrorist targets if they hold a wider variety of handguns.
Having listened carefully to the argument about disabling guns and the disassembly of guns, we agree that disabling and disassembly are not suitable solutions. We are glad to see that the Government accept that point. Returning to the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, we are told that a ban on handguns will drive them underground. I have read the many letters which have been sent to me. They are intelligent, well written, well argued, moderate letters from those who support the sport of shooting handguns. It is an insult to believe that either the availability or the banning of handguns will drive them underground and that if such people were denied handguns they would be contributing to illegal guns—
Lord Burton: My Lords, has the noble Lord read Lord Cullen's report? He will find that Lord Cullen said that it may well drive weapons underground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, of course I have read Lord Cullen's report. I read it very carefully in closed conditions in the Home Office when it was first produced. Lord Cullen is entitled to his opinion that it may drive guns underground. I do not think so ill of the shooting fraternity to believe that it would turn to illegal weapons if it was denied the legal right to weapons.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me again. I am sorry to be difficult about the matter. The shooting fraternity has nothing to do with illegally held guns. It is quite straightforward that if guns are taken away from the legally held fraternity they will go underground. They are already underground and they are easily and freely available.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the guns which are to be taken away will not be sold in the open market or in the clubs and the streets. The guns which will be taken away under this legislation will be destroyed. There is no question of them becoming available. Again, the confusion between the guns and the shooters is causing difficulty. I must be doing something well if I am attracting this degree of interruption!
I turn to the more difficult issue of compensation. I do not need to say a great deal because I am sure that the Minister will be firm about the matter—at least, I hope that she will. We accept that there must be compensation for individual losses but we are quite convinced that the Government are right to restrict the

1379
amount of public expenditure which will be involved in compensation for loss of business. After all, increasing regulation and legislation for the sake of public safety—whether it is in the environmental area, public health or, as in this case, physical public safety—always involves losses by those in the businesses which will be affected. However, it would be disastrous for social progress if compensation were granted to those who lose businesses which become out of date and impossible to sustain because of the increased concern for public safety or public health. Therefore, those of my noble friends who agree with me—and it will be the vast majority—will support the Government in any Division where the opponents of the Government seek to weaken the terms of the Bill; seek to increase public expenditure on compensation; or seek in any way to diminish the effectiveness of the Bill as it is now presented before your Lordships' House.
Above all, we shall oppose anybody who would be foolish enough to try to deny the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, the right to withdraw his amendment and to seek to press for a Division this evening. I warn such people that a vote against the Second Reading now would make it possible to invoke the Parliament Act because the Act provides specifically that that may be done whether in the same Parliament or the next. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, that that would be true whether the Bill were defeated on Second Reading or on the Question whether the Bill do now pass, to which the noble Earl referred as a possible alternative. It would be quite extraordinarily foolish of anybody who is opposed to this Bill to seek to deny it a Second Reading or a sympathetic and careful hearing in Committee and, above all, to seek to deny it the right to pass and be returned to the Commons.
10.16 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, this has been a Second Reading in true characteristic style for this House. We have had a full and frank discussion of the Bill and its provisions. The horror and depth of feeling expressed about the tragedy at Dunblane has been the one unifying aspect of the Bill. As a mother who lost a son of school age, albeit in different circumstances, I can only say that I do understand the unrelenting ache in the hearts of the families and relatives of the children, Mrs. Mayor and their teacher.
However, the debate has raised many issues: some about means to ends; others that the Government should not have responded at all or in such haste; and some have accepted that the Bill before the House is a proper and considered response to address the issue of public safety.
I should like to turn to some of the points raised in the course of the debate. My noble friend Lord Kimball asked whether guidance on the criteria of pistol clubs, set out in Clause 16, would be available before the Committee stage. We are drawing up criteria for licensed pistol clubs in consultation with the police. We shall let the House see them as soon as possible. I cannot be precise about that but it is our intention to do so.
1380
My noble friend Lord Kimball asked also about counter-signatories. The Firearms Consultative Committee recommendation on counter-signatories was implemented and police forces use flexibility in the interpretation of who can be a counter-signatory. We are implementing Lord Cullen's recommendations on referees.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said in his emotional speech that recommendations of the FCC had been ignored. First, I am grateful to my noble friend for his wise counsel as chairman of the FCC—and, indeed, I congratulate him on his very recent reappointment to that post. I am sure that he will agree with me that a number of the committee's suggestions have been included in the Bill. Those include a number of sensible exemptions. But this is not the occasion for a wholesale implementation of past FCC recommendations. The Bill is already long and it is important that it concentrates on the key issues arising from the events in Dunblane.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted from Lord Cullen's report in support of his view that the answer to Dunblane is stricter licensing controls. However, I must say to the noble and learned Lord that that was not Lord Cullen's view. Lord Cullen specifically concluded that stronger conditions were required on
"the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre".
That is recommendation 24.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for his broad support of the Government's approach. He referred to .22 pistols. I understand my noble friend's concerns to see the survival of small pistol clubs; but we must put public safety first. That means that club security must be strict and opportunities to remove guns from club premises highly restricted. It is inevitable that some clubs will have some difficulties, and some may close or even amalgamate with other clubs, as has been mentioned by one or two speakers in the course of this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked an interesting question concerning the Manchester Commonwealth Games. Four of the five pistol events at the Commonwealth Games use .22 guns and therefore British participation will be able to continue. In the fifth event, .32 centre-fire pistols are used. That gun will become illegal, as noble Lords know; but it will be open to a future Home Secretary to provide authority to British and Commonwealth shooters to use the gun at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. Therefore the power to enable a Secretary of State to act in that way is safeguarded.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to training for bodyguards. It has never been government policy to authorise firearm certificates for that kind of training. It is not a proper reason under existing guidance to the police for granting a certificate, and the Bill will not affect that one way or the other.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked a couple of questions. First, she referred to the possibility of using local defence establishments for providing secure club facilities. There would be no objection to pistol clubs

1381
operating from local Ministry of Defence establishments, provided of course the clubs were situated adjacent to or within the Ministry of Defence establishments, and that they met the strict criteria that will be set. We do not want large numbers of guns to be transported to and fro on public roads. My noble friend Lady Carnegy also referred to tribunals. That point was also mentioned by other noble Lords. At paragraph 8.118 of his report Lord Cullen specifically rejected the proposal of the BSSC that the appeal function should be transferred to a specialist tribunal. We are exploring Lord Cullen's suggestion for narrowing the grounds of appeal to the courts in discussion with the police and other interested parties. If it can be made to work, we believe there is some merit in Lord Cullen's preferred approach.
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said that the Home Office should have improved gun clubs after Hungerford. The criteria for gun clubs were reviewed and were tightened in 1990, and again in 1995, with extensive consultation with the British Shooting Sports Council, the Firearms Consultative Committee and the police. But clearly we need to revisit that yet again.
Reference was made to illegally held weapons. There has just been an interesting exchange of views about that. The proposals in the Bill which tighten up the requirements for certificate holders to notify the police when they buy, sell, transfer, deactivate or destroy a weapon should severely restrict the opportunities for legitimately held weapons to pass to the illegitimate user. However, no one pretends that the Bill is about controlling illegal weapons. As my noble friend has said, that is a matter for police enforcement, and it is a responsibility which the police take seriously.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Balfour, said that people were still waiting for compensation after Hungerford. I am afraid my noble friends have been misinformed. Every person eligible for compensation after Hungerford was offered compensation long ago. However, there are two or three people who are not eligible because they still have use of their guns abroad. However, they believe themselves to be eligible and continue to submit claims.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred—as he has done a number of times in correspondence and in person to me—to the benefits of having a national database, and not merely those connected with controlling firearms. Lord Cullen noted with approval the steps that the police were already taking to exchange information about firearm certificate holders. That is to be welcomed and we know that it is improving all the time.
It has been suggested to me that, however sophisticated the database, it would not have helped in this particular instance. This was a man who had a bona fide licence and was a member of a gun club. Information that could have been available with hindsight probably was known about Mr. Hamilton.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to Home Office incompetence in administering the licensing system. Perhaps I may defend my department on this occasion by saying to my noble friend that it is the
1382
police and not the Home Office who administer the firearms licensing system and who grant or refuse licences.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, the Home Office is responsible for advising Ministers as to what the law should be which the police have to enforce.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right about that. We set the framework in which the police operate. However, I thought that when he spoke my noble friend was referring to the administration of the scheme. Perhaps he is now telling me that it is the scheme that he criticises.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked whether .22 guns could be stored at dealers' premises. Where a dealer runs a shooting range, as a number do, the pistols can be stored on the dealers' premises if they meet the necessary security standards. However, if the gun would have to leave the dealers' premises in order to reach the gun club, that would not be acceptable. That point was clearly made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary at Report stage in another place, reported in Hansard of 4th December at col. 1150.
In an interesting speech, my noble friend Lord Burton first referred to compensation for .22 guns. In my opening speech, I said that owners of .22 pistols who do not join licensed pistol clubs and surrender them instead at police stations will receive a payment based on the market value of that pistol. I am pleased to assure my noble friend on that point.
My noble friend Lord Burton also made reference to Thomas Hamilton and the possibility of his involvement with the Masons. In his report at paragraph 5.6, Lord Cullen said:
"I am satisfied that he [Hamilton] was not a member of the masons".
But I should put it on record that Mr. McMurdo has made it clear that he is not and has never been a member of a masonic lodge and I understand that the allegations have caused him a good deal of personal distress. Therefore the warning is that we should be very careful when making allegations that we have some evidence to make them rather than impugn unnecessarily someone's character.
My noble friend Lord Burton also criticised the Central Scotland Police. Lord Cullen's inquiry examined thoroughly Central Scotland Police's action. The deputy chief constable, Mr. McMurdo, resigned from the force and from his post in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. Of course there are lessons to be learned from Lord Cullen's findings. Police forces throughout Britain are learning them, and those as well as the other factors identified by Lord Cullen will enable Home Office guidance to the police to be comprehensive when it is finally agreed and issued.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Burton. Talk of a cover up is nonsense. The procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate made it clear to the public that anybody, but anybody, with any information should

1383
disclose it to the procurator fiscal who would then arrange for it to be placed before the Cullen Inquiry. There have been two inquiries. These allegations are outrageous. They imply that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who has sat with me throughout the debate, and Lord Cullen deliberately concealed relevant lines of inquiry from public scrutiny. They did not, my Lords. My noble friend really must provide evidence if he continues to make those kinds of allegations.
My noble friend Lord Burton also referred to the seizure of gun clubs' records. He will know that when he first brought this point to me I expressed some sympathy with the points he made. Records were taken possession of by the police in accordance with recognised Scottish procedures. Acting on the instructions of the procurator fiscal, the police seized the records of all the gun clubs with whom Hamilton was known to have been associated. No receipts were issued by the police. It is not normal for such receipts to be issued in Scotland. The records were required for the Cullen inquiry and for the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Mrs. Mayor, the class teacher. That inquiry took place last month.
The Clyde Valley Sports Club first asked for its records back before the fatal accident inquiry. That was not possible at that time. The club asked again last week, and the procurator fiscal has now instructed that they be returned. The other club's records will be returned shortly. Any inconvenience caused to the clubs is much regretted. However, I trust the House will appreciate the importance of the procurator fiscal thoroughly investigating Hamilton's involvement with guns.
I welcome the support that my noble friend Lady Byford gave to the Bill. I can tell her that in principle lottery money will be available to clubs for improvements. They qualify, as indeed does any other sport.
My noble friend Lord Stockton asked for an assurance that the Bill, drawn up in response to Cullen, was not in fact produced in advance of Cullen. I assure him that no work was done on the Bill and no decisions were reached on the policy until Lord Cullen's report was received on 14th October. We did not stop thinking about this whole issue in the meantime, but work on the Bill did not anticipate the Cullen report.
My noble friend Lord Lye11 referred to the issue of two referees. This requirement applies to firearm certificate applications only. Shotgun applications will continue to require one counter-signatory.
My noble friend Lord Torphichen intervened in the gap with a comment or two and a question. Those who have been exempted from the prohibition of weapons in the Bill—the police and the military were examples given by my noble friend—have their own facilities. They will continue to have their own facilities and will continue to practise, as is consistent with the proficiency needed in having to use those weapons.
My noble friend Lord Peel and other noble Lords asked why the Government do not set up a central firearms control board to issue certificates. I believe the
1384
question posed was: would that not be more efficient than relying on an overstretched police force? I understand that to be the Labour and the Liberal Democrat position. Lord Cullen does not favour the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system—(I refer to paragraph 8.5). We agree with that view.
I was also asked: was the proposal to establish a firearms control board rejected on grounds of cost and, if so, why not set a higher licence fee? The Government did not reject the proposed control board on cost alone. It was also rejected because such a board would create duplication of effort due to the need for continued police involvement.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made reference in his opening remarks to a free vote in support of comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I found his point interesting. The most significant feature of this debate is the signal absence of speakers from the Labour Benches. As I understand it, the Labour Party advocate publicly a response which goes much further than Cullen, and even further than the Government. Yet its Members have not turned up today to argue the case. As I understand the noble Lord's remarks, the Labour Party has no intention of Whipping its Members in this House in support of what is being trumpeted as a public stand on this issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. She is being less than generous. I said that there would be a free vote at all stages; that is quite correct. However, I also said that, within the limits of the persuasion that I can exercise in relation to a free vote, I should seek to encourage my noble friends, if there is any question of amendments weakening the thrust of the Bill or increasing the cost of compensation, to join the government Lobby and to ensure that the Bill is no less strong than it is now and does not cost any more than it does now. I thought that represented a good deal of support for the Government's position and it would be nice if the Minister recognised it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord is a little more patient, he will hear me do exactly that. I was not being less generous, I was making the observation that there is an interesting absence of Members who feel strongly about the issue. I believe that they should have been here today arguing the case which the Labour Party is making much of outside this Chamber and putting a different view from the Government on the issue of the response to the Cullen Report. I find it odd.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in face of the support which I have given her, I think the Minister should be a little more careful in her comments. It is true that my noble friends, with the exception of my noble friend, Lord Stoddart, appear to have confidence in my judgment and not to wish to hear me on the subject. But there are differences about what matters are of the greatest importance. In order to remain here until this point of the debate, my noble friends would have had to sit through nearly 40 speeches advocating the

1385
views of a small minority of the people of this country who have a personal interest in shooting handguns. That is a great deal to demand. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to finish. If that criticism is to be taken, then let us see how many Conservative Members of this House remain for debates about housing benefit, homelessness, or many of the much more pressing social problems which face this country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I make is that I believe that the House would have benefited from the views of noble Lords opposite. We do not yet know officially whether we shall have to vote on the measure. It was possible that the Second Reading of the Bill was at risk and it would have been helpful to the Government if noble Lords opposite, even if they did not speak, had attended tonight in order to help the Government ensure the Second Reading and had responded to my plea at the beginning of the debate that the Bill should have a Second Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry but the Minister is determined to turn this into an issue between the two Front Benches, which is not the way that I saw it in my speech. I had prepared my colleagues for the possibility that they would have to come back and support the Government against the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford. I accepted his assurance that he had no intention of carrying the amendment to a vote and I told my colleagues that they need not stay. I believe that my acceptance of his honourable intentions are right, but in case there was any doubt about it I warned any noble Lords who might be tempted to deny the noble Earl the right to withdraw his amendment that they would get themselves into enormous difficulty potentially with the Parliament Act. Indeed, if the House will forgive me, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord said, "We believe in a total ban". Again, I have to refer to the fact that this is a free vote. We would like to think that the Labour Party would at least use the Whip to bring its members in and also do what the noble Lord said. He is not in a position to say "we, the Labour Party" because he has said officially that the Labour Party has a free vote.
Nevertheless, I wrote down in my own hand, before the noble Lord provoked me, that we welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, limited though it is to those people who take part in a free vote. I would have found it more convincing if noble Lords on that side had been present, especially as there might have been a vote on whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
1386
A number of criticisms have been made during the debate to the effect that proposals contained in the Bill do nothing for public safety. The real issue before us today is public safety and I strongly disagree with the view expressed. The Government's overriding priority in putting forward this Bill is to do all we can to improve public safety; nor in doing this do the Government cast blame, as has been said by many noble Lords, on the bona fide law-abiding shooters. The banning of handguns from the home, the removal of 160,000 high calibre guns from the scene altogether and allowing the remaining small calibre pistols to be stored and used in strictly licensed pistol clubs are measures not to be dismissed lightly as having no implications for public protection. Taken together with continued tough action by the police and customs officers to tackle the problem of illegally held handguns, these measures will do much to improve public safety.
Lord Cullen himself said in paragraph 9.98:
"I am satisfied that a ban on the possession of multi-shot handguns would have some effect on the incidence of serious crime".
Further stages of this Bill promise to be lively, and we shall return to these measures in some detail. Meanwhile, I will, as always, reflect on all that has been said today. I now ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
10.42 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, my hopes in tabling this amendment have been fully realised. This evening we have had a very wide ranging debate, and I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh that the debate has been one-sided. When he reads Hansard he will realise that there was a strong theme running through a lot of the speeches; namely, that in the Commons the politicians have been putting on their party hats on this issue and have rushed this through. That is a very important theme. We have given this issue very careful consideration. We have probably helped to give the country an idea of just how complex are the issues involved in this and perhaps we have helped the Government to create fair and workable legislation. Obviously, we are going to have to work very hard in Committee to enable them to see the light.
I will not detain the House any longer, because it is getting late. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Theft (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  The Ponsonby Rule: Explanatory Memoranda
  The Ponsonby Rule: Explanatory Memoranda
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Portable Antiquities
  Portable Antiquities
  Heroin and Cocaine Seizures
  Heroin and Cocaine Seizures
  Organophosphates: Use in Gulf War
  Organophosphates: Use in Gulf War
  Civil Service Recruitment: Equal Opportunities Policy
  Civil Service Recruitment: Equal Opportunities Policy
  RAF Future Offensive Air System
  RAF Future Offensive Air System
  Northern Ireland: Young Bull Slaughter Payments
  Northern Ireland: Young Bull Slaughter Payments
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Membership
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Membership
  Judicial Costs and Court Fees
  Judicial Costs and Court Fees
  Judicial Independence
  Judicial Independence
  Litigants in Person
  Litigants in Person
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections: HEFC Funding
  University Museums, Galleries and Collections: HEFC Funding